Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[fushingfeef]

Interesting. We shouldn’t be exercising our constitutional rights because we concern ourselves over the possibilities of mass shootings, but we should be enacting tougher gun legislation for law-abiding citizens because of it?

That's how all laws and rules are for the most part, unfair to good people. We wouldn't need very many laws if everyone was honest and nice and unselfish. This happens at our workplace a lot: one person screws up and the rest of us have to suffer for it because tougher rules are put in place.

Anyway, let's what level of firearms laws are acceptable based on what is stated as our constitutional right, as a "well-regulated militia"? I'm assuming they wrote "well-regulated" for a reason. In other words, for our right to bear arms to make any sense,there has to be sensible regulation. That's all I'm talking about. Part of sensibility is the common good--do the benefits of unfettered ownership of machine guns by the untested public outweigh the liabilities? Based on death by handguns statisitics compared to other countries, I'd say no, the benefits do not outweigh the liabilities. That's the real elephant in the room: why does our country have so many more gun deaths than other countries, even in countries where gun ownership is relatively high?

[exzel]

A University of Pennsylvania study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than those not carrying. When victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher (http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html)

A Harvard study in 2007 found that US states with higher levels of gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide ( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...rship-and-use/)

But on the other hand, those are "liberal" universities, so they can't be trusted right?

Thanks for the links… good reads (even if they are from liberal universities ).

Interesting read on the chances of getting shot. But I wonder how the “study” would have turned out if didn’t use statistics from Philadelphia, a city that has such tough guns laws that I can’t even carry my tazer without having a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) permit. According to just yesterday… “Among America's largest cities, Philadelphia's homicide rate is the worst. Guns are the weapons of choice, with more than 80% of homicides committed with a firearm, according to the most recent police statistics.” And because the study was obtained from Philadelphia, I question the sampling because of the gun laws there… was the sample used with only people legally allowed to carry guns in Philadelphia?

I find this quote from your article telling… “While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates.”

And 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. Sadly I believe that statistic would only increase if a gun was not available. Simply making guns less available is not the answer to the problem of suicide, because it only eliminates one method and not the cause of the despair that leads someone to commit such an awful act.

[exzel]

That's the real elephant in the room: why does our country have so many more gun deaths than other countries, even in countries where gun ownership is relatively high?

I'd say because our "justice" system is too lax and allows too many criminals to walk the streets.

[Moderator]

I'd say because our "justice" system is too lax and allows too many criminals to walk the streets.

Which also does not address the other extenuating circumstances that create that situation, i.e. poverty, drugs, the health system not addressing mental health issues in part because funding is continually being removed from budgets that would help serve the mentally ill, overcrowded prisons that release criminals before their full sentence was served, not acknowledging that many of those convicted were there because the government/our society refuses to take a realistic look at legalizing drugs such as marijuana and once released have even fewer options, etc. etc. Having more guns available does nothing to stop any of those examples. Instead of more guns, how about doing something about making our society better for everyone so they wouldn't end up as criminals?

[Todash]

I'd say because our "justice" system is too lax and allows too many criminals to walk the streets.

I don't think so. We have the highest rates of incarceration in the developed world.

Really, in general, high gun ownership correlates to high gun deaths. Sometimes people cite Israel as an exception, but I think that if you look at current data, gun ownership in Israel isn't all that high (and it is much more tightly controlled than here).

But what we do lack that other societies have that probably would help is much more social support. Poverty correlates strongly, STRONGLY, to gun deaths.

And 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. Sadly I believe that statistic would only increase if a gun was not available. Simply making guns less available is not the answer to the problem of suicide, because it only eliminates one method and not the cause of the despair that leads someone to commit such an awful act.

I would love for that percentage to increase. You know why? Because less than a quarter of those using that method succeed. Guns, on the other hand, are very successful, such that more than half of all completed suicides are done by firearm. Women attempt suicide three times more often than men, but four times more men than women die by their own hand. Why? The method they used. Men overwhelmingly choose guns. Women overwhelmingly choose pills.

[fushingfeef]

I find this quote from your article telling… “While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates.”

Or it could be they bought the guns in the first place because they were already in danger and wanted to feel safer. Now, correlation does not prove causation so I can't claim those stats prove that all gun ownership is a bad thing. But I think we can safely say that since guns are a tool that make it easier to kill quickly, situations where guns are present are more likely to result in deaths than situations where there are no guns. (Of course, situations in which there are box cutters, razors and broken glass are more likely to result in deaths than situations without them too.)

I'm not calling for the elimination of all guns, but better regulation as to the types we allow in the hands of untested individuals--whether that's a mental health test or a gun safety test or both, is another thing that needs hashed out. Again, we already do this for drivers licenses at the state level.

As for Philly, how about some gun death stats from a place where personal gun ownership is known to be very high, like Texas? Any studies done there?

[hossenpepper]

Some people never get over making things go boom. Some do. I would suspect the former typically become "gun nuts".

I own a few guns, but rarely shoot them. Why? Because destruction isn't "neat" to me. It is to some. Cool, it's a right and a free country. But, that doesn't make it less childish or not create an environment that leads to harm for others. If indulging your need to satiate your paranoia and love of destructive things subsequently helping to create a whole societal structure that leads to things like these mass shootings doesn't bother you, then so be it. Just realize your politics doesn't make that not the real truth of the matter.

Aggressive society = aggressive people.
Rampant individualism in the name of freedom = arrogance and gluttony of self appointed import.
Pretty simple.

[exzel]

Which also does not address the other extenuating circumstances that create that situation, i.e. poverty, drugs, the health system not addressing mental health issues in part because funding is continually being removed from budgets that would help serve the mentally ill, overcrowded prisons that release criminals before their full sentence was served, not acknowledging that many of those convicted were there because the government/our society refuses to take a realistic look at legalizing drugs such as marijuana and once released have even fewer options, etc. etc. Having more guns available does nothing to stop any of those examples. Instead of more guns, how about doing something about making our society better for everyone so they wouldn't end up as criminals?

I should have said allows too many “violent” criminals to walk the street.

And more money? How many tens of trillions of dollars have we already pumped into the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and such? Costly, tragic mistakes! Actually, the 1996 welfare reform act under Bill Clinton did wonders, which ended harmful and self-defeating handout programs, and caused recipients to take steps toward self-improvement and self-sufficiency. Unfortunately our executive branch has now taken steps to erode many of those requirements, and subsequently has helped increase the levels of people in poverty. We also need to realize that far too many among us are happy to be leaches on society… sad but true. And I do agree that we need to look at, and refine, the process that surrounds some non-violent current illegal matters.

[Todash]

Or it could be they bought the guns in the first place because they were already in danger and wanted to feel safer. Now, correlation does not prove causation so I can't claim those stats prove that all gun ownership is a bad thing. But I think we can safely say that since guns are a tool that make it easier to kill quickly, situations where guns are present are more likely to result in deaths than situations where there are no guns. (Of course, situations in which there are box cutters, razors and broken glass are more likely to result in deaths than situations without them too.)

I'm not calling for the elimination of all guns, but better regulation as to the types we allow in the hands of untested individuals--whether that's a mental health test or a gun safety test or both, is another thing that needs hashed out. Again, we already do this for drivers licenses at the state level.

As for Philly, how about some gun death stats from a place where personal gun ownership is known to be very high, like Texas? Any studies done there?

Yes. Regionally, gun deaths (and deaths overall) correlate positively with gun ownership. At the state level, they correlate negatively with stricter gun laws.

[Moderator]

I should have said allows too many “violent” criminals to walk the street.

And more money? How many tens of trillions of dollars have we already pumped into the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and such? Costly, tragic mistakes! Actually, the 1996 welfare reform act under Bill Clinton did wonders, which ended harmful and self-defeating handout programs, and caused recipients to take steps toward self-improvement and self-sufficiency. Unfortunately our executive branch has now taken steps to erode many of those requirements, and subsequently has helped increase the levels of people in poverty. We also need to realize that far too many among us are happy to be leaches on society… sad but true. And I do agree that we need to look at, and refine, the process that surrounds some non-violent current illegal matters.

I may be incorrect, but it sounds like you are referring to the claim that the Obama administration was removing the work requirement from welfare benefits. That claim is not correct in spite of the spin many GOP politicians have tried to put on it earning them the Pants On Fire rating for their distortion of the facts. From PolitiFact:

The claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. The waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law. And there have been no comments by the Obama administration indicating such a dramatic shift in policy.

And from that same piece:

Since 1996, welfare has been administered through block grants to states. The grant program, called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, limits how long families can get aid and requires recipients to eventually go to work. It also includes stringent reporting requirements for states to show they are successfully moving people into the workforce.

A memo from George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the department wanted to give states more flexibility in meeting those requirements. The memo notifies states "of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority ... to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

What does that mean?

"If you can do a better job connecting people to work, we would consider waiving certain parts of the performance measures and use alternate measures," is how Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, translated the memo’s point. (The center supports the plan.)