The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Northside Storm · Dec 18, 2012

As for Switzerland---

Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessories such as sound suppressors ("silencers") is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability).
Click to expand...

And way to choose the only country where the Second Amendment actually makes sense---

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.
Click to expand...

SamFisher · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

Again, you are showing that you are ill informed. The military does not use semi-automatic rifles with the exception of some sniper rifles. Military assault rifles have semi-automatic and automatic firing modes. A rifle that has semi-automatic mode only is a consumer weapon by design and marketing.
Click to expand...

of course I'm ill-informed - a knowledge of rifle shaft/caliber/rate of fire p*rn isn't really my thing - all I know is that we currently make weapons optimized for killing massive amounts of people in short amounts of time available, that there's no good reason to do so, and i'm confident that we can make them less available through various means.

This problem isn't nearly as complicated as you make it sound - many more highly complex systems and technical mechanisms than firearms are the subject of government regulation. (Broker dealer compliance, radio communications, etc). I'm confident with experts like you to guide us along we can get'r'done.

NewRoxFan · Dec 18, 2012

tallanvor said: ↑

That was the case long before the gun ban......

You are being dishonest.
Click to expand...

My information came from Wikipedia. I can provide the citation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Since you must have data that you can cite that shows the UK does not have one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world, please present it. Or your honesty can be called to question.

tallanvor · Dec 18, 2012

NewRoxFan said: ↑

My information came from Wikipedia. I can provide the citation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Since you must have data that you can cite that shows the UK does not have one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world, please present it. Or your honesty can be called to question.
Click to expand...

You are not dishonest because your data is wrong, you are dishonest for posting misleading information.

If the gun violence/murder rates where much lower before the gun ban then the gun ban is not the cause for the lower gun violence/murder rate after the gun ban.

You know this yet you keep posting your meaningless stats. Again you are incredibly dishonest. Even now you are trying to defend your post............

YallMean · Dec 18, 2012

Commodore said: ↑

gun violence has doubled in UK since the gun ban, full stop

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
Click to expand...

Full stop on what?

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
Click to expand...

What that number would be if UK had not banned guns.
Total number firearm offences, like including unlawful maintenance registered guns? Does US even keep that statistics category?

NewRoxFan · Dec 18, 2012

"Despite a surge in gun-related offenses in the early 2000s, the past seven years in the U.K. have seen successive drops in gun crimes — a consequence, some argue, of the country’s tougher laws on gun ownership."

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/wh...ons-from-the-u-k-and-australia/#ixzz2FQdEMlXp

NewRoxFan · Dec 18, 2012

tallanvor said: ↑

You are not dishonest because your data is wrong, you are dishonest for posting misleading information.

If the gun violence/murder rates where much lower before the gun ban then the gun ban is not the cause for the low gun violence/murder rate after the gun ban.

You know this yet you keep posting your meaningless stats. Again you are incredibly dishonest. Even now you are trying to defend your post............
Click to expand...

In other words, the information I posted was correct, the UK does have one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world. And as I also posted subsequently (citing Time magazine),

"Despite a surge in gun-related offenses in the early 2000s, the past seven years in the U.K. have seen successive drops in gun crimes — a consequence, some argue, of the country’s tougher laws on gun ownership."

Again, unless you have any data to the contrary...

SunsRocketsfan · Dec 18, 2012

if Obama wants tougher gun laws/regulation I totally support him.

pahiyas · Dec 18, 2012

tallanvor said: ↑

You are not dishonest because your data is wrong, you are dishonest for posting misleading information.

If the gun violence/murder rates where much lower before the gun ban then the gun ban is not the cause for the lower gun violence/murder rate after the gun ban.

You know this yet you keep posting your meaningless stats. Again you are incredibly dishonest. Even now you are trying to defend your post............
Click to expand...

Why was it wrong? Do you have data that will show there have been SCHOOL CHILDREN SHOOTING after the ban?

tallanvor · Dec 18, 2012

NewRoxFan said: ↑

In other words, the information I posted was correct, the UK does have one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world. And as I also posted subsequently (citing Time magazine),

"Despite a surge in gun-related offenses in the early 2000s, the past seven years in the U.K. have seen successive drops in gun crimes — a consequence, some argue, of the country’s tougher laws on gun ownership."

Again, unless you have any data to the contrary...
Click to expand...

In other words, yes I completely mislead others by misrepresenting stats and I don't care.

You drew the exact opposite conclusion you should of from the stat you posted.....

pahiyas said: ↑

Why was it wrong? Do you have data that will show there have been SCHOOL CHILDREN SHOOTING after the ban?
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** where a shooting happens? or if it happens all in one event or a few spread out events? Your question is meaningless.

What is your goal? To stop shootings in general or to just stop them at schools?

YallMean · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

Rifles account for less than 4% of gun related homicides, the many of those are the hunting rifles like you want - bolt action. Meanwhile, the "assault rifles" account for well less than 2%.

This witch hunt on "assault rifles" is laughably misguided. More than 70% of gun related homicides are due to hand guns, and you guys are focusing on the weapons that account for less than 2%.
Click to expand...

No, we are focusing on the type of the weapon that killed 20 little kids senselessly, whose only utility is to fire massively in quick succession to cause a lot of damages in short amount of time.

Com'on folks, can you please take a moment and care before you use numbers and analogies. The laugh is on you. It is comical.

Svpernaut · Dec 18, 2012

YallMean said: ↑

No, we are focusing on the type of the weapon that killed 20 little kids senselessly, whose only utility is to fire massively in quick succession to cause a lot of damages in short amount of time.
Click to expand...

It was a semi-automatic weapon. ANY semi-automatic weapon could have done the same thing. They sell extended and drum magazines for handguns, shotguns and rifles... including rifles that would be considered for hunting purposes.

The Sikh temple and Virginia Tech massacres were only hand guns... so I'm not sure the argument you are trying to make.

NewRoxFan · Dec 18, 2012

Gun deaths last year in the UK at 51 were down by 18 percent , yet private gun ownership continues to grow with 1.8 million legally held. Obviously there's no way of telling how many illegal guns are in circulation. But, before you begin yelling for even tighter gun laws, compare this to the annual American bloodbath.http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates?INTCMP=SRCH

In 2010 there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms. But, that figure is small compared to accidental shooting deaths which brings the annual total to more than 30,000.http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Source: UK Gun Ownership Up, Deaths Down Offering Stark Comparison with US Figures, Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-ehrlich/uk-gun-ownership-up-deaths-down_b_1209967.html

G Zus Kryst · Dec 18, 2012

NewRoxFan said: ↑

In 2010 there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms. But, that figure is small compared to accidental shooting deaths which brings the annual total to more than 30,000.http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
Click to expand...

Accidental discharge of firearms Deaths 600

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 19,308
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf

myco · Dec 18, 2012

G Zus Kryst said: ↑

Accidental discharge of firearms Deaths 600

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 19,308
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf
Click to expand...

To be clear, these tables show deaths per 100,000 people.

pahiyas · Dec 18, 2012

tallanvor said: ↑

In other words, yes I completely mislead others by misrepresenting stats and I don't care.

You drew the exact opposite conclusion you should of from the stat you posted.....

Who gives a **** where a shooting happens? or if it happens all in one event or a few spread out events? Your question is meaningless.

What is your goal? To stop shootings in general or to just stop them at schools?
Click to expand...

The drift is that the ban is a step in the right direction. It worked for the schools after all. In US case, more control could also be a step in the right direction.

I don't agree to your meaningful quoted posts = Status Quo.

DonnyMost · Dec 18, 2012

full stop

(i just like saying that)

full stop

HorryForThree · Dec 18, 2012

Came across the following article, thought some here might find it interesting given its relevance to the general topic of the recent mass shootings:

Time to profile white men?

Yesterday, during a cable news discussion of gun violence and the Newtown school shooting, I dared mention a taboo truism. During a conversation on MSNBC’s “Up With Chris Hayes,” I said that because most of the mass shootings in America come at the hands of white men, there would likely be political opposition to initiatives that propose to use those facts to profile the demographic group to which these killers belong. I suggested that’s the case because as opposed to people of color or, say, Muslims, white men as a subgroup are in such a privileged position in our society that they are the one group that our political system avoids demographically profiling or analytically aggregating in any real way. Indeed, unlike other demographic, white guys as a group are never thought to be an acceptable topic for any kind of critical discussion whatsoever, even when there is ample reason to open up such a discussion.

My comment was in response to U.S. Rep. James Langevin (D) floating the idea of employing the Secret Service for such profiling, and I theorized that because the profiling would inherently target white guys, the political response to such an idea might be similar to the Republican response to the 2009 Homeland Security report looking, in part, at the threat of right-wing terrorism. As you might recall, the same GOP that openly supports profiling — and demonizing — Muslims essentially claimed that the DHS report was unacceptable because its focus on white male terrorist groups allegedly stereotyped (read: offensively profiled) conservatives.

For making this point, I quickly became the day’s villain in the right-wing media. From the Daily Caller, to Fox News, to Breitbart, to Glenn Beck’s the Blaze, to all the right-wing blogs and Twitter feeds that echo those outlets’ agitprop, I was attacked for “injecting divisive racial politics” into the post-Newtown discussion (this is a particularly ironic attack coming from Breitbart – the same website that manufactured the Shirley Sherrod fiasco).

The conservative response to my statement, though, is the real news here.

Let’s review: Any honest observer should be able to admit that if the gunmen in these mass shootings mostly had, say, Muslim names or were mostly, say, African-American men, the country right now wouldn’t be confused about the causes of the violence, and wouldn’t be asking broad questions. There would probably be few queries or calls for reflection, and mostly definitive declarations blaming the bloodshed squarely on Islamic fundamentalism or black nationalism, respectively. Additionally, we would almost certainly hear demands that the government intensify the extant profiling systems already aimed at those groups.

Yet, because the the perpetrators in question in these shootings are white men and not ethnic or religious minorities, nobody is talking about demographic profiling them as a group. The discussion, instead, revolves around everything from gun control, to mental health services, to violence in entertainment — everything, that is, except trying to understanding why the composite of these killers is so similar across so many different massacres. This, even though there are plenty of reasons for that topic to be at least a part of the conversation.

Recounting the truth of these double standards is, of course, boringly mundane, which means my comment on television summarizing them is an equally boring and mundane statement of the obvious. However, as evidenced by the aggressive attempt to turn those comments into controversial headline-grabbing news over the weekend, the conservative movement has exposed its desperation — specifically, its desperation to preserve its White Victimization Mythology.

In this mythology, the white man as a single demographic subgroup can never be seen as a perpetrator and must always be portrayed as the unfairly persecuted scapegoat. In this mythology, to even reference an undeniable truth about how white privilege operates on a political level (in this case, to prevent a government profiling system of potential security threats even though such a system exists for other groups) is to be guilty of both “injecting divisive racial politics” and somehow painting one’s “opponents as racist” — even when nobody called any individual a racist.

In this mythology, in short, to mention truths about societal double standards — truths that are inconvenient or embarrassing to white people — is to be targeted for attack by the right-wing media machine.

Of course, just as I didn’t make such an argument yesterday on MSNBC, I’m not right now arguing for a system of demographically profiling white guys as a means of stopping mass murderers (that’s right, the headline at Beck’s website, the Blaze, is categorically lying by insisting I did make such an argument, when the MSNBC video proves that’s not even close to true). After all, broad demographic profiling is not only grotesquely bigoted in how it unduly stereotypes whole groups, it also doesn’t actually work as a security measure and runs the risk of becoming yet another Big Brother-ish monster (this is especially true when a lawmaker is forwarding the idea of deploying a quasi-military apparatus like the Secret Service).

Additionally, I’m not saying we should avoid the complex discussion about myriad issues (gun control, mental health, violence in Hollywood products, etc.) that we are having in the aftermath of the Connecticut tragedy. On the contrary, I believe it is good news that those nuanced conversations — rather than simplistic calls for punitive measures against a demographic group — are able to happen, and it’s particularly good news that they are persisting in the face of pro-gun extremists’ best effort to polarize the conversation.

But the point here is that those tempered and nuanced conversations are only able to happen because the demographic at the center of it all is white guys. That is the one group in America that gets to avoid being referred to in aggregate negative terms (and gets to avoid being unduly profiled by this nation’s security apparatus), which means we are defaulting to a much more dispassionate and sane conversation — one that treats the perpetrators as deranged individuals, rather than typical and thus stereotype-justifying representatives of an entire demographic.

While such fair treatment should be the norm for all citizens, the double standard at work makes clear it is still a special privilege for a select white few. That’s the issue at the heart of my comment on MSNBC — and it is a pressing problem no matter how much the conservative media machine wants to pretend it isn’t.
Click to expand...

YallMean · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

It was a semi-automatic weapon. ANY semi-automatic weapon could have done the same thing. They sell extended and drum magazines for handguns, shotguns and rifles... including rifles that would be considered for hunting purposes.

The Sikh temple and Virginia Tech massacres were only hand guns... so I'm not sure the argument you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

I am actually not sure what your argument is??? Let the assault weapon ban continue to lapse because it only figures in 4% of gun related homicides? Please ...

Svpernaut · Dec 18, 2012

pahiyas said: ↑

The drift is that the ban is a step in the right direction. It worked for the schools after all. In US case, more control could also be a step in the right direction.

I don't agree to your meaningful quoted posts = Status Quo.
Click to expand...

There are more than 200 million guns in legal circulation in the United States, and countless in illegal circulation. Guns don't deteriorate over time if maintained, they last hundreds of years. So believing that if new gun sales were outlawed tomorrow things would change is laughable.

We've made our bed, and we have to sleep in it. Technology is also going to make it easier for individuals to make their own guns over the coming decades, so mental health must be the focus or it doesn't really matter. Even countries that have banned guns are going to have a rude awakening when 3D printers are in homes all over the world.

Forums

The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Northside Storm Member

SamFisher Member

NewRoxFan Member

tallanvor Member

YallMean Member

NewRoxFan Member

NewRoxFan Member

SunsRocketsfan Member

pahiyas Member

tallanvor Member

YallMean Member

Svpernaut Member

NewRoxFan Member

G Zus Kryst Rookie

myco Member

pahiyas Member

DonnyMost Member
Supporting Member

HorryForThree Member

YallMean Member

Svpernaut Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Northside Storm Member

SamFisher Member

NewRoxFan Member

tallanvor Member

YallMean Member

NewRoxFan Member

NewRoxFan Member

SunsRocketsfan Member

pahiyas Member

tallanvor Member

YallMean Member

Svpernaut Member

NewRoxFan Member

G Zus Kryst Rookie

myco Member

pahiyas Member

DonnyMost Member Supporting Member

HorryForThree Member

YallMean Member

Svpernaut Member

Share This Page

DonnyMost Member
Supporting Member