School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Sabretooth]

Why does this gun debate always seem to become so insanely polarised? All I hear talk of is people who want guns banned and people who blindly deny guns have any affect on violence whatsoever.

Is there any western country in the world that has outright banned guns? I can't think of one off the top of my head. The issue is gun control isn't it? Does anyone seriously think the solution is to totally ban firearms?

Every country has gun control laws, including the USA. The only real relevant question is whether those controls are appropriate to the population, or whether they want to amend those controls.

Amending gun control laws does not mean banning weapons, so all this talk of smuggling in illegal weapons, the number of owners, and so on, is totally irrelevant.

The only relevant questions are what control measures are in place, and what control measures could be introduced to reduce gun crime. And then to ask whether the projected benefit of those measures outweighs the loss of freedom. And obviously that's a question only Americans can answer.

But I'd like to point out, because it's a fact that's often misused, that a number of decidedly peaceful western countries have a lot of guns. New Zealand has one of the highest numbers of gun per capita in the western world - in fact because guns aren't registered here we actually have no idea how many guns we have - and yet we still have an unarmed police force and very low rates of violent crime. Many Scandinavian countries have incredibly high levels of gun ownership, likewise with very low crime. Gun ownership is clearly not the issue.

The key difference is gun control laws, and crucially, gun control laws surrounding the storage of firearms. Why is this so critical? Because the more accessible a firearm is, the more easily it can be used in spur-of-the-moment crime, or accessed by someone other than the gun's owner.

It is how the weapon is stored that is really the most important point here. Take, for example, the trusty handgun. In much of the US handguns can be carried on your person and left wherever you like. People leave them loaded in their bedside cabinet. After all, people have them for protection, so you need it handy and armed.

They're readily available, and they're used in an enormous number of crimes.

In New Zealand, the opposite is true. Of all firearms, handguns are amongst the most controlled in terms of storage. Hell, a 0.50cal heavy machine gun has less stringent storage conditions (yes, you can legally own a 0.50cal heavy machine gun in lil old peaceful gun-controlling New Zealand). It is illegal to carry a handgun in public. To buy one you have to be a registered member of a shooting club, and they can only be owned for sport purposes. They must be stored at all times in a locked gun safe, with ammunition stored in a separate locked safe. When transporting a pistol to and from a gun range (which is the only legal place you can fire a handgun) it must be carried in a locked gun box, again with ammunition separate.

As a result, in the rare instances that firearms are used in crime here, they're not pistols.

The crucial thing in this equation, that factor that drives everything else, is the question that society has to ask itself with regards to any type of firearm:

What purpose do we accept people having this weapon for?

As you can see in NZ, society only considers it acceptable to have a handgun for sport shooting. Our controls on that particular firearm reflect this.

In the USA, society considers it acceptable to have a handgun for personal protection. Your controls on that particular firearm reflect it.

This is the root of the issue. This is really the fulcrum on which the entire US gun debate rests. Why is it that citizens of the USA feel they need a firearm for protection, and not the citizens of every single other western country?

And I don't mean that as a sort of snide "Americans are paranoid" or "Americans are scared". I ask this question quite seriously. There is clearly a fundamental cultural difference between Americans and all other westerners on this issue. And what's really interesting, once you realise that's at the heart of the issue, is that mass shootings like this actually reinforce the mentality behind US gun control laws. Every single time a nut goes and guns down a bunch of people with a firearm, Americans are only going to be more convinced they needs guns for protection.

Thanks, gumboot. This was the best post of the thread. +1

 

[Rat]

Well, no. If you are physically weak (ie, a woman or an old person)

Only women and old people are physically weak?

None of the statistics I've seen presented can separate correlation from causation, meaning they do not, in fact, indicate whether a given person will be safer or not if they get a gun.

Yes they do, unless you're using a different meaning of 'indicate' from the one I'm inferring.

 

[Hungry81]

Well, no. If you are physically weak (ie, a woman or an old person), then when neither you nor your potential attacker have weapons, you are at a very large disadvantage. Guns level the field. Same is true if your potential attackers outnumber you: numerical superiority makes an unarmed fight pretty risk-free for the side with more people, but the risks are enormous even with numerical advantage once people are armed. So the idea that arming people is a zero-sum game isn't really true.



None of the statistics I've seen presented can separate correlation from causation, meaning they do not, in fact, indicate whether a given person will be safer or not if they get a gun.

I'm just trying to picture this scenario. A woman walking down the street gets held up by a guy who points a gun at her and demands her handbag. She has a gun concealed on her person. She goes to grab it but since the crim already has his weapon pointed at her she gets shot. How does having a gun equalise anything? Let's say she gets her gun out and gets off a shot one misses cause she is shaking goes through a wall of a house where a family lives. Another shot hits the crim but he is good at his profession and had guns pulled on him before so he is wearing light body armour and the damage is superficial. He shoots her a few times cause he is scared and pissed and runs off.

A man walking through a shortcut ally is confronted by several women who come from in front and behind. They are armed with guns and knives. They want to take his wallet and phones and tattoo misogynist on his forehead. How does he get his concealed gun out without getting killed? Even if he pulls out his gun, shoots and hits someone or tries to intimidate them into a standoff you think they all are just going to surrender quietly because everyone's equal everyone's got a gun?

 

[Spockette]

Why does this gun debate always seem to become so insanely polarised? All I hear talk of is people who want guns banned and people who blindly deny guns have any affect on violence whatsoever.

Is there any western country in the world that has outright banned guns? I can't think of one off the top of my head. The issue is gun control isn't it? Does anyone seriously think the solution is to totally ban firearms?

Every country has gun control laws, including the USA. The only real relevant question is whether those controls are appropriate to the population, or whether they want to amend those controls.

Amending gun control laws does not mean banning weapons, so all this talk of smuggling in illegal weapons, the number of owners, and so on, is totally irrelevant.

The only relevant questions are what control measures are in place, and what control measures could be introduced to reduce gun crime. And then to ask whether the projected benefit of those measures outweighs the loss of freedom. And obviously that's a question only Americans can answer.

But I'd like to point out, because it's a fact that's often misused, that a number of decidedly peaceful western countries have a lot of guns. New Zealand has one of the highest numbers of gun per capita in the western world - in fact because guns aren't registered here we actually have no idea how many guns we have - and yet we still have an unarmed police force and very low rates of violent crime. Many Scandinavian countries have incredibly high levels of gun ownership, likewise with very low crime. Gun ownership is clearly not the issue.

The key difference is gun control laws, and crucially, gun control laws surrounding the storage of firearms. Why is this so critical? Because the more accessible a firearm is, the more easily it can be used in spur-of-the-moment crime, or accessed by someone other than the gun's owner.

It is how the weapon is stored that is really the most important point here. Take, for example, the trusty handgun. In much of the US handguns can be carried on your person and left wherever you like. People leave them loaded in their bedside cabinet. After all, people have them for protection, so you need it handy and armed.

They're readily available, and they're used in an enormous number of crimes.

In New Zealand, the opposite is true. Of all firearms, handguns are amongst the most controlled in terms of storage. Hell, a 0.50cal heavy machine gun has less stringent storage conditions (yes, you can legally own a 0.50cal heavy machine gun in lil old peaceful gun-controlling New Zealand). It is illegal to carry a handgun in public. To buy one you have to be a registered member of a shooting club, and they can only be owned for sport purposes. They must be stored at all times in a locked gun safe, with ammunition stored in a separate locked safe. When transporting a pistol to and from a gun range (which is the only legal place you can fire a handgun) it must be carried in a locked gun box, again with ammunition separate.

As a result, in the rare instances that firearms are used in crime here, they're not pistols.

The crucial thing in this equation, that factor that drives everything else, is the question that society has to ask itself with regards to any type of firearm:

What purpose do we accept people having this weapon for?

As you can see in NZ, society only considers it acceptable to have a handgun for sport shooting. Our controls on that particular firearm reflect this.

In the USA, society considers it acceptable to have a handgun for personal protection. Your controls on that particular firearm reflect it.

This is the root of the issue. This is really the fulcrum on which the entire US gun debate rests. Why is it that citizens of the USA feel they need a firearm for protection, and not the citizens of every single other western country?

And I don't mean that as a sort of snide "Americans are paranoid" or "Americans are scared". I ask this question quite seriously. There is clearly a fundamental cultural difference between Americans and all other westerners on this issue. And what's really interesting, once you realise that's at the heart of the issue, is that mass shootings like this actually reinforce the mentality behind US gun control laws. Every single time a nut goes and guns down a bunch of people with a firearm, Americans are only going to be more convinced they needs guns for protection.

Awesome post! Your last two sentences are especially important. You do have to remember the importance of our Second Amendment and the historical context for it, though. Once people start feeling that they can't depend on the government to protect them, they quickly remember the Second Amendment and everything else follows.

By the way, I believe the figure is 270 million guns, not gun owners. Many people own multiple guns. The number of households with guns is about one-third according to http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/04/26/One-third-of-US-households-own-guns/UPI-46991303850331/

 

[Ziggurat]

Only women and old people are physically weak?

Of course not. But they are rather large categories with a high fraction of people who are not physically strong. My point was not to enumerate everyone who is physically weak, but merely to give some indication of the size of the population who qualify.

Yes they do

No, they do not. If you think they do, you're reading more into the results than exists.

 

[lionking]

Good speech by Obama at Newtown, but all he's proposing is a talkfest when what is required is leadership.

The status quo will remain, and tragedies like this will continue.

 

[Rat]

Of course not. But they are rather large categories with a high fraction of people who are not physically strong. My point was not to enumerate everyone who is physically weak, but merely to give some indication of the size of the population who qualify.

I know. I was snidely pointing out that you wanted "e.g." rather than "i.e." One of them means "for example", and the other means "that is".

No, they do not. If you think they do, you're reading more into the results than exists.

I'm taking your "indicates" to mean "implies". On that basis, I'm not saying "therefore we can confidently state that having a gun never confers any benefit". I know very well that correlation does not equal causation, but nobody (well, nobody sensible) said after the British Doctors Study "well, it could be that those who are genetically inclined to contract lung cancer may well also be inclined to start smoking."

 

[Quad4_72]

Good speech by Obama at Newtown, but all he's proposing is a talkfest when what is required is leadership.

The status quo will remain, and tragedies like this will continue.

But again that raises the question, what is the answer to all this? Connecticut has some of the most strict gun control laws in the country, so I have trouble believing tighter gun control will be the solution.

 

[Checkmite]

Just for reference:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...authorities-warn-against-social-media-frauds/



So writing 'misinformation' on Twitter is potentially an arrestable offence in the US?

I believe "impersonating law enforcement" and/or "inducing panic" would likely be the actual arrestable offenses.

 

[tyr_13]

My 2 cents

The fact is people will always want to hurt other people and when they will do this is unpredictable.
The best we can do is reduce their abilities to achieve their goal as much as possible.
Any weapon which is designed to improve an individuals ability to cause harm is what any pro-active stance should be concentrating on getting rid of.
The rest of the discussion is just irrelevant noise.

It really is that simple.

!Kaggen comes out against wrestling and martial arts.

Oh dear logic was never your strong point.

Links to massacres by individuals using wrestling and martial arts would prove otherwise.

The fact that there aren't notable massacres by individuals using wrestling and martial arts is actually central to my criticism of your 'logic' about it being 'that simple'.

So you agree that it isn't as simple as you initially stated correct?

 

[tyr_13]

Of course there are things we can do. That the best course of action, or at least the most realistic course, doesn't (or might not) include governmental restrictions doesn't mean we can 'do nothing'.

There are plenty of social and cultural reasons young men don't seek help for a plethora of issues, including mental health ones. We don't need a law to talk about those for example. Research into what treatments work, support for groups that address these things, finding out why people sometimes feel violence is their only, or most sensible, recourse are more examples.
It isn't the most emotionally satisfying thing to feel however. We tend to want something to attack, something to ban, something to force. A lot of the real work, the most important advancements, are long, incremental and difficult.

You specifically said, research into why people feel that committing these acts is "the only, or most sensible, course of action". That implies you think there's reasoning there to dissect and understand.

You've either misread or strawmaned what I said. I did not say that research is the only thing to do. The fact that I gave examples of other things to do is a sure tip to that. Moreover, what I said in the highlight part regarding 'only' is why they the violent come to feel that violence is either their only or most sensible recourse.

I'm betting that with the speed and emotion of this thread that you've simply misread.

What do these things even mean? They're indistinct and nebulous.

Spree killings, untreated mental health issues, and violence in general are what 'these things' refer to.

But this isn't something WE can do.

You and I can press to get a law passed, or policy made. That's something WE can do.

"Research" is something we have to hope other people do, because you and I aren't the kinds of scientists who can meaningfully contribute to that line of inquiry. That's what I mean about doing nothing and hoping that other people do something. Wishing that other people will "do research", based on the blind hope that if enough "research" is done a solution must and will present itself at some point because...it just has to.

I guess in the meantime these things will have to keep happening so that we can "research" what methods don't seem to be working. I suppose if I try hard enough I can convince myself that by quietly allowing researchers to address the problem that's the same thing as "doing something".

I'm not so sure why you latched onto my research comment so strongly as if that were my only or main point. I'm betting a massive misread.

You can try to get a law passed, but one thing I was suggesting was being vocal about changing harmful social attitudes. Without changing those, and changing them a lot, your course of action is doomed anyway.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But again that raises the question, what is the answer to all this? Connecticut has some of the most strict gun control laws in the country, so I have trouble believing tighter gun control will be the solution.

Having ("some of") the strictest gun control laws in the USA doesn't mean much, because we're talking about the USA.

It's not as if they adopted the Australian model or anything. As long as "I wanna shoot bad guys" or "I wanna shoot paper targets at the range" is considered a sufficient reason to have a gun in your home, people are going to keep using those guns on themselves or other people.

 

[Lowpro]

What we obviously need is mind control not gun control

 

[Checkmite]

I'm not so sure why you latched onto my research comment so strongly as if that were my only or main point. I'm betting a massive misread.

OK fine; let's start from scratch.

You can try to get a law passed, but one thing I was suggesting was being vocal about changing harmful social attitudes. Without changing those, and changing them a lot, your course of action is doomed anyway.

Which social attitudes to you think are harmful and should be changed?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Among children ages 4 and under, there are approximately 300 residential swimming pool drownings each year. No one needs a residential swimming pool. Shouldn't we ban them?


300 is more than 18. Are you going to continue to maintain that people should be free to dig death pits behind their houses, or are you going to restrict their freedom to do so?

When people can carry swimming pools around and go on a killing spree with them, I'll consider your question as valid.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Only women and old people are physically weak?


Yes they do, unless you're using a different meaning of 'indicate' from the one I'm inferring.

The sad thing is, the "what if you're old and/or weak" argument tends to ignore that empowerment guns give to criminals as well.

 

[GeeMack]

When people can carry swimming pools around and go on a killing spree with them, I'll consider your question as valid.

So your issue is with guns rather than with preventable deaths. Interesting priorities. No outrage over the 3000 people a year who die because someone chose to use a cell phone while driving? No concern for the 600 people who chose to participate in recreational boating last year and ended up dead? That more people died in the past thirty years getting struck by lightning on golf courses than have been killed in mass shootings doesn't make you want to prohibit golf, ban clubs, register golf club owners, require psychological exams for those who choose to play?

 

[tyr_13]

OK fine; let's start from scratch.



Which social attitudes to you think are harmful and should be changed?

That seeking mental healthcare makes one weak, that people with mental health issues are inherently dangerous and bad to hire, that seeking care makes one less of a man, that having mental health issues is about being a whiner, that if you haven't been diagnosed with a problem you don't have one, it's all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, etc.

 

[Ziggurat]

But I'd like to point out, because it's a fact that's often misused, that a number of decidedly peaceful western countries have a lot of guns. New Zealand has one of the highest numbers of gun per capita in the western world - in fact because guns aren't registered here we actually have no idea how many guns we have - and yet we still have an unarmed police force and very low rates of violent crime. Many Scandinavian countries have incredibly high levels of gun ownership, likewise with very low crime. Gun ownership is clearly not the issue.

The key difference is gun control laws, and crucially, gun control laws surrounding the storage of firearms. Why is this so critical? Because the more accessible a firearm is, the more easily it can be used in spur-of-the-moment crime, or accessed by someone other than the gun's owner. It is how the weapon is stored that is really the most important point here.

You were making a lot of sense up until here. Then you just lost the thread. The key difference is NOT storage of firearms. That's a fairly minor issue. It implies that a significant fraction of murders are committed by otherwise normal people who just happened to have a gun next to them for that fleeting moment when passion ruled them. But that simply isn't the case. Murderers are not normal people. They are overwhelmingly people who already have a criminal record. There is no reason to think that the way that they stored their gun would really prevent them from using it in a crime, or even that they would follow the law regarding storage. And with the exception of domestic violence cases (which storage laws won't stop), I've never seen any evidence that guns being used against their owners by third parties is really a significant contributor to the problem.

The real key difference is simply that the general crime rate in New Zealand and Scandinavia are much lower. And that probably has lots of causes (less cultural homogeneity leading to fractured communities, larger numbers of poor immigrants, our failed drug war...). But weapon storage? Not really a big deal. Now, I'm open to arguments that the law regarding storage should be changed anyways, because it still might do more good than harm, but if you think that will make any major impact on gun crimes in the US, I think you're kidding yourself.

Why is it that citizens of the USA feel they need a firearm for protection, and not the citizens of every single other western country?

Because we think that citizens should be able to defend themselves without having to depend upon the state. This isn't simply a question of how effective personal defense is versus state protection, it's also a matter of principle. Do you surrender the ability to protect yourself to the state in the hope that the state will do a better job? How much personal responsibility are you willing to cede to the state? What will you let them keep you from doing? Your answers and my answers need not be the same. This idea that America has to come to the same conclusion as most other developed countries is rather peculiar. I would think one could see that having a variety approaches to the structure of society would provide benefits. It doesn't upset me that the rest of the world doesn't adopt the American model, why should it upset you that America doesn't adopt a European (for want of a better term) model?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm taking your "indicates" to mean "implies". On that basis, I'm not saying "therefore we can confidently state that having a gun never confers any benefit". I know very well that correlation does not equal causation, but nobody (well, nobody sensible) said after the British Doctors Study "well, it could be that those who are genetically inclined to contract lung cancer may well also be inclined to start smoking."

You really think that's a legitimate comparison? It isn't. There is no known mechanism by which susceptibility to lung cancer might affect one's decision to smoke. But there are multiple known mechanisms for how risks for crime victimization could affect one's decision to buy a gun. For example, you might be involved in illegal activities, in which case it's the commission of crime that puts one at risk of getting shot. Or perhaps some people can actually accurately assess the risk posed to themselves, and decide to buy a gun for self defense if their risk is high (for example, they know they live in a bad neighborhood). So the equivalence you try to establish simply does not exist. Skepticism which was unwarranted in regards to smoking, especially considering the controlled experiments that were performed with animals, is not unwarranted at all in regards to guns.

Granted, it might be interesting to see what happens if you give guns to primates or rats, but unlike with cancer studies, I think it's safe to say such experiments would not helpfully illuminate the situation with humans.