Gun Control Related to Mass Shootings?

[Sean Buckley]

An interesting perspective that differs greatly from what I have been hearing from Sherdog Canadians

You wouldn't believe (or maybe you would) how many people around here just think it's a simple solution "strict gun laws" but me personally I'm not so sure, seems like alot of evidence to suggest otherwise. Too many people make comments when their emotions are running high.

 

[MortalWombat]

Thats interesting. I also see that crime rates went up to about 50%, although no mass shootings. I wonder if it is worth it in the end? I mean mass shootings are horrible but if the homicide rates go up overall does it really even matter weather they are mass shootings or not? I can't figure it out...

Well if you're going to make up statistics, why not make it 500%? Or 5000%? I mean, NRA, when it made up its statistics, claimed it was a 28% increase (though not in homicide, damn), but I don't see why you have to be bound by things like that.

 

[xcvbn]

I guess. Where's the connection to Obama?

????

 

[Noblet10]

So. If my kid is unstable, I can't own a gun? If my father is an alchoholic, can I not drink? (he's not, it's an example). When I apply for a gun purchase, I need to include my family's information as well (even those who don't live in my house?).


7m? The US has 300m+... (registered)



Dude, your common sense, is not common, nor sense. Removing guns from legal gun owners will not lower gun crime committed by criminals...

Yes it will. Most guns that are illegal were originally bought legally, just not from the criminal personally. That's how they get on the black market. I read somewhere that most criminals get their guns by someone legally buying them, and either giving them or selling them to the criminals. If the original buyer can't buy them as easily there will be less guns in criminals hands.

You just don't care that I mentioned other solutions possibly being better do you? I'm actually not for banning guns. This is the problem. The super pro guns people are also against what can be done instead of banning guns to help the people that might do this. You don't have to do both, but at least trying one of them could help.

 

[MortalWombat]

Ask Obama and the arsenal he intentionally fed to the Mexican drug cartels...

also, again, for the record, Lanza did not use ANY SORT of "assault weapon". So, while they are pushing the ban on them, they are going to have to realize that the pistols he used are far more widely owned...
Btw, I was at my local range/store yesterday and nearly the entire wall normally filled with ARs was virtually empty. They cannot keep them in stock right now, and they've sold pallets worth of ammo... Good luck collecting those when they are banned... Or even banning ammo sales (someone suggested that in a different thread). There are stock piles being kept privately for that very reason all over the country.

That was an early misreport. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/school-shooter-adam-lanza_n_2312818.html

He used a "bushmaster".


But you're right, thinking that handguns aren't enough for a mass shooting is a joke.

 

[Sean Buckley]

Well if you're going to make up statistics, why not make it 500%? Or 5000%? I mean, NRA, when it made up its statistics, claimed it was a 28% increase (though not in homicide, damn), but I don't see why you have to be bound by things like that.

Point out where I said homicide went up 50%? I said crime and I was wrong, it only went up 49.2% (Assaults,Robbery,Rape and so on all went up after the ban) And Homicide went up also, but only by a few %. But if homicide goes up at all, whats the point of a gun ban?

 

[MortalWombat]

Point out where I said homicide went up 50%? I said crime and I was wrong, it only went up 49.2% (Assaults,Robbery,Rape and so on all went up after the ban) And Homicide went up also, but only by a few %.

You're still making it up. Assaults went up by 28% according to NRA, a claim that was disputed by the Australian government since it was based on a variation in a small sample space. I'm going to need a source for the 49% - 50% claim.

 

[osudude]

Someone asked about Australia:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

I'm not taking sides on the gun control debate. I think the issue of mass shooting is a problem that has many underlying causes including but not limited to gun laws and gun availability. But I also think there are causes related to mental health and media saturation (though I don't believe in "decaying moral fiber" or other chicken little reasons).

This is a very complex issue. Laying it at the feet of any one cause or group of people is immensely naive.

 

[Sean Buckley]

You're still making it up. Assaults went up by 28% according to NRA, a claim that was disputed by the Australian government since it was based on a variation in a small sample space. I'm going to need a source for the 49% - 50% claim.

How am I making it up? I read the report lastnight. I just did another google search and came up with simular result, not the same though. So it is up for debate. This is not the same report I read earlier but has simular results on everything, not homicide though... http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

 

[xcvbn]

The solutions to our problems begin in our homes by raising the next generation properly. If parents suspect severe mental disorders they need to be documented and the government needs to bring back psych wards for them to be housed in for further research.

Mental states that lead to young adults wanting to kill children or random people cannot be fixed simply by removing guns; or any weapons for that matter. Now, it could potentially lessen the overall damage caused because pulling triggers is easier and faster than stabbing or slashing. But even then, building bombs or chemical weapons can be done by nearly anyone with a little reading and ingenuity. In the end we are still failing if there's even just one casualty.

--The mental states of these mass murderers is what is important, not the weapons they are using.
--It is time for parents to take control of their children's lives and lead them to a positive mental outlook; if a positive outlook is not available due to hereditary or environmentally caused disorders than it is the parent's responsibility to recognize it and seek treatment for their children.


The guy who murdered people at the LA Fitness because he had not had sex in 20 years, even though he felt that he was sexually attracted, and the Xmas day massacre where the guy killed 9 of his ex wife's relatives....

These ones are difficult to explain and it is more or less men just snapping into violent rages. Maybe if the United States did not idolize sexuality so much and maybe if the courts wouldn't be so harsh against the Father's, this could've been avoided but to think that these guys wouldn't have committed harm or murder without guns is a very unlikely theory and one that neither side can prove. What is common is nearly every mass murder is there are serious mental states and disorders involved. We are mentally ill as a nation(the number people with anxiety and depression is astounding) and until we address this issue and become healthier, these mass murders are going nowhere- regardless of whether guns, knives, sticks, or stones are legal; they are going to cause harm in the mental state they are in.

 

[Lanshire]

people act like gun control is a magic wand and the second the legislation gets passed then WOOOOSH all these things happen. gun control means nothing unless government actually enforces it.

problem in the US is we long passed the point of gun control years ago. the gun companies and the NRA have literally flooded this country with guns. there's more guns than there are people now (and we are a country of 300million +).

so why anyone is talking about gun control is beyond me. i guess it makes them feel better. but the reality is we are a violent, moody country full of crazy fuckin people with very easy access to guns, and no laws are going to change that. we obviously want our guns and no amount of mass shootings are going to stop that.

the only frustrating part is that gun nuts just refuse to take responsibility, though that shouldn't be unusual for us b/c conservatives live in a little reality bubble where facts don't enter. but it goes without saying the ease of access is a large contributor, and their solution is MORE guns. so you can kinda see where we are heading towards.

This pretty much sums it up.

Although I do like the "everyone should carry swords" idea. lol

 

[osudude]

Direct from the Australian government:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html

The homicide and violent crime rates are either flat or decreasing* but any changes appear to be independent of the gun control changes. In other words, it doesn't seem to have made things any worse or better than what was already happening.

Or draw your own conclusions.

*The assault rate, for whatever reason, has been steadily climbing but the data only goes back to 1996 which is, coincidentally or not, the year of the gun ban.

 

[MortalWombat]

How am I making it up? I read the report lastnight. I just did another google search and came up with simular result, not the same though. So it is up for debate. This is not the same report I read earlier but has simular results on everything, not homicide though... http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Okay, you didn't make it up.

That blog doesn't give you the willies just by looking at it? It's cherry-picking date ranges and crimes, all in pursuit of a conclusion it wants to draw.

But it's not up for debate. There are facts. Here are the facts for the relevant time period: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/08238EF609C9178ECA256B35001967D0?opendocument

For what it's worth, I particularly like the rape comment on the blog. Rape is notoriously underreported. A higher official rate usually means that the jurisdiction has made an effort to encourage victims to come forward (and it is still just a fraction of the real rate). To use that as a sign of a more violent society is pretty low.

 

[Sean Buckley]

Direct from the Australian government:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html

The homicide and violent crime rates are either flat or decreasing* but any changes appear to be independent of the gun control changes. In other words, it doesn't seem to have made things any worse or better than what was already happening.

Or draw your own conclusions.

*The assault rate, for whatever reason, has been steadily climbing but the data only goes back to 1996 which is, coincidentally or not, the year of the gun ban.

So it seems that gun control did not do anything there. How would it be different in the States?

 

[Sean Buckley]

Okay, you didn't make it up.

That blog doesn't give you the willies just by looking at it? It's cherry-picking date ranges and crimes, all in pursuit of a conclusion it wants to draw.

But it's not up for debate. There are facts. Here are the facts for the relevant time period: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/08238EF609C9178ECA256B35001967D0?opendocument

For what it's worth, I particularly like the rape comment on the blog. Rape is notoriously underreported. A higher official rate usually means that the jurisdiction has made an effort to encourage victims to come forward (and it is still just a fraction of the real rate). To use that as a sign of a more violent society is pretty low.

So basically the rates of homicide are the same or slightly decreased, but the violent crimes are up, according to your report. So my report is wrong, fair enough. This one seems to be accurate also. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html

 

[osudude]

So it seems that gun control did not do anything there. How would it be different in the States?

I don't know if it would be. I wasn't making a point that there should or shouldn't be gun control changes.

 

[Phreaxer]

I guess. Where's the connection to Obama?

 

[Phreaxer]

That was an early misreport. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/school-shooter-adam-lanza_n_2312818.html
He used a "bushmaster".
But you're right, thinking that handguns aren't enough for a mass shooting is a joke.

Hmmm. That's interesting that they made that big of a 'misreport'... I'd be interested to know which was the truth. Either way, I don't think the type of gun has ANYTHING to do with the fact that he killed people. I heard though, (through a friend's facebook post, so admittingly unreliable) that the bushmaster he stole from his mom was compliant with the assault weapon ban's requirements. Not sure if that's true, but if it is that means he had 10 round mags max, smaller than those of the two pistols (assuming they were both full sized glock and sig 9mm as originally reported...)

 

[MortalWombat]

So basically the rates of homicide are the same or slightly decreased, but the violent crimes are up, according to your report. So my report is wrong, fair enough. This one seems to be accurate also. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html

Right, and lately it's all been dropping: http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov....ch-2012---Crime-falling-across-Australia.aspx

The crime rates do that, they go up and down. No 50% spikes anywhere in sight though. So we're back to mass shootings.

 

[BrokenCouch]

The solutions to our problems begin in our homes by raising the next generation properly. If parents suspect severe mental disorders they need to be documented and the government needs to bring back psych wards for them to be housed in for further research.

Mental states that lead to young adults wanting to kill children or random people cannot be fixed simply by removing guns; or any weapons for that matter. Now, it could potentially lessen the overall damage caused because pulling triggers is easier and faster than stabbing or slashing. But even then, building bombs or chemical weapons can be done by nearly anyone with a little reading and ingenuity. In the end we are still failing if there's even just one casualty.

--The mental states of these mass murderers is what is important, not the weapons they are using.
--It is time for parents to take control of their children's lives and lead them to a positive mental outlook; if a positive outlook is not available due to hereditary or environmentally caused disorders than it is the parent's responsibility to recognize it and seek treatment for their children.


The guy who murdered people at the LA Fitness because he had not had sex in 20 years, even though he felt that he was sexually attracted, and the Xmas day massacre where the guy killed 9 of his ex wife's relatives....

These ones are difficult to explain and it is more or less men just snapping into violent rages. Maybe if the United States did not idolize sexuality so much and maybe if the courts wouldn't be so harsh against the Father's, this could've been avoided but to think that these guys wouldn't have committed harm or murder without guns is a very unlikely theory and one that neither side can prove. What is common is nearly every mass murder is there are serious mental states and disorders involved. We are mentally ill as a nation(the number people with anxiety and depression is astounding) and until we address this issue and become healthier, these mass murders are going nowhere- regardless of whether guns, knives, sticks, or stones are legal; they are going to cause harm in the mental state they are in.

must be why they keep a regularly stocked weapons room in mental health facilities, b/c guns aren't the problem or easy access, it's the mental sicknesses!

i mean really, it's a tired schtick. the accessibility is a very, very big reason, and to deny it based on some hoity toity half assed argument scheme that's been going on for decades is just being intellectually dishonest at this point.