It Never Ends

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I think it's a combination of both.

I do not think the average citizen needs to own a gun which can shoot off 100s of bullets in a matter of less than 5 minutes. If mental illness is the root of the problem then we don't need the mentally I'll to be able to get access to that kind of firepower.

I also think we need to figure out why the first response for many people today is violence. Is it mental illness? If so, why does there seem to be so much more of a frequent occurrence of this violent response from the mentally ill? Yes there have been these kind of "mass" shootings in the past but they seem to be occurring with more regularity in recent years.

Is it the sense of entitlement and expectation that children are being raised with these days? Is it the protecting of children from ever being disappointed so that when something doesn't go their way they lash out like this? I live about 15 minutes from the town where a high school student slashed a girl's throat and killed her because she refused his prom invitation. How are we raising children who think this is an appropriate reaction to a refused date? Are all these kids mentally I'll? If so, why are there suddenly so many more mentally ill teens and young adults?

Somehow society, parents or some combination of the two is screwing up.

I don't believe limiting what the average citizen can own will do much if anything at all to limit criminal/insane people from doing damage if they so decide. It's quicker to just drop your firearm and grab a new preloaded firearm than it is to load another magazine into one firearm. Plus the 2 in Vegas could have easily taken the police weapons after shooting them just like the Navy yard shooter, therefore giving them access to non-citizen firearms.

I agree it's boggling that someone can kill another person over a denied prom request. I'm not a mental health expert so I can't comment on this much other than it does seem like their are more people with some sort of disorder, who are then put on medication, than I think need it. As to parenting I do live in a poorer neighborhood and a lot a stealing, drug use, and other petty crime happens on a regular basis. In my personal experience it's the parents, around here they just excuse all their children's bad habits. I heard one comment when confronted about his grandson going onto someone's property and stealing scrap metal that "they shouldn't leave it lying around." It's hard to combat that mentality.

 

[Colleen27]

We have 11 million PEOPLE in this country who didn't get stopped at the border. The notion that we could prevent illegal importation of firearms is short-sighted at best.

And yes while all illegal guns began from some legal source, the fact remains that crime is lower where that legal source exists. Which tells us that guns aren't really causing the issues.

Well, no. It doesn't. It tells us there is a correlation, but isn't enough to establish causation. And you have to cherry pick your examples even to back that up - Michigan has relatively lax gun laws yet Detroit remains at or near the top of most crime statistics, but only Chicago and Washington DC tend to come up in conversations about the effect of gun laws on crime.

What we do know, from looking at our counterparts elsewhere in the developed world, is that gun violence is dramatically reduced when guns are less prolific in the hands of the civilian public. Yet we seem to think that the answer to gun violence in this country is to arm more people in more situations with fewer regulations and less control.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Well, no. It doesn't. It tells us there is a correlation, but isn't enough to establish causation. And you have to cherry pick your examples even to back that up - Michigan has relatively lax gun laws yet Detroit remains at or near the top of most crime statistics, but only Chicago and Washington DC tend to come up in conversations about the effect of gun laws on crime.

What we do know, from looking at our counterparts elsewhere in the developed world, is that gun violence is dramatically reduced when guns are less prolific in the hands of the civilian public. Yet we seem to think that the answer to gun violence in this country is to arm more people in more situations with fewer regulations and less control.

On the first, you're missing the point. The rules for guns are much stricter in Chicago than the rest of IL, yet the rest of the state has fewer problems. If the existence of guns CAUSED the problem, quite obviously those places with easiest access would have the most problems. Yet, that is not the case. And it's interesting that you bring up Detroit as I'm sure you're aware the police there are encouraging firearm ownership in an effort to bring crime rates down.

As to the latter, now you're the one cherry picking. People always want to talk about the UK, but ignore places like Finland where gun ownership has always been high, but violent crime low - lower than the UK as a matter of fact.


Even just comparing London to NYC, a couple generations ago, guns were WAY easier to obtain in London than NYC, yet NYC has always had more crime.

See, everyone likes to talk about the places that have banned guns (well, they don't want to talk about Mexico or Russia) as some giant success story. But, they ignore one very simple & important fact. These places once had easy access to guns but VERY little gun crime. In fact, gun related crime, while still VERY low compared to the US, is actually UP in Australia now that the bans have been expanded.

But the point is a simple one. Banning guns didn't solve their "gun prolem" because they never had one to begin with.



Edit: and for the record, outside of some special circumstances, I don't believe MORE guns is a solution any more than more gun control would be. In most instances, I believe guns to be neither the problem, nor the solution. Violent crime is a socio-economic issue, not an inanimate object issue.

 

[Colleen27]

On the first, you're missing the point. The rules for guns are much stricter in Chicago than the rest of IL, yet the rest of the state has fewer problems. If the existence of guns CAUSED the problem, quite obviously those places with easiest access would have the most problems. Yet, that is not the case. And it's interesting that you bring up Detroit as I'm sure you're aware the police there are encouraging firearm ownership in an effort to bring crime rates down.

As to the latter, now you're the one cherry picking. People always want to talk about the UK, but ignore places like Finland where gun ownership has always been high, but violent crime low - lower than the UK as a matter of fact.


Even just comparing London to NYC, a couple generations ago, guns were WAY easier to obtain in London than NYC, yet NYC has always had more crime.

See, everyone likes to talk about the places that have banned guns (well, they don't want to talk about Mexico or Russia) as some giant success story. But, they ignore one very simple & important fact. These places once had easy access to guns but VERY little gun crime. In fact, gun related crime, while still VERY low compared to the US, is actually UP in Australia now that the bans have been expanded.

But the point is a simple one. Banning guns didn't solve their "gun prolem" because they never had one to begin with.



Edit: and for the record, outside of some special circumstances, I don't believe MORE guns is a solution any more than more gun control would be. In most instances, I believe guns to be neither the problem, nor the solution. Violent crime is a socio-economic issue, not an inanimate object issue.

Again, a ban in a city is meaningless. Anyone wanting a gun merely needs to hop in the car and take a short ride, so that ban never has a chance to have a before-the-fact effect. It is merely an add-on charge to more severely penalize gun crimes after the fact.

You don't have to limit the conversation to the UK to see the difference in gun crime rates in other nations - we have the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and the highest gun violence rate in the developed world. We're right there with Mexico, land of the cartels and complicit police and travel alerts warning people against visiting whole regions. And yes, I recognize that is a cultural issue - no other developed nation has our acceptance of widespread poverty and violence as just a part of life, and the stronger social safety net as well as the relatively more homogeneous populations of most of those nations have a lot to do with the disparity.

Yes, I'm aware of what is going on in Detroit and I think it is terribly wrong-headed. We've had two cases so far this year of people seeking help late at night being shot by fearful homeowners and another of a homeowner shooting up a neighbor's house when aiming for a fleeing burglar. And those are just the few I'm aware of, despite not watching local news. Joe Average simply doesn't have the training to safely use a firearm in defense of self and home, and thousands of guns are reported stolen by their legal owners every year. Increasing gun ownership can only increase that number.

I agree that violent crime is a socio-economic issue, but guns amplify the damage done by those committing violent crimes. Yes, other weapons can and have been employed in criminal acts but none offer the quick lethality of a firearm nor the relative safety that comes with the ability to fire from a distance. Our country lacks the social and political will to address the underlying causes of violent crime, so it only makes sense that the conversation must then turn to ways to minimize the damage it does.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Again, a ban in a city is meaningless. Anyone wanting a gun merely needs to hop in the car and take a short ride, so that ban never has a chance to have a before-the-fact effect. It is merely an add-on charge to more severely penalize gun crimes after the fact.

You don't have to limit the conversation to the UK to see the difference in gun crime rates in other nations - we have the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and the highest gun violence rate in the developed world. We're right there with Mexico, land of the cartels and complicit police and travel alerts warning people against visiting whole regions. And yes, I recognize that is a cultural issue - no other developed nation has our acceptance of widespread poverty and violence as just a part of life, and the stronger social safety net as well as the relatively more homogeneous populations of most of those nations have a lot to do with the disparity.

Yes, I'm aware of what is going on in Detroit and I think it is terribly wrong-headed. We've had two cases so far this year of people seeking help late at night being shot by fearful homeowners and another of a homeowner shooting up a neighbor's house when aiming for a fleeing burglar. And those are just the few I'm aware of, despite not watching local news. Joe Average simply doesn't have the training to safely use a firearm in defense of self and home, and thousands of guns are reported stolen by their legal owners every year. Increasing gun ownership can only increase that number.

I agree that violent crime is a socio-economic issue, but guns amplify the damage done by those committing violent crimes. Yes, other weapons can and have been employed in criminal acts but none offer the quick lethality of a firearm nor the relative safety that comes with the ability to fire from a distance. Our country lacks the social and political will to address the underlying causes of violent crime, so it only makes sense that the conversation must then turn to ways to minimize the damage it does.

Again, you ignore the point. Yes, the guns come from outside Chicago. But, why don't we see these same issues at the point of origin? I could drive 10 blocks and purchase a legal firearm in a matter of minutes. A criminal in Chicago can obviously get a gun, but nowhere NEAR as easily as me. So, why don't we have the same issues where I am? The county in which I live is awash in guns and our murder rate is 1 per 100,000 - roughly 1/10th that of Chicago.

And yes, we have the highest gun ownership in the developed World & the highest death rate. But, again that is short-sighted to draw conclusions from that alone. Other nations have ownership rates of roughly 75% of ours, but death rates that are so low they aren't even a stat.

Out another way, take 3 groups of 1,000,000 people each.

Group A has 500,000 guns. Group B has 250,000 guns. Group C has no guns.
Group A has 250 murders. Group B has 3 murders. Group C has 10 murders.

Can we really credit Group B's success to a lower rate if firearm ownership?

And while we lack the tools and fortitude to tackle out social ills any other way, a ban on guns would be useless. Because the only effective gun control would be to take them ALL. And that will never happen. Even if we repealed the 2nd Amendment, you cannot legislate 300,000,000 guns out of existence.

I do agree with many of your assertions regarding the roots of our social ills though.

 

[Jennasis]

If gun ownership in Finland is high and violent gun crime low, my question is WHY? What are they doing right that we aren't?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

If gun ownership in Finland is high and violent gun crime low, my question is WHY? What are they doing right that we aren't?

PP touched on a lot of it, homogenous society, different social programs, different schooling. They are also fairly well isolated from the 3rd World issues where we aren't.

Much of the Middle East is also home to high rates of gun ownership with low crime. But, those are in many cases very oppressive governments. So, not sure how much of that we want to copy.

 

[robinb]

If gun ownership in Finland is high and violent gun crime low, my question is WHY? What are they doing right that we aren't?

According to Wikipedia (I know that Wikipedia is not always 100% correct):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

* Each firearm purchase requires an acquisition license.
* Firearms must be locked up or separated into pieces when not in use.
* If 5 or more firearms are owned they must be locked in a certified gun safe or in a secure space which is inspected by local authorities.
* Guns may be carried only when transported from their secure location to place of use and must be unloaded.
* Only law enforcement, military and certain security guards may carry a loaded gun in public.
* A prospective gun own must have a valid reason to obtain a license to purchase a gun and they must prove that reason. Self defense is not considered a valid reason.
* Applicants are subject to rigorous background checks. Speeding and drunk driving may be held against them.
* Possession of automatic weapons is prohibited.
* Collectors may own firearms that are usually restricted for general ownership through special licensing.
* Possessing a firearm without a license is a punishable offense. People may turn in their unlicensed firearms without repercussions.
* Gun licenses may be invalidated for crimes (both violent and non violent), breaking license rules, mental and physical problems and reckless behaviors.
* Certain types of ammunition requires a special license.

It seems to be that Finland tries to make sure that all gun owners are responsible gun owners. They must be responsible before obtaining a gun and they must continue to be responsible to continue to own that gun. In addition, they are not allowed to carry loaded gun or (for most people) own automatic weapons. I think THAT is what they are doing RIGHT.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

According to Wikipedia (I know that Wikipedia is not always 100% correct):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

* Each firearm purchase requires an acquisition license.
* Firearms must be locked up or separated into pieces when not in use.
* If 5 or more firearms are owned they must be locked in a certified gun safe or in a secure space which is inspected by local authorities.
* Guns may be carried only when transported from their secure location to place of use and must be unloaded.
* Only law enforcement, military and certain security guards may carry a loaded gun in public.
* A prospective gun own must have a valid reason to obtain a license to purchase a gun and they must prove that reason. Self defense is not considered a valid reason.
* Applicants are subject to rigorous background checks. Speeding and drunk driving may be held against them.
* Possession of automatic weapons is prohibited.
* Collectors may own firearms that are usually restricted for general ownership through special licensing.
* Possessing a firearm without a license is a punishable offense. People may turn in their unlicensed firearms without repercussions.
* Gun licenses may be invalidated for crimes (both violent and non violent), breaking license rules, mental and physical problems and reckless behaviors.
* Certain types of ammunition requires a special license.

It seems to be that Finland tries to make sure that all gun owners are responsible gun owners. They must be responsible before obtaining a gun and they must continue to be responsible to continue to own that gun. In addition, they are not allowed to carry loaded gun or (for most people) own automatic weapons. I think THAT is what they are doing RIGHT.

For the record, you cannot purchase automatic firearms retail in the US. They've required a special permit since 1934 and sale of all new ones was halted in 1986.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/index.html

CNN says the 74 school shootings is really only 15.

 

[robinb]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/index.html

CNN says the 74 school shootings is really only 15.

Only 15! Well, that's OK then!

 

[mommasita]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/index.html

CNN says the 74 school shootings is really only 15.

and that is ok? The average of one every 5 weeks????????????????????

and the rest is for drugs and other reasons, so still school shootings, if you read the whole article.. ONE school shooting, is one too many..

Perhaps you should re think your justification..

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

and that is ok? The average of one every 5 weeks????????????????????

and the rest is for drugs and other reasons, so still school shootings, if you read the whole article.. ONE school shooting, is one too many..

Perhaps you should re think your justification..

What justification do you need me to rethink?

What part of my post makes you think I didn't read the article?

I posted a link to an article that corrected previously posted mis-information.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Only 15! Well, that's OK then!

Your right 74 would have been better for those wanting more gun control.

 

[EMode]

What justification do you need me to rethink?

What part of my post makes you think I didn't read the article?

I posted a link to an article that corrected previously posted mis-information.

Oh come on, you know by posting that info you are in fact justifying school shootings. It couldn't possibly be that you are just sharing some info. And shame on CNN for even reporting such news

 

[sunshinehighway]

According to Wikipedia (I know that Wikipedia is not always 100% correct):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

* Each firearm purchase requires an acquisition license.
* Firearms must be locked up or separated into pieces when not in use.
* If 5 or more firearms are owned they must be locked in a certified gun safe or in a secure space which is inspected by local authorities.
* Guns may be carried only when transported from their secure location to place of use and must be unloaded.
* Only law enforcement, military and certain security guards may carry a loaded gun in public.
* A prospective gun own must have a valid reason to obtain a license to purchase a gun and they must prove that reason. Self defense is not considered a valid reason.
* Applicants are subject to rigorous background checks. Speeding and drunk driving may be held against them.
* Possession of automatic weapons is prohibited.
* Collectors may own firearms that are usually restricted for general ownership through special licensing.
* Possessing a firearm without a license is a punishable offense. People may turn in their unlicensed firearms without repercussions.
* Gun licenses may be invalidated for crimes (both violent and non violent), breaking license rules, mental and physical problems and reckless behaviors.
* Certain types of ammunition requires a special license.

It seems to be that Finland tries to make sure that all gun owners are responsible gun owners. They must be responsible before obtaining a gun and they must continue to be responsible to continue to own that gun. In addition, they are not allowed to carry loaded gun or (for most people) own automatic weapons. I think THAT is what they are doing RIGHT.

Although he used Finland as an example to attempt to prove a point, I'm betting Gumbo wouldn't really agree with these restrictions.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Oh come on, you know by posting that info you are in fact justifying school shootings. It couldn't possibly be that you are just sharing some info. And shame on CNN for even reporting such news

I'd like for you to point out how my statement somehow "justified school shootings". I'll give you a minute.

Your right that I'm not just sharing some info, I'm sharing the correct info.

And I applaud CNN for having the ethics to actually do their job and look into numbers instead of simply taking whatever talking points one lobbying group hands them.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Although he used Finland as an example to attempt to prove a point, I'm betting Gumbo wouldn't really agree with these restrictions.

Meh, some of them we ready have. Most of the others really have no impact on crime. I mean, if I have gun and I have ammo, and I want to do harm, no law requiring me to carry my gun unloaded would stop me from doing otherwise.

edit: I guess one might question why with so many opportunities to break these laws in Finland, it just doesn't happen. We can point to stats showing it's slightly harder to get a gun, and ownership is somewhat lower. But, crime is DRASTICALLY lower. The vast majority of the difference cannot be attributed to the differences in the laws.

The only real question is whether or not their background check is more strigent than ours, and I don't know that it is. We don't have background checks on private party sales of used guns here (ALL new guns have been sold with a background check for nearly 2 decades), but the vast majority of private sellers would run a check on their buyers were they even allowed to. The president could sign an EO today to open the background check up to private party sales and I would support that. I do not support registration.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

and that is ok? The average of one every 5 weeks????????????????????

and the rest is for drugs and other reasons, so still school shootings, if you read the whole article.. ONE school shooting, is one too many..

Perhaps you should re think your justification..

ONE is too many. We can all agree on that. The point is the source of the original stat has been proven to be a liar and we can't trust anything said source produces for public consumption.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Meh, some of them we ready have. Most of the others really have no impact on crime. I mean, if I have gun and I have ammo, and I want to do harm, no law requiring me to carry my gun unloaded would stop me from doing otherwise.

The only real question is whether or not their background check is more strigent than ours, and I don't know that it is. We don't have background checks on private party sales of used guns here (ALL new guns have been sold with a background check for nearly 2 decades), but the vast majority of private sellers would run a check on their buyers were they even allowed to. The president could sign an EO today to open the background check up to private party sales and I would support that. I do not support registration.

You can't use something as an example to support your point and then ignore the things that don't fit.

You brought up Finland as a country with high gun owner ship and low crime. Great, but when you really look at it (if the info posted is accurate), they do have restrictions and it appears somewhat harder to not only obtain a gun, but keep a gun. You want to use them to support your point but dismiss the fact that their laws are designed to keep gun ownership in check and keep the owners responsible and appear to do that given the low crime.