Why are school shootings a sole unique American problem?

[Tuur]

Nobody has suggested it or has proposed it. It's not on the table for discussion. Rejecting a discussion about restrictions such as Canada has because 'they'll want to take the guns eventually' is not acceptable. So let's do this again.

On the basis that removing guns is not an option, can you comment on why similar restrictions on gun ownership as Canada has could not be implemented in the US?

So you think it would work if we try it just one more time?

 

[Tuur]

A VERY DIFFICULT ANALYSIS

The US has 4% of the world's population.

The US has over 40% of the world guns held by private citizens.

Maybe, just maybe, more guns is associated with more gum violence
=================
We need to face facts. As a society, we have made a choice. We have chosen to allow the unfettered access to assault weapons and other guns. We can reduce the violence a bit, but not much if guns are so accessible. We need to learn to live with the violence. We have made the choice to allow our citizens (and especially children) to die every day. just so macho men can carry their masculinity and attack other when they wish.
============
But yes, we could do the obvious. We could have every gun, every crime, and more is a national data base so that the number of deaths might be reduced.

And yes, the police need to have much MORE guns, and more powerful ones (along with mandatory cams).

You could just save time by putting every person in a cell under close supervision. Except some would still come up with shivs.

 

[rambot]

Given the history of lynching, that's a tasteless thing to write.

I've been told by more than a few CRT opponents that they lynched plenty of white people so I'm not sure how it's tasteless.

 

[Bradskii]

So you think it would work if we try it just one more time?

I've no idea whatsoever to what the 'it' refers. How about you directly answer the question? The thread is about guns and associated problems. How about you discuss possible solutions starting with what Canada does as a starter.

 

[Gene2memE]

And yes, the police need to have much MORE guns, and more powerful ones (along with mandatory cams).

Agree on the mandatory cams, disagree on the more guns, and more powerful guns.

Studies in similarly wealthy/developed nations (Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK) have shown a couple of clear trends from the routine arming of police, and the change in the style of weapons used by police (to more "military" style weapons):

Greater civilian fatalities from police shootings
Greater police injuries & deaths from firearms accidents.

And that's about it.

Notably, police with firearms in these countries are no safer from harm from criminals than police who are not armed. There is even evidence that routinely arming police makes officers LESS safe. While this seems counter-intuitive, it comes down to the psychology and actions of armed vs non-armed police, and the way that police departments change their action/response policies for armed vs unarmed officers.

Also notable, there is no statistically significant difference in crime rates in areas where the police regularly carry firearms vs areas where the police are not regularly armed. Barring homicides, where rates are higher (but that may be a chicken and egg scenario).


US police arming policy - where most officers have both a high capacity semi-automatic pistol and quick access to a long arm (typically a semi-automatic rifle in a NATO standard caliber of 5.56 or 7.62) - is an aberration when compared to the rest of the developed world. That's because the level of firearms ownship and use in the US is also an aberration when compared to the rest of the world.

Human psychology being what it is, there's a assumption that if the criminals are armed, then a police force needs to be armed for its own protection. And if the police is more heavily armed than its opposition, it's safer still. Right up to the level where you get heads of emergency services publicly arguing for arming officers with 7.62X51 battle rifles (accurized M14s for instance) for dedicated marksman duties - at which point, I'm left wondering if they shouldn't just start arming officers with fragmentation grenades and flamethrowers and declare war on the general public too.

I think that the US is too far gone for even sensible, basic gun regulation to work. Recent legal interpretations of the 1st Amendment make it clear that bans on anything other than very specific categories of firearms aren't going to survive court challenges. A buyback is prohibitively expensive and political suicide. Same with an turn-in/amnesty at anything other than a local level.

The state of fear and division in the US is going to see gun ownership expand. After nearly 4 decades of falling levels of gun ownership, this trend reversed itself in the mid 2010s.

Given the trends (more guns, more violence, more mass shootings), what can be done to minimize the harm?

 

[Arcangl86]

Of course they did. Just like with other countries too. Can't make USA be #2 in gun ownership. Politics politics....

Why would an entity that has nothing to do with the United States cook the books to make the US look worst?

 

[Tuur]

I've no idea whatsoever to what the 'it' refers. How about you directly answer the question? The thread is about guns and associated problems. How about you discuss possible solutions starting with what Canada does as a starter.

"It" is the topic at hand. "It" being gun control, "it" having been applied to colonists and slaves and freedmen at various points in American history. If you wish to discuss Canadian history, have at it.

 

[Tuur]

Given the trends (more guns, more violence, more mass shootings), what can be done to minimize the harm?

That sounds like you're arguing that weapons cause violence, and that if no one had weapons, no one would be violent.

 

[mark46]

That sounds like you're arguing that weapons cause violence, and that if no one had weapons, no one would be violent.

Perhaps with fewer guns, fewer people would die.

People in the UK (and Japan and elsewhere) are violent, watch video games and have mental illness). They have less gun violence because they have fewer guns. The proposition is straightforward.

 

[Bradskii]

"It" is the topic at hand. "It" being gun control, "it" having been applied to colonists and slaves and freedmen at various points in American history. If you wish to discuss Canadian history, have at it.

Good grief, you really do want to compare 18th century musket restrictions with 21st century gun problems. That is a farcical comparison. In all my time discussing gun controls on this and other forums, that is the most risible excuse I have come across to reject even a discussion of the problem.

As I said upstream, apart from wanting to turn schools into some armed high security bunker, most pro gun, you'll-take-my-gun-when-you-prise-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands RNA supporters have zero interest in tackling the problem. Or even enter into a discussion about it. Thoughts and prayers are all they can offer as the body bags arrive.

It's a shamefull situation. Thanks for making your views so clear.

 

[Tuur]

It's a shamefull situation. Thanks for making your views so clear.

You're welcome.

 

[Tuur]

Perhaps with fewer guns, fewer people would die.

People in the UK (and Japan and elsewhere) are violent, watch video games and have mental illness). They have less gun violence because they have fewer guns. The proposition is straightforward.

I'm not convinced. For whatever reason, the US has a history of violent behavior predating modern firearms. Before the revolver was the Bowie knife, and before that was gouging, which had charming practices such as popping out eyeballs. Then there was a fight in a hardware store, witnessed by one of my grandfathers, that resulted in the death of both men involved due to their use of the implements at hand.

This, of course, leads to the question that if Americans are more violent, why should Americans be allowed to own firearms? On the other hand, if Americans have such violent tendencies, isn't owning weapons for self-protection reasonable?

 

[mark46]

I'm not convinced. For whatever reason, the US has a history of violent behavior predating modern firearms. Before the revolver was the Bowie knife, and before that was gouging, which had charming practices such as popping out eyeballs. Then there was a fight in a hardware store, witnessed by one of my grandfathers, that resulted in the death of both men involved due to their use of the implements at hand.

This, of course, leads to the question that if Americans are more violent, why should Americans be allowed to own firearms? On the other hand, if Americans have such violent tendencies, isn't owning weapons for self-protection reasonable?

We could deal with why Americans are violent. This may or may not be a societal problem.

I choose to deal with what I know is a problem: violent deaths.

Are we really saying that just as many would die in the US if guns were greatly restricted? I simply don't believe it.

 

[Tuur]

Are we really saying that just as many would die in the US if guns were greatly restricted? I simply don't believe it.

Two of the four murder victims I've known were killed without any weapon at all.

 

[Bradskii]

Are we really saying that just as many would die in the US if guns were greatly restricted? I simply don't believe it.

Me neither. But there are two problems.

One is finding and proposing solutions that might work. Examples from overseas perhaps, some expert opinion from a neutral expert...lots of people put forward lots of suggestions.

And two is getting the NRA supporters to enter into a reasonable discussion about those suggestions. I don't know if it's possible to stick your fingers in your ears when your head is buried in the sand, but some do a mighty fine impression.

Just 'thoughts and prayers' is all we get.

 

[mark46]

Two of the four murder victims I've known were killed without any weapon at all.

so?

Does it follow that there would be fewer gun deaths without guns, or that just as many would be killed by other means?

 

[Gene2memE]

That sounds like you're arguing that weapons cause violence, and that if no one had weapons, no one would be violent.

Weapons don't cause violence necessarily, but the easier the access to weapons in any given situation the more likely it is that the situation will produce a violent outcome. That's regardless of weapon type.

When it comes to weapons, access to firearms is much more likely to produce a life-threatening or fatal outcome than outcomes where there is access to fists/feet, stabbing or blunt weapons.

For instance, in the US rates of homicide are closely correlated with rates of gun ownership. Based on 1981-2010 trends, for each 1% increase in the share of people that own a gun, homicide rates go up by approximately 0.9%. The result is similar for the rest of the developed world, although the proportional increase in homicide rates is only about 0.7% per 1% increase in gun ownership.

Rates of police homicide are even more closely correlated. Based on 1997 to 2010 data, the US states with high levels of gun ownership had police homicide rates around three times higher than the states with the lowest gun ownership levels.

Similarly, rates of suicide are closely correlated with whether a gun is located in the household or not. From data collected from 1985 to 2007, suicide rates of male residents of California who owned pistols were 8 times higher than those who didn't own any firearms. Female suicide rates of pistol owners were 35 times higher! Across the US, firearms owners have a suicide rate that is around 37% above the national average. Individuals in a gun owning household weren't any more likely to report suicidal thoughts, but they were more likely to use a gun in any suicide attempt and thus actually kill themselves.


Weapons are an amplifier of violence. And, the more powerful the weapon, the greater the amplification effect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There have been more that 100 million NEW firearms sales in the US since 2011. Including just under 40 million since 2020!

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/fonteva-customer-media/00D15000000NbUBEA0/SwBudmKw_2021_12_NSSF_NICS_NICS_Annual_Total_History_pdf

Did all those guns just evaporate, or are your numbers just wrong and you're doubling down when corrected?

All the new guns are single-use disposable. Fire all of the rounds it is pre-loaded with and drop it in the trash. (No recycling, that's commie.)

 

[Tuur]

For instance, in the US rates of homicide are closely correlated with rates of gun ownership. Based on 1981-2010 trends, for each 1% increase in the share of people that own a gun, homicide rates go up by approximately 0.9%. The result is similar for the rest of the developed world, although the proportional increase in homicide rates is only about 0.7% per 1% increase in gun ownership.

Except firearms are not used in all US homicides, such as those four killed in Idaho. It's also harder to obtain firearms now than in the past, both due to background checks and fewer places to buy firearms.

 

[essentialsaltes]

An armed society is a polite society.

Customer, employee get into shootout at Taco Bell in Arnold

A customer and employee got into a shootout at a Taco Bell in Arnold Sunday, police tell News 4

www.kmov.com