The odds of dying in one of these mass shooting incidents in the US are infinitesimally small. These incidents are the price of freedom, and I'm sad to hear the Aussies are no longer willing to pay it.
One interesting thing that I read recently is that the extremely high rate of firearm murder in America is largely inflicted by and on impoverished black males living in urban areas. If you eliminate those cases/areas from the picture, things are not all that different in America from Europe. You have a higher chance of getting stabbed by a chav in London than you do of getting shot in suburban America.
Of course, there are occasional mass murder incidents (which make the news). But given that most mass murderers are white and have mental problems, mental healthcare reform would take care of those cases that do occur outside of urban areas.
As for the high rate of firearm homicide in urban/black areas, that has more to do with the endemic problems in contemporary African American culture than anything else, and will require a much more comprehensive social policy to correct.
You aren't supposed to talk about that.
There's no need to punish law-abiding Americans who responsibly own and use firearms under existing laws while maintaining a firearm homicide rate that is similar to that in Europe.
[1] Philip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research in Brief 6-7 (May 1997).
[2] Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2008 – Statistical Tables.
I do object to blanket bans of semi-automatic assault weapons, however, or the restriction of concealed carry permits.
0: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unth...
http://progun.ph/sites/default/files/jamaica-murder-rate-197...
That's a dishonest and misleading comparison. You're taking 2 regions (USA & Western Europe) and then removing unhelpful numbers from the USA side and comparing it with W. Europe.
By ignoring this fact, you pin the problem on the presence of guns when in fact there's a much deeper problem in society that, if solved, would bring firearm homicides down to the levels in Europe without banning any more types of guns. It also ignores the fact that banning guns would do nothing to stop those who are committing most of the firearm homicides from obtaining guns, since those people are already in the very business of smuggling in another illicit object into the country.
If you think Europe lacks violence, I suggest you read a 20th century history book. For example, there have been organised, government promoted genocides in Europe after the Linux kernel was first released.
You speak in the present tense ("lackS"), yet you refer to the 20th century, which ended more than a decade ago. I think you are more than a little confused.
> For example, there have been organised, government promoted genocides in Europe after the Linux kernel was first released.
Please name one country in Western or Northern Europe that has had a "government promoted genocide" since the beginning of the 21st century.
The specific genocide I was talking about was the Bosnian Genocide in the 90s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide
This is certainly not true. The incidence of violent crime in the UK is far higher than in the US. It's just the murder rate in the US is higher.
http://ace.mu.nu/Windows-Live-Writer/Overnight-_D7F6/The-mos...
The rate in the US is 470, which puts us below the bottom of the list. That dichotomy probably does have something to do with guns - breaking and entering is far more dangerous in the US than it is in the UK.
It is and it isn't when you're talking about policy prescriptions. I don't see why my ability to own a firearm should be restricted because people in other demographics can't use them responsibly.
This is absolutely not true. There are plenty of places with standing armies (i.e. pretty much all eligible males have guns in their homes) and don't have anything remotely like the gun murder rate of the US.
Micheal Moore made "Bowling for Columbine" to prove that the reason for the violence was guns themselves. By the end of the his movie, he didn't seem to believe it anymore himself.
As I noted in my comment and you apparently failed to understand, mass murders (primarily committed by mentally unbalanced white males) are statistically insignificant compared to the murders committed by and on young poor black urban males on a daily basis. The countries you're comparing the US to here, like Israel and Switzerland, do not have that self-destructive and violent subculture. That is why the US has more firearm homicides per capita than both countries with high rates of gun ownership (like Israel and Switzerland) and those with strict gun controls (like Japan and England).
Neither stricter gun control laws nor looser gun control laws will do much to move the needle on the US statistics because the bulk of murders are committed by and on individuals in a community that systematically ignores the law in the first place. Solving that problem will require a comprehensive social policy that will dismantle large aspects of contemporary African American culture. Unfortunately, it seems that any such suggestions would be political suicide, and therefore are avoided by all politicians.
Eliminating mass murders (which, while currently statistically insignificant, should still be targeted), OTOH, would best be accomplished by providing comprehensive and free asylum-based care to the basket cases that commit such atrocities. Parents should not be allowed to overrule the judgment of medical professionals in such situations.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that eliminating the sales of guns without background checks (such as at gun shows) needs to end right now, as it is a no-brainer.
Exactly, so why were you arguing that gun control is the solution?
>Of course, none of this changes the fact that eliminating the sales of guns without background checks (such as at gun shows) needs to end right now, as it is a no-brainer.
Where in the US can you buy a gun without a background check? I've been away for a while but I was under the impression that this was the norm if you bought from a store (obviously not enforced in private sales, but then the seller better hope the buyer doesn't kill anyone).
Because preventing ex-felons and mentally deranged people from buying guns (well, anyone who hasn't had a background check done) is an effective form of gun control.
> Where in the US can you buy a gun without a background check?
40% of gun sales occur at gun shows, where no background checks are performed.
Of course there are some states, like California, that don't allow sales between private parties.
> Because preventing ex-felons and mentally deranged people from buying guns (well, anyone who hasn't had a background check done) is an effective form of gun control.
"Concrete isn't edible."
"I know, but limestome-based concrete is the most nutritious kind."
You're confusing standing armies and militias/reserves. A standing army is a group of people who are in the army as an occupation.
You are right that the prevalence of gun ownership isn't the whole story. Certainly part of it is cultural. But for now, in this time and in the current state of the US, these incidents really are the price we pay for freedom.
It's not the occupation. They're normal citizens that periodically do military training and are expected to be ready at all times should an attack happen. That means having weapons and ammo at home.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...
I'm not suggesting that we not implement an improved background check process. I'm suggesting that we not start banning semi-automatic assault weapons all of a sudden in order to win some political points over the recent spate of shootings.
That statistic is misleading and ignores the elephant in the room: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4931177
Ironically, this is exactly what you're suggesting. Word for word.
The point he's making is that there are qualitative distinctions within the data that demand their own discrete analysis. What's misleading here is ignoring distinctions in the data in order to falsely posit a uniform source of causality.
That may be so, but things change. If it becomes a "totalitarial" oppressive regime your options will be more limited than mine.