Interesting. When compared to places like Australia, where guns are highly regulated and barely anyone owns a gun, such that there have been no mass shootings for 35 years, the solution really is obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
A mass shooting in which, by the sound of it, a gunman killed one hostage? Then when "police...stormed the café ...[a hostage] was killed by a police bullet ricochet. ..[The gunman] was also killed. Three other hostages and a police officer were injured by police gunfire"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindt_Cafe_siege
In the 2002 Monash shooting, 2 people died. Seems like there hasn't been a mass shooting of >5 people in Australia since Port Arthur (1996), except in 2018 when a grandfather in WA killed his whole family including himself (7 people).
If you look at the numbers there over the years for actual shootings it's basically a bad weekend in Chicago.
That linked source is for all massacres, most of which are not gun related and have < 6 deaths. Even if you include the 2002 Monash University shootings, its still 20 years.
If you look at [1], when the Australian gun laws came into effect, a year later the per capita number of gun related deaths halved. 25 years later and its halved again and the trend continues downwards. For reference the US numbers are here [2]. What is interesting is that when comparing the number of firearm possession per capita between the US and Australia, the US has roughly 10 times more guns [3]. Based on [1] and [2] the US has roughly 10 times the number of gun related deaths per capita. The reason why Australia has historically had less problems than the US with gun violence is that even at Australia's peak, it had 5 times fewer guns [4] than the US [5] did per capita.
[1] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_a...
[2] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/rate_of_...
[3] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/10/rate_of_civili...
[4] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_c...
[5] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/rate_of_...
The Sydney hostage crisis only one person was killed by the gunman, who was carrying a shotgun. If he had an automatic weapon it very likely would have been more.
Your last point is true.
Is it that simple? The is little correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer number of dead people: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-vict...
That same link shows a slight negative correlation between stricter gun laws and sexual assault.
Looking at the numbers it's really hard to call any solution "obvious".
Sexual assault has gone up, according to the graph, about which you say "shows a slight negative correlation between stricter gun laws and sexual assault". Uh what? That graph is nothing to do with gun laws, is it?! Strange. Hmm I can only guess maybe that where you live, sexual assault is usually/often done by someone with a gun? I would guess that's very rare in Australia.
The decline in dead people is not correlated with fewer guns.
The decline is a trend going down over time that did not start when the guns were taken.
The argument of "fewer guns == safer society" needs to show that when the guns were taken, a decline in corpses resulted. That did not happen.
Anyway, this is a weird topic. It seems only in the USA that "fewer guns = safer society" is not extremely obvious to everyone.
Well, that's because it isn't obvious. I limited my data lookups to Australia because OP presented Australia as an example of where it is obvious that fewer guns == safer society.
In the example that is provided as evidence (Australia), the data does not support the assertion. Maybe it will in other examples, but the OP presented this example and so I only checked the stats for this example.
So yes, it really is that simple and completely obvious.
[1] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_a...
It shows exactly what I think it shows: just how much safer (or not) a place is after enacting stricter gun laws.
The whole point is that the parent tried to imply that stricter gun laws make the society safer. The data for his example shows no real correlation.
The data just doesn't support that view. Simply asserting "because I said so" is not a good way to convince people of your argument.
You presented Australia as an example of stricter gun laws making it safer for everyone. The data for Australia shows that this is not true.
Well, from a programmers perspective - it's all about what you are optimizing for.
We can end all car related deaths as well by outlawing all automotive vehicles.
We can eliminate or curb most sexual diseases by regimenting who one can have sex with.
We can end homelessness, by quartering local vagrants in the homes of the citizenry.
Solutions are easy. Side effects are less so.
If we are optimizing against the #1 all time cause of non natural death in the world - Democide - an armed populace does wonders.
We can reduce car related deaths by regulating automotive vehicles and driving behavior. Speed limits, seatbelts, max BAC...
We can reduce sexual diseases by educating people on safe practice.
We can reduce homelessness through welfare systems.
And based on the experiences in virtually every other first world country, the US can probably reduce gun-related deaths with tighter regulations on gun ownership.
We can reduce sexual diseases even further by regulating who you can have sex with. If you've ever had or transmitted an STI, you're on a permanent banlist. You can obtain a license by proving you have no history of reckless behavior and have a clean record of health.
We can also reduce homelessness even further by finding every homeless person and forcing them into a government house. Homelessness is a travesty that must be reduced as much as possible, isn't it?
Hey, there aren't any ideal scenarios but we can reduce it further, can't we?
In a country like Spain or wherever in Europe where people haven't been owning and open carrying guns for dozens of years it is not unreasonable to think bans wouldn't have an effect on people. But if you try to ban something outright, something that people are used to, you're going to get problems.
Banning sex has, by the way, been tried. If you ask a religious person what's the best way to deal with teen pregnancy they are going to say abstention. It doesn't work.
This should led you to believe that there is, in fact, a sweetspot between regulation and prohibition and that's really how most competent politicans should look at these issues. I don't think a gun ban is reasonable in the USA; but I would argue you definitely need more and progressive regulation so that the population is slowly disarmed. But how can you do that when it is literally in your constitution?
I appreciate your honesty about your motives: you want the population to eventually be disarmed. That's a non-starter for a lot of Americans who believe it to be a civil right, not something to be negotiated and progressively removed.
The first step would be to somehow fix that. Make everyone feel safe enough so they don't feel the need to have a gun to defend themselves.
Yes, I live in a boring dysfunctional dystopia called "Philadelphia", with a murder rate hovering above South America and edging into Africa's numbers
Disarm the populace and you get less lethal violence. (The UK has quite a lot of nonlethal violence, mostly alcohol related. We don't need to re-litigate what happened when trying to ban alcohol.)
If you rule out disarming, how about de-radicalizing? Many mass shooters leave behind helpful manifestoes detailing their reasoning.
That requires much tougher questions to be asked and a level of cultural self awareness that most people don't have.
Look up the history of prohibition. People thought that they could just ban booze and that would be the easy button that would greatly reduce all sorts of adjacent societal ills.
Guns are the same way. People don't want to ask themselves why some youth are so disaffected they go postal. People don't wanna accept that gangs and traffickers mediating business disputes with bullets are basically doing a sloppy version of what courts do for "real business" disputes with extra steps. People don't wanna ask why so many people are taking their own lives. So they bury their heads in the sand and advocate for various flavors of "ban the guns and everything will be happy." Would it have some marginal impact? Certainly. Will it have the impact that advocates say? Lol.
More realistic scenarios, based on historical examples, include:
1. Armed resistance of local or federal authorities/law enforcement (e.g. Battle of Athens, Bundy Standoff)
2. Guerrilla warfare against a superior military force (e.g. Afghanistan)
3. Full civil war between the states (would probably look something like Russia-Ukraine war happening right now)
In the first two scenarios small arms are absolutely effective. In the third scenario, access to more advanced weapons and logistics would be split between the factions (and possibly supplemented by outside forces).
Law enforcement entities become much less willing to play fast and loose with their use of force when there is a good chance that kicking in a door at 4am will get you shot back at which could result in one of your guys being killed and then tough, potentially career limiting, questions being asked about why they chose to kick in that door under those circumstances.
You displace guns primarily harming suicidal people and criminals into harms to innocent victims, via unchecked violence — potentially without reducing suicides.
You also see an increase in totalitarian behavior, eg, the Australian lockdowns compared to the US lockdowns.
And the argument for removing rifles ignores that they’re rarely used in crimes — more people are killed by hammers or fists than rifles.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
So by your argument crime should be lower in states with less gun control. That is not reflected in reality, in fact according to [1 ], the states with the highest crime rates have actually amongst the laxest gun control laws.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
If someone broke into my house the default assumption has to be that they're armed and I should fear for me an my family's lives. So I better be armed myself, and better armed then the burglars. Just don't accidentally shoot a family member that you mistake for the home invader in the heat of the moment. But that would never happen to you anyways, only to other, stupid and irresponsible people - who pretty much then deserve to live with the consequences. Compare that to any European country, where burglars always wait until nobody is home, and even if that goes wrong you at least don't have to fear for anyone's life as they'll either beat it immediately or you calmly hand over your cash and be happy you're alive and well.
You’re welcome not to own a gun if you feel like that would be a better choice for you and/or your family. Nobody is making you.
What I’m saying is that you don’t have a right to take guns away from other people because you find them scary — even if that is occasionally abused, leading to tragedy. People have a right to defend themselves.
> A worthy trade-off for being able to defend yourself and keep the government from issuing lockdowns.
Over 100,000,000 people died to democide in the past century — around 70 times the current US murder rate for 100 years. (That is, 7000 years of the current US murder-with-guns rate.)
Guns also protected Black Panthers, Afghani insurrectionists, and Ukrainian militias.
I’m sorry that the world isn’t as friendly and happy as you would prefer it — I find that disquieting too.
Yes you did, and you even repeat it in your reply.
> You’re welcome not to own a gun if you feel like that would be a better choice for you and/or your family. Nobody is making you.
Yes, they are pretty much making you in parts of the US, because things are so bad.
> What I’m saying is that you don’t have a right to take guns away from other people because you find them scary.
Not just because "I find them scary", but because they are literally dangerous. They are made to kill. That's their only purpose.
And yes, you absolutely have the right to take them away from people - just like you have the right to declare certain substances illegal to sell, consume or own, and limit people's freedom in a dozen other ways for the sake of society's well being as a whole.
> even if that is occasionally abused, leading to tragedy.
So where's the straw man again?
> People have a right to defend themselves.
And we arrived at the knee jerk reaction. Taking the arms race as a given. Don't even question why things are that fucked up in the first place. Might have to fear for my life any time of the day, so better have a semi-automatic rifle at hand. It's just so very sad.
> Over 100,000,000 people died to democide in the past century
In the US? Or Europe? Or might it have been in some really unstable chaotic parts of the world? Why you would even want to compare this to a civilized first world country is beyond me. A more reasonable approach would be comparisons with countries that are socially and structurally similar to the US but have different gun control laws, but that comparison wouldn't really fly with your views I guess.
> I’m sorry that the world isn’t as friendly and happy as you would prefer it — I find that disquieting too.
It doesn't seem you want it to be.
> Yes, they are pretty much making you in parts of the US, because things are so bad.
Where cause I live in that scary city called Chicago that people like to mention and have never felt the need to have a gun. We do have a lot of shootings but we also have a lot of people. If our metro area was a country, we'd be more populous than >50% of all countries (139/235).
> Not just because "I find them scary", but because they are literally dangerous. They are made to kill. That's their only purpose.
Or you know, sport. I find shooting clay pigeons or just general target practice to be fun.
Don't believe tabloid media. No it wasn't 'totalitarian'. I can't take you seriously now.
> In recent days, the centre has also housed people infected from a Covid outbreak in Katherine, a town 300km (185 miles) away.
> Police had set up checkpoints around the compound on Wednesday and inspected cars moving through the area.
I think you’re responding in bad faith because it would challenge your view of yourself and your nation to admit that forcible imprisonment in camps for quarantine is what people mean when they say “totalitarian”.
Or why forcible internment in camps for a disease might remind people of other atrocities in history?
> forcible imprisonment in camps for quarantine is what people mean when they say “totalitarian”
I think I understand that it's what you mean when you say "totalitarian". I'm not interested in communicating further, after your unfriendly accusations.
And while those laws were pretty stupidly implemented they were just the outcome of improvisation from unprepared governments, not some totalitarian vision. Even citizens from countries with a strong culture of disobedience understood that.
The US seems to have higher murder, but less per capita crimes against people (eg, rape and burglary).
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/...
Have a look at the order of all countries:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Burgla...
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/Unit... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/Un... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/Un... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Italy/Unit... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Uni... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Austria/Un...
> You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors.
Sorry but to my european ears, this "equalizing force" theory sounds plain stupid. I get that it is not that easy to ban them because we have different traditions and background, and I get that it is really hard to ban something when people is used to it and that it could lead to unexpected consequences (black market, etc).
But defending guns as an "equalizing force" is just stupid, given the stats.
But common in mass shootings.
In the US, “semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings”:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in...
Also, most “mass shootings” are by pistol by gangs — you’re citing a statistic on the largest ones, which are rare even among rare events.
Generally, we shouldn’t base policy around outliers of outliers.
So far this year more school kids have died from being shot in the line of duty than cops who are routinely armed. So it doesn’t strike me as that much of an outlier. In particular kids should definitely be safer from gun violence than a police officer. That seems like a reasonable goal?
Or the fact that the incidence of school shootings means kids are more widely impacted than just those who end up on the wrong end of a gun.
No…? Why would comparing vastly different groups be “reasonable”?
Also, they are on a per capita basis: there’s a lot more school children than police officers.
By about two orders of magnitude (50M children to 600k officers).
They are outliers of outliers in other countries. In the US, it's once a week.
That doesn’t happen — it’s been four years since a similarly deadly shooting.
> They are outliers of outliers in other countries. In the US, it's once a week.
You forgot to exclude gang violence.
You say guns can be used by weaker people to defend themselves (not sure if you consider children weak), and the argue that rifles kill less people than hammers. Yes rifles, handguns on the other hand kill >30 times more (and there is a large unspecified firearm category which kills ~10 times more than hammers). So are you suggesting weaker woman should take a rifle to their date in case they need to defend themselves.
The bigger issue is however that I'm very certain there are more events of a fun being used to attack a weaker person, than od a weaker person defendinf themselves with one.
The rifle point was that while most murders are by handgun, most gun laws restrict rifles — which was a specific, second thing I was calling out.
> The bigger issue is however that I'm very certain there are more events of a fun being used to attack a weaker person, than od a weaker person defendinf themselves with one.
My point is that is more equal than when violence relies on knives and bats and fists.
It is simply not true that women, and the elderly would defend themselves with lethal force all that often, besides aggressors are the ones who are quicker at obtaining guns and using them.
How often is acceptably "often enough" for the disadvantaged to protect themselves?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/04/texas-woman...
So show us the statistics that crime rates in states with high gun ownership are lower.
Your own link shows that two thirds of homicides are committed using guns. That’s your only citation and hardly a compelling one to back up your claim that the US has a far lower crime rate thanks to all the guns
You ignored what the text you quoted actually said.
We have your comment which dishonestly claims that link was related to the claim about crime rates — when it clearly wasn’t.
The distinction is meaningful because gun restrictions tend to target rifles, when they’re hardly used in crimes.
I’m sorry for assuming that the final sentence of the comment and only citation was related to the rest of it
So? Just having a swimming pool in your home increases your risk of drowning, but people have them anyway.
Also, I think you pulled that 50% number out of the air.
But we could also reduce that down to "if you're specifically in an assault". Surely you're safer right? If you're in an assault and in possession of a gun, you are over 400% (4 times) more likely to be shot then if you do not have a gun. [2]
While having a swimming pool in your home does in fact increase the risk of drowning - in fact, it increases the risk of all the kids of your neighbors drowning as well (this is why I don't, and never will in fact have a private swimming pool in my home)...nobody puts a swimming pool in and says "this will stop me from drowning". In fact they go to considerable lengths and there is considerable regulation surrounding preventing exactly that.
From the paper itself, the TLDR is that those numbers only apply if you're in a gang. The cohort that is 400% more likely to be shot is, according to the paper, 400% more likely compared to non-illicit activity individuals.
> "However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1)."
It's a good argument for better social services, not for restricting non-gang individuals from owning firearms.
Very much so, but don't recall a clip about swimming pools (or gun crime)
Link?
A defensive use of a firearm doesn't mean you actually need to fire the weapon. The mere presence of a gun can act as a deterrent.
500,000-3,000,000
Suicides:
24,000
Murders:
14,000
- - - - -
Defensive gun uses:
https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g...
Suicide and murder:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_S...
The page you reference indexes a few thousand over several years. Seems likely an undercount as the page claims but not by that much by probably a couple orders of magnitude.
There is also separate disputation of the figure in a report[2] by Harvard's Injury Control Research Center.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-s...
[2] - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
Source? Seems low.
> Democide is the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
How's Saudi Arabia doing against those shoeless Houthis (i.e. 8 years later)?
From a sister comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide > Democide is the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
Your examples are NOT US Military trying to kill citizens. And Viet Cong? Really? You are grasping, how about you throw in Civil war references too.
The point is technology has changed the battlefield. Personal firearms mean little - not nothing, but little - on a battlefield with tanks, drones, air superiority that the US has sooo much of compared to any other modern military, including Saudi Arabia.
How is Saudi Arabia doing? I don't know. How about you visit the region, do the tourist thing in complete safety while you might see in the media that the Houthis even exist. I think they're doing fine. Not that I agree with their approach...
But back to the Democide point: If the US Military went insane and wanted to eradicate every other US citizen then they could do so easily.
But the US Military wouldn't. Because a military is made up of humans, with a heart and a conscience and killing their own families and children is not even a thought to contemplate. While "pry my guns from my dead hands" types are happy to continue the status quo...
Nope, this is nonsense abd exactly the point that the examples refute. A poorly equipped army can defeat the US military.
"Democide" is not that.
Like Vietnam and Afghanistan, right? Please stop.
This sounds intuitively correct, but I wonder if we have seen any evidence of this. If I think of the Holocaust would have happened if the Jews in Germany had been armed I'm not convinced either way. I can see arguments that it might have prevented it but also that it might have accelerated it, especially if everyone in 1930s Germany had been heavily armed
US policy during COVID vs Australian policy during COVID.
Afghanistan and Iraq insurrections; Ukrainian militias.
Black Panthers; US labor riots; US revolution.
I think we’ve seen consistently throughout history that the first step to abusing a population is disarming them.
And there are more murders by hammer or fist than by rifle.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
I am frankly astonished by your claim. It's so obviously wrong.
But yes, I personally think the difference in rates isn’t due to Australia being more authoritarian and that leading to success.
Edit: I cant reply to your thread. If you compare the rates of two like-minded Australian cities. (To be fair melbourne people pretend to be more cultured)
Queensland was known for its "immediate knee jerk reactions", if you want i can find sources for this.
Melbourne was known for its "reactive stance" if you want i can find sources for this.
Melbournes infection rate and inability to 'follow lock down procedures' was the root cause for their infection rate going through the roof. This further compounded because not following lockdowns created more infections which furthered more lockdowns.
Anyways, you'll take what you want from it.. Most of the links with values that I had have been removed. If I can dig up more I'll relink them here.
As a currently residing Melbournian - I totally agree...
During the statewide lockdowns it was also interesting to see how the infections spread. At one stage Melbourne had near nothing. Then a removalist from NSW comes travelling and you could see the trail of COVID in the following media reports.
Maybe lack of guns meant less resistance to the authoritarian lockdown. But for ALL the people I know, education meant there was noone even wanting to resist.
Everyone knew that one person could wander around and wreck the lives of many completely unintentionally. And lockdown was the only decent tool society had until vaccines happened.
It sucked. For some more than others as you'd expect. Maybe it was because I was less affected, but in the same scenario I'd do it again no question. I'd be grumpy about the situation, but not the response.
I’d like to learn more.
But more to your point -- I'll steal this quote:
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?
Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?...
The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
If we didn’t love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation… We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Meanwhile 1 in 3 black men are imprisoned over the course of their lives.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/sp.2011.58.2.257?uid=3...