Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[jhramone]

The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK – the most on record.

Today [after the banning of handguns], gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002.


No underlying cause was tackled - simply put, handguns were banned, therefore handgun crime decreased. Not rocket science either FFS.

I absolutely get what you're saying. I haven't said that placing restrictions on firearms wouldn't lessen the crime rate to some degree. I just don't think it would be to a statistically significant degree. I absolutely want to lower the homicide rate in the US, but trying to find a quick solution isn't the answer. The fact is, the homicide rate in the US is currently at one of its lowest points in recent memory, certainly since the 1960s. This hasn't correlated with a reduction in gun ownership, or tighter regulations to gun manufacture. What does correlate well is the enforcement of crimes such as domestic abuse. As more domestic abusers are arrested, and the crime is seen as being less acceptable, we see a drop in the number of homicides. Americans are drinking, on average, less now than they were in the '60s. This correlates with fewer assaults and homicides. These are cultural shifts that have lowered violent crime rates far more than gun legislation. It's not that I think there isn't room for improvement in that area, it's that in the United States at least, it isn't what reduced violence.

 

[WA Toffee]

It's such a shame that they are not allowed to make amendments to the constitution

 

[jhramone]

And for me I don't see it as an either/or - you can both work to reduce the motivation and also work on reducing the effectiveness of the means if you fail at the motivation.

And that's a difference between us. I absolutely respect your view. Guns make mass shootings more effective than knives or anything else. No argument. I just don't see them as all that more effective than anything else for the majority of homicides. If you want to kill your wife, whether you shoot her or stab her in her sleep, the jobs done one way or the other. The goal needs to be reducing ALL homicides, not just the flashy ones that get the most air time.

 

[mezzrow]

It's such a shame that they are not allowed to make amendments to the constitution

There is a process. If followed and passed, we would accept the changes and move on as a nation.

Politically, it cannot happen, but the legal process is clear. You can look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution

 

[PhilM]

No underlying cause was tackled - simply put, handguns were banned, therefore handgun crime decreased. Not rocket science either FFS.

Such an approach would arguably take a long, long time to be successful in America due to the sheer numbers of firearms already available.

Add to that their culture with regards to firearms. Yet that doesn't mean it wouldn't in the long term have an affect of reducing gun-homicides.

The status quo can't be kept as the situation appears to be getting worse over time. Some may say leave the US to themselves, but it's worrying.

 

[WA Toffee]

There is a process. If followed and passed, we would accept the changes and move on as a nation.

Politically, it cannot happen, but the legal process is clear. You can look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution

I was being sarcastic, the right to bear arms is an amendment isn't it?

 

[Tubey]

I absolutely get what you're saying. I haven't said that placing restrictions on firearms wouldn't lessen the crime rate to some degree. I just don't think it would be to a statistically significant degree. I absolutely want to lower the homicide rate in the US, but trying to find a quick solution isn't the answer. The fact is, the homicide rate in the US is currently at one of its lowest points in recent memory, certainly since the 1960s. This hasn't correlated with a reduction in gun ownership, or tighter regulations to gun manufacture. What does correlate well is the enforcement of crimes such as domestic abuse. As more domestic abusers are arrested, and the crime is seen as being less acceptable, we see a drop in the number of homicides. Americans are drinking, on average, less now than they were in the '60s. This correlates with fewer assaults and homicides. These are cultural shifts that have lowered violent crime rates far more than gun legislation. It's not that I think there isn't room for improvement in that area, it's that in the United States at least, it isn't what reduced violence.

Why?

That's the simple question in regards to the bold statement.

I'm sorry, but what you are saying is common sense, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of gun crime. Changing social attitudes will obviously result in a net change in overall crime, but that is, as said, common sense.

The issue at hand is the free availability of guns to all and sundry, meaning spree killings that result in many more deaths than would otherwise be the case.

As an example, we had a shooting in the UK the other day. From all accounts, the guy who did it was using a homemade gun that needed reloading after each shot, or an ancient musket doing the same thing.

Now here's my question - if this guy was in the US, would he be using a firearm like that? No. Therefore, he could kill a lot more people in a shorter amount of time if so inclined.

And that's the issue. Not only that, outside of spree killings, your crime rate is still absolutely insane.

Look at this: http://heyjackass.com/

I mean seriously, that one city has more people accidentally shoot themselves in one year than we have overall gun crime in the UK (and let's not forget we actually do have nearly 2 million guns owned in this country).

This is the problem. Nobody is seriously calling for an outright ban; what people are suggesting is that the American gun culture which specifies a right to gun ownership, without safety training or serious checks, is a massive issue, and should be replaced with a system of privilege, where you own a gun if you can show you are safe with one, and you aren't mentally unstable or a past criminal.

I have no doubt you feel you're well read, but your flaw is that you are inherently in a culture that views guns in a warped way. Therefore, Americans aren't seeing the whole picture, as you can't get your head around the alternative. As much as I argue about this subject, I recognise Americans won't change any time soon because of this. I continue to argue it, however, because I wish you would, as the amount of lives lost because of sheer political and paranoid stupidity in the USA is irritating.

Finally, this is a fantastic article about the subject: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14340378.Twenty_years_on__the_truth_about_Dunblane_and_gun_laws/ - it spells it out; UK gun laws work, because our culture towards them works. We do not have less liberty because of our gun laws. If only Americans could understand that...

 

[Tubey]

Such an approach would arguably take a long, long time to be successful in America due to the sheer numbers of firearms already available.

Add to that their culture with regards to firearms. Yet that doesn't mean it wouldn't in the long term have an affect of reducing gun-homicides.

The status quo can't be kept as the situation appears to be getting worse over time. Some may say leave the US to themselves, but it's worrying.

Agreed. But Everton probably won't win the Champions League any time soon; doesn't mean you don't try in the long term.

 

[Goat]

All you hear from Muricans is it cant happen.

Until that mindset changes nothing is going to happen.

There isnt a will for change, I do wonder how many people have to die for them to see that the system they currently have isnt working.

A right to bear arms, a right to kill other people, the land of the free.

 

[mezzrow]

I was being sarcastic, the right to bear arms is an amendment isn't it?

That's correct. More information in detail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

 

[neil999]

How did them banning machine guns in the 1980s come about? Why can't that happen again now?

 

[LinekersLegs]

And that's a difference between us. I absolutely respect your view. Guns make mass shootings more effective than knives or anything else. No argument. I just don't see them as all that more effective than anything else for the majority of homicides. If you want to kill your wife, whether you shoot her or stab her in her sleep, the jobs done one way or the other. The goal needs to be reducing ALL homicides, not just the flashy ones that get the most air time.

In the example you stated for instance the shooting could happen at any time or any place with little that the wife could do to stop it. In a knife attack, unless completely by surprise like when asleep which reduces the cases to preplanned rather than spontaneous, the wife might have a chance of running away, fighting him off or barricading herself in a safe place until help arrived.

The medical data I've looked at also suggest that knife wounds are typically less likely to be fatal as it harder to penetrate the skull and therefore cause instant death before treatment can be given. Would imagine trunk injuries are a bit closer in mortality rate but the increased velocity of a bullet may mean that a rib might stop a knife that wouldn't stop the bullet.

But as you say that is the difference between us , I believe that the forcing into another means will reduce the overall number all by itself whilst you don't and neither of us is likely to change our view so probably best we leave it there.

 

[jhramone]

Why?

That's the simple question in regards to the bold statement.

I'm sorry, but what you are saying is common sense, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of gun crime. Changing social attitudes will obviously result in a net change in overall crime, but that is, as said, common sense.

The issue at hand is the free availability of guns to all and sundry, meaning spree killings that result in many more deaths than would otherwise be the case.

As an example, we had a shooting in the UK the other day. From all accounts, the guy who did it was using a homemade gun that needed reloading after each shot, or an ancient musket doing the same thing.

Now here's my question - if this guy was in the US, would he be using a firearm like that? No. Therefore, he could kill a lot more people in a shorter amount of time if so inclined.

And that's the issue. Not only that, outside of spree killings, your crime rate is still absolutely insane.

Look at this: http://heyjackass.com/

I mean seriously, that one city has more people accidentally shoot themselves in one year than we have overall gun crime in the UK (and let's not forget we actually do have nearly 2 million guns owned in this country).

This is the problem. Nobody is seriously calling for an outright ban; what people are suggesting is that the American gun culture which specifies a right to gun ownership, without safety training or serious checks, is a massive issue, and should be replaced with a system of privilege, where you own a gun if you can show you are safe with one, and you aren't mentally unstable or a past criminal.

I have no doubt you feel you're well read, but your flaw is that you are inherently in a culture that views guns in a warped way. Therefore, Americans aren't seeing the whole picture, as you can't get your head around the alternative. As much as I argue about this subject, I recognise Americans won't change any time soon because of this. I continue to argue it, however, because I wish you would, as the amount of lives lost because of sheer political and paranoid stupidity in the USA is irritating.

Finally, this is a fantastic article about the subject: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14340378.Twenty_years_on__the_truth_about_Dunblane_and_gun_laws/ - it spells it out; UK gun laws work, because our culture towards them works. We do not have less liberty because of our gun laws. If only Americans could understand that...

Tubey, I think you and I agree on this much more than you realize. I think our culture of firearms is a large part of why we have a culture of violence. The one point we disagree on is that mass/spree killings (two different things, I've heard Ted Bundy described as a spree killer and he didn't favor firearms) are such a small percentage of US homicides. They're the ones you see on the news, so they're the ones you are most familiar with, which is fair. The truth is, though, the vast majority of homicides in the US involve spouses or friends killing each other, with only one victim in mind. This is a fact. It can't be argued or disputed. If you remove guns from the equation, but leave the culture in place, those murders will still happen. A gun won't be used, but those same spouses and friends will die because you can kill just one person as effectively with a knife as with a gun. Dont forget, our non-firearm homicide rate is STILL higher than Great Britain.

As for whether guns are a right or privilege, the issue is that, legally, they are as protected as the fourth or first amendment. There is exactly as much legal precedent in the US protecting gun ownership as protecting citizens from having police seize property without due cause, or being free to publish their opinions without legal action taken. That's such a monumentally hard task to reverse, it's almost unthinkable. It would be nice if it could be, but it would be easier to reverse our car culture than our gun one.

 

[Tubey]

Tubey, I think you and I agree on this much more than you realize. I think our culture of firearms is a large part of why we have a culture of violence. The one point we disagree on is that mass/spree killings (two different things, I've heard Ted Bundy described as a spree killer and he didn't favor firearms) are such a small percentage of US homicides. They're the ones you see on the news, so they're the ones you are most familiar with, which is fair. The truth is, though, the vast majority of homicides in the US involve spouses or friends killing each other, with only one victim in mind. This is a fact. It can't be argued or disputed. If you remove guns from the equation, but leave the culture in place, those murders will still happen. A gun won't be used, but those same spouses and friends will die because you can kill just one person as effectively with a knife as with a gun. Dont forget, our non-firearm homicide rate is STILL higher than Great Britain.

As for whether guns are a right or privilege, the issue is that, legally, they are as protected as the fourth or first amendment. There is exactly as much legal precedent in the US protecting gun ownership as protecting citizens from having police seize property without due cause, or being free to publish their opinions without legal action taken. That's such a monumentally hard task to reverse, it's almost unthinkable. It would be nice if it could be, but it would be easier to reverse our car culture than our gun one.

Will leave it there, but just to note Ted Bundy was a serial killer, not a spree killer. He killed over nearly 15 years - "spree" indicates multiple murders over a small period of time, like Derrick Bird or the DC Sniper.

 

[wm02]

How did them banning machine guns in the 1980s come about? Why can't that happen again now?

Became law in 1994 and then expired in 2004 as per the 10 year proviso. It could happen again.