Be Excellent To Each Other

Here's a table of gun deaths per head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

The UK: .25 per 100,000 (we're pleasingly near the bottom).
The US: 9 per 100,000 - that's thirty-six times higher
El Salvador: 50

Twenty children shot at close range with an assault rifle. You could argue that the choice of weapon is irrelevant; that a truly unhinged individual would still find the means to kill. Maybe that's true; I don't know. All I know is that 20 children were shot at close range with an assault rifle, and that only a lunatic nation wouldn't try everything it could think of to make that less likely to happen again.

I still can't see one valid reason for owning a gun. People say they have then to defend themselves, but why do you never hear if crazed gun men getting shot before they've had chance to kill anyone?

Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers confronting a gunman wounded nine innocent bystanders.

...

We used a conservative set of criteria to build a comprehensive rundown of high-profile attacks in public places—at schools, workplaces, government buildings, shopping malls—though they represent only a small fraction of the nation's overall gun violence. The FBI defines a mass murderer as someone who kills four or more people in a single incident, usually in one location. (As opposed to spree or serial killers, who strike multiple times.) We excluded cases involving armed robberies or gang violence; dropping the number of fatalities by just one, or including those motives, would add many, many more cases. (More about our criteria here.)

There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years.

More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)

Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened—while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him.

Among the more striking measures: Eight states now allow firearms in bars. Law-abiding Missourians can carry a gun while intoxicated and even fire it if "acting in self-defense." In Kansas, permit holders can carry concealed weapons inside K-12 schools, and Louisiana allows them in houses of worship. Virginia not only repealed a law requiring handgun vendors to submit sales records, but the state also ordered the destruction of all such previous records. More than two-thirds of these laws were passed by Republican-controlled statehouses, though often with bipartisan support.

The laws have caused dramatic changes, including in the two states hit with the recent carnage. Colorado passed its concealed-carry measure in 2003, issuing 9,522 permits that year; by the end of last year the state had handed out a total of just under 120,000, according to data we obtained from the County Sheriffs of Colorado. In March of this year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that concealed weapons are legal on the state's college campuses. (It is now the fifth state explicitly allowing them.) If former neuroscience student James Holmes were still attending the University of Colorado today, the movie theater killer—who had no criminal history and obtained his weapons legally—could've gotten a permit to tote his pair of .40 caliber Glocks straight into the student union. Wisconsin's concealed-carry law went into effect just nine months before the Sikh temple shooting in suburban Milwaukee this August. During that time, the state issued a whopping 122,506 permits, according to data from Wisconsin's Department of Justice. The new law authorizes guns on college campuses, as well as in bars, state parks, and some government buildings.

And we're on our way to a situation where the most lax state permitting rules—say, Virginia's, where an online course now qualifies for firearms safety training and has drawn a flood of out-of-state applicants—are in effect national law. Eighty percent of states now recognize handgun permits from at least some other states. And gun rights activists are pushing hard for a federal reciprocity bill—passed in the House late last year, with GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan among its most ardent supporters—that would essentially make any state's permits valid nationwide.

Indeed, the country's vast arsenal of handguns—at least 118 million of them as of 2010—is increasingly mobile, with 69 of the 99 new state laws making them easier to carry. A decade ago, seven states and the District of Columbia still prohibited concealed handguns; today, it's down to just Illinois and DC. (And Illinois recently passed an exception cracking the door open to carrying). In the 62 mass shootings we analyzed, 54 of the killers packed handguns—including in all 15 of the mass shootings since the surge of pro-gun laws began in 2009.

In a certain sense the law was on their side: nearly 80 percent of the killers in our investigation obtained their weapons legally.

Try explaining that to a parent who's lost a child who's been run over.

What about 100-round drum-fed full automatic assault rifles? Or why should it entitle someone to wear a concealed .45 calibre pistol when he or she is out shopping at the mall, worshipping in church, or visiting their child's school?

Distinction should be made here between shotguns, as legitimately used by farmers and the like, and assault rifles, as deployed in this tragic case, which are clearly an out and out combat weapon?

I agree. What about a semi automatic rifle for hunting?

Charlie Brooker has a piece in the Guardian which sums up things nicely.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ie-brooker

Personally, I'd say a semi automatic rifle is also a combat weapon.

I thought assault rifles already were banned in America. You can't wander into a shop over there and buy an AK47 or M16 can you?

Whilst normally I'm very much in the "guns don't kill people" camp, I agree with Cavey and The Doc on this point.

Thing is, Americans (some Americans, I should qualify) own a gun specifically to protect themselves from other people with guns - so in that case, an assault rifle is a good choice. The fact that they feel the need to do so is another matter, of course.

Yup.

Indeed you can (although it would be an AR-15 rather than M-16). However, they're de-automaticised, so they're just semi-autros, although you can legally buy a kit to re-automaticise them. Not sure if the re-automaticised gun itself is then legal, though.

Thing is, Americans (some Americans, I should qualify) own a gun specifically to protect themselves from other people with guns - so in that case, an assault rifle is a good choice. The fact that they feel the need to do so is another matter, of course.

There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years.

I thought you could buy full-autos in certain states?

Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986. Some states have enacted laws against civilian possession of automatic weapons that override NFA clearance; Kansas, on the other hand, repealed its own state law against civilian ownership of assault rifles in July 2008.[24] Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions and/or prohibitions on such weapons.

So an assault rifle is not a good defense weapon because the statistics are absolutely clear that there is no good defense weapon.

But, Doc, you are applying rational logic to someone who considers an assault rifle to be a good home defense weapon, and feels the need to have one.

Are we debating whether the US should have stricter gun control laws, or realistically could have stricter gun control laws? Your point is only pertinent to the second debate.

I'm far from convinced the US has the political will to change anything at all. I think that in the minds of far too many Americans, 20 dead kids is the price of doing business, and that's all she wrote.

Empirically speaking, there is surely no doubt *whatsoever* that US gun laws could be better; this is simply beyond any dispute. Even the most cursory glance at their homicide stats sees to that.

More helpfully I guess, they should surely try to emulate those peer nations - and their legislation - which have demonstrably yielded far less gun-related deaths, and therefore much less human cost and misery. This simply empirical approach, as I have long argued ad nauseum, applies to a very great number of policy areas, for all countries - from healthcare to welfare, business models to politics - not just mere gun legislation. But of course, each country seems to like reinventing the wheel (coming up with something square-shaped for much of the time), which is somewhat exasperating and inexplicable to my admittedly simplistic world-view and way of thinking.

Empirically speaking, there is surely no doubt *whatsoever* that US gun laws could be better; this is simply beyond any dispute.

Empirically speaking, there is surely no doubt *whatsoever* that US gun laws could be better; this is simply beyond any dispute. Even the most cursory glance at their homicide stats sees to that.

More helpfully I guess, they should surely try to emulate those peer nations - and their legislation - which have demonstrably yielded far less gun-related deaths, and therefore much less human cost and misery. This simple empirical approach (adopting demonstrable best practices, as (often painfully and expensively) determined by others), as I have long argued ad nauseum, applies to a very great number of policy areas, for all countries - from healthcare to welfare, business models to politics - not just mere gun legislation. But of course, each country seems to like reinventing the wheel (coming up with something square-shaped for much of the time), which is somewhat exasperating and inexplicable to my admittedly simplistic world-view and way of thinking.

However, have any of their other peer nations put in legislation to combat 115 million handguns already in circulation?
The answer seems to be ingrained in that old joke of "I wouldn't start from here".

However, have any of their other peer nations put in legislation to combat 115 million handguns already in circulation?

EMERGENCY:

If this is the case then you must think that Thatcher was wrong to implement a Reagen way of thinking in her UK policies. POS

"Realistically could". As in, something that stands a cat-in-Hells-chance of getting passed into law.

Why?

Because, if, as you say, America's thinking and policies have been wrong, and wrong for a long, long, time, then Thatcher, whose Reagen influenced policies were brought to fruition in the UK must also be wrong. Which is against how I think you think.

Thus makes no sense and I recommend a stiff brandy and a cigar.

Call me insanely optimistic, or just plain stupid. I'm not suggesting these things will be easy, but as per your Australian example (probably a commensurate gun-per-capita density), I say it *could* be done and it would be worthwhile so doing. As well as, IMO, the morally and responsibly correct thing to do anyway.

But, Doc, you are applying rational logic to someone who considers an assault rifle to be a good home defense weapon, and feels the need to have one.

but, if such a scheme was even mentioned, lots of people would start the cry "they are trying to take our guns in violation of the constitution!" and Congress or Representatives, posisbly both, would never pass it, because tehre's a lot of votes in the constitution and one thing the politicians are not going to give up on is votes.

This. An assault rifle is bigger, shinier and bangier.

I don't deny any of that. But what's right is right (or, more accurately, though somewhat less catchily: "what's empirically demonstrated as efficacious and best practice in terms of hard data, cold facts and actual, demonstrable results is what's empirically demonstrated as efficacious and best practice in terms of hard data, cold facts and actual, demonstrable results" )

To be fair here, having stuff that's bangier than the next man's isn't too bad a maxim to adopt.

I'd strap an assault rifle to a rottweiler.

He doesn't need one

but, if such a scheme was even mentioned, lots of people would start the cry "they are trying to take our guns in violation of the constitution!" and Congress or Representatives, posisbly both, would never pass it, because tehre's a lot of votes in the constitution and one thing the politicians are not going to give up on is votes.

Good point.

I'd strap TWO assault rifles to a rottweiller.