Colorado, gun control and the 2nd Amendment

[MrBurns]

Yes, maybe another 2 generations to go perhaps. It will eventually change. Just hope I'm still around to see it.

I really think Obama will "go for it" no one else before him has had the guts but it's just so bad now I think he will, and good luck to him.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I really think Obama will "go for it" no one else before him has had the guts but it's just so bad now I think he will, and good luck to him.

Let's hope so , Burnsie.

John Winston Howard did it here, with great courage and determination.

The Rifle Mob are powerful in the US though.

gg

 

[So_Cynical]

Would Banning Firearms reduce murder and suicide?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

"[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . ."

This appears to be a paper written by a student many years ago...one of thousands of papers i would think.

 

[DB008]

Interesting....

The gun ownership and gun homicides murder map of the world

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The Yanks need to get John Howard to run a Congressional Hearing on how to do it.

He did it in the face of huge opposition and we are a safer place as a result.

Even Craig Emerson for gawds sake is bleating about it on Twitter, with a million other luvvies.

The Yanks need a real mover to make a change.

gg

 

[DB008]

Bloomberg - 2 good segments

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/why-are-school-shootings-more-common-in-the-u-s-25SYHFwqQVe1t4X35FFpOw.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/barrett-guns-are-woven-into-american-history-GxbBRkZGRfKgrt_QT0S8Gw.html

 

[dutchie]

I really think Obama will "go for it" no one else before him has had the guts but it's just so bad now I think he will, and good luck to him.

Unfortunately, Burnsie, there is not a chance in the world Obama (like his predecessors) will do anything.

Money talks (more than lives).

 

[Smurf1976]

John Winston Howard did it here, with great courage and determination.

I'm not a huge fan of the so-called "Liberal" party here in Australia (a better name for it would be "Conservative") but the gun laws were certainly a step in the right direction. Credit where it's due for that one.

 

[white_goodman]

This appears to be a paper written by a student many years ago...one of thousands of papers i would think.

it has the authors on the front page and their bio, strong reading... nice to see you address the conclusion of the paper

gun controls up = less death and vice versa is not a sufficient argument, homogeneity of society, poverty etc etc are much more sufficient explanatory variables... but if we are in the business of making us feel better and on a higher moral ground by subscribing to the anti gun rights meme then feel free to go ahead

 

[Miss Hale]

There has to be more to it than just the availabilty of guns, when you consider how common these incidents are in the US compared to the rest of the world.

 

[So_Cynical]

it has the authors on the front page and their bio, strong reading... nice to see you address the conclusion of the paper

gun controls up = less death and vice versa is not a sufficient argument, homogeneity of society, poverty etc etc are much more sufficient explanatory variables... but if we are in the business of making us feel better and on a higher moral ground by subscribing to the anti gun rights meme then feel free to go ahead

Ok so what's not beyond dispute is the fact that there are a lot of guns in the US, more guns per capita than anywhere else....so if more guns = more safety then why are there so many mass shootings in the US?

Why don't we see mass stabbings in the US? mass poisonings?

Gun controls up = less death and vice versa is a sufficient argument, and what's the down side to gun control anyway? oh right criminals will still be able to get them...oh shock horror, its random nutters we need protection from not criminals.

 

[Macquack]

There has to be more to it than just the availabilty of guns, when you consider how common these incidents are in the US compared to the rest of the world.

I find myself disagreeing with you on just about everything.

Again, I disagree, I think it IS as simple as the availability of guns.

 

[white_goodman]

I find myself disagreeing with you on just about everything.

Again, I disagree, I think it IS as simple as the availability of guns.

unfortuneatly the experience of the world disagrees with you...

Switzerland/Israel = high availability, little gun homicide (more appropriate measure is total homicide)
Japan = low and low
latin America = tight gun laws, high gun homicide

there is much more explanatory variables than simply gun rights/ownership. Homogeneity of society, poverty/wealth, cultural effects... the same reason why I dont think giving the Japanese guns would see the Japs gunning each other down is the same reason I dont thinking removing guns from the US will stop them topping each other...

Of course you could go the soviet union/russian route and outlaw guns which lead to a much higher homicide rate via stabbing,beatings etc... if the objective is simply remove mass gun killings you could go down that route, but the unintended consequences may not provide the best cost/benefit..

 

[white_goodman]

Ok so what's not beyond dispute is the fact that there are a lot of guns in the US, more guns per capita than anywhere else....so if more guns = more safety then why are there so many mass shootings in the US?

Why don't we see mass stabbings in the US? mass poisonings?

Gun controls up = less death and vice versa is a sufficient argument, and what's the down side to gun control anyway? oh right criminals will still be able to get them...oh shock horror, its random nutters we need protection from not criminals.

read the paper i posted, it wont take long, you may find it illuminating..

its only a sufficient argument if you dont like to read or know anything

 

[McLovin]

I find myself disagreeing with you on just about everything.

Again, I disagree, I think it IS as simple as the availability of guns.

The US is a more violent society. Guns have been normalised as part of their culture. Indeed, the right to have a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution (it's in the English one too, but in much more watered down form).

That being said, comparing across countries, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than that the widespread availability of firearms (especially handguns) causes an increase in the number of deaths by firearm.

 

[McLovin]

read the paper i posted, it wont take long, you may find it illuminating..

its only a sufficient argument if you dont like to read or know anything

The two guys who wrote that paper both come from the less is more camp of gun control. I haven't read the paper but it's probably worth noting.

Type Gary Mauser into Google and this comes up...

 

[white_goodman]

The US is a more violent society. Guns have been normalised as part of their culture. Indeed, the right to have a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution (it's in the English one too, but in much more watered down form).

That being said, comparing across countries, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than that the widespread availability of firearms (especially handguns) causes an increase in the number of deaths by firearm.

if availability means both legal and illegal it would explain all the Americas.. now would outlawing guns in the US or watering it down remove its availability as its enshrined in the culture.. does the availability of guns deter other forms of homicide/crimes? would removing all availability lead them down the Russian experience of more deaths in total via beatings/stabbings?

A practical step would be to remove automatic guns, which could in a sense be argued as consistent with the 2nd amendment under its original meaning imo, which im sure could be ripped to shreds by constitutional types

 

[white_goodman]

The two guys who wrote that paper both come from the less is more camp of gun control. I haven't read the paper but it's probably worth noting.

Type Gary Mauser into Google and this comes up...

View attachment 49996

well it doesnt it actually says less does not equal less and more doesn't equal more

 

[MrBurns]

I dont care what the paper says, more guns mean more attrocities like we've just seen.

The gun lobby is directly responsible for those kids deaths.

 

[McLovin]

if availability means both legal and illegal it would explain all the Americas.. now would outlawing guns in the US or watering it down remove its availability as its enshrined in the culture.. does the availability of guns deter other forms of homicide/crimes? would removing all availability lead them down the Russian experience of more deaths in total via beatings/stabbings?

No, it wouldn't. Guns are a Pandora's Box, once they are widely available it will take decades to get rid of them.

Does it deter other crimes? Well it's a lot harder to beat someone to death than it is to shoot them.

A practical step would be to remove automatic guns, which could in a sense be argued as consistent with the 2nd amendment under its original meaning.

The original meaning was part of well maintained militia because the US had no standing army. If you interpret it on its original meaning, the Second Amendment is all but redundant.