Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Details. Please share the details that would have prevented Sandy Hook.

Please write a law that performs this separation, without any chance of failure, and post it here.

Thank you.
 
I agree digitalintirgue, there are no easy solutions.

But IIRC, AR-15 rifles were used in several recent mass-shootings including Newtown and the COlorado movie attack - and similar designs, which opponents have tried to ban, were used in two Canadian mass shootings. The AR-15 was also used in the Port Arthur massacre.

Even before Newtown, many have argued that the 1994 ban, if it had survived, would have saved a lot of lives.

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-holmes-ar-15-aurora-colorado-theater-shooting-2012-7

We can argue the effectiveness of the Australian changes; but they seem to think it worked.
 
Another tidbit:

Homicides using rifles (of any sort) are rare, as well as declining.

In 2010 there were 358 homicides involving rifles, compared with 1,704 with knives, 540 with blunt objects, and 745 were via fist...beaten to death.

The perception that there are massive numbers of events that involve semiautomatic rifles, or any rifle at all, is nonsense.
 
digitalintrigue said:
Another tidbit:

Homicides using rifles (of any sort) are rare, as well as declining.

In 2010 there were 358 homicides involving rifles, compared with 1,704 with knives, 540 with blunt objects, and 745 were via fist...beaten to death.

The perception of massive events of violence involve semiautomatic rifles, or any rifle at all, is nonsense.
Click to expand...
How and why is it nonsense? Quite a lot of massacres have been carried out with such weapons. Including, most recently, Sandy Hook. And the one that lead to the tightening of Australian gun control. And... Well, they're not hard to find. Nor, I'd have thought, easy to ignore.

I fully accept that semiautomatic pistols are implicated in many more deaths overall, but I still fail to see compelling arguments for continued sales of the sort of guns that Australian law banned.

Cheers,

R.
 
digitalintrigue said:
Comparing the slope of the homicide rates, seems to show we are having better results in the USA.
Click to expand...
Given US gun homicides are around five times as high, I'd suggest triumphalism is a little inappropriate.

Percentage of homicides with firearms: Australia 16%, USA 39%.

Australia firearm homicide rate: 1.8 per 100,000
US firearm homicide rate: 9.1 per 100,000. Nearly five times as high.

It's great that US crime in general has been falling, and gun crime along with it. That's due to a lot of factors beyond the firearms context alone, including a drop in population of 'criminal age' males; plus the drop in demand for crack and other factors, like smarter policing.

Edit. Beyond all this, remember the context of this thread. It's the Sandy Hook massacre in which 26 people died. AR-15 style weapons are behind many of these attacks, here and elsewhere in the world.

Banning the AR-15 might only save a hundred lives a year - like these elementary school kids and children at the cinema in Colorado. Some AR-15 fans might suggest that 100 or so people dying isn't much of a difference, given the loss of a vital right. I think having a few dozen more kids alive is a good aim, and I'm glad to see once-NRA supporters endorsing that view.
 
Roger Hicks said:
How and why is it nonsense? Quite a lot of massacres have been carried out with such weapons. Including, most recently, Sandy Hook. And the one that lead to the tightening of Australian gun control. And... Well, they're not hard to find. Nor, I'd have thought, easy to ignore.

I fully accept that semiautomatic pistols are implicated in many more deaths overall, but I still fail to see compelling arguments for continued sales of the sort of guns that Australian law banned.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

OK, I just fail to see the compelling argument that banning a semi automatic rifle such as the Bushmaster would have prevented Sandy Hook, or any other mass shooting for that matter.

If the shooter's mother did not have a Bushmaster because they were not able to be acquired legally, then he would have just used the semi automatic handguns that were in his possession.

75% of the mass shootings in the past 30 years did NOT use 'assault weapons.'

And, assuming these rifles were banned tomorrow, that does not legislate them out of existence...there are millions that are already in the field, that can be acquired, legally or otherwise, for such mass shootings.

This is inarguable.
 
Paul T. said:
Given US gun homicides are around five times as high, I'd suggest triumphalism is a little inappropriate.

Percentage of homicides with firearms: Australia 16%, USA 39%.

Australia firearm homicide rate: 1.8 per 100,000
US firearm homicide rate: 9.1 per 100,000. Nearly five times as high.

It's great that US crime in general has been falling, and gun crime along with it. That's due to a lot of factors beyond the firearms context alone, including a drop in population of 'criminal age' males; plus the drop in demand for crack and other factors, like smarter policing.

Edit. Beyond all this, remember the context of this thread. It's the Sandy Hook massacre in which 26 people died. AR-15 style weapons are behind many of these attacks, here and elsewhere in the world.

Banning the AR-15 might only save a hundred lives a year - like these elementary school kids and children at the cinema in Colorado. Some AR-15 fans might suggest that 100 or so people dying isn't much of a difference, given the loss of a vital right. I think having a few dozen more kids alive is a good aim, and I'm glad to see once-NRA supporters endorsing that view.
Click to expand...

To be clear I was referring to the slope of the graphs.

I haven't forgotten, by any stretch, the context.

The facts show that 75% of the mass shootings in the past 30 years, as stated in the above post, do not involve rifles such as the AR-15 or the Bushmaster.

Banning these weapons, assuming such a ban could magically make all the existing ones disappear, will not stop mass shootings.

Banning semi automatic rifles to stop mass shootings is akin to banning 500 horsepower engines to prevent car wrecks.

If we are really serious about this, we are talking a much, much greater scale than just semi automatic rifles.
 
digitalintrigue said:
OK, I just fail to see the compelling argument that banning a semi automatic rifle such as the Bushmaster would have prevented Sandy Hook, or any other mass shooting for that matter.

If the shooter's mother did not have a Bushmaster because they were not able to be acquired legally, then he would have just used the semi automatic handguns that were in his possession.

75% of the mass shootings in the past 30 years did NOT use 'assault weapons.'

And, assuming these rifles were banned tomorrow, that does not legislate them out of existence...there are millions that are already in the field, that can be acquired, legally or otherwise, for such mass shootings.

This is inarguable.
Click to expand...
True. So is the point that it is a long way from nonsense to associate rapid-fire, large-magazine, semi-auto rifles with massacres.

I'll concede your point. Will you concede mine?

Cheers,

R.
 
As part of a raft of measures, alongside the others mentioned before - background checks, restrictions on ammo and high capacity magazines - the experience of other countries, with better records than the US, suggests they will make a difference.

Yes, focusing on the AR-15 might be a side show. But that weapon is sold on the basis of its pedigree, for its use in killing humans, so that suggests it will be better at it than pistols (which, in any case, need to be better controlled).

A journey of a 1,000 miles starts with one step. The USA is famous for its "Can Do" attitude. Saying We Can't Do Anything doesn't seem to tally.
 
Roger Hicks said:
True. So is the point that it is a long way from nonsense to associate rapid-fire, large-magazine, semi-auto rifles with massacres.
Click to expand...

Well I don't honestly know how to define 'a long way from nonsense.'

Can you define 'rapid fire?' To my knowledge, a semi-auto firearm is not generally considered rapid fire.

How big is a large magazine?

The Mother Jones stats do not specify what they consider to be an 'assault weapon' but assuming that every weapon listed under that category was a semi automatic rifle, then the percentages of such weapons used over the past 30 years is less than 25%.

I don't know if that is a long way from nonsense or not.
 
Paul T. said:
As part of a raft of measures, alongside the others mentioned before - background checks, restrictions on ammo and high capacity magazines - the experience of other countries, with better records than the US, suggests they will make a difference.

Yes, focusing on the AR-15 might be a side show. But that weapon is sold on the basis of its pedigree, for its use in killing humans, so that suggests it will be better at it than pistols (which, in any case, need to be better controlled).

A journey of a 1,000 miles starts with one step. The USA is famous for its "Can Do" attitude. Saying We Can't Do Anything doesn't seem to tally.
Click to expand...

Background checks - law abiders have no issue with this.

Restrictions on ammo (how would this be enforced? Would it result in buyers just ordering from multiple sources? How does one prevent people from just reloading)?

High capacity magazines: how much is high? A 30 round clip is just two clip swaps of 10 round clips. Restrict handguns to 10 round clips and they just carry more clips or more handguns. The Sandy Hook shooter had two such handguns.

But the real point is: there are millions of firearms (and magazines) already in existence. They can and will be obtained, no matter what the legislature writes...

Let's say we somehow magically make all the existing semi auto rifles vanish into thin air. What will the outcry be a few weeks or months later when 10 people are killed in a mass shooting with semi auto hand guns?

And ultimately, why are we ignoring the tens of thousands of others who die...in other than a mass shooting?
 
No legislation is going to drastically change the situation, it has to be with a long term aim and might take 20 years to make significant inroads into not just firearm numbers but into the gun culture itself.
 
I understand and respect your arguments but I don't agree with them. Of course, it comes down to principles. What's actually done will come down to political realities. But I think the gun lobby would do well to be reasonable.

One way or another, US gun law is a mess. The fact there's millions of firearms out there, you say, is a reason for not doing anything. Personally, I think it's a reason to start doing something.

I'd rather 10 people died than 20.

Anyway, we shall see what transpires. Night night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi2QZdTKXi4
 
The guns of America are here to stay. There is an outrcy to 'do something' - but there is no getting around this fact.

We have a much bigger problem in our culture than just mass shootings, which are miniscule compared to other shootings.

Sure, we'd all prefer than it was only 10, instead of 20. Who is to know if some law were different, if he'd have shot fewer with handguns than with a Bushmaster. That we can never know. What we do know, is that even if somehow all those rifles disappeared over 30 years ago, the other mass shootings still occurred using handguns. So in the end, any laws banning semi auto rifles are just lip service.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
With all the incredibly sad news coming out of the United States at the moment and all the loss of young life, it's hard to believe that a State Representative has made it public that he believes teachers should carry guns or have access to a gun in their classroom, and that by carrying such a weapon you are going to ensure the children are safe.

There is nothing safe about guns. Period.

I just can't get around why people feel that by carrying a lethal weapon, they are safe. It is an object that has been designed to end life. That is it's primary purpose, not protection.

I've started reading news sites comments, articles, the National Rifle Associations facebook page (and comments from people that have liked it) and it completely frightens the sh*t out of me that a lot of people still will not act on banning guns. They believe that if a civilian was armed when a shooting like this happened, they'd jump in there and "protect" everybody.
This mentality is just crazy.

It isn't the late 1700's anymore, there is no civil war anymore. it's time to change. I really hope Obama can get a bill through banning guns, as seeing this news is just heart breaking. R.I.P. to all those that lost their young precious lives.

Shoot a camera, not a gun.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious. Would you be in favor of banning movies and videos tv programs etc that have guns in them and depict violent acts with guns? Why or why not?
 
What was the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms? From what did the founding fathers want to ensure that we could protect ourselves?

Surely it wasnt to ensure our continued ability to hunt animals.
 
I`ve just picked my daughter from our small village railway station.
I was met by two police officers carrying assault rifles.
Don`t know what was going down but there were also road blocks on the main road junctions .
Things are changing in the UK too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom