Mass Shootings in the US

If every firearm in the US had to have an ID card (as in some other countries) and owners had to be checked out and licensed then that would be a starting point ,if possession of an illegal firearm carried a minimum 5 year jail sentence then things may change for for the better.
The US needs to look at countries where firearms control works , theres no need to ban firearms anywhere and I would be very much against it but to have a free for all is ludicrous as US statistics show.
Overall a good concept, but the jail term as a deterrent is a waste of time in the reality of the US. The prisons are beyond over crowded and the gov’t wants less not more convicts, a five year sentence means nothing. The people who wish to own illegal weapons do not even remotely care if it is a 1 yr sentence or 25, they will still obtain them and use them regardless of the consequences. As long as Americans are scared shïtless of everything that goes bump in the dark or how shifty someone looks, their mentality towards guns will not change.
 
Overall a good concept, but the jail term as a deterrent is a waste of time in the reality of the US. The prisons are beyond over crowded and the gov’t wants less not more convicts, a five year sentence means nothing. The people who wish to own illegal weapons do not even remotely care if it is a 1 yr sentence or 25, they will still obtain them and use them regardless of the consequences. As long as Americans are scared shïtless of everything that goes bump in the dark or how shifty someone looks, their mentality towards guns will not change.
Well as they dont mind gassing crims maybe the gas chamber after two strikes of illegal firearms possession, save the tax payer a fortune as well.
 
Well as they dont mind gassing crims maybe the gas chamber after two strikes of illegal firearms possession, save the tax payer a fortune as well.
You just brought up a point in a round about way that points out a massive flaw in the US justice system. The death penalty differs from state to state, as does many firearm laws so it is not applied equally across the board. If all firearm laws fell under federal law, then maybe something can be done on the whole rather than in tiny pockets across the country.
 
note that in Canada and Switzerland (at that time) there were more guns per head of population than the USA. (and god knows how many guns in Germany lying around from the last war) Proving that it is not guns that kill people but people who kill people.

So the problem is not the guns but people.
Clearly it is US people.......
Time to remove the guns from the dangerous people?
Most deaths from firearms in the US are due to pistols. In Canada, there are lots of rifles and shotguns but relatively few pistols. There are few pistols partially because few people have reason to want one, but also because you have to show a good reason before you area allowed to buy one. If you are a member of a shooting club and want to shoot one at the range, you can buy a pistol but are only allowed to take it to a licensed range. Also, all pistols are registered so they can be traced.

This means that in Canada there are few pistols around, and those that are are tracked. That in turn means that there aren't many pistols in peoples' homes waiting to be stolen in a burglary and sold on the black market and it isn't easy to buy pistols for the purposes of selling on the black market. A major source of what black market pistols there are in Canada are ones smuggled in from the US where they are very readily available with few questions asked.

In the US however, it's easy to get pistols by simply stealing them in a burglary from people who bought one. They are a very attractive item for theft even if the burglar doesn't want one himself. They're small, compact, easy to carry off, and worth a lot more than something like a game console. There is a ready black market for them so the burglars can sell them on with few problems.

Studies in the US have shown that communities in the US with larger numbers of firearms tend to have higher burglary rates because burglars see guns as valuable loot and so have greater incentive to perform the burglary in the first place.
The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs Inducement
Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.
People who own many guns, who own guns for protection, carry guns regularly, and who store guns unsafely (this may have some relation to owning guns for protection) are more likely to have their guns stolen than other gun owners.
Whose guns are stolen? The epidemiology of Gun theft victims
We find that owning many guns, owning guns for protection, carrying guns, and storing guns unsafely are associated with having guns stolen. (...) Owning many guns appears to be a risk factor for gun theft, perhaps because burglars see firearms as loot, so more household guns may make a more attractive target ... Carrying guns may increase the potential exposure to gun theft, and storing guns unlocked should make it easier for a thief to steal the gun.
Guns from states with lax gun laws have much higher rates of theft of guns (e.g. the southern US accounts for 2/3rds of gun thefts), and some of these guns in turn end up in states with more strict guns laws. Effectively, states with lax gun laws "export" stolen guns to states with stricter gun laws.

Approximately 380,000 guns are stolen each year in the US (from above source). The majority of firearms stolen are pistols (from source below).
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf

The vast majority (90%) of firearms homicides in the US are committed with pistols, rather than rifles or shotguns.
Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

So there are many factors involved in this, and the details matter. Americans may perhaps be more violent than Canadians or Europeans, you can judge that for yourself as I am not going to take a position on that here. However, the means of conducting deadly violence are much more readily available in the US. Very importantly, it is very easy, as the figures show, for criminals to acquire pistols from legal gun owners by simply taking them from them.
 
So there are many factors involved in this, and the details matter. Americans may perhaps be more violent than Canadians or Europeans, you can judge that for yourself as I am not going to take a position on that here. However, the means of conducting deadly violence are much more readily available in the US. Very importantly, it is very easy, as the figures show, for criminals to acquire pistols from legal gun owners by simply taking them from them.
In many cases, homicides are committed by people who own guns legally. Battered women are eight times more likely to be killed by abusive partners if there is a gun in the house.

The majority of children killed by guns are not murdered by deranged school shooters. They are killed by other children who have gained access to loaded and unsecured firearms. Some time ago I read about a woman who was shot dead by her kid because her boyfriend left a loaded pistol on the floor of her car. The boyfriend is facing a maximum six month jail sentence so he wont even lose his gun licence.

Last time I looked, a toddler under five in America shoots somebody dead on average once per week. They normally kill themselves using a parent's pistol.

In fact, the majority of mass shootings in America are a result of a type of domestic violence the Americans call family annihilation. One parent shoots the entire family then kills themselves. Overall, a gun in the house is 40 times more likely to kill a family member than to kill an armed intruder in the USA.
 
In many cases, homicides are committed by people who own guns legally. Battered women are eight times more likely to be killed by abusive partners if there is a gun in the house.

The majority of children killed by guns are not murdered by deranged school shooters. They are killed by other children who have gained access to loaded and unsecured firearms. Some time ago I read about a woman who was shot dead by her kid because her boyfriend left a loaded pistol on the floor of her car. The boyfriend is facing a maximum six month jail sentence so he wont even lose his gun licence.

Last time I looked, a toddler under five in America shoots somebody dead on average once per week. They normally kill themselves using a parent's pistol.

In fact, the majority of mass shootings in America are a result of a type of domestic violence the Americans call family annihilation. One parent shoots the entire family then kills themselves. Overall, a gun in the house is 40 times more likely to kill a family member than to kill an armed intruder in the USA.
There are several points I was trying to get across. One is that 90% of firearms homicides in the US are committed using pistols. That would include many of the types of cases you are talking about.

That raises the question, are Americans naturally homicidal maniacs, or does the prevalence of pistols, many kept loaded for "self defence" purposes, simply make giving in to sudden impulse much easier?

When this question is asked, the common replies from Americans seem to be:

"It's just dark skinned drug dealers in the big city slums killing each other, exclude those and the US is very safe." Yet in a discussion in either this or the "America is strange" thread, it was revealed that Wyoming, the home of LJonesy, had a much higher murder rate than London, which many posters have assured us is a hot bed of crime and "diversity" (the two being equated in many peoples' minds). Wyoming is notable in having a small population, no very large cities, being a long way from anywhere else, and very lacking in "diversity". So why is the murder rate so high in Wyoming?

Another rationalization is "the criminals will always be able to get guns (pistols) anyway, so regulating them is pointless". As we've seen in my previous post, yes, they can get them, they just take them from the person who bought them legally. Despite all the bravado about "ain't nobody take'n muh gun except over muh dead body", criminals have few problems stealing hundreds of thousands of guns in burglaries each year.

Yet another is "I need a pistol to deter burglars". Yet as we have seen, guns don't appear to deter burglars, rather they seem to attract them as guns are seen as just more loot to steal and sell.

Another again is "the US is special because we have a 'gun culture' because we are all 'Old West' gunslingers'". This seems to be a product of Hollywood rather than history. From what we know about the "Old West", gun control regulations then were much more strict than they are today in many parts of the US and it was illegal to walk about town with a gun on your hip. Meanwhile in the 19th century in England, people did slip a pocket pistol into their overcoat if they were going to a dodgy part of town, but Hollywood didn't create an entire genre of movies about that.


This however doesn't mean that the existence of firearms is enough to explain everything. As many people will have pointed out, there are millions of legally held firearms in the UK, Canada, and many other countries which don't have the same rate of gun related violence. And you can own pistols in Canada, although the restrictions on them make them much less common.

What is different in these other countries is the attitude which doesn't start with the assumption that every mong should have a gun and they should be ready to shoot someone with it at a moment's notice. Instead, there is are barriers such as requiring the gun owner to take and pass a safety course before getting their FAC or PAL. Requirements such as those don't discourage people who are really serious about shooting about jumping through the hoops to acquire a gun. They do though discourage those who only want one because they saw it in a movie and now imagine themselves to be able to leap about heroically saving the beautiful girl from the terrorists but otherwise just leave it in their closet (often unlocked).

Requirements such as having to maintain a membership in a shooting club discourages people from owning pistols unless they are really serious about shooting them on a regular basis. If fewer people have pistols, fewer will be stolen and sold on to other criminals and as we have seen, in the US it is pistols rather than rifles or shotguns that are overwhelmingly used in serious crimes in the US.

What is further different is that in most countries guns aren't a badge of political affiliation in a badly polarized political environment. People aren't buying guns with the idea of spiting the opposing party just by having one (or several). In the US the more mentally unbalanced individuals are inspired to clutch their guns to themselves as combination teddy bears and shields against the mind control rays of "the government".

So I would say that in the UK, Canada, and many other countries, there are legal and social filters which tend to keep guns out of the hands of a large proportion of the people who can be barely trusted to tie their own shoes, let alone handle and store a firearm responsibly. In the US, social forces are acting to encourage gun ownership amongst the sort of people who really can't be trusted with one, even if they are legally entitled to have one.
 
I think you're missing my point Jonesy, a small moving target such as the head or the neck is far harder to hit than centre mass.

Try setting something up on the range and try it, we had an electronic range when I was with SP, targets moving from left to right and vice versa (slow and fast) were hard to hit when aiming at the head, even from a couple of yards away.
Just a guess but don't think our friend had to kill anyone.
 
There are several points I was trying to get across. One is that 90% of firearms homicides in the US are committed using pistols. That would include many of the types of cases you are talking about.

That raises the question, are Americans naturally homicidal maniacs, or does the prevalence of pistols, many kept loaded for "self defence" purposes, simply make giving in to sudden impulse much easier?

When this question is asked, the common replies from Americans seem to be:

"It's just dark skinned drug dealers in the big city slums killing each other, exclude those and the US is very safe." Yet in a discussion in either this or the "America is strange" thread, it was revealed that Wyoming, the home of LJonesy, had a much higher murder rate than London, which many posters have assured us is a hot bed of crime and "diversity" (the two being equated in many peoples' minds). Wyoming is notable in having a small population, no very large cities, being a long way from anywhere else, and very lacking in "diversity". So why is the murder rate so high in Wyoming?

Another rationalization is "the criminals will always be able to get guns (pistols) anyway, so regulating them is pointless". As we've seen in my previous post, yes, they can get them, they just take them from the person who bought them legally. Despite all the bravado about "ain't nobody take'n muh gun except over muh dead body", criminals have few problems stealing hundreds of thousands of guns in burglaries each year.

Yet another is "I need a pistol to deter burglars". Yet as we have seen, guns don't appear to deter burglars, rather they seem to attract them as guns are seen as just more loot to steal and sell.

Another again is "the US is special because we have a 'gun culture' because we are all 'Old West' gunslingers'". This seems to be a product of Hollywood rather than history. From what we know about the "Old West", gun control regulations then were much more strict than they are today in many parts of the US and it was illegal to walk about town with a gun on your hip. Meanwhile in the 19th century in England, people did slip a pocket pistol into their overcoat if they were going to a dodgy part of town, but Hollywood didn't create an entire genre of movies about that.


This however doesn't mean that the existence of firearms is enough to explain everything. As many people will have pointed out, there are millions of legally held firearms in the UK, Canada, and many other countries which don't have the same rate of gun related violence. And you can own pistols in Canada, although the restrictions on them make them much less common.

What is different in these other countries is the attitude which doesn't start with the assumption that every mong should have a gun and they should be ready to shoot someone with it at a moment's notice. Instead, there is are barriers such as requiring the gun owner to take and pass a safety course before getting their FAC or PAL. Requirements such as those don't discourage people who are really serious about shooting about jumping through the hoops to acquire a gun. They do though discourage those who only want one because they saw it in a movie and now imagine themselves to be able to leap about heroically saving the beautiful girl from the terrorists but otherwise just leave it in their closet (often unlocked).

Requirements such as having to maintain a membership in a shooting club discourages people from owning pistols unless they are really serious about shooting them on a regular basis. If fewer people have pistols, fewer will be stolen and sold on to other criminals and as we have seen, in the US it is pistols rather than rifles or shotguns that are overwhelmingly used in serious crimes in the US.

What is further different is that in most countries guns aren't a badge of political affiliation in a badly polarized political environment. People aren't buying guns with the idea of spiting the opposing party just by having one (or several). In the US the more mentally unbalanced individuals are inspired to clutch their guns to themselves as combination teddy bears and shields against the mind control rays of "the government".

So I would say that in the UK, Canada, and many other countries, there are legal and social filters which tend to keep guns out of the hands of a large proportion of the people who can be barely trusted to tie their own shoes, let alone handle and store a firearm responsibly. In the US, social forces are acting to encourage gun ownership amongst the sort of people who really can't be trusted with one, even if they are legally entitled to have one.
Very well said.
 
May i just say, when it happens here, the mickey mouse police armed unit will not be ready for the shyt storm.
 
And what fact was it that you stated? You stated nothing. You made assumptions and ended with childish digs.
 
Weapons "Dry", no oil due to local conditions,
Weapons "Dry" at Leeds Magistrate Court, lazy coppers not cleaning their weapons.
 
In fact, the majority of mass shootings in America are a result of a type of domestic violence the Americans call family annihilation. One parent shoots the entire family then kills themselves. Overall, a gun in the house is 40 times more likely to kill a family member than to kill an armed intruder in the USA.
So what you're saying is that we in the U.S. need to arm ourselves properly to protect ourselves from our family members? Got it. Good idea.
 
So what you're saying is that we in the U.S. need to arm ourselves properly to protect ourselves from our family members? Got it. Good idea.
Perhaps a moment of self-reflection on why so many of your fellows, from complete strangers to close kin, feel a driving urge to shoot you.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top