General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSetting 2nd Amt. talk aside, does gun control work?
Has it been tried outside the US? And has it been tried where guns were previously unregulated, and there was an associated drop in violent crime/deaths?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I guess I look at our history of prohibiting alcohol and now drugs and have a hard time believing something easily manufactured, transported, and concealed, and widely desired, is going to be practically prohibitable.
Almost no society in history, AFAIK, has been as widely armed as the US (and this has been true for centuries), so I don't know that there's a precedent there.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Strict gun controls may or may not work in other cultures, but none of them are sufficiently similar to our own to state unequivocally (or even with anything resembling confidence) that their experiences would translate.
Moreover, because we are indeed so heavily armed, it's very much in question that a level of regulation of firearms that would achieve these other cultures' rate of civilian gun ownership is even possible. I'm inclined to think it is not, so questions of whether that's actually a desirable goal are a bit moot.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)examples of societies that are actually more heavily armed today than the US, though I'll concede I'm just going by recollection.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Plenty of 'em. What exactly do you want to do? Ban all private gun ownership?
How do you plan to implement that? Because frankly, that's never happening in this country.
Bake
closeupready
(29,503 posts)that since most if not all shooters are men, we should execute all men at birth.
Conversely, see the study I linked to when you and Recursion were simultaneously posting, about Australia, that actually saw a violent crime increase in the years after they enacted a gun ban in 1997.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)And that are not enforced, with plenty of loopholes. Christ. Wake up.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Geez. Wake up yourself.
Bake
closeupready
(29,503 posts)>>In 2002 five years after enacting its gun ban the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australias Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault Australias equivalent term for rape increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australias violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States where no gun-ban exists both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:<<
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Thoughts?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It notes that, at the very least, there has not been a gun massacre in Australia since the law passed. Of course, that can't automatically be attributed to the ban.
These factors did not apply to the Australian buyback, which was large, compulsory, and the guns on this island nation could not easily be replaced. For example, compared to the buyback of 650,000 firearms, annual imports after the law averaged only 30,000 per year, with many of these bought by law enforcement agencies.
For Australia, a difficulty with determining the effect of the law was that gun deaths were falling in the early 1990s. No study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall. Yet most studies generally assumed that they would have continued to drop without the NFA. Many studies still found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law. From the perspective of 1996, it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect of the law. Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFAthe elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing, reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Shame on you for that. Should be ashamed of yourself.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Increases in Education Spending Do Not Result in Higher Academic Performance
Federal spending has increased for elementary and secondary education programs; however, two-thirds of students still can't read or solve mathematical problems at grade level...
The Underworked Public Employee
If public-sector employees just worked as many hours as their private counterparts, governments at all levels could save more than $100 billion in annual labor costs...
Exchanging Medicaid for Private Insurance
Converting Medicaid into block grants would allow states the flexibility in designing programs that fit their individual needs, says Devon M. Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis...
Raising Medicare Eligibility a First Step toward Deficit Reduction
Over the next 20 years, spending on the major entitlement programs is projected to continue to rise very rapidly, reaching 15.1 percent of gross domestic product in 2030...
I bet if I spent more than 5 minutes over there I could find hundreds more lies.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'm done "talking" with you. Click.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)This is not a day for being snarky.
dballance
(5,756 posts)when I read this "The NCPA joined with scholars at The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the American Action Network to identify what most needs to be repealed and replaced in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare)" on their website.
So my "thoughts?" My thoughts are the NCPA is a right-wing shill institute and I don't trust anything they publish any more than I trust anything Limbaugh says.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The Oregon shooter would not have been netted by background checks or even gun registration, given that the gun was stolen immediately before the shooting. Not enough information is known about the current shooter yet.
What background checks and registration, along with tough control of import of guns would dramatically impact are the shootings by criminals and people that have a history of mental illness. Those shootings don't get much publicity, but the account for almost 100% of the people killed by guns each year.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)so you aren't going to find a perfect example. However, it is worth noting that the US has by far the highest homicide rate in the developed world, in large part due to gun violence. Of course, we aren't going to transition to a low-gun-violence society overnight, but in the long run I don't see why we have to have four times as many homicides per capita as the UK.
Here's a study that looks at gun control in Hawaii. One of the big problems with gun control in the US is that it is really easy to carry guns from one state to another, so the effect tight gun laws in one state is undercut by lax laws in adjacent states. Since Hawaii is an island, it is better to look at as an experiment.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/UCLF-HawaiianExperience-2005
rrneck
(17,671 posts)But not perfectly. There is a point of diminishing returns with any regulation. That's where the controversy lies. How much regulation exceeds the point of diminishing returns in the form of waste of resources, diminished civil rights, and loss of life because of the regulation.
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)Guns have no place in civilian hands in a civilized society.
Other guns should be locked in armories.
Overturn the second amendment.
I am speaking out because of this incident.
I have held this view for decades. I bite my tongue about it a lot.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)^snip^
Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241
Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146
Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britains population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)
Number of Murders by[pdf] firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)
*The Home office reported murder statistics in the UK for the 12 months to March 2009, but these are 12-month figures).
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and most other countries don't have the sort of gun culture the US does--most of Europe for instance is more urban than rural and anyone who had a gun was likely to be a farmer who had a shotgun for killing vermin, or wealthy and able to hunt game for sport. The UK despite previously having much less strict gun control laws than today has never had any kind of comparable rates of gun violence or murder to the USA. (The murder rate is around one per 100K people.) And with the absence of the sort of gun culture the USA has, stricter regulations on guns when they came in were much easier to implement.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)it ain't working.
More guns, less regulation, and mass slaughter is now routine.
The AWB expired and wasn't replaced. Carry regulations have been loosened. Stand Your Ground has spread. The USSC overturned decades of existing gun regulation.
We've tried "everyone armed everywhere" and predictably, a nation awash in guns suffers chronic gun violence.
Aristus
(66,462 posts)And while I don't quibble about the persistence of murderous fanatics, I do have to ask: Why the hell are we making it so easy for them? Minimal waiting time, little or no criminal background check, little or no mental health history check, military-grade weaponry on sale at every gun show in the country, no tracking of ammunition sales, etc.
The NRA types are forever babbling about "sensible gun laws" while doing everything in their power to prevent the passage of just those kinds of laws...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Criminals buy their guns from the same people from whom they buy their cocaine. With no waiting time or background check.
Military-grade weaponry on sale at every gun show in the country
There is no gun show that sells military grade weaponry.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We did not get here in ten years...it will take over a generation for the effects to start to be felt.
That is my view.
But Canada, which has a similar numbers of guns as we do, but a much lower death rate, is a good model. Background checks are significant, and so are licensing requirements.
We can start by closing the gun show loophole and reinstating the AWB. And we also need to understand, results will take a decade or more to start to show.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)Designated institution are what's important.
I'd like to see public health officials begin to get involved in designing legislation, etc.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Particularly since mental health as a recognized profession has only been in existence for a relatively short time.
Point being, if a mental health professional is considered by society as especially capable at recognizing mental illness or tendency towards violence, then they should have input in drafting measures designed to address and reduce gun violence.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)How to design simple, but effective legislation.
How to administer that legislation with the end user in mind.
Public health people are often over looked experts in both arenas.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Christ.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)with statistics from civilized countries to make a determination.