I have read the thread about the Colorado shootings. I enjoyed the interesting posts. I would like to go in a different direction. Everyone is a LEO or someone who supports LEO's. I would like to get everyones thoughts on this aspect of things.

There are people out there using this tragedy as a platform for gun control and the banning of automatic weapons. I personally do not understand why any person would need to purchase a AK47.  My intent is not to discuss the second amendment in this thread, however I do not want the government telling me what I can and cannot purchase. If we go down this road....

Then the same people who want to ban weapons and sue the gun manufacturers will end up banning forks and suing Little Debbie to fight the obesity issues in this country. I do not get the connection between banning guns and saving lives. More people die in automobile accidents in this country each year and yet they are not trying to ban cars.  Thoughts?

Since Holmes AR-15 promptly jammed, and He did virtually all his shooting with handguns and shotgun, debating the merits of assault rifle ban is of no value.  Had Holmes not been able to buy an AR-15, do you think this would have prevented this tradegy or would he have done it like Virginia Tech, just with handguns.

As I have heard said before having stricter gun laws won't work as it is illegal to commit murder and this individual (won't say his name) murdered 12 people and injured numerous others. As has also been said  before if guns were illegal he would have found another way to do it. This is ibvious this time as he tried to kill law enforcement at his apartment with bombs. I have told several people that if he did not have access to guns I think he would have gone with a bomb and either become a suicide bomber or just planted one and left. All he would have had to have done is put one in his backpack. In this case he has shown that he would have killed whether he had a gun or not.

Having strict gun control in Norway didn't do them a lot of good in 2011, when Breivik killed something like 69 and wounded many others, and I believe he also did the bomb that killed a dozen or so and wounded over 200.

In its entirety -  from mz66's 'doubt anyone read it' link to blogger Ezra Klein's article.  Replete with behemoth graphs Monster won't permit resizing.  You'll have to look closely at the source. 

Too bad Mexico isn't shown in the first graph.  Mexico's version of 'right to keep and bear arms' requires registration of all personal firearms with the Mexican army.  Most firearms above .22 caliber are categorized as 'military weapons'. You buy all your firearms at a government-owned store and ammunition purchase amounts are strictly limited.  There's a reason for all that...control.

Mexico's history of many bloody revolutions is probably still in the back of the minds of most of her politicians.  Years ago, at risk of arrest and imprisonment, you used to hear the sound of rifle reports all over town as the heads of  households fired a single round  into the air from his rifle at the stroke of midnight every New Year's Eve.  A little reminder from the people about revolution - "It could come back." 

Now that there's that pesky problem of drug-cartels terrorizing towns and running the show in a lot of places, they say you don't hear those reports.  

Felipe Calderon recently admonished the US to tighten gun control due to the flow of weapons into Mexico from the US.  Wonder what the average Mexican citizen thinks of gun control now their homes and public places have been overwhelmed by lawless terrorist gun thugs?

Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control


Posted by Ezra Klein on July 23, 2012 at 11:51 am


    Smaller Text Larger Text Text Size

    Print

    Reprints


    Share:

    More »


The aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado shootings has been thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”


Let’s be clear: This is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.


That said, it’s important to be clear about what Aurora is: A tragedy that may or may not tell us anything useful about the general trends in guns and violence in the United States. And so this post is about those trends, some of which may surprise you.


1. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.


Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, made this graph of “deaths due to assault” in the United States and other developed countries. We are a clear outlier.

America is far more violent than other developed nations, but the violence is declining.


As Healy writes, “The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the U.S. is than other OECD countries (except possibly Estonia and Mexico, not shown here), and (2) the degree of change—and recently, decline—there has been in the U.S. time series considered by itself.”


2. The South is the most violent region in the United States.


In a subsequent post, Healy drilled further into the numbers and looked at deaths due to assault in different regions of the country. Just as the United States is a clear outlier in the international context, the South is a clear outlier in the national context:

3. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.


“For all the attention given to America’s culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,” writes political scientist Patrick Egan. The decline is most evident on the General Social Survey, though it also shows up on polling from Gallup, as you can see on this graph:

The bottom line, Egan writes, is that “long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the United States. ”


4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.


The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different state., Citations here.


5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.


Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”


6. Gun control is not politically popular.


Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don’t. “The percentage in favor of making the laws governing the sale of firearms ‘more strict’ fell from 78% in 1990 to 62% in 1995, and 51% in 2007,” reports Gallup. “In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44% in favor of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.”

Cedardale says ...

The bottom line IMO.  People like Harris and Breivik find a way to accomplish their goals regardless of laws.

Not guaranteed, though. If we can make it more challenging for them to do so, that's a good first step...in my opinion.

I definitely acknowledge that not everyone should carry a gun, not everyone should have access to large amounts of ammunition, and not everyone should have access to assault weapons (whether they be semi auto or fully automatic). So I do acknowledge some types of restriction and control. For example, the day I believe convicted felons should be allowed to carry guns, is the day pigs fly out of my butt.

That being said, I am very pro second ammendment. It is my personal belief that a responsible citizen who goes through the appropriate steps (a.k.a. criminal background check, an IN DEPTH firearms course that actually teaches you something other than how to release the clip) should have every right to own, and carry a pistol on his person should he desire. I also see no problems with shotguns for home defense. Does that stance allow some people to have guns that shouldn't get them? Sure, some will always slip through the cracks. But it is my opinion that those who follow the steps and register their guns are usually law abiding citizens who, and the criminals are usually the ones who purchase them illegally.

Now of course I fully expect someone to point out that Holmes in fact purchased his weapons legally. I do agree that he shouldn't have been able to purchase the assault weapon and all of the ammo for it, but I don't think that this situation makes a good case for tighter gun control. Aside from his mother who claims she wasn't surprised, there was no indication (as of yet, anyway) that he was anything other than a normal citizen looking to excercise his second ammendment right.

No I don't think all citizens should purchase and carry weapons. Not everyone is suited to it, and many are not trained to a competent level to use them. But there are in fact some citizens who are trained well enough to carry and should. I have no intention of arguing whether or not a CCW permit holder could've have stopped holmes. But with a police response time of usually a couple minutes at least, I think the right citizens need to take their security and their safety (as well as that of their families) into their own hands.

CATMguy45 says ...

Felipe Calderon recently admonished the US to tighten gun control due to the flow of weapons into Mexico from the US.  Wonder what the average Mexican citizen thinks of gun control now their homes and public places have been overwhelmed by lawless terrorist gun thugs?

Not that I am trying to start a conspiracy theory, but I wonder how all these guns are getting transported from America to Mexico? I wonder if it this is not just another ploy to ask for tighter Gun control in America?

 

Maybe Felipe Calderon should worry more about the flow of guns from the Mexican army to the cartels.

 On the phone right now, so not gonna dig it up but, a couple days ago I saw a study that showed the U.K. has a violent crime rate involving knives that is twice as high as the violent crime rate involving guns in the U.S.

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil. And while the latter can not be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." Col. Jeff Cooper

And scjohnk- Excellent post.

Ladies and gentlemen, guns are out there. As they are already out there to think for one minute that banning a type of firearms, magazines of high capacity, or banning firearms completely is going to stop gun violence in this country you are sadly mistaken and very naive'. See, to get someone to give up their guns, if ever outlawed, would require them to "obey the law". By definition criminals do NOT obey the law. Therefore they will not give up their guns. All you will do is create more victims. You can choose to not believe this but you would be fooling yourself.

The only other thing I would like to say is, for God's sake, stop calling his rifle an "assault weapon". It was not. Again, by definition, and assault weapon must be a "select fire" weapon. That means it MUST be capable of automatic fire. His was not. It is a rifle, period. That is all I have to say about it so I now return you to you regularly scheduled debate.

DoubleT213 says ...

Ladies and gentlemen, guns are out there. As they are already out there to think for one minute that banning a type of firearms, magazines of high capacity, or banning firearms completely is going to stop gun violence in this country you are sadly mistaken and very naive'. See, to get someone to give up their guns, if ever outlawed, would require them to "obey the law". By definition criminals do NOT obey the law. Therefore they will not give up their guns. All you will do is create more victims. You can choose to not believe this but you would be fooling yourself.

The only other thing I would like to say is, for God's sake, stop calling his rifle an "assault weapon". It was not. Again, by definition, and assault weapon must be a "select fire" weapon. That means it MUST be capable of automatic fire. His was not. It is a rifle, period. That is all I have to say about it so I now return you to you regularly scheduled debate.

Pretty much sums things up nicely.

Cedardale says ...

If I remember correctly, in the virginia Tech. shooting the Glock 19 had the 'civilian' 10 round magazines, not the high capacity 17 round magazines tht can be purchased for it.  Not having high capacity mags. didn't seem to have much effect.

Really? How would you know it had no effect? I realize it gets numbing when so many people die, but are you claiming that no more people would've died if the Virginia Tech shooter had high capacity magazines?

 I wasn't aware of those arguments. I do think high capacity magazines make them more likely to acquire more kills in a shorter period of time.

Well, every case is different I imagine. In Colorado, it was reported that there was a steady stream of bullets with only a brief pause when the rifle jammed. I am not an expert, but it seems logical to me that any pause is an opportunity for the shooter to be disarmed (by tackling, if necessary) or for potential victims who are pinned down to escape, and that each additional pause (reload) is an additional opportunity. Also, it adds more instances where the shooter has to make the conscious decision: am I going to reload and kill more?