After Sandy Hook, Senator calls for violent video game probe
Gun control remains a politically fraught issue in the US, even after such events as the December 14 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, but one top lawmaker has proposed legislation that could lead to tighter restrictions on firearms – at least the imaginary kind. On Wednesday, Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Why is it illegal to slap a politician?
Although I mainly agree with you about limiting access by those with mental health issues and criminal records, you and many other commentators on this board obviously don't know anything about firearms ownership in the UK or elsewhere.
You may be surprised to know that the various shooting sports in the UK puts it amongst the highest participation sports. (ie: people who do it, not just watch it).
In 2010 there were over 140,000 firearms certificates and well over half a million shotgun licenses in issue in the UK.
Shooting sports are also among the safest as well, with more fatalities from ballroom dancing, football, fishing, etc...
As long as you exclude the police, injuries and fatalities caused by legally owned firearms is close to zero most years.
If you included the police shootings, accidental discharges of guns (a police firearms trainer even shot and killed one of his students a few years back) the stat's are not quite so good.
Re: Why is it illegal to slap a politician?
Ok, gun grabbing? Canada has LOTS of guns but they don't have anything like the number of gun deaths even allowing for the difference in population levels.
Americans seriously can't handle the large number of guns they have - more than 11,000 deaths a year so taking away the guns would help a lot. Some people might be killed due to the ABSENCE of a gun but you'd save far, far more lives than you'd lose.
Mental Health? Yes, you're right. Americans NEED more mental health facilities.
What's this about kevlar-laced school uniforms? I'm FROM the UK (currently living & working in China) & I've never heard of that. A yahoo search comes up with your post but nothing else like it mentioning the UK.
For the record, I think the Americans should...
A: Get rid of the guns. Period.
B: Expand their mental health facilities. A LOT.
C: Decide that a child's right to go to school without worrying about being shot is more important than their right to bear arms.
'nuff said.
Re: Why is it illegal to slap a politician?
Google for stab-proof schhol uniform.
example http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=12471
You said yourself: Canada has a lot of guns and a ot less murders then the US, but in the other hand, it is such an intricante kabuki dog-and-pony show to try to legally own a gun in Brazil if you are not military or law enforcement that virtually no one has them (again: legally) and the number of murders anually is north of 50.000, with a smaller population than the US.
What gives? You think maybe gang and drug related violence must be a bigger factor than gun ownership? I would´nt be so quick to dismiss it. Canada has a higher rate of muslim honor killings commited by parents and relatives of the female victim than Brazil, but I am not calling for the banning of Canadian families. At the same time, US borders are virtually open and drug traffic is rampant. You see my point? Hell, Obama is even arming the drug dealers (google operation Fast and Furious if you don´t know what I am talking about).
"C: Decide that a child's right to go to school without worrying about being shot is more important than their right to bear arms."
Suposeddly they are safe. At least, by your argument they should. The mass killings in the US occur nearly 100% of time in gun free zones. Even major Hassan in Fort Hood chose to strike in the infirmary: one of the few areas inside the fort where guns where not alowed. The TDK Colorado shooter chose the one theather of 7 in his area (and not the one closest to him home) that banned concealed carry to strike. Conicidence? I don´t doubt for a second he included this in his calculations.
If teachers who are already trained and licensed with a concealed carry permit where able to have their guns with them in the school when he attack starts, they would be able to stop the killer before he fully inflicts the mayhem he planned, intead of dieing in a storm of lead like Sandy Hook´s principal.
You can argue all they about shoulda/whoulda/coulda ban guns, but guns are a part of the US and the right to bear arms is constitutionally garanteed. This whole charade is not about gun control. It is about control. The gov. simply does not have the power to outright do it, and trying to cram it down the throat of people by tugging at the heart strings ("it is for the children!") and imposing onerous regulations and nuisance laws will only weaken the constitution and expand gov. powers. Then, what would be next target? Free speech? It´s eerily reminisment of Hayek´s Road to Serfdom....
Re: with a broad similarity of culture
No, you don't. All of those cultures are much more prone to treat the citizen as subject than the citizen as supreme. Couple that change with some of the dreck from Hollywood, the violent video games, and a more generalized if it feels good do it attitude and you wind up with what we have. Also, while those societies may have the diversity across the spectrum, they don't have it within the region. Those territorial boundaries are important. And in Britain, those places where that cultural diversity is going up are precisely the flash points for more violence.
Doesn't Rockefeller know bullets killed the kids?
You would have thought if the publicity seeking Rockefeller had time to draft this matter, he would have had time, and have been better employed in drafting a law banning long magazines and requiring bullet purchasers to obtain a permit before being sold ammunition.
I see some heartless enterprising vendor is producing "bullet proof" back packs which h suggest children could hide behind in the event of an attack.
Pretty sick.
How about
a probe into the effects of fundamentalism on children? That could perhaps provide more fertile ground for a study.
Absolute BS
What are the odds? senator tell people that the thing everyone loves (guns) actually isn't the problem - it's those terrible, sinful things the bible was talking about that are the issue!
There seems to be a belief that people who perpetrate these murders have a big target above their heads, and creep around in black and white striped outfits waiting to strike... The idea that everyone having guns is a form of "protection" only works as long as you know that no-one with a gun would ever commit a murder.
The reality is that any Freedom Loving American (tm) has the potential to go on a rampage, and whilst the papers and newsstands will proclaim that it was "obvious" that he was going to be a killer, and point to a bunch of meaningless facts that supposedly demonstrate why he was a "bad guy", he obviously seemed normal enough up until the moment he pulled the trigger.
It's the Us and Them mentality that makes people think that guns are the solution, but eventually they'll have to realise that the mass murderers are being recruited from their own ranks of "ordinary decent citizens".
More useful, perhaps
...might be a publicly-funded, freely available, mental health service? And an education campaign to urge people to access it? If someone likely to go off the rails like this has easy access to treatment long before it happens would that not have a more beneficial effect than any kneejerk bans or restrictions?
Free mental healthcare? You commie! Next you'll be suggesting we give our kids a proper education. Climb back in your trabant!
Seriously, yes it would help reduce some of the problems (there is no one solution) and is a worthy suggestion but I can't see it being adopted as it would be viewed as socialist which is viewed as communist which is baaaaaad! The view amongst a sizeable population of the USA is that the government shouldn't do much of anything other than perhaps have a large armed force (because that isn't collectivised security, honest!). Not something I would have too huge an issue with if it was done properly but apparently they only want the government out of peoples lives as long as they conform with their social views i.e. sexuality etc, then its ok for the government to intervene. So yeah, interesting country :-) Plenty of faults but a good place to live with good people.
Milton Friedman explained in very clear terms and Mark Levin´s books go into the philosophical roots and extensive detail on the role of goverment and why US founders considered a good idea to limit it as much as possible. The liberals (left, media, democrats) in there want the expansion of gov. The conservatives (right, new media, Tea Party) want the constitution as it is.
That´s why you get the impression they want goverment to stay out of peoples lives in one issue and want interference in others. It is not a monolithic culture as one would assume if only watching american media.
Oh please
" In his statement, Rockefeller said, "Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it. They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians,and psychologists know better.""
If parent know so much better, then why are they buying violent video games for their kiddies? Because the last time I checked, such games carried certificates which requires the purchaser to be over a certain age.
"Mum, can I have Grand Theft Auto 5? The mean guy in the shop won't sell it to me"
"why not?"
"he says I have to be 18"
"oh, there must be some mistake, its only a video game, and they only make those for kids, don't they?"
And so on.
Re: Oh please
The rating system is completely voluntary (and games are rated by the ESRB, which is a private not for profit) in the US. Although since almost all retailers will not sell an unrated game, only a few minor publishing houses avoid it. For the same reason, the more grossly-offensive content is removed (or never present to start) to avoid the M or AO ratings.
The ESRB actually admits this:
"A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 found that video games are a constitutionally-protected form of expression, and that laws restricting their sale or rental based upon violent content are unconstitutional. That said, ESRB supports retailers' voluntary policies restricting the sale or rental of M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only) computer and video games in the United States and Canada to customers who are at least 17 and 18 years of age, respectively (unless permission from a parent has been obtained)."
http://www.esrb.org/retailers/faq.jsp#6
Re: Oh please
"Mum, can I have Grand Theft Auto 5? The mean guy in the shop won't sell it to me"
"why not?"
"he says I have to be 18"
"Well. You'll just have to go outside and play with your assault rifle instead, then"
Fixed it for you.
Typically American
Isn't it just so typically American. Rather than face the obvious (which is if you have a gun in your house, at some point someone is highly likely to use it) and control the cause and restrict gun ownership, they try to tackle other nonsense that has nothing to do with the problem in hand.
Its really, really simple America. If gun's aren't available, the people won't get shot. It really is as simple as that. I appreciate it's not easy with all the rednecks, hillbillys and retards over there, but really, ban guns and suddenly the problem won't happen as much.
I could go on, but there's no point as you won't do it, children will continue to get killed and all American's will continue to be shocked by something that is obvious to the rest of the world.
I quite like American's generally, so I'd really rather you didn't all kill yourselves. Do you think you might be able to see sense this one time? Hope so :)
Stop being sensible, it might catch on then we will all be in the shit! Stuff might get done right, then there will be less to do.
I do advocate greater gun control but to discuss it you have to understand that a decent number of people simply won't discuss it rationally and also you need to look at America's history and its culture. People are brought up hearing about their rights, and rights are awesome. I will stand by the constitution and bill of rights as one of the most important documents of our time. The problem is there was no bill of responsibilities and some folks simply don't want to anything other than what they want to do. There are many responsible gun owners out there, their rights do need protecting, but for some people guns are an insurance policy for being an ass, they're protection, they're a statement on manhood or power. Over here we hunt a lot with bow and knife, partially because its more challenging and fun and partially because the seasons are longer (its also a lot cheaper and less paperwork). For others its about who can create the biggest crater where bambi was. The culture has to change for the violence to decrease, but I think America's past will make that difficult.
Re: Typically American
It's really not simple though is it? There are hundreds of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammo already in the hands of Americans, you could completely ban the sale of all guns and ammo for a 20 year period without massively affecting gun ownership.
I expect that some assault rifles will get banned for future sale as a result of this, but nothing else.
Re: Typically American
Right.
But then you can always count on Eric Holder to give you some AK-47s if you are a mexican drug dealer.
It is video games
And psychotic meds as well.
We had unrestricted firearms access in Oz during the 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s... and no mass murder attacks.
Then when you get one and the early reports are on the psychological issues and meds of the gunman get pushed aside and the news changes to stir public opinion into hysteria and anti laws pushed you grow quickly jaded.
When years later you get govt report after report that show statistically no impact on crime or suicide rates make the pollies angry and the report givers remind ten that's what separates actual science from public opinion and they ignore it you stay jaded.
Web attacks happen in gun free zones but not in open carry states you wonder, but its never reported.
When full autos have been legally licensed since the 30's in the USA with only 3 incidents in all those years with one of them committed by a Police officer and now the govt goes crazy on them even though it was just a semi-auto used you scratch your head.
It's all public opinion, spin doctoring and pushes by fringe groups trying to push related but slighlty off the mark agendas.
No one ever focuses on root problems, always treat symptoms instead.
In the words of Eddie Izzard
In response to the whole guns don't kill people etc
'but I think the gun helps...'
Re: In the words of Eddie Izzard
I think he also advocated giving monkeys guns... and then throwing them over the wall of Charlton Heston's house. So yeah, I'd vote for him.
Constitutional question
Actually I have a question for our American cousins regarding the constitution which is only ever so slightly off topic.
As far as I understand it on of the reasons guns can't just be made illegal is due to the second amendment giving you the right to bear arms.
Does this mean the original constitution was amended to give this right and if so why can't it just be amended again.
Apologies for my ignorance of such matters...
Re: Constitutional question
Yes, the Constitution CAN be amended. Get enough votes & you can have an amendment that says... pretty much anything you want.
However, it takes a LOT of votes and, in this day & age, won't happen.
It's worth noting that, had the 2nd Amendment been followed, then the number of gun killings would be way, way down from what it currently is - around 11,000 a year.
The 2nd Amendment begins with (and its beginning is convieniently forgotten by most gun advocates) 'A well-regulated militia...'
So you can have a gun but only if you're part of a government-regulated militia. Which would keep (like almost all armies) the guns in the barracks, not in the soldiers/citizens homes. Which would carry out mental health screening. Which would carry out training and address safety issues and so on...
Of course, they'll never do that and so the killing will go on...
Re: Constitutional question
Amendments can be repealed, with another amendment. I believe it's the 31st amendment that brings in prohibition and the 32nd that repeals it.
As has been said, the amendment is a little more wordy than simply stating the right to bear arms. Along with the well-regulated militia, it also specifially states that only in the time of war (but given the USA has only *not* been at war for less than 20 years of it's entire existence).
If anyone cares to, the Constitution and it's early amendments are clearly written by a group of lucid and intelligent gentleman, the prose may be a little off by modern standards but what is written is incredibly clear in it's intentions. Unfortunately, like the Torah, Bible, Koran or any other religious book, the text has been abused and twisted by men to their own ends. If the USA was run strictly as the Constitution is written, the country would be all the better for it.
Proof that violent video games don't cause real world violence
Jack Thompson is still alive.
Prevention rather than cure...
There was actually an attack in a school in China around the same time as this latest shooting. 20 injured last time I read about it, the guy only had a knife.
Guns aren't the problem, the people using them are. But, unless we're going to turn an entire population into a well balanced nation, let's just take the guns away and whilst it's not curing the problem, it'll certainly help prevent it.
Re: Prevention rather than cure...
If this Chinese guy had an assault rifle and lots of ammo instead of the knife, would more people have been injured more seriously, and would the death toll have been higher?
That's the point of gun control - there are always crazies out to harm and kill, guns just make it a lot easier to do that to more people than pretty much anything else.
The "self-defence" argument is plainly bollocks as well:
Quick, what's the instant visual difference between a murderous nutter sighting on their next victim and the armed stranger sighting on the murderous nutter?
You've got one second to decide, as do the other armed strangers in the room who are looking at you.
Re: Prevention rather than cure...
That was my point, though poorly made I'll admit. Because he only had a knife it seems no one died, a vast improvement.
You cannot hope to get rid of all the crazies, or even the normal folk who just flip when life deals them one too many bad hands.
In a way though, I fear the USA may be beyond gun control to the degree of the UK, and would be better off removing automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and then trying to arm as many people as possible that are left. If you can't get rid of all the guns, then unfortunately the 2nd best option is that everyone gets one, so at least such nutjobs get shot before they've racked up the kill count so high. I don't think you'd get any more mass murderers (they all seem to be able to get hold of a pistol or too from a neighbour at worst), but at least they'd not get as far.
ok some facts: The killer was 20 years old, he would have had access to violent games even if the games were banned to minors. Plus he was in his late teens for quite sometime, so he would still have had access to those games. The ban wouldn't have helped in the case of this guy
2) the game the media believe that he liked was "Starcraft"... and I think they just added "Call of Duty"
3) "Nancy Lanza took her son, Adam, to a shooting range and taught him how to use a firearm before he turned a gun on her and shot her dead...
Fifty-two-year-old Nancy Lanza was an avid gun collector...
She said she would often go target shooting with her kids"
source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248645/Nancy-Lanza-Mother-murderer-Adam-Lanza-avid-gun-collector-taught-sons-use-firearms.html#ixzz2FZqK56rn
yup, with all the above facts, a law to control selling games to minors is what we need :-)
we've got murderous nutters in the UK too
and *most* of the time in the UK they can only get hold of hammers , sticks , knives and swords.
Maybe the nutter might use a car to try and run someone over .
These methods are all pretty deadly for the 1 or 2 poor victims the nutter manages to kill .
But most of the rest of the people can run or get out of the way.
It is really hard to run far enough away or get out of the way of a nutter with a gun, so the nutter with a gun will always be able to kill a *much* larger amount of people, and is much more difficult for the police to handle.
I never heard of someone killing someone with a video game, I suppose if you angle the attack right and hit the victim in the temple with the video game box or maybe disk, you could get lucky (or should that be unlucky?) .
As far as I can see guns have just one use and that is for killing. Target practice is just practicing how to hit and kill stuff (admittedly this maybe hunting non-human animals) . Knives , hammers and cars, which whilst they can kill, are useful tools with other purposes. They are also fortunately no where as efficient at mass intentional killing as guns.
You will never completely stop nutters from existing, all you can control is the nutters access to deadly weapons.
I personally much prefer living in a place where nutters have a much harder time getting hold of a gun.
Re: we've got murderous nutters in the UK too
"As far as I can see guns have just one use and that is for killing. Target practice is just practicing how to hit and kill stuff (admittedly this maybe hunting non-human animals) ."
As an owner and shooter of guns in the UK for ~20 years and as a member of society with an acknowledged mental condition (depression), your view is more than a little skewed. I'd say it clearly comes from someone who has never been around guns to any extent - but there isn't enough data to make that assertion.
I used to own hand-guns, until Dunblane outlawed them (the shooter in that case legally had rifles, but illegally had hand-guns, so we banned hand-guns, that the shooter hadn't legally obtained anyway). Knee-jerk reaction right there.
In all those years, i've not come into contact with anyone who has done anything other than shoot targets at ranges (both 25m indoor and 100m outdoor ranges), clay pigeons and enough people who hunt for sport, leisure and for animal culling. None of the probably hundreds of people have gone off on one. At one point, I had 3 rifles and a shotgun in the rifle safe at home and close to 10,000 rounds of ammunition in the ammunition safe - all legal. Look at how I managed to not kill anyone.
The argument we have here is the same as for many other things - a minority misuse something, so we should ban it for everyone. In short, banning guns is a form of censorship.
Re: we've got murderous nutters in the UK too
Quoted " The argument we have here is the same as for many other things - a minority misuse something, so we should ban it for everyone. In short, banning guns is a form of censorship."
This is the single line of defence of every NRA member it seems
"I'm Perfectly normal, so you have no right to take my HUGE Armory (US sp) of guns away from me"
and
"if you try to take me guns, the constitution says I can legally shoot you !"
someone mentioned it above, they read the constitution and it's amendments and took the parts that they thought applied to them.
Logical, but 100% not Right
@EvilGav 1
"I used to own hand-guns, until Dunblane outlawed them (the shooter in that case legally had rifles, but illegally had hand-guns, so we banned hand-guns, that the shooter hadn't legally obtained anyway). Knee-jerk reaction right there."
Dunblane changed everything in the UK. I think it was the first primary school mass shooting. I consider the response was excessive. The man was thrown out of the Boy Scouts as a suspected child molester, which suggests the local police should have arrested him long before he got to the school.
Although IIRC one of the key recommendations (a nationwide database of gun licenses and where and when people had tried to apply for them) was not implemented.
Re: we've got murderous nutters in the UK too
evilGav1 , I agree , I'm glad to say 99.9999% of people with guns "don't go off on one". ( as you put it ) , and banning guns is a form of censorship. It is also censoring something that can be deadly, unlike the films and magazines that Mary Whitehouse used to campaign about. I also wouldn't censor the video games this article was originally about either.
What do you propose we do about incidents like Hungerford,Dunblane, Sandyhook ? Nothing ? Are these the price we have to pay ? Or do we have gun control ? I don't see trying to identify these nutters before hand as ever likely to work. You aren't ever going to stop the lone nutcase going off on one, and easy access to guns is always going to make their rampage worse for more people.
For me it is a simple choice, personal freedom to have guns or the freedom for people not to live in fear of nutters with guns, and I support gun control.
Yes that limits my freedom to have a gun , and I have used someone else's gun over a firing range some years ago (before Dunblane got them banned) , and it was fun firing a Magnum .44 and saying go ahead make my day to the bottle of water I shot. I also inherited an air rifle which I haven't used in years. If you want to shoot some paper targets at 20 yards a .22 air rifle with max energy of 12 ft lbs that is only really deadly to very small animals seems fine to me. I don't see how you need high velocity percussion cap .3 of an inch shells designed to cause maximum damage and kill for hitting some paper targets, not over a short range at least, and I personally wouldn't want to kill animals for sport, not unless you're going to eat them. (by the way I am not a vegetarian )
It isn't just due to incidents like Hungerford, Dunblane, Sandybrook that I like gun control, I also like gun control because therefore most of our Police can be unarmed. If there is free and easy access to guns and everyone has one, then the Police are all going to have them, otherwise it would be unfair on them. Then the bad guys and the Police would all probably get a lot more trigger happy, there would be an escalation of risk, and a lot more collateral damage would ensue, more dead people and heartache for the people involved.
The system we have in the UK where you have to have a good reason, and limiting the type of weapon to only those that can be justified seems reasonably fair to me. I don't want just anyone to be able to get a gun, especially an easily concealable handgun ( that is a completely pointless weapon for hunting animals at any sort of distance ) like they seem to be able to do in the US.
As I say , I like gun control, and to be able to walk around realising that the chances I'm going to meet a nutter with a gun are much less, although they might have a knife, which are and always will be easy to get hold of.
Re: we've got murderous nutters in the UK too
"What do you propose we do about incidents like Hungerford,Dunblane, Sandyhook ? Nothing ? Are these the price we have to pay ? Or do we have gun control ?"
Keep in mind the US <> UK.
UK. No land borders. tight restrictions on gun ownership and storage (except shotguns, which is why they were so easy to steal as the armed robbers tool of choice back in the day) before Dunblane.
US. Land borders to 3rd world countries. Multiple gun ownership the statistical norm. Relatively easy to circumvent license checks (gun shows).
Still flogging that horse I see
I'm not going to say games don't cause violence because I haven't run any studies and only have my opinion. However, why is it that American idiots like the one wanting pointless studies are intent on banning or putting massive limits on games that are already age restricted yet there's no chance of similar penalties and restrictions applying to gun ownership? Why oh why does someone need a gun that can throw out hundreds of rounds a minute? What exactly necessitates such overkill? One bullet can just as effectively kill as 2, 10, 30 etc.
Do I think gun control is the answer? Possibly but I also think it's never going to happen in my lifetime and I'm only 33. Far too many are invested in their weapons and it's part of the culture. I don't have a solution sadly so long as guns are so loved by so many.
Re: Still flogging that horse I see
"yet there's no chance of similar penalties and restrictions applying to gun ownership?"
To be fair, this case, the killer stole semi-automatic weapons from his 52 year old mothers house.
So I don't think a ban on automatic weapons, age restricted ownership of guns, or only restricting guns to homes would have made any difference in this case.
If there is almost one gun per-person in a country, then a person will have no trouble getting hold of a gun.
You also have FA chance of getting them all back if you decided to ban guns outright.
I imagine the result of trying an outright ban would be riots, with the rioters having (obviously) guns, due to the amount of gun nuts, which might well lead to civil war, at least on a small scale.
Once you have made your ultra-violent bed ,feathered with Guns 'n' Ammo, you pretty much have to lie in it.
Re: Still flogging that horse I see
>> You also have FA chance of getting them all back if you ban guns outright <<
I see this argument used a lot in these discussions, but it's missing the point. - which is to to reduce the number of guns in circulation over time until legally held ones are very uncommon, and illegal ones are much harder to come by.
Once you've banned them you slowly remove them from circulatiion, with government 'buy back' programs, cash-for guns schemes, 'no-questions-asked' amnesties, etc.
Its probably not going to stop next years massacre. But hopefully it will stop these incidents being so common as the years go by.
study the connection between violent video games and programming and "harmful effects" on children, and specifically to examine whether violent games might cause children "to act aggressively or otherwise hurt their wellbeing.
Sounds like he's got the conclusion already written.
When the Americans get around to banning 'violent' video games - and have dealt with the ensuing social trouble, free speech riots and probably killings that result - and the next one of these tragedies occurs because some nutter went off the rails and only had to walk into his front room to pick up a loaded assault rifle, I wonder what'll get blamed then?
Surely they won't blame video games, as the only thing Americans will be allowed to play will be 'My Little Pony - Friendship is Magic' (which will probably be enough to drive anyone into a killing rage).
Violent films?
Loud music?
Lack of prayer?
By the time the video game industry, the film industry and the music industry have left America and moved to Canada or somewhere because they won't have ridiculous legislation banning things that have no bearing whatsoever on the problem they are designed to 'fix', a fairly big chunk of money will be gone from the economy too. It all just snowballs from there.
OK America - we've all had a laugh at your idiotic approach to things, blaming everyone and everything but the root cause of the problem that the rest of the 6 billion people can see. It's time to get a grip.
"68 mass shottings since 1982" or "I don't like Mondays" revisited.
That was the figure I saw on one news report about US shootings. So 2-3 mass shootings a year.
That appears to be viewed (by the American public) as "acceptable" losses. Although the parents of Sandy Hill and Columbine (and a whole bunch of places people outside the US have never heard of) might differ on that opinion.
Regan repealed the law that banned gun sales through the mail (following the shooting of JF Kennedy) after being shot at by the proverbial swivel eyed loon.
Bush Jnr cancelled the assault weapons law of Clinton.
It would be interesting to see a study of "murder" rates Vs "murder by gun" rates across the G20. The perception is that the US is grossly out of line in this regard. But lets get some actual evidence first. I think Israel might be very interesting. Nearly every house does have an assault rifle in it (except where they keep a heavy machine gun). It's about 1/75 the population packed fairly tightly in a small country so what's it's murder rate?
I'd also like to see a study of the US to find out what happened when armed witnesses were present. Did they engage the shooter and either maim or kill them. That is after all one of the justifications for this attitude, right?
As for the comment "Guns don't kill people, but they sure help," I wonder if Eddie Izzard got that from Shoot Em Up or vice versa? Just about the funniest (and most violent) satire on "gun culture" ever made.
This is where America is right now. I don't think guns can (or should) be banned, but eliminating assault weapons, large capacity magazines (200 rounds to hunt deer. Really?) and requiring better security than keeping it in your sock drawer might be a start. I think the NRA could support that position. Perhaps if people did not perceive the "right" to bear arms as "The right to kill anyone I like" the grave digging business might not be so busy.
Re: "68 mass shottings since 1982" or "I don't like Mondays" revisited.
Want evidence? Here you go. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/
You'll notice Israel as a whole doesn't own that many guns, you're thinking about the settlers.
Re: "68 mass shottings since 1982" or "I don't like Mondays" revisited.
Don't know where you got that figure for Israels gun ownership...
Soldiers (18-21) will indeed generally have a rifle, stored in a suitable cabinet at home (whilst at home, during the week they are on base). But not every house owns an 18-21 year old. And not all of them have rifles, most the girls do not, and a lot of soldiers are not combat soldiers, and thus carry no weapon.
Outside of the forces, gun regulation is very very strict in Israel, and without a valid reason (generally employment, needs to be security) you cannot get one.
Switzerland is perhaps where you were thinking, and their rules have changed in the last 5 years, they did have a very large gun death rate prior to these changes (keeping ammo for a town in one/two locations, instead of at home).
Re: "68 mass shottings since 1982" or "I don't like Mondays" revisited.
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/"
Yes it would appear that the motto of the Republic could be changed to "We come strapped."
"You'll notice Israel as a whole doesn't own that many guns, you're thinking about the settlers."
This did surprise me a bit. I was thinking that Israel has conscripted military service and most citizens spend time in the IDF. I've probably not factored in how many under 18's there are in Israel.
Re: "68 mass shottings since 1982" or "I don't like Mondays" revisited.
Once out of the army conscription (21 for males), they don't keep their rifle.
Re: "68 mass shottings since 1982" or "I don't like Mondays" revisited.
Switzerland has one of the highest guns per capita ratio in the world, largely because every male citizen does national service and is *required* to keep the gun serviced and in good order (ratio of a minimum estimated 1:2 gun per capita). Assault rifles are also common place.
Number of homicides in 2009 (last published figures), was 84 amongst a population of 8 million - that's all homicides, not just gun related.
The US has a population around 30 times higher and a gun homicide rate close to 120 times higher or the homicide rate per 100,000 is 4 times higher in the US than Switzerland, a country that *does* have high gun ownership.
Re: "68 mass shottings since 1982" or "I don't like Mondays" revisited.
"Once out of the army conscription (21 for males), they don't keep their rifle."
Ah, that explains my mis comprehension. I'd presumed they retained it for refresher training.
Many thanks.
On a side point I thought very devout Jews were exempted military services?
This topic is closed for new posts.
