If we do not want to give up our guns, how do we prevent mass murders like the Arizona massacre?

But countries like France and England have greater gun control and much less murder.

Wow. Might as well ask how do we cure hatred, stop war, end bigotry, etc. There is no one answer.

@psychocandy I’m actually trying to get at an argument for getting rid of guns.

I simply don’t believe that taking guns out of the hands of the citizens is what prevents crime. I wholeheartedly agree with @noelleptc that the people who want guns, to do bad things with guns, will get them whether or not they are legal.
There isn’t a simple answer to preventing incidents like the one in AZ. There will always be people in the world who will do things their way. I don’t think that all of the media coverage helps, though. For someone that wants to make a statement, they know damn well that the cameras and reporters will make sure that statement is made.

I would love to say I am in Canada we have great gun control. I mean our cops go around shooting their guns in situations they don’t need to because otherwise they really don’t get to use them then it’s no fun cause no one gets to shoot any guns at real moving targets, and because they don’t have much practice on moving targets they usually miss those too (that was just a joke). I can say there is not much gun crime around here, and I think it works, there is not many people even getting them illegally and if they are they are not really using them. I think gun control is great, and they should have it in the U.S. But you guys wanna live in the land of the free so that’s the price you unfortunately have to pay.

I’m not even convinced that it is the gun control laws that prevent crime in countries where it appears to work.
Considering that we just recently had a massive bust locally on a weapons trading ring, including semi-automatic rifles and grenades, I’m not convinced that the people who want them won’t get them just because you or I can’t legally own them. It is legal to own and carry a gun, and people are still obtaining illegal firearms.

@janbb I’ve heard these arguments for years. Now the arguments I’ve heard have morphed to include mass murder with jetliners and the creation of the TSA. Look at Switzerland. Guns are deeply rooted in their culture and they have the lowest murder rate in the world. Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home. Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

It is attitude. You cannot legislate morality. There are already more than 300 state and federal laws controlling guns in the US. When these tragedies happen, which isn’t that often in truth, every well intentioned person in the world uses it as an opportunity to try and get some sort of legislation passed or to further their beliefs and/or agenda. It’s just the nature of the beast I suppose when the public’s attention is focused on something like death.

Many people really don’t seem to understand that the Second Amendment means more than the right to keep a firearm. It is about independence, freedom and liberties as individuals. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

You can’t.

It is currently illegal in Mexico to own an automatic rifle or an RPG

How many do you see on the news every time they bust some cartel safe house?

@TheOnlyNeffie What you say might be true but like in my town people may have the guns but I think its mainly for scare tactic. I can’t exactly explain why but guns just don’t get fired in my city. Drive by shootings never happen. I am glad to say I live in a very safe town and whatever they are doing works, and that includes a gun law. Weapons charges mostly involve knives and things like that.

@Meego well, I think perhaps that may play into why you and I feel so differently. I live, and grew up in, a very high crime area. For those of us living in places like this, where violent and property crimes are quite high compared to the national average, the importance of being able to protect yourself and your family remains the highest priority. We also see on a first hand basis how criminals will use whatever means necessary to do what they want to do. The people that we don’t want to have the guns are the ones who will always find a way to get them. All that stronger gun control laws do is take the firearms out of the hands of the people who would obtain them legally, otherwise.
Also, as @bkcunningham cited – my Constitution grants me the right to own a firearm, and you’d be hard pressed to change my mind about thinking that it is okay to take that right away from me.
I simply don’t believe that guns make criminals. The people who are going to break the law aren’t going to give two shits about gun control, they will just find another way. I see it happen in my own neighborhood all the time.

It might be easier ridding the world of nuclear weapons than ridding America of guns.

Guns are not the problem.

@TheOnlyNeffie you are probably right you should come live in Canada why my city had a whopping 500 urgent calls on new years eve and the city has way over 200,000 people that doesnt include some of the small towns on the outskirts.

I’m just getting frustrated here – guns or a culture of violence or something makes America willing to tolerate 9 year olds and Congresswomen getting shot. Guess we like living in a banana republic. If there is much less mass murder elsewhere in the world than there is here, what is going on here? And obviously, there are also countries where there is more violence too.

Well, I’m asking how we can prevent it. Everyone seems to be saying – shit happens.

I have to second Noelle, again. I don’t think anyone is “okay” with what happened in AZ.
@janbb do you think the gunman wouldn’t have found a way to attack these people even if guns were completely outlawed in the United States?

Have I got a book for you, @janbb. I haven’t read it yet myself, but it’s been on my list for some time.

Here’s a review of THE SAMURAI, THE MOUNTIE, AND THE COWBOY.

Mass murder seems to be being done most easily with guns. Columbine wouldn’t have happened _ to the same extent – without the boys having guns. Jonesboro wouldn’t have happened. I think there’s a connection between guns and mass violence.

@janbb I don’t understand what you are frustrated about to be honest. I don’t think anyone is willing to tolerate a 9 year old getting killed or anyone for that matter. What do you think? If everyone gives up their guns there will be no more killings? There isn’t an answer to stop murders or killing or rapes or sickness or animal cruelty. There is no utopia my friend. There is no country where people lay down their guns and eveyone lives with being hurt or sick and die of old age. There are other countries with higher murder rates than the US. The muslim terrorist drove planes into buildings and killed people. They didn’t have guns. Many seriel killers never used guns on their victims. I mean, it just isn’t logical. I know you are well intentioned, but it isn’t logical.

Let’s just stop making guns (bombs), then no one can attain them or complain they are not allowed to have them. There. Solved.

I agree with @TheOnlyNeffie and @noelleptc – the actions are not to be tolerated but taking away guns will not fix the problem. In fact I think it will make things worse because people will start to go underground to get there weapons. I think that way because if you look at countries who have a more open policy towards drugs.. they don’t have any as many problems with overdose etc. People are naturally drawn to what they can’t have

As far as Columbine.. that has nothing to do with them having guns. The reason why columbine happened is because of a message that is being sent in that area that weapons are cool. In that area is where lockheed matrin is located.. the parents in that town make weapons of mass destruction. Thats why columbine happened.. not because they had access to guns. I have access to guns.. I don’t kill anybody.

OK – guess we’ll have to agree to disagree because i can’t convince you that guns engender a more violent society and you can’t convince me that they don’t. That’s ok.

@janbb maybe I’m not fully understanding your side.
Is it that you’d like for guns to completely vanish from the face of the earth… or that you want stricter gun control laws?

I mean, I don’t want people messing around with my right to bear arms, but if guns were to completely disappear tomorrow, I’d be happy about that.

Ideally, number one. Reaslitcally, number two, but I gues that’s not going to happen either.

@janbb I wouldn’t be so sure that it won’t happen. I just disagree that it is a solution. Option number one would be ideal, I agree.

@janbb before firearms were invented, there were still murders. I know your heart is in the right place and I feel for you with your struggle on this. You are good balance in the world.

More proactive responsible gun ownership. I wouldn’t mind when I go to a shooting range that I am checked in as a registered gun owner for at least one of the guns I am toting in behind the gates. When I go to buy ammo, again I wouldn’t mind my I.D. being verified in a data bank of registered gun owners. If I should ever do something illegal or irresponsibly with my firearms then I’d expect that info’ to be on my registered gun owner profile. Much like a driver’s license, I believe the ownership should be fined and/or pulled if there are violations and abuses.

I would like to point out that it is NOT hard to make an explosive/bomb at all, everyday household products can easily be turned in weapons capable of taking out dozens of people.

Anyways, I feel that it is not so much the availability of guns to civilians as it is our (our being the US) culture which promotes violence. Much like Rome, we love to see action/violence which often involves blood (thankfully, most of it is fictional) and the entertainment industry does not falter in taking advantage of this with many of their pointless mind numbing action packed B and lower movies. Also we see people hounding for blood at boxing, MMA,etc matches and going ecstatic when a fight breaks out on hockey rinks. Somehow, we have become a society that loves to see violence and blood, and though most of us are sated by simply watching, there are still plenty of people willing to try it out for themselves becoming terrible influences for their children as well.

Now with the recent shooting in AZ, Loughner’s main target was clearly Congresswoman Gifford (who is/was pro-gun). He could have easily came and at her with a knife, and though he probably would have harmed less people with a knife, the people who wrested away his weapon would have just as easily been injured or killed in the process. Blood would have still been spilled (Also, knives don’t jam and for some reason, people tend to be more frightened when held at knife point than at gun point, meaning it may have taken longer for someone to man up to try and disarm him, and he probably would have had enough time to make sure Congresswoman Gifford was dead).

I want to know how many people who have guns for self defense actually use them for just that? That is one of the only reasons to have a hand gun. You can’t use it for hunting, you can have target shooting I guess, but there are so few owned that are used for that purpose. I am with @janbb totally on this one.

The excuse that you will never get rid of all guns, there are some states that have gun control laws in place and it isn’t helping is so weak. It works in countries that have it. And Switzerland is not a mecca with its gun situation, there is much on the internet that contradicts that theory. Here is just one of many on google.

Stringent gun control regulations help, there is no cure for crazy people who kill, but make it a hell of a lot harder to get the gun and ammo in the first place and it will help.

@rooeytoo I use my hand guns for hunting all the time.

@WestRiverrat – what do you hunt with hand guns?

@rooeytoo I know a guy who ended up emptying a handgun into a bear after emptying his rifle into the same bear and it was still coming at him (it was one pissed off bear). I guess that falls under both hunting and self defense though.

@rooeytoo: I happen to live in AZ and my firearm goes target shooting on a regular basis. Most of the people I know who have firearms have them and keep them for home and/or personal defense.

@Winters – I bet the average hand gun owner does not come into contact with many bears, be they pissed off or otherwise so I am not sure that is relevant. (The guy must not have been a very good shot, I am assuming you use a high powered rifle with good stopping power for bear hunting)

I think we need to address poverty, mental illness, and some cultural atitudes to really change it. We have to create an environment where people do not want or need guns. Even politics is mixed in with it now. It is a hostile environment in America right now. People taking sides, and they are terrified. I don’t mean so much terrified of crime, but terrified of the direction of the country every time the other party gets into office. Even if there is no crime in someones community, in some parts of the country they like their guns, like mynhusband like his Porsche, it is a way of life. I think some of it has to do with feeling powerful, feeling control. Not for everyone, but for a portion of the people who carry them. If guns simply were not part of our environment, then they simply would not be.

@Neizvestnaya – I assume that you are of sound mind and could acquire a handgun even with stringent gun control legislation in place. That is what I find ironic, legitimate gun owners could still have their guns.

I am always curious, when people say they have a gun for self protection, I wonder how many actually ever use the gun for that purpose. My brother lives in a small town with a very low crime rate but has had a hand gun for years and never used it. I lived in NYC, Baltimore, DC for many years and never had the need to defend myself with a gun. Just wondering…

@rooeytoo Deer, antelope, elk, rabbits, squirrel, coyote, black bear.

@rooeytoo it was a grizzly that he accidentally bumped into, (he was going for deer) and when you hunt bear, normally you do it in a group, not alone (if you do it alone, and have a grizzly/equivalent/bigger bear bagged, you are a god in my book, or just stupid and lucky).

@WestRiverrat – I never heard of that sort of hunting but if you enjoy it, it is no business of mine. But as I said to @Neizvestnaya if you are of sound mind, etc. you could still have your guns. I am saying it should be a lot harder to get a gun and there should be mandatory training etc. just as one needs a license to drive a car.

Now that may be in place in some areas, but until it is in place in all states, then it is not particularly effective.

@rooeytoo I’m not saying something like that wouldn’t work, but how would that stop the people that get the guns illegally? I don’t have a problem with such a system and I would participate in order to continue hunting and participating in recreational shooting, but I don’t see how such a system would stop people from getting them illegally.

@rooeytoo: Yes, I am of sound mind ;) I hope to never use my pistol in defense, I hope to never be assaulted or be present when others are being assaulted to the point I fear loss of life. Anyone entering my home has already gambled on finding me awake, not feeble, reactionary and possibly armed- this means they come into my home prepared to assault me and/or take my life or that of my pets, family members or guests. These are people I’m not going to try and “talk it out with”. Sorry.

@Neizvestnaya – Hey I am not a talk it out sort myself, I am arguing in favor of the death penalty on another thread. I just do believe in making it much harder to get a gun and advocate formal training in the use of it. Not necessarily to make anyone a better murderer but to deter people from acquiring for dubious purposes.

And as I said, I wonder how many guns are ever used to protect onself in their home. When I lived in NYC, after I cleaned up my dog’s daily sidewalk deposit, I would hang onto the plastic bag of poo and just dare a mugger to come along. I may have in serious trouble but the mugger would have been picking dog crap out of his teeth in the process.

@rooeytoo: I agree it should be harder to get a firearm and handling/training courses should be mandatory. IMO.

Having a gun to defend yourself against wildlife, or for hunting, is not the same as having a gun because you are worried about people. Two different topic entirely in my opinion and gun oriented people like to put the two together, but every person I know who does not like the idea of guns, or questions why people want to have one, is not trying or talking about guns related to hunting or defending oneself against a bear.

@JLeslie They may not be trying to take away the guns we use to protect ourselves when out hiking in bear country, but the net effect of banning handguns would be to take away the guns most suited for carry when hiking or picking berries in bear country.

Unfortunately the two are not mutually exclusive.

@WestRiverrat Who is trying to take away all handguns? Where is that getting serious consideration?

@JLeslie there are many groups and pacts including a major one formed in 1975. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, whose original name was National Coalition to Ban Handguns. That was too controversial so in 1989 they changed their name and went after long rifles as well as handguns. They are the group that pushed through firearms microstamping in California.

Kind of off subject, but I saw one post on a news site that said that this incident “underscores even more that everyone should own and carry a gun.” I thought….OMG. What a blood bath that would have been if everyone in the crowd carried a gun….

@bkcunningham I looked up that organization, and agree with with their basic point. I actually do agree people have the right to bear arms, and one reason can be to be able to rise up against government. But, I think of it in the Hitler Nazi way, when government is rounding people up. I did not notice they were trying to get rid of all handguns, but they probably would like the idea I guess. From what I understand a semi-automatic weapon like the one the Arizona shooter used was illegal at one point. It should be. If he had had only 6 or 8 bullets before reloading. Fewer people would be hurt.

@Dutchess_III one of the men who physically held the alleged assailant down had a concealed weapon. He talked about his beliefs on all the major networks and said he doesn’t even want to fly because he’d have to fly without his gun. Who knows how many others in the crowd or at the mall had firearms?

@Dutchess_III I assume many CCW holders were in the crowd. I also assume some of them were armed. They probably did not try to shoot because they could not get a safe shot at the assailant (I refuse to give him attention by using his name).

There is more to responsible gun ownership and carrying than just shooting at every chance.

You have to know where your bullet will go once it leaves the barrel, including where it will go after it hits the intended target. Most bullets will pass through a man sized target at close range, often with enough force to kill whatever they hit next.

My instructor told my class, that if you ever use your gun, expect to lose it and go to jail. If you are lucky you will get it back once you are cleared of any wrongdoing. But there are places where you won’t get it back, even if you are cleared. At worst you can expect to get the needle if 12 of your neighbors agree that you were unjustified in shooting.

@JLeslie do you know why Switzerland remained neutral during World War II? A thing called Armed Neutrality. Hitler ordered his generals to draw up plans, over and over again, to invade Switzerland—but never followed through. Why didn’t he? One reason was that military crises elsewhere kept intervening. But another was Switzerland’s convincing, if purely defensive, military posture. German troops referred to Switzerland as a porcupine (Stachelschwein); the Swiss air force consisted of 250 planes, none of them bombers. The most famous element of Swiss defense were the sabotage plans. Avalanches and landslides would be set off to block armor and infantry movement.
But the most imortant reason was Switzerland’s tradition of a popular army—“the people in arms.” At one point 20 percent of the Swiss population was under arms, an astounding figure for a country of peace. Every Swiss home had a rifle. Sharpshooting was and is the national sport; each weekend the hills are alive with the sound of gunfire, with fathers delighting in instructing their kids in proper technique.

@WestRiverrat But the way some folks talk you would think everyone should carry a gun. Not just the responsible people.

@Dutchess_III that is one of the wonderful things about America. You have the choice.

Unless you have no choice. Like all the people who died because one man had that choice.

@Dutchess_III I know you are aware that I was referring to the choice to have a firearm. If we are being philosophical, bad things happen to innocent people everyday based on someone else’s choices and the restriction of our choices. Let’s just keep things in perspective. It was Jared Lee Loughner’s choice to pull the trigger and kill innocent people. Period. We don’t blame the police who went to his home 10 different times, the people at the college or his friends who knew he was obviously unstable, or his parents. If he’d thrown a bomb into the crowd, or stabbed people with a knife or driven a vehicle into the crowd, it would still be the same. He made a choice and took away other’s choices. When our choices are limited, it is sometimes a very bad thing. That is something people need to realize. Let’s not restrict choices over the actions of madmen. You are right. Taking away people’s choices can sometimes be deadly.

@bkcunningham As I said, I agree with being able to protect oneself against the government, not sure why you are telling me about Switzerland, we are going to agree there. The gun culture I am talking about is different in my opinion. I doubt Switzerland had the crime we have, although I don’t know it to be a fact.

@JLeslie they don’t, nor have they ever had the crime yet they are a gigantic gun culture JLeslie, that is the point!!!! It is people’s attitudes towards guns. It is attitudes like we are seeing now where accountability is thrown to the wayside. Fear of guns and gun owners. Calling names and stereotyping. It is insanity.

Enough talk about Switzerland. It’s 10 below outside and I’m in Kansas!
OK. We need to do some comparisons. What are the rates of gun murders in countries who have strict gun control?

I agree with @TheOnlyNeffie and @WestRiverrat

I am a pacifist, I am against owning guns just because and against hunting (except to feed oneself and their family) and I still say it’s not about guns. We can not prevent massacres, they are endemic to humanity and will always be a part of our human experience.

After the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania strict gun control laws were enacted. Many guns were turned in to police. Now I can tell you there have been no school shootings here, the only ones who shoot each other on a regular basis are the motorcycle gangs and mafia types.

@bkcunningham The thing is, we might both be right. There might be examples around the world, and even in communities here, that everyone owns a gun and there is a little crime, and there might be examples around the world and in our own country where no one owns a gun and there is zero to none gun crime. I still would hypothesize that attitudes in Switzerland are different than what I find here. We would need to talk to someone from that country though, we cannot guess. And, again, I am not trying to make laws to prohibit people from owning a gun. I do agree that we should make semi-automatic very hard to get, because I cannot imagine needing 30 rounds to kill someone who walked onto your property without permission. And, I think there should be some sort of process to assess if someone is a criminal or mentally unstable. It would never be a perfect system, but worth the effort if it stopped some people. I would think even Switzerland does that.

Every website I look at about gun ownership around the world, does not divide out hand guns and hunting rifles, so the numbers are not useful.

OK. It is handguns (the ones that are designed solely for the purpose of shooting human beings, not any other animals) in the hands of children or careless adults or….murderers like the guy in Arizona that are the weapon that cause the most unanticipated or “accidental” deaths. Not hand grenades or uzi’s…why is that?

@Dutchess_III
Switzerland: 1 for every 250,000 persons (and Switzerland actually does NOT have “strict” gun control laws) (violent crimes involving guns)
Australia: Roughly 7 for every 100,000 persons (violent crimes involving guns)
USA: In 2005, roughly 4.5 for every 100,000 persons (solely homicides)
UK: In 2004, roughly 1.5 for every 100,000 persons (solely homicides)

@bkcunningham An interesting question might be if all of a sudden gun crime began to rise in Switzerland, I wonder what they would do to address and fix it? They actually have tightened up some of their gun carrying laws in recent years from what little I know. That is the thing, you cannot compare us to Switzerland, the countries are vastly different.

This issue is never about just gun control – it’s about the culture as well – In Japan, there is less crime not because there are less guns but because there is more shame associated with committing crime (there is a lot of shame in general for a purpose there) and that’s why taking guns out of our culture (which is a lot about individual entitlement) wouldn’t necessarily have the same effect.

@Winters What if we look at Rwanda? Or, countries in Latin America?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Thank you. I have been saying that it is not about gun control, but I don’t feel I am being heard. You gave good examples.

@JLeslie

“OK. We need to do some comparisons. What are the rates of gun murders in countries who have strict gun control?”

I was just responding to what @Dutchess_III asked for.

Thank you @Winters. Why are the stats lower in the UK than in America? To refer back to what @Simone_De_Beauvoir and @JLeslie are saying (which I understand and agree with), the attitudes in the UK and America are about the same…so why are their gun homicides half of what ours are?

@Dutchess_III I really don’t think they’re all that comparable, actually.

@Winters I should not have directed it at you. It was more of a general question. I don’t think gun laws or ownership necessarly have anything to do with gun crime. I think it is a cultural issue more than anything. But, if we have a culture of criminals, then maybe better not to give them guns.

Sorry guys but I’m bored with this thread now. catch ya’all on another. toodles

@JLeslie we are vastly diffferent from Switzerland. We are also vastly different from most other countries who impose strict gun laws on their people and take away their rights to bear arms.

The point I have been trying to make is that everyone keeps asking, and rightly so, what can we do to curtail or even eliminate murders and killings. In the same breath they say… by taking away the guns. Guns are not the problem. It is the attitude of the people. I agree with you on the culture thing in many respects- not all.

I think many times it is difficult, for me anyway, to understand what point someone is trying to make when we are using different definitions and meanings of phrases and terms.

@Dutchess_III But the way some folks talk you would think everyone should carry a gun. Not just the responsible people.

In my experience. It is mostly the people that don’t own guns and don’t want to understand what goes into owning guns that make that statement.

Most responsible gun owners know that not everyone wants, or should, have a gun in the house. But you should not deny me, my guns just because you don’t like them.

Someone actually told me everyone should be armed and that would make society less violent. I strongly disagree. That sounds like a return to the Wild West.
I think that the one sure thing is society needs to keep the guns out of the hands of unstable people. How?

@bkcunningham But, I am not one of those people, so I am not sure why you latched on to arguing with me? Yes, I am in favor of laws that screen people a little, make sure they are not criminals or mantally ill, sure it would not be a perfect system, and I would personally prefer a no gun society, in terms of fearing our neighbors, but I said early on I am in favor of the right to bear arms.

Actually @philosopher, the “wild west” is a myth created in Hollywood. There was actually a much lower crime rate in what is thought of as the old west than there was in Chicago or New York over the same period of time.

My source was primarily FBI, ATF, NRA and other NGO studies done up to the early 80s. I did a research paper for my Poly Sci class the semester after Reagan was shot in 81. I was not allowed to take most of the research material out of the library, and have since lost the paper so I can’t give you the exact studies I used.

I don’t know where @Winters obtained his stats but they do not reflect the stats that I find for Australia.

@JLeslie I thought I was responding to you. I saw where you put my name on a post and made a comment. I’m through. Thanks for the discussion.

The thing I don’t understand is that all my gun-nut friends say that in a gun-friendly state (like Arizona), there would be lots of armed people ready to shoot back at someone like Loughner.
So where were they?

@WestRiverrat
I do not believe that in the twenty first century humans should need to walk around with guns.
It is time we learned to settle issue verbally.
Civilized societies should be able to move past the need for weapons. They should rarely be needed.

@WestRiverrat You said Most responsible gun owners know that not everyone wants, or should, have a gun in the house. But you should not deny me, my guns just because you don’t like them. The problem that I see is that gun ownership is not limited to responsible gun owners. How many people have to die because of the irresponsible gun owners who have the same rights as the responsible gun owner? Was the recent killer’s ex-detective father (whose gun he used) an example of a responsible gun owner?

@philosopher I wish that was the case, but diplomacy only works as long as all parties involved negotiate in good faith and abide by the terms of any agreement. How long did the Munich Accords last?

Here is some more accurate statistics on the impact of gun laws on a country, it is for Canada:
A 1996 study showed that Canada was in the mid-range of firearm ownership when compared with eight other western nations. Nearly 22% of Canadian households had at least one firearm, including 2.3% of households possessing a handgun. As of September 2010, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,831,327 valid firearm licences, which is roughly 5.4% of the Canadian population. The four most licensed provinces are Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.
The number of assault 1 charges (an assault not involving a weapon or causing serious physical injury) increased 85% and the number of sexual assault 1 (an assault with only minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim) charges increased by 250%. Other violent crimes either declined or remained stable. Violent crime has decreased since 1993. Shootings generally account for around 30% of murders in Canada, with stabbings generally equal or lower before 1995, when stabbings outnumbered shootings. From 1995 to 2007, stabbings have outnumbered shootings in six years (1995, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007) with shootings outnumbering stabbings in the remaining seven (1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006)
The suicide rate in Canada peaked at 15.2 in 1978 and reached a low of 11.3 in 2004.
The number firearm suicides in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004 while the number of non-firearm suicides increased from 2,046 in 1977 to 3,116 in 2003. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude new gun laws in Canada have decreased gun suicides; however it is arguable that new gun laws have simply shifted those suicides to other means. I have never ever felt the need in my country to have to protect myself with anything let alone a gun, we did have rifles in our home when I was a child, my grandfather was a hunter. They were never used for anything else and they were always locked up when not in use.

@Meego Thanks for looking those up. Too many percentages in my opinion. 250% increase could mean 10 to 25. If they are low numbers to begin with the percentage sounds way worse than the numners. And, I would think only the 2.3% of households have hand guns as being significant. Hunting rifles are probably not used often in gun related crimes. What do you think? My feeling is Canada simply has less crime than the US.

@JLeslie I agree about the percentages, and the rifles. I can say I have no clue really about the gun crimes or really many crimes for that purpose. We get a lot of stolen cars, and drugs probably and a small amount of bank robberies. Murders are are heard of less often and typically even less when a gun is involved. Ask me about suicides though and I could go naming people off like a Sunday school teacher can say prayers. But your right Canada has less crime than the U.S. It is very safe here. BTW I am not great at math but if I told you we have 33,487,208 people in Canada, does that make the % make any more sense…not for me LOL.

TL;DR

Let me say a few things here though.
1) New Hampshire has very loose gun laws and yet has a rate of firearm-related crime comparable to Japan where guns are practically prohibited. In fact, Japanese culture has more to do with their low crime rate than their gun laws do!

2) I work in a machine shop, and I know how to mix charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter. These skills are not unique either. Banning guns WILL NOT stop them from being made!

3) “According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%” – Source
Banning gun sales WILL NOT stop them from being sold.

4) ANFO is still legal. As long as we keep selling diesel fuel and fertilizer, it always will be, and when it is outlawed, something else will take it’s place.

Okay now, you want to stop the wingnuts? How about doing something about the hyper-polarization of our nation? It used to be that we had Republicans versus Democrats; nowadays, it is more like God-fearing Patriots Racists versus Atheistic Liberal Terrorists. It used to be possible to have a nice, civilized difference of opinion, but now anything short of war is seen as a sign of weakness.

That is the sort of attitude our culture has not only bred, but championed in the last few years. And that is the sort of thing we need to eliminate if we want to take our nation back from the ever-tightening grip of insanity.

@jerv – yeah you’re probably right, but how is it ever going to happen???

Without getting at the root of cultural problems that bring about high rates of gun problems, there is no hope of curbing them. Guns are only a means, not a cause.

Aww man, I I’d read this article before posting that. Would have been perfect to fit in there. :)

@Meego Telling me there are 33m people in Canada reminds me how much smaller your population is. Your suicides might have something to do with your weather, I am half kidding, cold grey winters do not help a persons mood. Actually, I have no idea if your suicides are higher than ours?

The Political rhetoric in the US is out of control. People actually hate someone who supports the other party. I wish people could learn to settle disputes without violence. I can disagree with someone without hating them.
I wish people could exam all the documentaion and not decide based on party hype. Learning to exam the Scientific facts is the logical response. All humanity should try to do this. Our goal should be to become more civilized .
When I see American’s behaving like Iraqi’s it is frightening.
I have family and friends from both parties. I like all legal American’s and wish we could all learn to work together.

@philosopher That sort of thinking is so last century! The 21st century is all about hatred and choosing sound bites over rational thought! Get with the times :D

@JLeslie it could be the reason why the rates seem smaller, less people, less crime. About the suicide rates:
Canada and Ontario
The suicide rate for Canadians, as measured by the WHO, is 15 per 100,000 people. Yet, according to numerous studies, rates are even higher among specific groups. For example, the suicide rate for Inuit peoples living in Northern Canada is between 60 and 75 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than the general population.

2 Other populations at an increased risk of suicide include youth, the elderly, inmates in correctional facilities, people with a mental illness, and those who have previously attempted suicide.

3 According to Statistics Canada, between 1997 and 1999, there was a 10 percent increase in suicides across Canada, from 3,681 to 4,074. In Ontario alone, suicides rose from 930 in 1997 to 1,032 in 2001.

Seasons?

Late July and August have the highest suicide rate out of all the months of the year. Some studies suggest that the increase is due to the seasonal change and that this period is one that often brings about changes in personal situations as well. It is suggested that all these elements of change – whether there are dramatic changes happening in someone’s life, or whether someone feels defeated because their situation seems to never change – can lead people to suicide. A number of studies indicate that an especially high-risk time for vulnerable teens is when they go back to school. Whatever the reason, the rates are so high among aboriginal youth at this time of year that the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health says autumn is referred to as the ‘suicide season.

More than 30,000 Americans commit suicide each year; hundreds of thousands more attempt it but fail. As a deliberate act to end one’s own life, suicide appears anathema in a society seemingly obsessed with improving health and prolonging life. Yet suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States in 2007.
Maybe this helps a bit.

@jerv
That is not funny.

@philosopher Except for the last sentence, I was being serious. I only threw that last sentence in there in an attempt to bring a little levity to a depressing truth.

Banning perfectly harmless behavior such as gun ownership makes it the worst kind of morals legislation – you end up casting a broad net where you turn people into criminals rather than punish actual criminals.

It’s the same thing as with drug use, prostitution, whatever. When you make something illegal that has no effect on others, but can if utilized irresponsibly, you guarantee that it will not be regulated, and that it will create rather than reduce crime.

Make guns illegal, and you will guarantee that only criminals have guns. By definition.

I think that we should have free and open gun ownership for all adults in the country, and it should be heavily taxed and require insurance for which there are rebates as someone demonstrates that they are behaving responsibly. If you own only one gun, you pay less insurance. If you purchaser a gun safe, you get a 30% rebate on you vice tax. Etc. etc. Make it cheaper to behave responsibly. Hit people in their pocket, and you get an effective example of what the rhetoric of personal responsibility should really be about.

Increasing taxes on guns, or otherwise drastically increasing costs, sounds like a great way to keep them the province of the rich. That is a move I oppose on principle. This is, by the way, one way in which legislators restrict guns without actually restricting them. This above all else punishes the non-criminal, since people who use guns for crime can typically afford it due to their illicit funds (or get them on the black market, therefore avoiding taxes). It only punishes the poor and prevents them/us from having effective means of defense.

@incendiary_dan

You’re missing the point. Rebates for people who take classes, have a way to lock them up, etc. etc.

Don’t make them more expensive. Make it more expensive to own one if (1) you don’t want to educate yourself and (2) if you’ve demonstrated irresponsible behavior in the past.

Incentivize responsible behavior. That’s it. You’re focusing only on the first part. The only thing the above suggests is keeping it in the province of the responsible, not the right.

Personal responsibility in this case – spread the cost to the irresponsible, and those who can afford it.

@iamthemob I take it you’ve never been legitimately destitute.

@incendiary_dan

That’s not a response. What I have been through or not has nothing to do with my argument objectively. If you think that there’s no way to do it without making it generally cost the same, then that’s because you already have made up your mind.

Take anything that you want to about my life. Making that sort of assumption about me, however, makes me feel fine in saying I take it you’re narrow-minded and judgmental. ;-)

@iamthemob True, it wasn’t a full response. I’ll probably type a more thorough response when I get back from picking up Chinese food. But if you wish to remain polite, well, don’t be a dick. My comment did not warrant insult. Yours DID warrant an assumption on your socio-economic situation, which I gave you ample chance to simply say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ to. Don’t turn good discourse into something else.

@incendiary_dan

It doesn’t, though, warrant any assumption about me. Talk about the argument, not about what you think about me. Once you get into making assumptions about my situation, especially assuming anything about hardships I haven’t gone through, are going to warrant the same from me, though.

Regardless…“legitimately” destitute people aren’t the ones we’re really going to be worried about. Legitimately destitute people are worried about paying for their home, their food, food for their kids. Whether or not they can afford a gun isn’t really the first of their worries.

@iamthemob They did that with cheap guns. One Legislator labelled them ‘Saturday night specials’ and said they were dangerous because they were so cheap. They found a way to fine the makers into making them more expensive. It did not take guns out of the hands of the crooks, the crooks just started stealing higher quality guns. And the honest people that could only afford the cheap saturday night specials were effectively disarmed.

And the cops had to deal with better armed criminals.

@WestRiverrat

The purpose of that legislation is focusing on cost of guns, it seems. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the potential for increasing cost to those that don’t take proper gun-owning precautions or want to engage in behavior that is risky, etc.

So let’s think about it this way. The cost of guns will be the same if you do x, y, and z as well. If not, the cost increases based on insurance/tax consequences.

@iamthemob what is this risky behavior?

@iamthemob But it had everything to do with the discussion as soon as you brought it upon yourself to assume what poor people can do. How are tax break incentives going to help someone who can’t afford a gun in the first place because the taxes have been hiked up? Ammo is now heavily taxed, and it has the real world effect of keeping the majority of working class gun owners from being able to regularly practice (myself included). I also can’t afford a safe right now. My guns all have trigger locks. I should be penalized for not being able to afford a safe?

And seriously, your second paragraph is precisely what I’m talking about. Making shit like this expensive DISEMPOWERS THE POOR. If you can’t understand that, I’m not even going to bother.

@bkcunningham

Keeping a gun in the open. Owning several guns rather than one. Keeping a gun with the ammunition. Carrying a concealed weapon. Having a gun in a house with children without proper storage. Owning automatic or semi-automatic. All of these can be considered more risky than other types of gun ownership.

But this isn’t about what specifically must be done and how it is to be judged. Unless all gun ownership is equally responsible, I argue that it is proper to make people who are less responsible gun owners bear a greater cost. That’s it.

@incendiary_dan

You’re arguing about specifics. Again, I’m only talking about the ideology above. I’m not getting into how it needs to be done because then it’s just a back and forth about “yeah, but then this.” Guns are dangerous instrumentalities. They are inherently dangerous when handled responsibly as well as responsibly. And the potential for harm from them is great. Therefore, I am for making those who want to own a gun but not worry about how to do it safely pay more.

I throw out general methods for potential regulation. These won’t work unless all aspects, as the one you bring up, are examined. That doesn’t make them unworkable. I am not for making it expensive except for the irresponsible. If I can’t make you understand that, I’m not going to bother either.

I say increased cost for irresponsible ownership. You’re focusing on not owning a safe. How much would you be penalized? Could it be reasonable? Maybe. Could it be on a list of things which reduce the surcharge? Maybe. Focus on the individual methods, and I’m sorry – you’ll always have an argument to make yourself right.

@iamthemob You’re engaging in dishonest and illogical discourse, so I’m not going to bother any more. I deal in specifics because real life is specific and has specific repercussions, and without paying attention to them ideas are worthless.

All I’ll say is that you are completely incorrect about responsibly used guns being very dangerous. They are not. They are, in fact, safer than cars.

@incendiary_dan – Guns are dangerous if they are placed in the hands of people. Just like cars. No one is 100% responsible all the time.

You’re the one being dishonest. I never said a gun was “very dangerous” when handled responsibly. Simply dangerous. It’s like fireworks and a car that way – there’s always something that could happen that may cause harm, and a good deal with it. It’s not like a couch. If it was, we wouldn’t need to regulate it differently.

It is, we do, that’s what I’m saying. You appear to argue that it’s all about people. That’s bullshit. It’s a dangerous thing, a gun. Therefore, we take that into account when we consider how it should be bought and sold in the market, and how we should hold people at fault for its use.

If you don’t get that, I’m sorry. What’s very funny is that I’m very pro gun ownership. But it needs to be regulated. If you disagree, I’d be amazed if you had a supportable reason for it.

That’s definitely where I’m of a presupposed position. Guns are dangerous and should be regulated because of it. If they weren’t, we’d let children own them.

You don’t seem to understand what I’m arguing, at a basic level. You don’t seem willing to try. But don’t call me dishonest or illogical. That’s on you.

Showing zero tolerance for hate mongering and excessively violent rhetoric.

In a democracy, there should be no enemies, only people competing to share their best ideas.

@iamthemob hockey sticks are dangerous, should they be regulated?
Ice skates are dangerous, should they be regulated?
electricity is dangerous, should it be strictly rationed?

You assume that the nut in Arizona would not have attacked anyone if he had not had access to a gun. Where gun access is strictly controlled, the nuts use knives and baseball bats.

I don’t think the Arizona nut would have been stopped by the lack of access to a gun. He just would have been harder to tackle and wrestle to the ground if he had a knife in each hand. Instead of a gun in one.

@WestRiverrat

I’ve addressed this before:

(1) Hockey sticks can be dangerous. However, they will do less harm and less can go wrong with them than with guns. Guns are more dangerous than hockey sticks. Hockey sticks should be regulated to a level that matches their inherent danger. Guns should do the same. Therefore, we regulate hockey sticks less than guns. If this is unreasonable, please explain why.

(2) Ice skates – see above.

(3) Electricity – see above. But also – rationing is not part of my argument.

I assumed nothing about the nut in Arizona at all. I assumed that he was more efficient in his attack because he had a gun. If he had had a knife, less people would have been hurt. If a baseball bat, id. If a hockey stick, id.

I don’t think he would have been stopped either. I didn’t state that. But I will state now, and I think it’s reasonable, that he would have done less damage, most likely, if he didn’t have a gun.

Should this prevent any of us from getting one? I have my opinions on it. I won’t state them anymore, because, as a gun advocate, I’m disturbed by the lack of reason in the gun lobby on these issues, and refuse to provide material support to the argument any more. So…I’ll switch to the other side. They’ll never get all the guns out of our hands…but the deregulation arguments that I hear from the other side are absolute, unreasonable, based in hysteria, and frightening to me.

@iamthemob

The worst mass murder at a school was not Columbine or Va Tech. It was Bath Michigan in 1927. A gun was not used.

The worst mass murder of government officials was April 19, 1995 A gun was not used.

The worst mass murder in US history Sept 11, 2001. A gun was not used.

How would more gun laws have stopped any of these? Guns are already the most regulated legal product in the United States. How is another law going to stop someone intent on breaking the law?

“The worst mass murder at a school was not Columbine or Va Tech. It was Bath Michigan in 1927. A gun was not used.”

Anecdotal evidence is not actual evidence. Especially when it is about 100 years old. This is not an argument against guns being dangerous, either.

“The worst mass murder of government officials was April 19, 1995 A gun was not used.”

Oklahoma City, I presume. This is also not an argument against guns being dangerous. I would be all for people being prevented from bringing bombs into federal buildings. That doesn’t mean that I’ll want them being able to bring guns in too.

“The worst mass murder in US history Sept 11, 2001. A gun was not used.”

Well damn, a flying plane can do more damage than a single gun? Weird. Maybe we should have airport security too…oh, wait…

Gun laws are not meant to stop violence. They are meant to limit violence done with guns. This is not an argument. It’s like asking for statutory rape laws to prevent burglaries.

@iamthemob The school was blown up with a bomb, how is that anecdotal?

Yeaaaaaaaaa to @iamthemob – I can’t believe I truly agree with you. Your explanations are reasonable and considered on a subject that always stretches reason to the extreme (ie hockey sticks and the damage one human with a semi automatic gun as opposed to one human with a knife can do). Thank you and ga’s.

Number of murders committed in 1995 in the US: 20,043
Percentage of murders committed with a firearm: 68 (13,673)
Percentage of murders committed with a handgun: 56 (11,198)
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1995)

Projected year when deaths from gunfire will surpass death from auto accidents: 2001
(Source: CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Fact Sheet, ½5/96)

Year that the NRA supported a SNS importation ban and called the guns “miserably-made, potentially defective arms that contribute so much to rising violence” : 1968
(Source: “Are we Really So Violent?” American Rifleman, February, 1968.)

Cost of firearms assault injuries per fatal gunshot wound: $21,700
Total cost per survivor of gunshot wounds caused by assault: $260,000
Total cost of firearm assault injury and death in 1992: $63.4 billion
(Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics – Firearm Injury from Crime – 4/96)

Cost of a Lorcin .22 handgun at a Pasadena California sporting goods store: $40
(Source: Center for Investigative Reporting)

Number of people killed by firearms every hour in America: 4
(Source: CDC)

Number of crime victims that were shot in 1994: 32,162
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1995, pg. 274)

Number of violent crimes reported to police that were committed with firearms in 1994: 544,880
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1995, pg. 274)

Percent increase in juveniles arrested for weapons violations from ‘85—‘94 : 113
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1995, pg. 276)

Number of violent crime victimizations committed with a firearm in 1993: 1.3 million
Number in 1995: 815,130
(Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, Cited in Guns Used in Crime, pg.1)

My point is, even if we did get rid of every gun in America, we still could not prevent mass murders from occuring.

I believe they would actually get worse instead of better. Guns as a tool of mass murder are less effective than other means.

And are more effective than others.

No one is saying that getting rid of guns would prevent mass murder. That’s a moot point. Anyone arguing that is an idiot – so you’re only arguing with idiots.

The point is that guns are dangerous. Saying that things are more dangerous doesn’t make them less dangerous. It just means that we should regulate things like, say, possession of bombs and nuclear weapons more than we do guns. Thankfully…we already do.

Make the carrying of submachine guns compulsory for all citizens. That way if any nutcase opens up with a weapon there will be plenty of firepower around to take him out before he causes too much damage.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675#

A compelling argument for the second amendment.

How about this

A great paper on the originalist distortion of Second Amendment rights, and what they really mean.

@iamthemob I thought the core of the OPs question was would new restrictions on guns prevent mass murder?

Ban ANFO!

Of course, the only way to really enforce that is to ban it’s components; fuel and fertilizer… and hope that people don’t find something else…

@WestRiverrat

Give the OP a little credit. A little. Guns make it easy. Bombs do too…but guns are ready made.