Gun Stats

[PRR]

> I guess you value the right to bear arms so highly that it causes you to

You keep saying you. I hope you don't make this personal. "Me" is only ~~1/200Meg of the adult population. My ideas are not worth 2 cents. And you really should know there is a LOT of dissension on this issue.

Me? I support the right to arm bears.

There is no way I want a gun to "defend my interests from the Government". My .22 against armored units? The last time this was tried (in a significant way), 1861, ended badly for everybody. The revolters were put-down and then suppressed for decades. On the 'winning' side my g-g-g-g-uncle survived a southern POW camp but died on the way home. Most New England towns have a statue commemorating Civil War losses. And if it had gone the other way, I suspect The South would have become a 3rd-world nation still screwed-over by northern brokers.

If the government fails, or bunts, and barbarians from Boston or Canada over-run my property, will I drive them off with personal weapons? Unlikely. (There is precedent. In the War of 1812, Maine was still administered by Boston, but Boston sent no ships/troops when the English occupied Maine towns, stole Maine food, and danced with Maine women. Resentment festered until the Missouri Compromise, when Maine got statehood to balance a nominally pro-Slave new state.)

I _am_ out in the woods. Not way-out, but enough so creatures (woods and people) roam freely. Bear was tearing-down my neighbor's bird-feeder this spring. I keep my little dog close when the coyotes are in this neck of woods. Guy up the road was beat-up for money for drugs. Owning a gun here is a casual decision. Couple hundred bucks, background check or not as I wish. I'm a crack shot on a target range. But I also know full-well that in a panic, a gun is as liable to kill my friends as my enemies.

 

[JohnRoberts]

> I do realise what you are saying

"America" runs from Canada through US to Mexico and beyond.

I do not have statistics handy, but the Canadian attitude towards guns seems very different than the US (which BTW is highly conflicted). Mexico is known for gun violence because of some specific incidents like prolonged revolution and now the drug gangs; may not be as ingrained as rabble-rousers claim. more
______________________
> Ask PRR about heroin overdoses in rural Maine, a much larger problem than gun ownership IMO

They are related. Mainers can get guns easily and use them to pay drug-runners coming up from the lower 47. NYC, VA and others complain about Maine-sourced guns coming into their communities illegally.

FWIW, honest heroin seems to be rare here, but every possible heroin analog turns up in the news. Also an epidemic of meth/crack/whatever you brew-up in a One Pot and contaminate a whole house or motel wing. I found a spoon by the side of the road and only later realized it was probably for cooking/snorting some such thing. Wasn't dirty, was burnt drug.

Sorry about the veer...

The governor of Maine recently vetoed a law to make narcon available over the counter, but the legislature over-rode that veto.

I don't know local drug trade in Maine (or MS) but nationally the over-prescription of opioid based addictive pain killers has created numerous addicts, after the money and prescriptions run out, the addicts turn to often cheaper heroin, or even synthetics that may be even cheaper up that far north .

Making narcon more accessible may save a fraction of the way too many over-dose deaths (like Prince), but it is just a bandaid on the problem of too casual prescription of addictive pain killers by the medical community. 

Humans are frail, and need to tread carefully around addictive substances.

JR 

 

[gyraf]

"Gun control: Data suggest guns do in fact kill people."
(The Economist,  Sept. 2013)


http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/guncontroldatasuggestgunsdoinfactkillpeople

Jakob E.

 

[DaveP]

True, I don't know anyone who's shot another person, but around a dozen who've taken themselves out.

Doug, I find that truly shocking,  I know one girl who tried and failed but no-one who ever committed suicide.

You keep saying you. I hope you don't make this personal.

PRR, Oh dear, this is the second person plural "You" I meant, not you personally.  I was using it collectively for Americans.  That would never have happened in French. :-[

when the English occupied Maine towns, stole Maine food, and danced with Maine women

So that's why they called them "The good old days" 8).

Best
DaveP

 

[Matt Nolan]

1000 mass shootings in the USA in the last 1260 days. Not all of them make it to the national or international news. I don't know how anyone can claim that the USA doesn't have a gun problem. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence?CMP=fb_gu

Australia tightened it's gun laws in 1996 after a mass shooting. It hasn't had a single mass shooting since. Not one. Before you ask, other forms of violent crime have not risen in that time either. http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr23/mr23.pdf  https://theconversation.com/how-us-gun-control-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world-43590

 

[mattiasNYC]

Thanks for posting that Matt, I too saw that recently.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Btw, I'm not sure if you guys have seen it, but there are now reports that the gunman in Florida actually visited that very same nightclub several over a few years time as a guest. So there's speculation of self-loathing possibly spurred on by religious belief, and/or possibly rejection being the cause of his anger.

 

[DaveP]

Yeah, I thought that too.
DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

1000 mass shootings in the USA in the last 1260 days. Not all of them make it to the national or international news. I don't know how anyone can claim that the USA doesn't have a gun problem. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence?CMP=fb_gu

The US has a mental health problem.  A side effect of the contentious political climate is that legislature is only moved forward by high profile news events, so more emotional than thoughtful.  The knee jerk "take away their guns" sounds good in sound bites from the political podium (for one party's base), but is not passable.

The recent event has moved this long delayed mental health bill slightly forward (been working on it since 2013) http://www.nyaprs.org/e-news-bulletins/2016/015058.cfm  . You will notice the bill has been conflicted with privacy concerns. Privacy is good but public safety needs to be considered too.  It seems the only time this stuff gets attention is after high profile tragedies. IMO this kind of legislation better addresses the root causes, while the recent terrorist shooting seems to involve multiple issues (radical Islam, LGBT hate, surveillance of threats, etc). 

Australia tightened it's gun laws in 1996 after a mass shooting. It hasn't had a single mass shooting since. Not one. Before you ask, other forms of violent crime have not risen in that time either. http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr23/mr23.pdf  https://theconversation.com/how-us-gun-control-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world-43590

I am repeating myself but I remain concerned about the routine shooting deaths that occur in poor neighborhoods like Chicago and multiple similar cities. Words matter and the general diminishing of respect and support for police officers, has led to less rigorous enforcement. This may be good for criminals, but not very good for the public.  We also need to reverse this "blame the police" trend to prevent even more decline of public security in high violence areas.

Note: guns are already pretty tightly regulated in Chicago, but in the US guns routinely move across state borders from less restrictive states. Reportedly some 20% of guns used in Chicago crimes came from Indiana.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

The US has a mental health problem.  A side effect of the contentious political climate is that legislature is only moved forward by high profile news events, so more emotional than thoughtful.  The knee jerk "take away their guns" sounds good in sound bites from the political podium (for one party's base), but is not passable.

You mean you can't pass a law to take away guns? Many laws were "not passable" until they were. What is needed is a change of mind in the population and in politicians. It's not impossible, just difficult. I actually think that repeating that something can't be done is contributing to people thinking it can't be done, even if it can. So I disagree with you (assuming this is what you meant).

Australia tightened it's gun laws in 1996 after a mass shooting. It hasn't had a single mass shooting since. Not one. Before you ask, other forms of violent crime have not risen in that time either. http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr23/mr23.pdf  https://theconversation.com/how-us-gun-control-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world-43590

I am repeating myself but I remain concerned about the routine shooting deaths that occur in poor neighborhoods like Chicago and multiple similar cities. Words matter and the general diminishing of respect and support for police officers, has led to less rigorous enforcement. This may be good for criminals, but not very good for the public.  We also need to reverse this "blame the police" trend to prevent even more decline of public security in high violence areas.

I notice that you're not addressing the fact that the US police kills a lot more civilians than police do in other industrial nations. Just how do you suppose we change this attitude the way you like it to be changed without addressing all the police misconduct and killing?

If you read some of the cases that have risen to public national attention and pay attention to details it's actually pretty obvious that the US has a big problem with how the police conducts itself, what its policies are and how the legal system works both regarding addressing that misconduct and how 'civilians' are being treated.

The issue really does appear to be systemic due to the people that are running the system. So you can call for greater respect for the police all you want, but if you belong to a minority group that repeatedly has its rights suspended you'll likely see it differently.

 

[nielsk]

The Guardian post really spells it out, once again:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence?CMP=fb_gu

Most folks I know who hunt with guns use single shot rifles.
There is absolutely no good reason for average citizens  to be in possession of military grade hardware.

We have a very strange phenomenon in the USA where a organization started by sports enthusiasts has been taken over by global corporations who  are now writing the laws and controlling governments with profit as the sole motive.
They maintain the guise of being a grass roots organization while using the media to inflame the public with a wildly in accurate interpretation of the 2nd amendment to the US constitution (it never ceases to amaze me how many people spout off about this but have never actually read it).
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that rules out sensible policies such as licensing of guns, tracking of guns and access to data by any agency, limiting access to ammunition, and limiting public ownership to certain types of guns.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the NRA writing the laws for the state of Florida and the US federal goverment increased the number of people killed in this recent tragic attack.

 

[dmp]

The most asinine thing I've been see this week after the Orlando shooting is the pro gun folks saying it wouldn't have happened if everybody routinely carried firearms. Patrons in a bar. At bartime.
How deluded does someone have to be to think arming drunk people in bars is the answer?

 

[emrr]

This morning I had breakfast at the neighborhood restaurant, and saw a guy with a handgun in a holster, looked like a .45.  Kinda looked like a manual laborer of some type, landscaper, or painter.  Didn't feel safer.  I've seen similar in some public parks, but it had a bit of a vigilante 'protecting the public' vibe to it.  I could really do without.  Did I mention last month a guy waved a pistol at me from his car on the interstate in broad daylight?  Yes, he did.  Unprovoked.  Lots of people here living some TV shoot'em-up fantasy. 

 

[mattiasNYC]

The most asinine thing I've been see this week after the Orlando shooting is the pro gun folks saying it wouldn't have happened if everybody routinely carried firearms. Patrons in a bar. At bartime.
How deluded does someone have to be to think arming drunk people in bars is the answer?

Yep, it's unbelievable really.

I remember the same argument after the movie theater shooter; more people with guns in the theater and it'd have been stopped sooner. Nobody seemed to bother considering just how well you can find the correct target and then successfully aim in a theater that's mostly dark apart from a screen that's flashing bright lights and colors.... I mean... it's just.... [sigh]

 

[Script]

.... I mean... it's just.... [sigh]

... like in the movie being screened.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The US has a mental health problem.  A side effect of the contentious political climate is that legislature is only moved forward by high profile news events, so more emotional than thoughtful.  The knee jerk "take away their guns" sounds good in sound bites from the political podium (for one party's base), but is not passable.

You mean you can't pass a law to take away guns? Many laws were "not passable" until they were. What is needed is a change of mind in the population and in politicians. It's not impossible, just difficult. I actually think that repeating that something can't be done is contributing to people thinking it can't be done, even if it can. So I disagree with you (assuming this is what you meant).

The second amendment as presently  interpreted to protect the right of law abiding citizens to own guns seems pretty secure.

What I REALLY hate about politics is that they rarely say what they really mean. No sane person and that includes the NRA wants to see terrorists buying guns, but the real argument about using the no-fly terrorist watch list to prevent people from buying guns is that the no-fly list is not well vetted.  There are numerous cases of people incorrectly put on that list., and painfully hard to get removed.

The Orlando shooter was on the list, then cleared. Make the list more accurate, and really use it. Hypothetically the Orlando shooter might have triggered another investigation if the list was still active.  While we call this home grown terrorism, the shooters family is from Afghanistan, with a father actively opposed to the US backed government there, the shooters wife's family was also from middle east. That alone does not mean they should be on a watch list, but family culture matters . It can take generations for immigrants to fully embrace American culture. 

Australia tightened it's gun laws in 1996 after a mass shooting. It hasn't had a single mass shooting since. Not one. Before you ask, other forms of violent crime have not risen in that time either. http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr23/mr23.pdf  https://theconversation.com/how-us-gun-control-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world-43590

I am repeating myself but I remain concerned about the routine shooting deaths that occur in poor neighborhoods like Chicago and multiple similar cities. Words matter and the general diminishing of respect and support for police officers, has led to less rigorous enforcement. This may be good for criminals, but not very good for the public.  We also need to reverse this "blame the police" trend to prevent even more decline of public security in high violence areas.

I notice that you're not addressing the fact that the US police kills a lot more civilians than police do in other industrial nations. Just how do you suppose we change this attitude the way you like it to be changed without addressing all the police misconduct and killing?

I am too busy to vet that statistic right now.

If you read some of the cases that have risen to public national attention and pay attention to details it's actually pretty obvious that the US has a big problem with how the police conducts itself, what its policies are and how the legal system works both regarding addressing that misconduct and how 'civilians' are being treated.

These cases have been put under a microscope and many tried in public by politicians and interest groups.  Maybe its just because I'm older (and white) but I tend to think of the police as "us" and the criminals as "them". Historically police get a lot of leeway from prosecution because their job involves split second, life or death decisions. Some officers may abuse that benefit of the doubt, but it seems the tide of public opinion has turned against all the police.

I recall one of the first things president Obama did was blame a white Cambridge cop of being racist, because his old Harvard buddy caused a disturbance. Obama finally walked that back with beers in the Rose garden, but the tone for his administration wrt police was set.

The issue really does appear to be systemic due to the people that are running the system. So you can call for greater respect for the police all you want, but if you belong to a minority group that repeatedly has its rights suspended you'll likely see it differently.

I have advocated for body cams and it seems more surveillance will identify any so called patterns of misbehavior if they exist.  I have a lot of sympathy and respect for police who's job is harder than ever.  Words matter and the vast majority are honest and hard working, not the problem. 

Maybe we need body cams on teachers too (veer alert).

JR

PS: I guess bad guys can still get guns in the UK...  RIP MP Jo Cox

 

[micaddict]

I should have known better.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The most asinine thing I've been see this week after the Orlando shooting is the pro gun folks saying it wouldn't have happened if everybody routinely carried firearms. Patrons in a bar. At bartime.
How deluded does someone have to be to think arming drunk people in bars is the answer?

While I am not in favor of drunken target practice there probably are already guns in bars. What about the jihadi who attacked some high profile guy in TX at a book signing or something like that. He had a very bad day. 

Wasn't there a dumbass football player (NY?) who was in a bar with a gun in his sweatpants that fell down and went off shooting himself in the leg? I won't ponder stereotypes about whether a gay bar would be more or less likely to have armed patrons. IIRC that bar had at least one armed security guard but don't know the story about his night.

These cowardly bastards go for the softest targets they can find.  The puke apparently checked out disney in orlando as a possible target and decided it was too hard.

Even a tiny fraction of patrons armed dramatically changes the outcome from mass shootings. There are stats some where that I am too lazy to look up, about the dramatically different outcomes when victims shoot back, they don't become mass shootings.

Of course this is a too simple answer, just like taking away everybody's guns is.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

The second amendment as presently  interpreted to protect the right of law abiding citizens to own guns seems pretty secure.

Possibly. I personally think that the interpretation separating it into two different clauses makes little sense. To me, and to some scolars, the amendment says that people have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of constituting a militia. No militia, no right.

The Orlando shooter was on the list, then cleared. Make the list more accurate, and really use it. Hypothetically the Orlando shooter might have triggered another investigation if the list was still active.  While we call this home grown terrorism, the shooters family is from Afghanistan, with a father actively opposed to the US backed government there, the shooters wife's family was also from middle east. That alone does not mean they should be on a watch list, but family culture matters . It can take generations for immigrants to fully embrace American culture. 

Fair enough, assuming his true motives were based on religion or the culture of his parents. If it was just insanity or something then he's pretty much as American as any other mass murderer in the US.

These cases have been put under a microscope and many tried in public by politicians and interest groups.  Maybe its just because I'm older (and white) but I tend to think of the police as "us" and the criminals as "them". Historically police get a lot of leeway from prosecution because their job involves split second, life or death decisions. Some officers may abuse that benefit of the doubt, but it seems the tide of public opinion has turned against all the police.

Yeah, the tide has turned, and if you look at cases, like I said, you see that some groups of this society are suffering far worse than others, and disproportionally so. This "leeway" you're talking about should be the exact opposite: This is a group of people armed with weapons that kill and they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us for that very reason. If we're going to excuse their behavior more often than that of the average civilian then what's the point of having cops in the first place? Why not just deal with stuff ourselves?

Look at the Tamir Rice case for example. If that doesn't make people distrust both the police and the legal system I don't know what does. People are sick of excusing cops for their abuse of power. Videos aren't always clear, but many times they are, and people understand when the police and "we" are lying.

I recall one of the first things president Obama did was blame a white Cambridge cop of being racist, because his old Harvard buddy caused a disturbance. Obama finally walked that back with beers in the Rose garden, but the tone for his administration wrt police was set.

Yeah yeah yeah, Obama the divider. I don't buy that for a second.

I have advocated for body cams and it seems more surveillance will identify any so called patterns of misbehavior if they exist.  I have a lot of sympathy and respect for police who's job is harder than ever.  Words matter and the vast majority are honest and hard working, not the problem. 

Yeah, body cams are good. And you can see how the police are reluctant to start using it. Just go online and look at how they react when they're being filmed by bystanders. And even if video evidence exists this "us and them" mentality you support will keep people who like authority root for and protect the police.

Us and them is right. And it's so very wrong.

 

[DaveP]

From what I have read here over the years, the founding fathers of the US constitution are looked upon with very high esteem and rightly so.

I wonder what those founding fathers would have said if they had been able to look into the future 240 years.

Would they have said,"Yes the 2nd amendment is working out just fine?"

Or would they be appalled at the way it has been interpreted, or the unintended consequences?

This applies to religion too, the words of Jesus and the Prophet have been pretty much twisted to support any evil that man can imagine.

DaveP