Is Gun Violence Due To Dangerous People Or Dangerous Guns?

[sarisataka]

Is Gun Violence Due To Dangerous People Or Dangerous Guns?

The killings of two journalists in Virginia last week have reignited a national conversation on mass shootings and gun control.

No one wants dangerous people with dangerous guns, but different parties point in different directions when it comes to laying the blame for gun violence or proposing appropriate policies moving forward.

Some point to dangerous people. In an interview with CNN, the father of one of the journalists who was murdered last week called for "sensible laws so that crazy people can't get guns." In a radio interview after the shooting, Sen. John McCain argued that the government needs to identify people who are mentally ill and more effectively keep them from obtaining guns.

Others point to dangerous guns. In an interview in the wake of last week's shootings, a survivor of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre highlighted America's unusually easy access to hazardous firearms: "We don't have a monopoly on people disgruntled at work or people suffering from mental illness. What we do have is unique accessibility to dangerous firearms that we allow in this country to exist."


http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/08/31/436264866/is-gun-violence-due-to-dangerous-people-or-dangerous-guns

Worth a read

[randys1]

1. A guy just called into a radio show and said he has never seen any of his AR 47's or whatever that

piece of shit murder tool is called jump up and kill someone.

So, guns are just no problem AT ALL

[sarisataka]

7. I generally view it as

a people problem as he is correct; guns don't act on their own.

The author, however, poses a theory that both views may be shortsighted.

[randys1]

8. No, the problem is guns, and that couldnt be more clear. All one has to do is look at Australia

[gejohnston]

9. Yet New Zealand has more liberal gun laws

and more private gun owners, but have a lower murder rate? If guns were the reason, then countries that have stricter gun laws, like Mexico and Venezuela, should be rainbows and unicorns instead of the failed states that they are.
The National Firearms Agreement didn't drop the murder rate at all. Even though the right wing John Howard and the Australian and US media how great it was, peer reviewed studies by criminologists, and simply looking at their statistics, say something different. If Australia's National Firearms Agreement
When the Hells Angels and the Mongols were at war, Sydney had something like 100 drive bys in 2012. Fortunately, it is almost impossible to hit anything with home made sub machine gun off the back of a motorcycle.
Yes, it is harder to get a legal gun, but it is easy to get an illegal gun.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/internal-rivalry-among-comancheros-led-to-gunfight-at-paesano-restaurant-police/story-e6frea83-1226226914996

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/100-shootings-and-counting-merrylands-tops-driveby-list-20120911-25psc.html

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/

https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/homemade-submachine-guns-part-2-australia/

[sarisataka]

10. Spoken like

a true zealot. I suggest you review the article linked here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172175209
so you can see what you need to accomplish.

[randys1]

11. In upside down world the person who wants less death and destruction and knows how to

accomplish it is the zealot


sigh

[sarisataka]

12. In upside up world

The zealot is the person who "knows" his answer is absolutely correct and cannot, will not conceive the notion that there may be other factors involved. The zealot will defend his view with religious fervor and try to stamp out any heresy.

The person who wants less death and destruction will consider various data and use it to challenge his belief. He may have to change his opinion of what will correct the problem when he discovers his previous idea of how to achieve his goal will be ineffective or another solution may result in a better outcome.

[hack89]

13. Australian gun numbers are back up to pre-ban levels

A US gun control panel is set to deliver its recommendations on Tuesday, with contributions from an Australian gun control expert. Professor Philip Alpers says despite Australia’s success story on gun ownership, levels have returned to those before the Port Arthur massacre.

At that time, more than a million guns were sent to the smelter.

“Over the last 10 years, the importation of fire arms has built up again, and now I know from customs figures that we have already replaced a million guns in Australia."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/01/14/australias-gun-ownership-levels-return

So has Australia's murder rate increased? It must have if gun numbers increased.

[sarisataka]

14. Are you going to believe some Australian gun hack?

You know Australia was first populated by criminals- who are notorious liars- so you can't trust anything an Australian says.


Besides, just give the numbers to Hemenway and after he adjusts for population, Coriolis effect, number of venomous animals captured in public parks and platypus egg laying habitat he will prove gun violence is down one hundred eleven percent since their c̶o̶n̶f̶i̶s̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ er, buyback was implimented

[DonP]

15. The "Australia Success Story" is another "Article of Gun Control faith"

It ranks right up there with:

"Fewer Gun Owners every week"

"Easily converted semi-automatic weapons"

"No background checks"

"Gun show loopholes"

"40% of sales with no background check"

"Weapons of war"

"90% of Americans want tougher gun laws"

You are NOT allowed to ever question any of the tenets of their faith, regardless of actual evidence. If you do, one of them will write a long, angry and poorly punctuated response proving you to be a dangerous Ammosexual!

[Thinkingabout]

2. Maybe even agreeing to ekevated background checks and change the current law to have the background

Completed before the final transaction happens. I would like to see a valid effort on the part of the NRA to assist in getting sensible regulations enacted. There should be stricter rules on family violence, anything which could restrict clear thinking when a gun may be in possession and surely mental health issues. This would be a beginning towards gun safety.

[branford]

6. Define "elevated background checks?"

If you mean ensuring all databases are current with effective coordination, you'll find most gun rights advocates clearly supportive.

However, if the background criteria starts to target groups, unpopular political opinions, circumvents due process and equal protection, or is little more than an attempt to just curtail gun ownership or "gun culture," it would not only be unconstitutional, but a political non-starter.

Currently, among other limited reasons, someone will fail a background check if they're convicted of a felony or adjudicated a danger to themselves or others (usually by way of involuntary commitment). I hope you're not suggesting that simple arrests or accusations could warrant suspension of constitutional rights, or even more mundane activities like seeking basic psychological treatment for matters unrelated to direct physical threats or suicide, losing your job, or simply being accused of being "angry" by neighbors or employers?

Time limits exist also for background checks because government officials had (and still have) a bad habit of slow-walking the checks to deny purchases and permits when they have no objective criteria to base a denial. No FFL is actually obligated to complete a sale without an accepted check, but you can thank the blatant abuses and incompetence of gun control-supporting government officials for making it an issue at all.

[Travis_0004]

3. People

Why else is gun violence almost unheard of in rural areas, with very high gun ownership, but very high in cities, where most of the people don't own guns, but a few criminals are committing all the gun crimes.

[Hangingon]

5. Great question

[Hangingon]

4. I think we should ensure that the information in the NICS is current and complete.

This means all levels of law enforcement input data in a timely manner. The major problem is the mental health matter. People with serious mental health issues should be adjudicated and courts should direct that appropriate information be entered into the NICS database. Mental health officials including doctors have been reluctant to do this.