Most of you have sort of touched on it, but, Canadians, Swiss, and Swedes are far more docile and obedient than Americans. French Canadians are maybe an exception there.
Ammunition is too easy and cheap to make for taxing or restricting ammunition to have any effect. It's easier to make ammunition than guns. If it were taxed highly you can be sure there would be an immediate black market in ammunition, and it would be flowing across the borders like illegal drugs are now. The thing we have to consider in this country is the abysmal intelligence of the gun nuts. They will not be put off by restrictions--and they have the NRA behind them, which is determined that people have as many guns and as much ammunition as possible. The population of the United States is apparently different than almost any other country or culture in the world. By and large most are uneducable. It is the reason the US is the most violent first world country in existence. There is no use trying to compare it to other countries where guns are available and the people have commom sense. There is absolutely no comparison. LoisYes VA. I would add that we need to keep pressure on legislators to outlaw any weapons(pistol, shotgun or rifles) with magazine caps. over 8 rounds. Then Tax ammunition at 100% or so.I totally agree Vy. No civilian needs to be running around with a weapon that shoots multiple rounds for either hunting or defense. But your last statement just hit the NRA's list of no no's, Taxing ammunition, and at a hundred percent. There's already a shortage of 22 cal. Ammo and the conspiracy nuts believe that the government" is behind it. I've already had some gun owners, not the nuts but the competent ones ask that question. So I did a little research and found that particular round is so popular that stores can't keep the shelves stocked fast enough so there's a shortage. It's economics, not politics. Cap't Jack
A concerted effort, is in order, to identify the characteristics of the small portion of our population who are most likely to commit mass and serial killings, and to identify the circumstances in which they are most likely to kill.You suggest massive screening of citizens to find the few rotten ones? The NSA is already applying for the job as they read your posting, Tim... Think about the great synergies! :-S A "concerted effort" doesn't necessarily include the NSA, or any governmental agency for that matter. (Although funding for studies would be an issue, and no doubt, agencies such as the NSA would be oriented towards using what is learned and towards abusing their power with such knowledge.) My suggestion is more along the lines of massively building upon the research already done in identifying the characteristics of those who are likely to kill people, and the circumstances in which they are likely to do so. Also, I suggest abandoning a fight that cannot be won, i.e., let the NRA do what they will, as it is clear to me that they cannot be stopped, anyway.
Knowledge is power. If we knew more, solutions might become more obvious.
We already know some things.
For instance if there were no guns there would be no gun violence. But this fact does not help, since there are going to be guns.
We know that mass killings are overwhelmingly committed by males. This does not lead us to the solution of getting rid of all males. (Though Lois might disagree… Just kidding, Lois.)
We know that a higher incidence of homes with gun ownership correlates pretty closely with an increase in gun related deaths.
But there may be a MUCH higher rate of gun related deaths correlating to factors such as increases in societal income inequality and, even moreso, to individual’s lack of social capital (social connectedness).
These are just a few examples of what we already know, but correlation does not equate to causality.
We need to know much more.
Knowledge is power. If we knew more, solutions might become more obvious. We already know some things. For instance if there were no guns there would be no gun violence. But this fact does not help, since there are going to be guns. We know that mass killings are overwhelmingly committed by males. This does not lead us to the solution of getting rid of all males. (Though Lois might disagree... Just kidding, Lois.) We know that a higher incidence of homes with gun ownership correlates pretty closely with an increase in gun related deaths. But there may be a MUCH higher rate of gun related deaths correlating to factors such as increases in societal income inequality and, even moreso, to individual's lack of social capital (social connectedness). These are just a few examples of what we already know, but correlation does not equate to causality. We need to know much more.If we got rid of all males crime of all kinds would plummet! It would be kind of hard to get rid of males, though. Where would we put them? Other countries would start World War III if we tried to dump our males on them. They have enough problems with their own males. ;) Other countries seem to be able to handle the males in their population, even with income inequality and lack of social capital. Why are we so much more affected by those things in this country? I am in favor of trying to remedy those situations whether they are causes of the violence or not. However I am not in favor of draconian measures. I have three sons (none of them gun owners) There must be a better way, though I can't think of what it might be. ;-P Lois
Knowledge is power. If we knew more, solutions might become more obvious. We already know some things. For instance if there were no guns there would be no gun violence. But this fact does not help, since there are going to be guns. We know that mass killings are overwhelmingly committed by males. This does not lead us to the solution of getting rid of all males. (Though Lois might disagree... Just kidding, Lois.) We know that a higher incidence of homes with gun ownership correlates pretty closely with an increase in gun related deaths. But there may be a MUCH higher rate of gun related deaths correlating to factors such as increases in societal income inequality and, even moreso, to individual's lack of social capital (social connectedness). These are just a few examples of what we already know, but correlation does not equate to causality. We need to know much more.What about those on the "Autism spectrum?" Even better, they can be identified by their appearance.
Other countries seem to be able to handle the males in their population, even with income inequality and lack of social capital. Why are we so much more affected by those things in this country? LoisWhat is this based on?
Most of you have sort of touched on it, but, Canadians, Swiss, and Swedes are far more docile and obedient than Americans. French Canadians are maybe an exception there.I don't know about docile. They appear to have more sense, though. Even French Canadians have more sense than American gun nuts.
Most of you have sort of touched on it, but, Canadians, Swiss, and Swedes are far more docile and obedient than Americans. French Canadians are maybe an exception there.I don't know about docile. They appear to have more sense, though. Even French Canadians have more sense than American gun nuts. That's a low bar.
What about those on the "Autism spectrum?" Even better, they can be identified by their appearance.I am not sure what you are saying here. Persons on the Autism Spectrum covers a very broad range. And you can't always identify such persons by their appearance. And, I suspect that persons who have been suggested to be on the Spectrum, who have in rare instances been involved in mass killing, had some co-existing disorder.
There may be some false assumptions going on. The US has the highest rate of gun ownership of any country. We are likely to use a gun when committing homicide, but, still we are not near the highest rate per capita of gun homicides. In fact, for example, Honduras, vastly exceeds us in per capita use of guns for homicide, while having less than a tenth of our per capita rate of gun ownership.
We need to know more.
What about those on the "Autism spectrum?" Even better, they can be identified by their appearance.I am not sure what you are saying here. Persons on the Autism Spectrum covers a very broad range. And you can't always identify such persons by their appearance. And, I suspect that persons who have been suggested to be on the Spectrum, who have in rare instances been involved in mass killing, had some co-existing disorder.Fair point. Autism/Asbergers syndrome may not make them do it, but psychosis is found at higher rates in Autistics, and all recent mass killers have either been diagnosed as being on the spectrum, or being suspected by Autism investigators as being on the spectrum. It could be a useful "red flag".
Even better, they can be identified by their appearance.And you can't always identify such persons by their appearance.I was making a nasty joke here, but very many Autistic/Asberger's spectrum individuals do have distinctive look, as well as distinctive body language.
Even better, they can be identified by their appearance.And you can't always identify such persons by their appearance.I was making a nasty joke here, but very many Autistic/Asberger's spectrum individuals do have distinctive look, as well as distinctive body language. In my past vocation I worked with many many children who were identified as being in the spectrum. There was only one which impressed me of capable of or prone to horrendous violence. And that one, I strongly suspected was misdiagnosed. Anyway, my preference would be to stay away from traditional mental health diagnoses as primary indicators of potential gun violence. For example persons with schizophrenia, might be more likely than others in the general population, to be violent while in a acute phase they would also, most often, tend to be un-capable (i.e., too disorganized) to carry out serial killing or even to be particularly effective at carrying out a mass killing, while in such an acute phase. Although a tool designed for killing (i.e., a gun) would make it easier for anyone. And a person with a sustained delusion, but not otherwise particularly disorganized, could function well enough to kill one or a few people (maybe more with the right automatic weapon). Hence our efforts to limit gun availability to obviously "crazy" people. But, it seems to me, that most people, who kill people with guns, apparently, don't present as obviously "crazy" to laypersons, until after they have killed.
It’d s not only intentional shooting we need to deal with, but the many accidental ones as well. Guns are not a safe toy even in the hands of experience “pros.” Why should I not be able to sit in my own yard because a neighbor wants to play with guns?
It'd s not only intentional shooting we need to deal with, but the many accidental ones as well. Guns are not a safe toy even in the hands of experience "pros." Why should I not be able to sit in my own yard because a neighbor wants to play with guns?True. I've seen people, casually handling guns, who should know better, not following the number one rule that everyone who ever holds a gun should follow: Never point a gun at a person that you don't intend to kill.
garythehuman - 09 April 2014 02:31 PM It’d s not only intentional shooting we need to deal with, but the many accidental ones as well. Guns are not a safe toy even in the hands of experience “pros." Why should I not be able to sit in my own yard because a neighbor wants to play with guns? True. I’ve seen people, casually handling guns, who should know better, not following the number one rule that everyone who ever holds a gun should follow: Never point a gun at a person that you don’t intend to kill.First off the two words "toy" and "play" should never apply to firearms. Anyone who childishly believes that a weapon is a plaything should never be allowed to own one in the first place. All firearms are potentially dangerous and anyone who owns one should be required to complete a safety course, ain't gonna happen but that's my take on it. And the younger the better if their parents are owners. Right now the stats show that the number of deaths by firearms show an increase of suicides AND accidents. And you're right about the rules Tim, #1: never point a weapon at someone for wherever reason and #2 always assume that a weapon is loaded. Number two will get you killed just as fast as number one. Cap't Jack
Another thought. The Fort Hood shooting. People who think there should be no laws against gun ownership often say thatif everyone were armed such shootings would not occur because a large number of people would be armed and able to shoot the perpetrator. But where in the US are many people more likely to be armed and trained to use guns, along with many weapons freely available than on an army base? Yet no other shots were fired other than by the crazed killer. So much for safety where there are large numbers of armed people. Think of that the next time someone says school kids would be safer in school if the teachers were armed. LoisThat's a good point, from what I understand there were a number of people in the crowd where Gabrielle Giffords and others were shot who were armed, but no one reacted fast enough to do anything. It takes extensive training to overcome the natural human reaction of getting out of the way of danger. And even then there is a good chance of innocent people getting hit by returned fire, even with professionals this is a constant danger(friendly fire). The safest gun is the one that was never built.
The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."The simple fact is that once the bullet leaves the barrel of a gun you can't call it back and even with a handgun you can kill a person from a distance not possible with most other weapons. Take a look at Bob Munden hitting a target at 200 yards with a small pistol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tied-t1fFsk
Lois:
People who think there should be no laws against gun ownership often say that if everyone were armed such shootings would not occur because a large number of people would be armed and able to shoot the perpetrator.The problem with that is innocents getting caught in the cross fire. The people who say the above have never been in a gunfight. Fuzzy Logic:
Take a look at Bob Munden hitting a target at 200 yards with a small pistol.Hitting a target when no one is shooting at you is one thing. Shooting back under fire, and in a crowd is something quite different.