Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (part 3)

[Thermal]

A thousand pardons I beg of you!

You are right. Your state has both low levels of gun-related crime as well as low incarceration levels. Very impressive! The other US states should turn to you for lessons on how it is done.

A thousand thanks, back atcha. I try to take every opportunity to howl it from the rooftops, for the benefit of my fellow Americans who say the States can't have any reasonable level of gun control. We do, we have for decades, and it works, despite that we also have urban concentrations that are claimed to increase gun crime. Without a wholesale gun grab, either. When I was a teen, I applied for my Firearms purchaser card, got fingerprinted and background checked and the works, and I can go out and buy myself a private armory if I felt like it. But we don't have as much of a problem as States with more lax laws. It doesn't take much to put a dent in gun violence. You just need the will.

 

[Darat]

A thousand thanks, back atcha. I try to take every opportunity to howl it from the rooftops, for the benefit of my fellow Americans who say the States can't have any reasonable level of gun control. We do, we have for decades, and it works, despite that we also have urban concentrations that are claimed to increase gun crime. Without a wholesale gun grab, either. When I was a teen, I applied for my Firearms purchaser card, got fingerprinted and background checked and the works, and I can go out and buy myself a private armory if I felt like it. But we don't have as much of a problem as States with more lax laws. It doesn't take much to put a dent in gun violence. You just need the will.

This is part of why I say the USA can do something about its problem of mass killings and other deaths by guns, small changes will start to have an effect.

 

[Thermal]

This is part of why I say the USA can do something about its problem of mass killings and other deaths by guns, small changes will start to have an effect.

It'd just not that complicated, and doesn't hinder the responsible gun enthusiasts from owning as they have for years over here.

Even though I'm used to having guns around, I'd like to see further sane regulation. For instance: registering all firearms to their individual owners. Track that **** to numb out the black/grey markets. Tying violent crime records into the firearms owner database. You get nasty, you have to turn in the registered guns, for periods proportional to your offense. Most importantly IME, get the truly rabid gun guys some Viagra and a Tinder app.

 

[smartcooky]

Strange that it's only in the USA that it's impossible to control access to firearms and reduce their numbers.

Agree, but keep in mind that 'Murica is so veeeeery speshul. Nothing that works in any of the other 200+ nations in the world can ever work in 'Murica - especially gun control.

Its also extraordinary that in some states of the USA, once you have committed a crime, been sentenced and done you time, you lose the right to vote for the rest if your life... but you're all good to own and carry guns.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I hold my fair State up a lot as an example of how it actually works in practice. No public carry at all. Any crime involving a gun was a guaranteed pile of additional felonies, from illegal ownership to illegal carry before you even get to the specific crimes committed with it. Despite being the most densely populated US State, with a ton of impoverished cities outside of NYC and Philadelphia, we have the fourth from the bottom lowest gun crime rate. It works, with private ownership of guns largely unrestricted by other first world standards.

There's still room for improvement.

Rate per 100,000

Statistic | New Jersey | Canada|
Intentional Homicide|

4.80​

|

1.76​

|
Incarceration|

135​

|

104​

|

Source: World Population Review

 

[Norman Alexander]

It'd just not that complicated, and doesn't hinder the responsible gun enthusiasts from owning as they have for years over here.

Exactly. Sport shooting, target shooting, hunting, pest (varmint) control, collecting, re-enactment, etc. All legit and properly managed uses.

Even though I'm used to having guns around, I'd like to see further sane regulation. For instance: registering all firearms to their individual owners. Track that **** to numb out the black/grey markets. Tying violent crime records into the firearms owner database. You get nasty, you have to turn in the registered guns, for periods proportional to your offense. Most importantly IME, get the truly rabid gun guys some Viagra and a Tinder app.

Get tougher. Change that to "you lose them and they are destroyed, plus you get 5 years extra". Make it that the "find out" part of "**** around and find out" is actually severe and a genuine deterrent.

 

[Thermal]

There's still room for improvement.

Rate per 100,000

Statistic | New Jersey | Canada|
Intentional Homicide|

4.80​

|

1.76​

|
Incarceration|

135​

|

104​

|

Source: World Population Review

No doubt, but we are barely making an effort. Adopt a couple of the things I recommended and we'll be like a regular civilized country.

Meanwhile... can we trade you some gun nuts for some hockey players?

 

[Thermal]

Exactly. Sport shooting, target shooting, hunting, pest (varmint) control, collecting, re-enactment, etc. All legit and properly managed uses.

Get tougher. Change that to "you lose them and they are destroyed, plus you get 5 years extra". Make it that the "find out" part of "**** around and find out" is actually severe and a genuine deterrent.

Eeehhh... two caveats. One, our judicial system isn't exactly gangbusters. The innocent go down all too often for any permanent penalties, IMO. Career criminals/three strikes, agreed.

Two, I sincerely believe people can change. Getting into an impulsive bar fight as a teen shouldn't carry consequences to the kid when he is a grandfather.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Eeehhh... two caveats. One, our judicial system isn't exactly gangbusters. The innocent go down all too often for any permanent penalties, IMO. Career criminals/three strikes, agreed.

What?? No Perry Masons or Atticus Finches fighting the good fight?

Two, I sincerely believe people can change. Getting into an impulsive bar fight as a teen shouldn't carry consequences to the kid when he is a grandfather.

If that bar fight involved a gun, then maybe those consequences should follow. Otherwise, drunken fisticuffs out in the car-park is probably a stage in the maturity of many young men. The only consequences will be the pain when sobered.

 

[arthwollipot]

I hear what you say, but I think you are wrong. The criminals and gangsters who do most of the mass shootings will thumb their nose at these regulations.

Obviously, which is why you have to make it as hard as possible for them to do so. Reduce the supply, and illegal guns will become harder and harder to acquire.

There is no one... er... silver bullet solution to the gun problem. You have to approach it from a number of different angles. One of the most important ones is cultural.

State of New York has officially set a definition for mass shooting. Shooting incident where 4+ people are killed.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-legislation-strengthen-public-safety

It's important that politicians start legislating clarity to this issue.

Indeed, because what to call it is clearly the most important thing here.

 

[Nessie]

This is part of why I say the USA can do something about its problem of mass killings and other deaths by guns, small changes will start to have an effect.

They can....but they won't.

The will to change is normally precipitated by an event or events. Columbine and then Sandy Hook proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that the USA will not change its opinion on gun use and possession. Another example of that, is the news that gun deaths were higher than road deaths. Anywhere else, and that would spur on change. In the USA....nothing. There is no event or events that can be a catalyst, a tipping point for change.

Every other country has reacted to massacres by tightening gun controls. Only the USA does not. Their love of guns and gun rights far outweigh the volume of deaths.

 

[Nessie]

....
Two, I sincerely believe people can change. ...

They have to want to change first. There is no evidence of that want.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I have said it before: No country needs to invade the USA to cause widespread carnage. The Americans are doing a very decent job of it to themselves.

 

[Darat]

They can....but they won't.

The will to change is normally precipitated by an event or events. Columbine and then Sandy Hook proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that the USA will not change its opinion on gun use and possession. Another example of that, is the news that gun deaths were higher than road deaths. Anywhere else, and that would spur on change. In the USA....nothing. There is no event or events that can be a catalyst, a tipping point for change.

Every other country has reacted to massacres by tightening gun controls. Only the USA does not. Their love of guns and gun rights far outweigh the volume of deaths.

Thermal lives in a state where they have done some quite small changes and it's already had an affect.

I think you are still thinking that this is a problem that can be solved with a massive one-off piece of federal legislation. It won't be. As Arth put it, there is no silver bullet solution.

Don't forget the UK only got to where we are today with small steps. Our last major piece of gun control legislation only affected between 50 and 60 thousand people, so it was only a minor change. Before that change we had about 3.1 million legally registered firearms, after that change we still had about 3.1 million legally registered firearms.

The UK is a good example of how you can with small incremental steps get to very strong gun control and regulations. And the USA doesn't need to get anywhere near our level of control to significantly reduce the problem, you can look at other countries that have much less control than us but still have some control yet don't have the same problem the USA has.

As I keep saying - this problem has been decades in the making, it will take decades to solve it.

 

[Nessie]

Thermal lives in a state where they have done some quite small changes and it's already had an affect.

...

New Jersey has a mass shooting rate of 1.15 per million people, which is above average according to this source;

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/mass-shooting-rates-by-state-map-rcna96331

This source has the number of mass shootings in the state on average rising from 2013 to 2019;

https://www.gvpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/New-Jersey-Mass-Shootings-State-Fact-Sheet-1.pdf

Can you show evidence the state's gun law changes have reduced mass shootings?

 

[Trausti]

Can you show evidence the state's gun law changes have reduced mass shootings?

It's not a matter of the gun laws, but demographics. See New Hampshire.

 

[Thermal]

New Jersey has a mass shooting rate of 1.15 per million people, which is above average according to this source;

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/mass-shooting-rates-by-state-map-rcna96331

And according to this source, NJ is way down there at the bottom again.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

This source has the number of mass shootings in the state on average rising from 2013 to 2019;

https://www.gvpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/New-Jersey-Mass-Shootings-State-Fact-Sheet-1.pdf

Can you show evidence the state's gun law changes have reduced mass shootings?

Neither Darat nor anyone else claims a legislation that reduced mass shootings specifically. The discussion had tangented off to the practicality of introducing legislation in the States, which yours truly is always quick to remind others that we have had a working American model for generations that has been demonstrably effective.

Eta: your second link comes up blank on this end?
Eta2: working now

 

[Blue Mountain]

It's not a matter of the gun laws, but demographics. See New Hampshire.

Yes, what about New Hampshire? If you have a point, kindly make it.

Currently all I can glean from your post is there's something called New Hampshire. Is it animal, vegetable, or mineral?

 

[Nessie]

And according to this source, NJ is way down there at the bottom again.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

That source claims there has only been one mass shooting in NJ between 1982 and 2023. This source states there have been 9 so far in 2023, which makes it roughly mid table.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/mass-shootings-by-state

Neither Darat nor anyone else claims a legislation that reduced mass shootings specifically. The discussion had tangented off to the practicality of introducing legislation in the States, which yours truly is always quick to remind others that we have had a working American model for generations that has been demonstrably effective.

Eta: your second link comes up blank on this end?
Eta2: working now

The mixed state by state gun control laws have proved to be ineffective. The USA needs a universal system that applies evenly across the country, which people buy into. Those who pass background tests get a gun, those who do not should be punished.

The level of opposition to that would be so strong, trying to introduce such a system will likely result in even more deaths than at present.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

"While 2021 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population. On a per capita basis, there were 14.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2021 – the highest rate since the early 1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974."

The rise and fall in the number of deaths does not fit with any legislative changes.

 

[Thermal]

That source claims there has only been one mass shooting in NJ between 1982 and 2023.

Yes, statista uses the three dead standard. Here is the lone 3 dead mass shooting:

https://www.nj.com/cumberland/2021/08/man-charged-with-murder-in-nj-mass-shooting-that-killed-3-wounded-11.html

You'll note Holmes was charged with multiple felonies relating to the simple possession of the weapon: illegal weapon, illegally carried by an ineligible holder. Whether the laws were federal or state makes no difference if the criminals don't obey the laws, which they kind of don't by definition.

This source states there have been 9 so far in 2023, which makes it roughly mid table.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/mass-shootings-by-state

Breezing over the Jersey shootings, same thing. Illegal weapons illegally carried by ineligible holders. BTW, the cities where the 9 took place (Newark, Jersey City, Trenton, etc) are all Da Hoods. We don't normally acknowledge North Jersey in civilized discourse.

The mixed state by state gun control laws have proved to be ineffective. The USA needs a universal system that applies evenly across the country, which people buy into. Those who pass background tests get a gun, those who do not should be punished.

Again, the weapons were all illegal, and the holders ineligible, and carry not legal anywhere in the State anyway. Who cares what redundant federal laws might be proposed? Not the shooters. It literally has no effect on them.

The level of opposition to that would be so strong, trying to introduce such a system will likely result in even more deaths than at present.

Gun guys here are like 99.99% bluster. They're not killing anyone. The criminals actually doing the shooting are indifferent to law, and their weapons not bought legally.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

"While 2021 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population. On a per capita basis, there were 14.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2021 – the highest rate since the early 1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974."

The rise and fall in the number of deaths does not fit with any legislative changes.

Exactly. Which is why it's mental masturbation to think wagging a finger and telling a mass shooter to follow the rules and purchase his weapon properly to reduce mass shootings is stupid.

Jersey has much lower than average overall gun violence, due to our much tighter than average laws. But the further regulation you champion (although I broadly agree with it) would not be expected to put a dent in the mass shootings, at least for generations, and even then, I imagine ghost guns and 3-D printed guns (and whatever else appears in the future) will easily fill the market demand.

The answer is not licensing etc, although we need that anyway. We need to work out what motivates people want to mass shoot, and address that directly. That's going to fall far outside the scope of federal firearms laws.