14 school children and teacher killed in yet another school shooting, in Texas.

[TLK Valentine]

6 times as many come from Indiana. What is your point?

My point is that the gun regulations in some parts of the country would work a lot better if other parts didn't give them away to anyone with a trigger finger.

Interstate commerce isn't just for legal commodities.

 

[tall73]

My point is that the gun regulations in some parts of the country would work a lot better if other parts didn't give them away to anyone with a trigger finger.

Interstate commerce isn't just for legal commodities.

Yes, that is true. And it is seen to a lesser degree in Europe where weapons from the Balkan conflicts, etc. are accessed by criminal elements. One advantage that both the UK and Australia have is that they islands. But jurisdictions with differing gun laws are side by side in the mainland USA.

Hawaii is an interesting example though to look at when comparing to the UK and Australia, as it is also an island, has relatively strict gun laws, but also has a considerably higher homicide rate.

But coming back to the Chicago illustration, the neighborhoods with a 100 per 100k homicide rate clearly have factors within them driving that incredible amount of violence that are not present in the other neighborhoods in Chicago. But the guns coming in are then used by those violent elements in the neighborhood.

On the other side of the coin, some areas in the US have much fewer mass shootings as well, despite more lax gun laws, and more firearms overall. Maine, for instance has had less homicides and less mass shootings, and relatively high gun ownership. And even compared to other sparsely populated areas it has less of the violence.

Because I don't think we can really get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns in the country even with a buyback (I noted that New Zealand only got a bit more than third of the banned guns to be turned in) I think the best we can do on that front is try to limit access through background checks, unsealing violent minor records, having red flag laws and reporting of statements ahead of time.

And then we need to focus on the factors driving violence overall. On the neighborhood level gang activity is a big one. But on the individual level mental health, isolation, depression, fatherlessness (and high levels of incarceration), drug use, poverty, etc. all play into the decision to join gangs, and the decisions of the lone wolf shooters.

And then various violent ideologies, whether right or left wing, or racially based, or religion based, etc. can all factor in as well.

 

[Philip_B]

One can imagine that at some point even God is fed up with "thoughts and prayers". Prayer means nothing when it is not accompanied by action.

-CryptoLutheran

Labore est orare

To work is to pray

What you beg of God, also work for it

 

[Bradskii]

I have given specific suggestions in the thread for school shootings. Few seemed to want to engage on those.

I have spoken to the specific shooting. Few wanted to engage on that.

And some, in this thread, reference buybacks, reference class 3 weapons designations, etc. And that discussion does in fact get into the feasibility of that. I noted the recent effort in New Zealand.

Then the conversation went from there about guns in general, because some were indicating what America needs to do.

This is not a thread about 'guns in general'. This is about children being shot by an 18 year old kid. If you can't understand that these are two separate topics then I'm at a loss as to how to explain it to you.

 

[tall73]

This is not a thread about 'guns in general'. This is about children being shot by an 18 year old kid. If you can't understand that these are two separate topics then I'm at a loss as to how to explain it to you.

When people propose gun measures then you have to discuss guns, that is part of the topic.

I have also discussed the specific shooting, and measures that could help. Feel free to quote those and discuss.

 

[Larniavc]

You don't like their explanation? They analyze a number of potential factors in the report. But they explained that high homicides in the early 2,000's stemmed mostly from criminal gangs, often tied to cocaine imports from Jamaica.

They managed to eventually stem the flow of cocaine, reducing the accompanying violence:

Are Recent Cocaine Busts Evidence of Revived Jamaica-UK Drug Route?

Stopping the flow of Jamaican drug mules crossing the Atlantic has for years been a top priority for both governments. In 2002, officials in the UK and Jamaica launched Operation Airbridge, which posted UK police and customs agents at Jamaican airports to work alongside their counterparts to stop couriers at the source.

Prior to the operation, UK customs officials noticed they had a real problem on their hands after identifying an average of 30 drug mules per flight coming into the UK on three specific flights from Jamaica that were subjected to comprehensive searches, according to Chris Hobbs, a former police officer in London who worked for years in Jamaica as part of the anti-drug initiative between the two countries.

In its first year, local media reported that the number of mules intercepted by authorities in Jamaica jumped from 82 to 216. Officials across the pond also saw results. Between 2002 and 2007, the number of drug mules from Jamaica detected at UK airports dropped from 1,000 to just three, according to British authorities.

UK authorities note that gun crime continues to be primarily driven by criminal gangs:

Illegal firearms

The majority of shootings in the UK are committed by street gangs involved in many types of criminality, such as armed robberies and drug distribution. Victims of gun crime are generally known to the police which indicates that criminals use firearms in feuds with other criminal groups for protection, punishment or to extend their criminal enterprises.

Most criminal firearms have not been used before, indicating a fluid supply from within the UK and overseas.

It was also noted that knives, which have been the most used weapon in the UK for some time, also were used frequently in this gang violence.

I don't understand. I'm asking you for your thoughts. I'm not talking to them I'm talking to you.

 

[RDKirk]

Hawaii is an interesting example though to look at when comparing to the UK and Australia, as it is also an island, has relatively strict gun laws, but also has a considerably higher homicide rate.

But Hawaii's homicide rate is considerably less than otherwise apparently similar areas on the Mainland.

But coming back to the Chicago illustration, the neighborhoods with a 100 per 100k homicide rate clearly have factors within them driving that incredible amount of violence that are not present in the other neighborhoods in Chicago. But the guns coming in are then used by those violent elements in the neighborhood.

On the other side of the coin, some areas in the US have much fewer mass shootings as well, despite more lax gun laws, and more firearms overall. Maine, for instance has had less homicides and less mass shootings, and relatively high gun ownership. And even compared to other sparsely populated areas it has less of the violence.

<snip>

And then we need to focus on the factors driving violence overall. On the neighborhood level gang activity is a big one. But on the individual level mental health, isolation, depression, fatherlessness (and high levels of incarceration), drug use, poverty, etc. all play into the decision to join gangs, and the decisions of the lone wolf shooters.

And then various violent ideologies, whether right or left wing, or racially based, or religion based, etc. can all factor in as well.

When I lived in Hawaii (eight years total, four in the 70s and four in the 90s--with years in both the Far East and Washington DC in between), one difference I noted is the zeitgeist of the regions.

Even though there are as many, if not more, different ethnicities in Hawaii, the racial dynamics are very, very different from those on the Mainland. In some ways, they emphasize ethnic differences even more...but they cause less friction than on the Mainland. Being angry and offended all the time (except for native Hawaiians...and there aren't that many of them) just isn't a thing.

Hawaii tends to have the zeitgeist of, "You're living in paradise...how angry can you be?" Compared to Washington DC, there simply is not so much expressed and unexpressed community rage.

 

[tall73]

But Hawaii's homicide rate is considerably less than otherwise apparently similar areas on the Mainland.

Agreed.

It is low for the USA. And it is high compared to places like Australia, etc. despite fairly strict gun laws.

And that is why I think it comes down to cultural dynamics, etc. as you note.

 

[tall73]

I don't understand. I'm asking you for your thoughts. I'm not talking to them I'm talking to you.

Yes, you are talking to me. And I presented data because reviewing data, analysis, etc. is part of how I develop my thoughts on the issue. The analysis makes sense to me based on what I know of violence here as well. I think violence is a people issue. Guns may make it easier, but the decision to kill comes first. The USA has a violent mindset.

 

[Philip_B]

If there was a course of action you could take that had a significant chance of significantly reducing the death toll from mass shootings, would you take it?

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live​

I have tried to understand the argument for the defence of your 2nd ammendment rights, I have heard Americans tell me that Australians are not really free, and yet still I don't understand why the largely unregulated distribution of semi-autmatic assault rifles (weapons) should be seen as virtue in the face of carnage.

The purpose of the constitution, yours or ours, is to protect the people from the tyranny of government. We went to war with you in the pursuit of 'weapons of mass destruction' and did not find them, yet it seems that the semi-automatic assault rifle (weapon) is also a weapon of mass destruction, and yet somehow you do not see it.

Our eyes are exhausted with weeping for your children.

 

[tall73]

If there was a course of action you could take that had a significant chance of significantly reducing the death toll from mass shootings, would you take it?

Deuteronomy 30.19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live​

I have tried to understand the argument for the defence of your 2nd ammendment rights, I have heard Americans tell me that Australians are not really free, and yet still I don't understand why the largely unregulated distribution of semi-autmatic assault rifles should be seen as virtue in the face of carage.

The purpose of the constitution, yours or ours, is to protect the people from the tyranny of government. We went to war with you in the pursuit of 'weapons of mass destruction' and did not find them, yet it seems that the semi-automatic assault rifle is also a weapon of mass destruction, and yet somehow you do not see it.

Our eyes are exhausted with weeping for your children.

Yes, we should take it if there is an action that will help. Some I already mentioned I think would help

a. unseal minor violent offender records to improve background checks.
b. Require social media companies to use human review for human reported statements making specific threats. Often these shootings are discussed ahead of time.
c. Drastically increase funding and study of the factors that drive such shootings, and crime in general. Look for solutions to the isolation, poverty, fatherlessness, drugs, gangs, human trafficking etc.
d. Proper red flag laws that give a person a day in court to defend themselves seem warranted.

There could be others.

But I don't understand your statement about the assault rifles. If you feel that guns are the problem, then it is not just one type of gun that is the problem. If you advocate repeal of the 2nd amendment, and for ban and buyback it should include semi-automatic pistols as well, which are also used for mass shootings, and for the vast majority of shootings in the US.

And more to the point, there seems to be a difference in perspective on whether people have a legitimate right to self-defense using firearms. In Australia you are, to my understanding at least, but you can correct me, required to give a reason for a gun, and it can't be self-defense. So Australia rules out that possibility from the outset. Some Americans object to that because then they are not able to defend themselves against larger or more powerful aggressive attackers. If we didn't have so many of those it would help. If we want people to give up gun ownership we need to reduce cultural drivers of violence.

Do you think that self-defense is a legitimate principle?

Now as someone who doesn't want to own a gun, and does not use it for self-defense, and would rather be victimized than kill another, I understand the logic that we are all better off if guns are removed, or at least exceedingly rare.

But I don't know if we can actually get to that with the reality in the USA. And if we cannot, and the ones with the guns are the criminal gangs and cartels, of which there are many, then some will be even more defenseless than before. And while I don't choose to exercise my right to carry a gun, I have a hard time saying someone else can't if they live in a very dangerous area.

In the town in which I pastor a church 1 out of every 1,000 persons was human trafficked in one year. And it was nearly as high the year before. And it is a problem that looks like it will continue, because the authorities have not been able to reign in the drugs, gangs, and human traffickers. And if you tell people in some of the neighborhoods where it happens that they must give up a tool that may be the only way to keep a would be trafficker at bay, they may not get on board with that. I am very glad that in many places of the world they don't have such incredible evil at hand on a routine basis, and can surrender their weapons. But that is not the case in a number of places in the USA.

And so some are in favor of guns on that basis. And yes, that means that suicide attempts may be more lethal. And that means that there can be accidental discharges. And it sometimes means that an individual can take a gun and kill many people.

But unless we can address the underlying violence, many will not give up their guns, because they are weighing all the factors into a risk benefit calculation.

And then there is the observation that in some places in the US where there are not as many criminal elements, or factors driving crime, there are a lot of guns, but not a lot of homicides, or mass shootings. That suggests to me that the presence of guns is not the main factor. It is the presence of people driven to violence. And we don't seem to be working on those solutions.

 

[Philip_B]

But I don't understand your statement about the assault rifles. If you feel that guns are the problem, then it is not just one type of gun that is the problem. If you advocate repeal of the 2nd amendment, and for ban and buyback it should include semi-automatic pistols as well, which are also used for mass shootings, and for the vast majority of shootings in the US.

I was not being especially limiting, but simple based on the abservation thatthe weapon of choice in almost all the higher case mass shootings is clearly the semi-automatic assault rife. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons as a class being limited, by be restricted without an absolute infringement of the 2nd ammendment.

Do you think that self-defense is a legitimate principle?

Absolutely I suport that self-defense is legitimate - but legally it needs to be commensurate, and the threat nees to be absolute and real, you can't just go a shoot a group of people who are XY or Z on the grounds that they may pose a threat to your safety. Guns are not the only means of defence.

Guns are not the problem. I agree with that. It is a human problem. The average citizen in the USA owns 1.2 guns, whilst the average Australian owns 0.07 guns. There are significant cultural differences, however we also have much in common. The question I guess is how do you go about the significant cultural shift required to reduce the carnage of your own people. My guess is, after all these years, that the American People do not have the will to do it. Surely you are appalled that innocent children in your own land are brutally mowed down in an act that could not be described as self-defence by any stretch of the imagination, though no doubt some lawyer woud try!

 

[tall73]

I was not being especially limiting, but simple based on the abservation thatthe weapon of choice in almost all the higher case mass shootings is clearly the semi-automatic assault rife.

If we are speaking in general of killings of more than 4 people handguns are used in the vast majority. If you are speaking of the most fatalities in random targeted public shootings, it is still a mixed bag. Here are the shootings with more than 10 fatalities from the Mother Jones Database:

There was a 10 year assault weapons ban and while some think it had some benefit, some are not sure of even that.

Automatic and semi-automatic weapons as a class being limited, by be restricted without an absolute infringement of the 2nd ammendment.

I don't think the courts have ruled so far that you could restrict severely semi-autos as a class.

Absolutely I suport that self-defense is legitimate - but legally it needs to be commensurate, and the threat nees to be absolute and real, you can't just go a shoot a group of people who are XY or Z on the grounds that they may pose a threat to your safety.

Yes.

Guns are not the only means of defence.

No, but if your opponent has guns they may be the only one that gives you a chance.

Guns are not the problem. I agree with that. It is a human problem.

Yes.

The average citizen in the USA owns 1.2 guns, whilst the average Australian owns 0.07 guns.

Actually, the majority of citizens in the US own zero guns. And until the last few years that was continuing to drop, just as homicides had been dropping to nearly 50 percent lower levels than their highs. But recent surges in violence resulted in increases in new gun ownership in the last few years.

Gun inequality: US study charts rise of hardcore super owners

Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every American adult, according to the most definitive portrait of US gun ownership in two decades. But the new survey estimates that 133m of these guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each.

The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

The new survey results mirror the trends of the annual General Social Survey, which found that household gun ownership has fallen from 50% to close to 31% since the late 1970s, and that individual gun ownership fell from 28% in 1980 to 22% in 2014.

 

[tall73]

IThere are significant cultural differences, however we also have much in common. The question I guess is how do you go about the significant cultural shift required to reduce the carnage of your own people.

I listed several things that could be done in this post, and a number of others that could address violence more generally earlier in the thread. So did @RDKirk.

Some of them require the people in government to act. I don't have any idea if they will. They do not always respond to what the people want.

But much of it will have to be addressing the isolation, depression and hopelessness that characterizes our population. Both the government and the people have a role in that.

Here is a recent CDC Adolescent Behaviors and Experiences Survey that found considerable hopelessness:

ABES Table: Summary | DASH | CDC

 

[Bradskii]

When people propose gun measures then you have to discuss guns...

As it relates to the specific problem being discussed. School shootings and the ability of young guys to obtain assault type weapons over the counter. Discussing Chicago or gang warfare or even suicides by guns is not the topic. It just muddies the discussion and takes the thread off into areas that don't concern us.

 

[tall73]

As it relates to the specific problem being discussed. School shootings and the ability of young guys to obtain assault type weapons over the counter. Discussing Chicago or gang warfare or even suicides by guns is not the topic. It just muddies the discussion and takes the thread off into areas that don't concern us.

Your view is noted. I don't share it. I have responded to those discussing gun measures, including those who favor buybacks or heavy regulation. And such things as shootings in Chicago, gang violence, self defense, and higher suicide attempt lethality relate to the overall risk calculation of owning guns. Mass shootings, are also part of that calculation. So if you are discussing policies that relate to guns and to mass shootings, you may have to talk about other aspects of that risk calculation to see whether removal or heavy regulation of firearms is an overall benefit, or is even feasible.

I have also discussed a number of other measures regarding mass shootings that don't relate to gun control. Feel free to quote and discuss them.

 

[Philip_B]

No, but if your opponent has guns they may be the only one that gives you a chance.

The chance of your opponent having a gun is vastly increased in a society where gun ownbership is 1.2 guns per person, as against .07 guns per person.

a. unseal minor violent offender records to improve background checks.
b. Require social media companies to use human review for human reported statements making specific threats. Often these shootings are discussed ahead of time.
c. Drastically increase funding and study of the factors that drive such shootings, and crime in general. Look for solutions to the isolation, poverty, fatherlessness, drugs, gangs, human trafficking etc.
d. Proper red flag laws that give a person a day in court to defend themselves seem warranted.​

I agree that some measure of improvement may be seen here, however there is a sense od deflection rather than attacking the problem head on.

Please do not take this as a criticism of your approach, but rather the lament that this has gone on for a long time and our eyes are exhausted with weeping for your children.

I guess the question might be, does the Government have a role to play in the protection of its citizens?

 

[Bradskii]

Your view is noted. I don't share it. I have responded to those discussing gun measures, including those who favor buybacks or heavy regulation. And such things as shootings in Chicago, gang violence, self defense, and higher suicide attempt lethality relate to the overall risk calculation of owning guns. Mass shootings, are also part of that calculation. So if you are discussing policies that relate to guns and to mass shootings, you may have to talk about other aspects of that risk calculation to see whether removal or heavy regulation of firearms is an overall benefit, or is even feasible.

I have also discussed a number of other measures regarding mass shootings that don't relate to gun control. Feel free to quote and discuss them.

When I was working (ah, the joys of retirement) and we had a problem regarding a certain aspect of a particular job, then sometimes we'd have a quick meeting to brainstorm possible solutions. Almost without fail, if the meeting wasn't rigorously chaired, then we'd end up wandering off topic with everyone solving department, company and even industry wide problems. It was a constant problem to get people to focus on the problem at hand.

You are not doing that. You are expanding the discussion so that every man and his dog has an opinion on umpteen positions and the very one that the thread was formed to discuss is not discussed. So who needs a post on gang violence or gun death rates in Hawaii? They are applicable to gun control in general. But this isn't a thread on gun control in general. It's a specific incident which seems to have a lot in common with other similar massacres (and nothing at all to do with crime in south Chicago for example).

You are posting general comments in an op that relates to a specific problem. And the thread is the worse for that.

 

[tall73]

When I was working (ah, the joys of retirement) and we had a problem regarding a certain aspect of a particular job, then sometimes we'd have a quick meeting to brainstorm possible solutions. Almost without fail, if the meeting wasn't rigorously chaired, then we'd end up wandering off topic with everyone solving department, company and even industry wide problems. It was a constant problem to get people to focus on the problem at hand.

You are not doing that. You are expanding the discussion so that every man and his dog has an opinion on umpteen positions and the very one that the thread was formed to discuss is not discussed. So who needs a post on gang violence or gun death rates in Hawaii? They are applicable to gun control in general. But this isn't a thread on gun control in general. It's a specific incident which seems to have a lot in common with other similar massacres (and nothing at all to do with crime in south Chicago for example).

You are posting general comments in an op that relates to a specific problem. And the thread is the worse for that.

Your view is noted. But I don't agree. Policy decisions can have implications that go beyond just the specific thing that you are particularly focused on. And so that gets discussed.

If solutions are looked at only in the light of a recent event, without looking at the totality of the implications, it can result in problems, or less buy-in.

And I have also discussed specific non-gun related measures that could help. And I have discussed the specific incident. Feel free to quote those and discuss them.

 

[Bradskii]

Your view is noted. But I don't agree. Policy decisions can have implications that go beyond just the specific thing that you are particularly focused on. And so that gets discussed.

If solutions are looked at only in the light of a recent event, without looking at the totality of the implications, it can result in problems, or less buy-in.

And I have also discussed specific non-gun related measures that could help. And I have discussed the specific incident. Feel free to quote those and discuss them.

Fix one specific problem and that will fix all similar problems. It radiates out. So if in this case the assault-type weapon was bought by an 18 year old and we say that to help solve this problem you have to be 21, then that can become a general rule. But if you take a general view, say that all guns must be registered, then it doesn't solve this problem. It doesn't filter down because it's not applicable.

That's not to say we mustn't look at general solutions to general problems. But this thread is about a specific problem. It needs specific solutions. Discussing knife death rates and the population of Hawaii doesn't help.