Bille
Well-known
Bille
Well-known
How about the 30,000 killed by blunt object over a 30 year period as I linked before?
How 'lame' is that, exactly?
Clearly there are politicians who are gun control advocates, and they have backers. How is that propaganda?
Assault rifles have been regulated since the 30s. The Bushmaster is NOT an assault rifle. You obviously don't understand the term. I don't think you understand the term semi automatic, either.
Assault rifiles were already banned in Connecticut as previously posted.
Are you implying that there are reasonable law abiders that do NOT abhor huge numbers of deaths?
What is your position on the 30,000 who died via blunt object, or the 98,000 who died via knife? Are those not huge numbers for you?
bobbyrab
Well-known
What exactly do you want anyone to say about this? No one is saying killing will stop if there are no guns, only that there would be fewer deaths.
Any of the 30,000 killed with a blunt object could also have been killed with a gun had it been available to the perpetrator, but it doesn't work the other way. All deaths by firearm could not be done with a blunt object.
Give me a straight answer, how many fewer deaths would there have been in the Norway killings had he only had a blunt object or knife?
The question I have is why people are fixated on 'assault rifles' when they've been regulated since the 30s, are already extremely difficult to obtain legally, and the deaths by ANY kind of rifle pale in significance compared to handguns.
If we are going to talk about un-necessary death, why are we fixated on this?
Why do we ignore the thousands and thousands of single death shootings in favor of a relative handful of events in a different category? Again, not to diminish the horror of Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting, but these are rare events compared to handgun deaths which occur every hour.
If we are going to talk about un-necessary death, why are we fixated on this?
Why do we ignore the thousands and thousands of single death shootings in favor of a relative handful of events in a different category? Again, not to diminish the horror of Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting, but these are rare events compared to handgun deaths which occur every hour.
Since there are 15 pages here, and apparently no real interest in promoting and discussing viable solutions, it's time to exit.
Paul T.
Veteran
Semantics, my friend.
Here's an arms supplier who describes the AR-15 as an assault rifle.
http://www.proguns.com/assaultrifles.asp
There are few definitions of the AR-15 that don't include the word "semi automatic".
I'm happy to acknowledge you know far more about the specifics of firearms than I do.
I'm not going to debate the situation around knives. It's just silly. There have been no mass killings involving knives of the magnitude of what we've just seen.
A fair point, albeit a slightly naive question given that one youth, apparently using his mother's legal Bushmaster, has just killed 26 people.
A ban on assault rifles like the AR-15 should be accompanied by a more sensible regime like that in Canada or Australia. They have lots of knives and, perhaps, baseball bats, but they don't have a US-style murder (or even suicide) rate.
Paul T.
Veteran
Have you spotted the disparity between 1,000 deaths per year (blunt objects) and 31, 238 in one year (firearms, Bloomberg's figures for 2011)?
Yes I pointed that out in fact...handguns are FAR and away the highest.
So again, why all the fixation on banning weapons which are already banned.
And it's NOT semantics; Bushmaster is NOT an assault rifle.
So again, why all the fixation on banning weapons which are already banned.
And it's NOT semantics; Bushmaster is NOT an assault rifle.
Let's hear some viable proposals. This is my last post here unless the discussion turns from 'tit for tat' into something useful.
cosmonaut
Well-known
Well it seems to be all different this time as the NRA is actually for changes. I think this episode was the straw that broke the camels back. I look for some big changes.
On a side note one of our local gun shops is selling firearms as fast as they come in. I have went by the store a couple of times this week and there is no where to park for so many customers.
It's time the U.S. to make some hard choices.
On a side note one of our local gun shops is selling firearms as fast as they come in. I have went by the store a couple of times this week and there is no where to park for so many customers.
It's time the U.S. to make some hard choices.
Soeren
Well-known
Soeren
Well-known
No? It certainly looks like the ones used by danish forces. It may not be able to shoot fullauto but with 30 round mag (or maybe 40) it can still spread death and destruction fast. Maybe it or one version of it should be called an Assault Carbine instead. That really doesn't matter since that kind of weapon is made for one reason only. I suspect there is not much border control between states in the US, right? so restricting certain types of guns must aply to the nation as hole not just a couple of states.
On a more general matter. When stating homocide numbers etc from statistics is it possible to see the killer/victim relations? when talking about that subject here it is interesting to learn that most violence and killings are kept within the criminal inviroment, between gangs, drugdealers/-users and the like.
Best regards
Sparrow
Veteran
... these rampage killings are caused by unstable people having easy access to the means of killing many people quickly ...
... one prevents that happening by removing the one from the other
The rest is down to details, would you not agree?
Paul T.
Veteran
In terms of firearms restrictions, there's a good editorial here by John Howard, conservative prime minister of Australia:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...ds-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html
Australia banned assault-style weapons. There was a limited buyback of illegal weapons which took 20 per cent of them out of circulation.
It would doubtless be a good idea to introduce restrictions for hand guns similar to those in Canada: licences, for which applicants are screened, plus a restriction on ammo.
It would all cost a hell of a lot less than the Department of Homeland Security - and would probably save a hell of a lot more lives.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...ds-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html
Australia banned assault-style weapons. There was a limited buyback of illegal weapons which took 20 per cent of them out of circulation.
It would doubtless be a good idea to introduce restrictions for hand guns similar to those in Canada: licences, for which applicants are screened, plus a restriction on ammo.
It would all cost a hell of a lot less than the Department of Homeland Security - and would probably save a hell of a lot more lives.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Which is not really that much better - indeed the fact that the amount of killings gets widely ignored as they happen in the ghetto and among gang members is one of the cultural problems the US have.
"A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms."[/quote]
A few comments here...
1. Automatic weapons are already extremely difficult to get and have been regulated since the 1930s. I don't know of any mass shootings that used them.
2. Looking at the statistics of ALL rifle and shotgun deaths in the US, the numbers are relatively small compared to handguns.
2005: handgun homicides 8,478; other guns 2,868
So the Australian-style law would have no affect with regards to handguns, which have been used in many mass shootings, and in fact were in the possession of the Sandy Hook shooter.
3. Buying back 20% still leaves 80% -- millions of firearms -- available to the evil deranged.
4. Handgun registration. How would this apply to the millions that already exist? How would such registration prevent the evil deranged from obtaining one of these extant handguns?
My intent here is to come up with workable solutions. Unless I'm missing something here, these aren't going to have much effect...
Here is a chart showing all the mass shootings in the last 30 years (defined as 4 or more victims.)
The vast majority used handguns. The Australian law would have zero effect on those, and on revolvers. In addition, the 'assault weapons' category is not defined. It may include legal semi-automatic rifles, such as was used at Sandy Hook.
Soeren
Well-known
Well Im trying to understand this fear (or what it should be called). Could be the picture was different in the US than here but it seems not.
Best regards
Another bit of info re: Australia.
Here is are chart of Australian homicide produced by the Australian government. It's now dropping...but actually rose after 1996 (and the new gun laws) and didn't come back down to the 1996 level until 2002. The rate is actually dropping faster in the US...
Here is a chart of the US homicide rate. From the mid 90s forward, it's dropping at a faster rate than in Australia.
Here is are chart of Australian homicide produced by the Australian government. It's now dropping...but actually rose after 1996 (and the new gun laws) and didn't come back down to the 1996 level until 2002. The rate is actually dropping faster in the US...
Here is a chart of the US homicide rate. From the mid 90s forward, it's dropping at a faster rate than in Australia.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.