I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet - suicides Many folks commit succesful suicides because of guns. Many men, with families, jobs and seemingly stable lives and lots of stress kill themselves with guns. These aren't people with histories of mental illness, they're people going through a tough time. there is no way to screen for these people before a sale of a gun because it may happen later in life. Without the guns, these suicides would only be attempts (other common ways of suicide aren't nearly as efficient) and these folks can be reached in time and hopefully receive the help they need. You can come back from an attempt and never try it again. Myself and many friends have all come back from it because there were no firearms involved. Asking for a restriction on the sale of firearms or a complete ban is a compassionate thing to do in relation to suicides or even second degree/emotion driven killings. As there is a mass overlap in the christian and gun using groups, maybe they should consider this compassionate action.
On the Australia comments, we had a few mass murders before Port Arthur and John Howard's gun laws. Since then we have had a few mass murders, the difference being that the killers used fire, knives, hammers etc. There has been a number of studies that argue that the gun laws have not affected gun death rates as they were already in decline at a similar rate before this. It's also been argued that there are now more guns in civilian hands than there was before the ban, and gun crime has still gone down. This rarely gets brought up in the news. Its fairly easy to get rifles here (bolt, lever, black powder etc) once you have your licence which doesn't take long, but semi automatic guns are restricted to special licences. Hand guns are also fairly easy to get, but it takes around 9 months to go from joining a club to getting a gun, and they can only be legally used at the gun range. The Parramatta shooting has been getting a lot of attention lately because he was only 15 which means he can't legally get a gun, and he appears to have been radicalised recently. The lindt cafe siege gunman used a sawn off pump action shotgun which is already restricted and had no licence, so gun laws had no effect on him either. There was also a report on the news that home made shotguns are being used by some of the crime gangs in Melbourne. Because Port Arthur's 20 year anniversary is coming up next year there is a review of gun laws going on at the moment which is bringing the anti gun groups out making claims on TV, including some that are completely wrong. Personally I think our gun laws are fine, they are less restrictive than England allowing people to hunt and enter shooting comps, but far more so than America not allowing guns for protection.
The gun studies I mentioned in the last post suggested that men had switched to hanging for suicides rather than guns, and that it was hard to draw conclusions on this because suicide prevention programs had been put in place since the mid 90's. This is for Australia only of course.
It's also worthy of note that, because the general populace do not have access to firearms, criminals do not feel the need to carry firearms in order to carry out their crimes. Firearms are generally used against other criminals, not the general population.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/11-...th-a-shotgun-after-dispute-over-puppy-police/ "An 11-year-old Tennessee boy has been*charged with first-degree murderin the shooting death of an 8-year-old neighbor girl." Another symptom of the same problem.
Yeah. Some of the shooting deaths I can recall were casualties when one set of crims shot at another set and caught someone in the cross fire (there was a that Rhys Jones kid in Liverpool for example). There's no point using a gun to commit a crime (if you can get hold of one) if you can commit the same crime with a knife or just sheer intimidation. If you get caught the punishment will be much harsher.
The change in suicide method is interesting. Attempted hangings probably aren't counted into the stats and I'm willing to bet that there are more attempted hangings than attempted gun suicides because you can be rescued from a hanging. Its interesting because you have people who have repeated suicide attempts and their lives will likely end in suicide but people with singular suicide attempts might go on to live completely normal lives. Having access to a gun makes the attempt more permanent than another method of attempt (pills, exsanguination, hanging etc) and therefore a single attempt leads to a loss of a life that could have been spared.
My own American perspective here: we have a fairly comprehensive list of "rights" (see the "Bill of Rights" at the federal and state levels) that we retain. Part of the trade off is that, based on Supreme Court rulings and constitutional interpretation, all of those rights have some sort of 'reasonable' restrictions that are allowed. (For example, read up on the ruling of Schenck v US for reasonable restrictions on free speech). In the case of owning firearms, the interpretation is that individual citizens have the right to own them, but that reasonable restrictions may be imposed. The basic idea is to prevent gun ownership from people who may abuse it, e.g. mental health issues, prior felony convictions, history of violence, age, etc. To have a handgun in NY State, you have to apply for a permit, have a federal background check done, and a bunch of other things. It is time consuming and can be difficult. I put myself in the category of 'citizen who meets the requirements of firearms ownership" as opposed to someone who shouldn't. Yes, it is a form of 'division', but it is done under the auspices of 'reasonable restrictions' on a right. To go along with your second part of the post, I really have no power over the federal (or state governments) in restricting gun ownership. My perspective is very practical - under the current laws and qualifications, I can legally possess firearms. As long as I can do so, I will... whether it is for target shooting, to augment my range of self defense options, or merely to exercise my right to own one. If the people of the US and their representatives choose to add restrictions (through due process of law), I will abide by those laws. Until then, I am exercising my right and am qualified to do so.
Something I've wondered about this is while I appreciate the US has the Senate and Congress and all that happy fun fillibustery stuff, the President can bypass all of it right? So if this was deemed a big enough issue what's stopping Obama introducing stricter control through an executive order? I assume it has something to do with the constitution and in practice would lead to riots and an impeachment, but why?
Anything passed would still have to pass through the Supreme Court (who job it is to interpret the Constitution) - given the current makeup, I don't see that they would allow for much change. (See Heller v Washington DC for an example that isn't too old and that applies to a lot of the cases today). Also, politics are more nuanced than they may appear - even though Republicans tend be more conservative on gun issues, so are some Democrats (depending on where they are from) - large changes could set off a very difficult time in getting re-elected and in raising money. Any changes proposed will really need bi-partisan support and will need to be 'reasonable' enough to get Supreme Court support.
I slightly disagree. If someone really wanted to kill themselves, they will find the means Mod-please delete
I slightly disagree. If someone really wanted to kill themselves, they will find the means But that is for law-abiding Citizens The point people keep missing, is the gun is used by criminal intent You can have more laws and restrictions, but these will not be followed by the criminal element New York still has gun violence/murder
But there's two counters to that: 1. As someone rightly pointed out earlier, if criminals don't expect to routinely come up against guns themselves they'd be less likely to arm themselves. Interviews with muggers have had them say they used a knife over a gun or empty hands over a knife because of the extra sentence if you get caught with the more serious weapon. 2. There's a million and one ways for criminals to get hold of guns because of their proliferation. If I can break into, say, one in every 5 homes and expect to find a gun that's easier than if there's one in every 20. To steal again from Jim Jeffries, there's also the increase in prices when guns are harder to get a hold of. I'm going to take a stab that buying a gun from a dodgy person is a damn sight easier and cheaper in the US than in the UK or Australia or Canada. I've seen people saying this about this shooting with how Chicago having tight gun laws and still having a shooting is a sign it doesn't work. The US has what? 52 states? One state having good restrictions doesn't make gun crime impossible if I can drive two hours across a state line and get one from WalMart.
That's missing the point. Many people go through suicidal phases in their life. Most come out the other side. Access to firearms make it easier to act on a whim, and less likely that you will survive. And law abiding citizens never make bad decisions, or act in the heat of the moment?
So does the UK. No one has ever said that gun control completely removes gun related violence and death. And again with the divisions..."criminals/non criminals". There's no test that can reliably divide people in that way. There are countless examples of killers that had no criminal record and were apparently "normal" before committing some sort of killing. Because as I said earlier...people are people. There are spectrums of behaviour and tendencies. You can either trust "people" (not us as individuals but as a group) to have access to death dealing tools or you can't. I don't think people can be trusted with that access and I'd say the level of gun related death in the US bears that out.
More on guns and suicide: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
I agree, a firearm "makes it easier", but according to one LEO I spoke with, females rarely use the firearm as they "may" not like the mess. Many use drugs, etc., so I was told As I stated somewhere, the purchase or ownership of the firearm in many cases, was years before the mis-use. So, indeed, a law abiding citizens never make bad decisions, or act in the heat of the moment...but that would no longer make them " law abiding " But, if you were to look at US history, i.e. the Wild West, gun violence is part of the culture which will never be abolished
