I’m not American and it’s not my fight but you should be at least aware of reality.
Don't even have to go that far: see Canada. Sixth in per capita firearm ownership:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
Quite low per capital total firearm-related deaths (below FR, FI, CH, AT):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Notwithstanding recent changes/legal drama, Canada's gun laws are relatively similar to Massachusetts's:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
* https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/shotgun-wedding-buy-en...
* https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2016/10/25/only-in-tex...
Just teaching ACTS and PROVE would probably help reduce a lot of needless carnage.
Yes. But much higher than most other developed countries. Without a crazy high number of shootings, probably because there are fewer 'Rambos' walking around packin' heat, lighting off:
* https://wbznewsradio.iheart.com/content/2022-02-01-watch-vid...
The list of massacres and mass shootings for Canada over the course of its entire history fits on one not-very-long page:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Can...
Contrast the US:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
But because there's so many, people barely remember anything before Columbine.
> The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Total_De...
All of these mass shootings are using long-guns, because they are more accurate than pistols. Furthermore, when a mass-shooter is using a long-gun, police (see Uvalde) are less willing to engage, because the police know they're outgunned.
-------
If we cannot stop the mass shootings, at least we can mitigate their damage and improve the odds of local Policemen of having enough of an advantage against the perpetrator, right? No one needs a long-gun for self defense, its too awkward to carry around.
The only people using semiautomatic or automatic long guns are mass shooters. Hunters use simpler reload mechanisms and are fine with it (its no longer a sport if its a 30-ammo magazine in that gun).
Who else needs a highly accurate long gun with high-reload capacity (over 5 shots per reload) ??
Also, the police are not outgunned (see Boulder). The police response in Uvalde was an incredible leadership failure and nothing else.
> No one needs a long-gun for self defense, its too awkward to carry around.
(1) The second amendment is not restricted to defense.
(2) For just one example, ranchers rely on long guns to defend their livestock from wildlife, dogs, etc.
> The only people using semiautomatic or automatic long guns are mass shooters.
I’m a mass shooter?
You are demonstrating a fantastic ignorance of the subject at hand and ought to recuse yourself from this debate until you’ve rectified that.
Erm... the 1980s? You know, the time period that led to the 1994 ban on guns? Absolutely huge spike in gun violence and homicides.
> You are demonstrating a fantastic ignorance and ought to recuse yourself from this debate until you’ve rectified that.
There's no point in you having such a weapon. And yes, I'm willing to call you ignorant and backwards for arming yourself with such a powerful weapon.
You ain't gonna be walking around town with a long gun. Your only hope for self defense in a typical "on the town" situation is a pistol / side arm.
If a mass shooting occurs, you aren't going to run to your car and get the long gun. Why? Because you know just as well as I do that everyone else will shoot the first person they see with a long gun. (See Las Vegas shooting: everyone had guns, no one wanted to take it out because they didn't want to get confused as the mass shooter).
There is a major difference between "Gun violence and homicides" and "mass shootings", since mass shootings are ~1% of gun homicides, and gun homicides are ~1/3rd of gun violence. (2/3rds are suicide)
Mass shooters are studying previous mass shootings, and using their techniques to become more-and-more deadly. Body armor, weapon usage, tactics, state of mind, training.
Its very easy today to look up Columbine and study up to become a mass shooter today. That's just the facts. In contrast, we have no ability to study up on how to defend from mass shootings. Its asymmetric warfare.
----------
There is a pattern. The AR15 platform (and closely related clones) are favored today, for good reason. Uvalde, Stoneman Douglas High School, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook.
> (2) For just one example, ranchers rely on long guns to defend their livestock from wildlife, dogs, etc.
And do you need 30 round magazines in those guns for such defense? Do they need to be fully automatic, or with 3-round-burst firing?
The issue, is that we in the USA cannot stop these kinds of massacres:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massac...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
This problem has been going on forever. And no one seems to want to even try to stop it.
So fine. Lets not try to stop the mass shootings. Lets just mitigate their damage by reducing the kinds of weapons that are in play.
[1] https://assaultweapontruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/xm...
I'm pretty anti-gun, but we have to be realistic and honest about the data.
My argument is about the level of damage when gun violence occurs. It is clear to me that events, such as 2017 Las Vegas, or 2016 Orlando Nightclub, are more damaging due to the significant firepower that a lone gunman offers.
If the gunman in the 2016 or 2017 shootings had worse weapons (ie: a pistol), they would not have gotten as far as they did in terms of number killed. These shootings were marked by an incredible use of ammo in a short timeframe.
In the case of Las Vegas, they were taking pot-shots into the country music festival from a distance that outranged all the pistols that the country-music fans had. Furthermore, no one actually wanted to be confused with the gunman, so no one drew their weapon (killing the "good guy with a gun" argument for the billionth time).
And I feel like the picture I linked is pretty strong evidence against any possible effects the assault weapon ban could have possibly had.
Mass fun violence in the 80s were marked with higher powered guns, like the Uzi used in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_mass...
More recently (now that the ban expired), we had Las Vegas and Orlando shootings, both using what would have been 'assault rifles' under that law.
-------
The most famous mass shooting of the 90s was Columbine, which only used pistols and pump-action sawed off shotguns, likely limiting the damage.
This is my ultimate point: if you think we can't stop the shootings, then we should do what we can to mitigate them. Forcing the perpetrators to use lower quality firearms seems to be practically effective.
Reading the Wikipedia link you yourself provided, seems like he used the shotgun as often or more than the Uzi carbine. The article also notes that the Uzi carbine used is a) semi-automatic (fires only once per trigger pull, like other ordinary civilian firearms) and b) fires 9mm pistol rounds (about midrange in power and effectiveness for pistols), meaning that its actually not a "higher powered gun" in any way and certainly not when compared to the shotgun.
Don't mislead people. It only makes it harder to pass sane gun control laws when its proponents are seen to be repeating exaggerations and misconceptions.
--------
This seems only possible with higher-capacity magazines, does it not?
The Uzi was designed as a fully-automatic submachinegun. Yes, he was using a semi-automatic version, but its still a carbine (more accurate than a pistol), and capable of larger magazines unavailable to small pistols.
I'm not being misleading. You can see the weapons he used, and how he used them. The Uzi was instrumental in the high number of shots.
The shotgun / pistol was still used of course, but with lower capacity magazines, doesn't have the same effect (ex: 48 shots in one victim from the Uzi was much easier)
EDIT: Sure, the 48 shots from the Uzi would require a reload (32-round magazine). But the Browning Hi-Power pistol only has a 13-round magazine, so that would have required 4 reloads to shoot 48 times, and would have been far more tedious.
The incident was in a restaurant, not a shooting range. At almost point blank range, accuracy is not that relevant.
> "...capable of larger magazines unavailable to small pistols."
It only takes a second or two to swap magazines with practice so it's unclear that being restricted to the pistol he also carried and having to swap magazines would have significantly changed the outcome. Also note that the shotgun carries only 4-6 rounds, depending on the model, and is more cumbersome to reload yet he killed numerous people with that as well, implying several reloads.
Aside from that, magazine capacity is not what the general public thinks about when the words "higher power weapon" is used, so bringing that factor up doesn't bolster the original post anyway.
Range is always relevant. Especially when you're sending in Police to take them down.
A shooter only armed with a Pistol can be outgunned and outranged by cheaper and easier weapons. A shooter armed with a longer-barrel carbine will be more dangerous against Police snipers (who need to position themselves further back for better safety).
Basic tactics. The range of the gun, the power / penetration of the gun, the magazine, how quickly the gun fires, etc. etc. These all matter.
If the gun is slow enough, you could very well take them out by hand or with a knife even. It is said that at point-blank ranges, a knife is arguably a better weapon than even a pistol. That changes vs a shotgun (large pellets / area, less aiming), and other weapon types.
---------
If the enemy has a carbine, you don't attack in with just a pistol. If the enemy has a higher penetrating 7.76mm ammo and is wearing body armor (as is the case of some of these other mass shootings), you don't go in with 5.56mm Uzi/carbines or Pistols.
> if you think we can't stop the shootings
I don't think that. There are lots of things we could do to make shootings less common, and congress just passed (and Biden signed) a bill which does quite a few things which are very likely to make shootings less common.
Debatable:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
One should also look at who tends to own guns: general rates can be deceiving. While there are more guns generally, fewer households own them, and certain individuals can have many of them:
* https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-dem...
Gun ownership appears to be becoming a bit of a minority activity.
Most mass shootings appear to be done by white males.
Tools and technology are not neutral. Their invention and availability effect and change human behaviour. See Marshal McLuhan:
Certain "tools" enable for mass killings, and killing is certainly the only thing they are designed for.
Criminals and people with mental issues may get their hands on an AR-15, but it would definitely be harder for them to do so if they are not available to the general public.
And we could do both. We could take care of people with mental illnesses, while not allowing them to carry semi-automatic rifles.
I would say that the ability to spray bullets in front of several people, makes them deadlier.
The Las Vegas massacre wouldn't have happened if it weren't for it.
It means that, evidently, one could shoot more people with a semi-automatic rifle than with a handgun.
> ... but the Las Vegas massacre didn't happen in a school or grocery store so it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
It's irrelevant only if you think that gun violence has a larger impact than gun killings. In my original comment, I argued about gun killings.
It's not. Most people in America, especially young voters in city centers, are incredibly inept regarding guns, gun laws, and gun culture. If you can't see the propaganda campaign, I don't know what to tell you.
Okay? Not sure what you're getting at here.
> It's a cop out because you should not need to have gun proficiency in order to have a valid opinion on guns.
It's not a cop out. There are too many leading with arrogance and ignorance on gun control, and a vast majority of them are folks who have never gone near a gun in their life. Keep thinking that it's informed voting to understand absolutely nothing about gun laws and gun culture but _demand_ that it change. That's a terrible policy no matter the subject.
People aren't suggesting how to improve your timing or how to hit the ten ring, which you might rightfully say should only be done by people with gun experience... they're trying to keep people from getting shot. Their opinions matter.
> There are too many leading with arrogance and ignorance on gun control, and a vast majority of them are folks who have never gone near a gun in their life.
So what? Most politicians have never murdered people. Would you suggest they're unable to suggest ways to regulate murder?
> Keep thinking that it's informed voting to understand absolutely nothing about gun laws and gun culture but _demand_ that it change.
In what universe does being proficient with a gun equate with understanding gun laws? You don't go to law school when you're taking beginner pistol courses or getting your LTC. This is just pointless gatekeeping.
Implying those buying guns are trying to get people shot...? Bold strategy.
Now _that_ is a ridiculous strawman. The only implication is that all people are subject to the absurd risk of gun violence in this country and that their proficiency with weapons has nothing to do with the validity of their opinions on solutions to that problem.
Culture? Come on now.
I completely agree that states need better care for the mentally ill. The current trend of affirmative treatment, both medical and psychological, is extremely damaging to patients and society. Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong.
Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off.
> There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States.
There is no other country in the developed world where gun violence is such a grave endemic problem. So, no, you cannot compare the US to any other country in the world in this regard.
> Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong.
Right, so there be more rules, then.
It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand?
Frame the tool argument however you like. At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns?
So "shall not be infringed" is strong language, but "well regulated militia" is not.
> At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America.
Let me be frank: this is because a very vocal minority doesn't want to give up their toys. You cannot convince me that people with 10+ guns are out there because they want to take up arms against a tyrannic government. They like their guns the same way they could like cars, or Lego.
> A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns?
There is no way a majority of gun owners would go to war over this, I guarantee you that, and of those who say they would, I bet that the majority are just LARPers with too much free time.
You think that once we get rid of half a billion guns in America somehow (lol) the criminals won't be able to get them anymore. How do you explain continued criminal access to guns in very restricted parts of the world, like Europe or Australia? If your solution has leaks like that, it's not a solution.
It would definitely be _harder_ for them.
The latest school shooter bought a rifle from an officially sanctioned store. Others just went to gun conventions and bought them from other individuals.
> How do you explain continued criminal access to guns in very restricted parts of the world, like Europe or Australia?
I'll explain it by the fact that shootings are extremely rare, and mass shootings are almost unheard of.
> If your solution has leaks like that, it's not a solution.
This is akin to saying that if a medical treatment doesn't have a 100% efficacy, it shouldn't be considered. Well, it is just not how it works.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tpfv9318.pdf
"Victims used a firearm to threaten or attack the offender in 2% (166,900) of all nonfatal violent victimizations"
That's from 2014 to 2018, so divide by 4 for a yearly number. Either way tens of thousands of people successfully defend themselves with a firearm every year. I'd wager they'd argue our "barbaric" policies have some benefits.
* https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gu...
And while defensive gun use (DGU) has been recorded as happening, what other things happen when a gun is around? At least one study found you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively:
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
And that doesn't count things awful things happening to kids:
* https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-acce...
Having a gun around has a 'cost' that may not be worth the purported benefits.
The Philadelphia study is interesting, but I'd note that the discussion and study limitations sections somewhat undermines the attention-grabbing headline, as well as the Conceptual Frameworks and Variables Section:
"Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument or 1-sided attacks where a victim was face-to-face with an offender who had targeted him or her for money, drugs, or property. Case participants with at least some chance to resist were in contrast to those that happened very suddenly, involved substantial distances, had no face-to-face contact, and had physical barriers between victim and shooter (e.g., an otherwise uninvolved victim shot in his living room from a gun fired during a fight down the street)"
So yeah, if you knowingly engage in violent, armed confrontation or an armed attacker has the jump on you and you escalate because you have a firearm, you're more likely to get shot. That's just common sense, a gun a not a force-field. Also 82.21% of the assaults with a chance to resist took place outdoors, so this data is bias against incidents that happen in the home.
I'd say this study doesn't really support the broad assertion that "you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively". The devil is as always in the details of the situation.
Many of these statistical studies fall into the trap of being technically correct but broadly inapplicable. Technically speaking you're more likely to drive drunk if you keep alcohol in the house and own a car. But on an individual level one can keep alcohol in the house, own a car and have near-zero chance of driving drunk.
As for the third article, I'm all for safe ownership requirements. Quick access gun safes are readily available and even the cheap, easiest to break-open ones will do the job of keeping clueless children away. As a gun owner with a young child myself all my guns are locked up, and the only loaded gun is in a quick-access safe and cable-locked to furniture. If you can afford a $100+ handgun, there's no excuse for not affording a $50+ quick access safe.
Now, people with declining mental health start using vehicles to commit mass murders. Do we ban cars? Do we ban access to cars? Do you see the problem?
Just solve the mental health crisis. Then we don't need to have 9000 prohibitions along the way.
As to crimimals and gun, at least for mass shooters - 77% of mass shooters obtained their guns legally [1]
As to the effectiveness of a ban- In 1996 there was a school shooting in Dunbane (uk) that led to 16 deaths. Stricter laws were enacted next year Most handguns were made illegal in 1997.
Later "According to data compiled by the University of Sydney’s GunPolicy.org, the U.K.’s annual rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people was 0.2 in 2015, versus the United States’ rate of 12.09."[2]
Maybe it would take longer here, maybe it wouldn't be as effective but we know laws don't stop 100% of the crime but it helps
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/us/p...
[2]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-1996-dunblane-mas...
So, we're just going to make a bunch of law abiding citizens criminals overnight? Do tell more about this utopian plan.
Maybe they should just make murder illegal-er, if you still think _laws_ have any bearing on the matter.
Perfect mental health care will not make everyone's mental health perfect, in much the same way that perfect health care will not stop people dying.
It feels like a serious mental health crisis, spurred on by media saturation psychosis. Turning the country into the equivalent of a padded room will not address the root problems of why our society is very sick.
I expected more from the article when it started framing things statistically. It had the right paradigm to look at many factors, and ponder whether they could be causal. But nope, it was easier to parrot the simplistic party line solution that circles the wagons of one political team while increasing polarization with the other.
And it goes for both sides. I can't even discuss abortion in a nuanced way, because I am expected to have opinion A and it cannot deviate an inch from its supporter.
But I agree with you in principle, everything should be on the table. That is how normal people deal with issues.
Look at what happened to mental health during the pandemic. There were very little resources for those that needed them most.
Downvote and flag me all you want, but gun control isn't going to stop these from happening in a country with more guns than people. Period.
Start focusing on the mental health problem in earnest, the alternative is more of the same.
You mean the insanity of giving anyone that wants one a weapon that can easily murder dozens of people at a whim? Yes. That is insanity. There is no reason whatsoever that anyone needs weapons like.