SabreFan1

Mass Shooting At Pittsburgh Synagogue

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

And the causal proximity problem strikes again:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/man-tells-police-11-year-old-grandson-killed-grandmother-then-himself/ar-BBPm3si?li=AAggFp5&ocid=wispr

This is the kind of thing that happens too frequently with this misguided idea that having a gun lying around makes a home safe.

 

 

Having a firearm "lying" around is absolutely misguided and by no means whatsoever makes any home safe.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2018 at 2:37 PM, Ilunga said:

I agree with a lot of what you say but to me it comes down to causal proximity.

Take for example suicide, several articles I have read stated that those who committed/attempted suicide were more likely to have a gun in the home,in some studies twice as likely.

 

Just going in what I observe Americans love of guns and how they are used/portrayed in movies,TV series is unmatched in other western countries.

 

As I stated the stats for deaths by friendly fire are staggering.

21 percent in WW2, 39 percent in Vietnam, 52 percent in the first gulf war.

 

Sorry for the delay in replying, not sure how I missed your post, although this past weekend was spent demolishing a rather large honey-do list.

 

There's some truth in what you say, but I also recall some studies that showed that suicide rates don't seem to change when guns have been taken away.  In any case, if we focus on suicides, I think that supports my original points even stronger, since those people have significant problems (drugs, depression, etc.) to begin with leading them  to consider the act.  Guns do make it easier.  A long gun ban, of course, will have close to zero impact on suicide rates.

 

I'd be careful on the last two points you make though.  I'm a little surprised no one has lambasted you for attributing any blame towards violent movies or TV.  That usually catches a lot of flak, but maybe only for those more noticeably on the pro-gun side who include that in their defense.  

 

Regarding friendly fire, the numbers are meaningless (from a discussion standpoint) without numerous comparisons: similar rates from other countries, methods of how people were injured, fog-of-war factors, and likely other points.  If these were primarily by American infantry using hand weapons, and other countries' armies not having similar results. that would strongly support your point.  But, I wouldn't be surprised that the majority of these cases are resulting from artillery or aerial bombing, as those instances drastically increase the number of casualties and therefore skew the numbers.  I've seen the stats you mention, and immediately noticed two things: that the numbers declined for the following Iraq and Afghanistan wars (where Afghanistan is down to 13%), and no suggestion of our "gun culture" being a driving factor.  It's tough to find detailed statistics, but a little poking around google shows a number of instances in the Gulf war and onward involving air-to-ground or air-to-air incidents, and not always at the hands of Americans.  I think we need more info here to know whether to include it as part of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lionized27 said:

Having a firearm "lying" around is absolutely misguided and by no means whatsoever makes any home safe.

Reminded me of this:

And I'm thinking the whole time this person is exactly why many, many people are too irresponsible for a firearm. You left your gun in the open and unattended? &^@#ing idiot.

letter.jpg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kragar said:

Sorry for the delay in replying, not sure how I missed your post, although this past weekend was spent demolishing a rather large honey-do list.

 

There's some truth in what you say, but I also recall some studies that showed that suicide rates don't seem to change when guns have been taken away.  In any case, if we focus on suicides, I think that supports my original points even stronger, since those people have significant problems (drugs, depression, etc.) to begin with leading them  to consider the act.  Guns do make it easier.  A long gun ban, of course, will have close to zero impact on suicide rates.

 

I'd be careful on the last two points you make though.  I'm a little surprised no one has lambasted you for attributing any blame towards violent movies or TV.  That usually catches a lot of flak, but maybe only for those more noticeably on the pro-gun side who include that in their defense.  

 

Regarding friendly fire, the numbers are meaningless (from a discussion standpoint) without numerous comparisons: similar rates from other countries, methods of how people were injured, fog-of-war factors, and likely other points.  If these were primarily by American infantry using hand weapons, and other countries' armies not having similar results. that would strongly support your point.  But, I wouldn't be surprised that the majority of these cases are resulting from artillery or aerial bombing, as those instances drastically increase the number of casualties and therefore skew the numbers.  I've seen the stats you mention, and immediately noticed two things: that the numbers declined for the following Iraq and Afghanistan wars (where Afghanistan is down to 13%), and no suggestion of our "gun culture" being a driving factor.  It's tough to find detailed statistics, but a little poking around google shows a number of instances in the Gulf war and onward involving air-to-ground or air-to-air incidents, and not always at the hands of Americans.  I think we need more info here to know whether to include it as part of the discussion.

 I believe that guns are so inbred in your psyche that Americans are unable to give rational commentary on the problems and ramifications of your gun culture.

Do you watch many British TV series, Aussie TV series, European series ?

The difference in gun use is astounding.

The actors pull out guns and shoot off entire clips,pumping bullets into bodies that were dead after the first one or two.

Even going back to your old westerns what other countries citizens carried handguns and used them to kill each other in everyday society.

Fast forward to today I could not imagine scenes like Charlotte happening in Australia,armed to the teeth citizens walking through the streets.

In wars you kill your own soldiers, how can you brush off the fact that 52 percent of American casualties in the first gulf war were inflicted by your own soldiers,you caused more casualties to yourselves than the enemy did.

However you dress it up history illustrates Americans love guns and love killing people with them.

These mass shootings in your society are another example of that fact.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

 I believe that guns are so inbred in your psyche that Americans are unable to give rational commentary on the problems and ramifications of your gun culture.

Do you watch many British TV series, Aussie TV series, European series ?

The difference in gun use is astounding.

The actors pull out guns and shoot off entire clips,pumping bullets into bodies that were dead after the first one or two.

Even going back to your old westerns what other countries citizens carried handguns and used them to kill each other in everyday society.

Fast forward to today I could not imagine scenes like Charlotte happening in Australia,armed to the teeth citizens walking through the streets.

In wars you kill your own soldiers, how can you brush off the fact that 52 percent of American casualties in the first gulf war were inflicted by your own soldiers,you caused more casualties to yourselves than the enemy did.

However you dress it up history illustrates Americans love guns and love killing people with them.

These mass shootings in your society are another example of that fact.

 

Depends on what you mean regarding rational commentary. 

 

If the debate is limited solely to the number and type of guns, without looking into other facets, then IMO there is no rational discussion to be had.

 

The majority of our gun deaths are suicides, but our overall suicide rate while not great is also not outlandish compared to other countries, especially considering the accessibility to guns.  Following suicides, we have homicide by handguns.  A significant portion of those in poor, urban areas.  Have you ever thought to ask why, out of all the various forms of gun deaths, so much political and media attention is put up against AR-15s, or other long guns?  They are by far not the biggest gun problem we have.  More people are killed each year by knives (by a long shot), or blunt objects, or even without weapons than by rifles.  All long guns, not just ARs.

 

Do something about things that prompt people to kill each other or themselves, and the "gun problem" won't be much of a problem.  Consider how much money and other resources are spent by both sides of the gun debate, by lobbyists, politicians, researchers, and media, then consider putting that money towards mental health, depression and drug abuse.  IMO, you'd see much better results with incidents like these mass shootings we've seen in recent years.

 

What saddens me most are stories like the one Rupert posted recently.  Ignorant/careless storage of a weapon, and needless deaths result.

 

I don't disagree that there is a gun culture here.  Nor will I disagree about the presence or impact of guns in our popular culture.  

 

Did you not read what I posted regarding friendly fire?  Until there is information that supports HOW the friendly fire was caused, it is difficult for it to have meaning in this discussion.  Air units misidentifying targets is nothing new.  Bombs and missiles fired from miles away don't care what uniform you wear.  Shooting down helicopters loaded with soldiers is not the same as some grunt on the ground gone trigger happy.  Show me something regarding friendly fire involving small arms weapons, including comparisons against other countries' forces in the same conflicts, and we could have a rational discussion about friendly fire.  Until then, there is only speculation.  Numbers without context don't always mean much.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_friendly_fire_incidents

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kragar said:

Depends on what you mean regarding rational commentary. 

 

If the debate is limited solely to the number and type of guns, without looking into other facets, then IMO there is no rational discussion to be had.

 

The majority of our gun deaths are suicides, but our overall suicide rate while not great is also not outlandish compared to other countries, especially considering the accessibility to guns.  Following suicides, we have homicide by handguns.  A significant portion of those in poor, urban areas.  Have you ever thought to ask why, out of all the various forms of gun deaths, so much political and media attention is put up against AR-15s, or other long guns?  They are by far not the biggest gun problem we have.  More people are killed each year by knives (by a long shot), or blunt objects, or even without weapons than by rifles.  All long guns, not just ARs.

 

Do something about things that prompt people to kill each other or themselves, and the "gun problem" won't be much of a problem.  Consider how much money and other resources are spent by both sides of the gun debate, by lobbyists, politicians, researchers, and media, then consider putting that money towards mental health, depression and drug abuse.  IMO, you'd see much better results with incidents like these mass shootings we've seen in recent years.

 

What saddens me most are stories like the one Rupert posted recently.  Ignorant/careless storage of a weapon, and needless deaths result.

 

I don't disagree that there is a gun culture here.  Nor will I disagree about the presence or impact of guns in our popular culture.  

 

Did you not read what I posted regarding friendly fire?  Until there is information that supports HOW the friendly fire was caused, it is difficult for it to have meaning in this discussion.  Air units misidentifying targets is nothing new.  Bombs and missiles fired from miles away don't care what uniform you wear.  Shooting down helicopters loaded with soldiers is not the same as some grunt on the ground gone trigger happy.  Show me something regarding friendly fire involving small arms weapons, including comparisons against other countries' forces in the same conflicts, and we could have a rational discussion about friendly fire.  Until then, there is only speculation.  Numbers without context don't always mean much.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_friendly_fire_incidents

Well to put those figures into context when I researched death by friendly fire Australian soldiers I came up with an article about an Aussie soldier in Vietnam that was shot by his mate through the knee.

2 Aussie soldiers were killed and several others wounded when an Aussie sergeant gave the wrong coordinates for phosphorous rounds which landed on Aussie troops.

That was all the Aussie casualties from friendly fire I could find from that particular conflict.

Americans caused more Aussie casualties than that in one incident when in June 1968 the HMAS Hobart was attacked by a US aircraft which on its first pass killed one Aussie and wounded 2 others,then on its second pass killed another Aussie and wounded 6 others.

Put that into context with 39 percent of American casualties in the Vietnam war were from friendly fire.

It astounds me that someone as intelligent as you cannot see what is staring you in the face.

Edited by Ilunga
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Well to put those figures into context when I researched death by friendly fire Australian soldiers I came up with an article about an Aussie soldier in Vietnam that was shot by his mate through the knee.

2 Aussie soldiers were killed and several others wounded when an Aussie sergeant gave the wrong coordinates for phosphorous rounds which landed on Aussie troops.

That was all the Aussie casualties from friendly fire I could find from that particular conflict.

Americans caused more Aussie casualties than that in one incident when in June 1968 the HMAS Hobart was attacked by a US aircraft which on its first pass killed one Aussie and wounded 2 others,then on its second pass killed another Aussie and wounded 6 others.

Put that into context with 39 percent of American casualties in the Vietnam war were from friendly fire.

It astounds me that someone as intelligent as you cannot see what is staring you in the face.

You may be right in you position, but you haven't shown anything to support it, and honestly I think it would be hard to do so.  I point out that there's a difference between small arms friendly fire (which would support your claim) and larger incidents involving bombing, shelling and air to air strikes.   You promptly show me a comparison of an Aussie small arms incident and an American bombing, believing that as strong support for your point.  Do you not see the misalignment? 

 

Your persistence shows you are overlooking two important points.  The link I provided also showed numerous cases where Brits had friendly fire incidents.  Does that mean they have a significant gun culture issue?  Hardly.  I also pointed out that since the Gulf war, US friendly fire incidents are decreasing, especially in Afghanistan.  Since the media concern is a growing issue of gun use in this country, as evidenced by these mass shootings, then why is that trend not reflected in combat now?  If there was such a correlation as you suggest, then there should be closer to 60% friendly fire, not the 13% currently reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious @Kragar: Many of the articles I've posted are tragic in that they were avoidable. (eg., kids getting ahold of parents guns, etc.) 

 

One of the things I have always advocated was mandatory training, before legally being able to purchase a firearm. In many of these cases, i feel that proper training could have prevented the tragedy.

 

it was pointed out to me once that this idea would (or could, I can't remember for sure) be seen as an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights. I'm no lawyer, so I won't agree or disagree with that, but legality aside, would that be something that you would support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I'm curious @Kragar: Many of the articles I've posted are tragic in that they were avoidable. (eg., kids getting ahold of parents guns, etc.) 

 

One of the things I have always advocated was mandatory training, before legally being able to purchase a firearm. In many of these cases, i feel that proper training could have prevented the tragedy.

 

it was pointed out to me once that this idea would (or could, I can't remember for sure) be seen as an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights. I'm no lawyer, so I won't agree or disagree with that, but legality aside, would that be something that you would support?

Legality aside, yes it is worth looking into.  it's stupid events like the one you posted recently that are so frustrating as they are so preventable.  proper storage is very important.  I can understand some cases where there may be some possible exceptions, but for the vast majority, I suspect that a proper gun safe is a no-brainer.  especially if kids live there, or visit often.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt a course in gun safety will do any good in the US.  The fear of being robbed / victim outweighs common sense.   It's why they have guns locked and loaded regardless if they have children in the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kragar said:

You may be right in you position, but you haven't shown anything to support it, and honestly I think it would be hard to do so.  I point out that there's a difference between small arms friendly fire (which would support your claim) and larger incidents involving bombing, shelling and air to air strikes.   You promptly show me a comparison of an Aussie small arms incident and an American bombing, believing that as strong support for your point.  Do you not see the misalignment? 

 

Your persistence shows you are overlooking two important points.  The link I provided also showed numerous cases where Brits had friendly fire incidents.  Does that mean they have a significant gun culture issue?  Hardly.  I also pointed out that since the Gulf war, US friendly fire incidents are decreasing, especially in Afghanistan.  Since the media concern is a growing issue of gun use in this country, as evidenced by these mass shootings, then why is that trend not reflected in combat now?  If there was such a correlation as you suggest, then there should be closer to 60% friendly fire, not the 13% currently reported.

I don't know what else I have to do to illustrate to you that your stats for casualties from friendly fire are off the charts compared to other nations.

As I just pointed out one American killed and injured more Aussies in one incident than all the Aussie friendly fire incidents combined in the Vietnam war.

 

The Afghan "war" or as the ADF have called it Operation Slipper is not so much a war rather trying to root out Guerilla's.

The way you state "only 13 percent" speaks volumes about the way you accept Americans killing/injuring other Americans.

There would be a public outcry here in Aus if our soldiers were killing/injuring each other at that rate.

You are trying to limit this to small arms,I am stating that whether it is a handgun, automatic weapons, or a pilot attacking an allies warship,not just once but coming around for a second pass, you guys love weapons and your shoot first and maybe think later mentality means you kill and

injure each other and your allies at a rate no other country would tolerate.

 

This is what I mean by it is so rooted in your psyche that when your citizens regularly go on killing rampages even intelligent citizens such as yourself will defend your gun culture.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilunga said:

I don't know what else I have to do to illustrate to you that your stats for casualties from friendly fire are off the charts compared to other nations.

As I just pointed out one American killed and injured more Aussies in one incident than all the Aussie friendly fire incidents combined in the Vietnam war.

 

The Afghan "war" or as the ADF have called it Operation Slipper is not so much a war rather trying to root out Guerilla's.

The way you state "only 13 percent" speaks volumes about the way you accept Americans killing/injuring other Americans.

There would be a public outcry here in Aus if our soldiers were killing/injuring each other at that rate.

You are trying to limit this to small arms,I am stating that whether it is a handgun, automatic weapons, or a pilot attacking an allies warship,not just once but coming around for a second pass, you guys love weapons and your shoot first and maybe think later mentality means you kill and

injure each other and your allies at a rate no other country would tolerate.

 

This is what I mean by it is so rooted in your psyche that when your citizens regularly go on killing rampages even intelligent citizens such as yourself will defend your gun culture.

 

Your point is still only speculation.  Like anyone else, you are welcome to your opinion.  I said before, you may be right.  But you are ignoring so many other things that can easily be factors.  How often were people acting off of bad intel? What weather, visibility or fatigue factors were involved.  how green were the troops?  without that info, it is not as cut and dry as you suggest.

 

All you keep saying is that US friendly fire is bad (agreed, the numbers are bad looking) and so that has to be due to our gun culture.  that is a pretty big leap, one made solely on your opinion.  you compare the US against one single country, one that has not participated anywhere near to the same extent, and only with anecdotal info.  Is that quality analysis? If you compare Aussie and Brit results, especially in the Gulf war, you will see some notable differences too.

 

I will say this one last time: numbers without context don't mean much.  There were over 40 times more Americans serving in Vietnam than Aussies, so there are bound to be more accidents. How many missions per servicemember also can play a factor... burnout is a real thing.  If the situations aren't comparable, their relative statistics mean less.

 

The Gulf war was even more difficult to compare results.  there were 1000 times the relative personnel serving between our two countries, with almost all Aussies serving on board frigates.  Of course comparing the two will be skewed.

 

You go on to generalize making a prejudicial comment about our shoot first mentality.  with 100 million gun owners all shooting first, wouldn't our death counts be so much higher?  Like so many in the anti-gun movement, you persist in ignoring the 99.99+% of people who do not shoot anybody.

 

I can admit you may have some merit to your theory.  It is still only a theory, one that is difficult to prove, as detailed info is hard to come by.  before I go all in, I want more substance supporting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Kragar said:

Your point is still only speculation.  Like anyone else, you are welcome to your opinion.  I said before, you may be right.  But you are ignoring so many other things that can easily be factors.  How often were people acting off of bad intel? What weather, visibility or fatigue factors were involved.  how green were the troops?  without that info, it is not as cut and dry as you suggest.

 

All you keep saying is that US friendly fire is bad (agreed, the numbers are bad looking) and so that has to be due to our gun culture.  that is a pretty big leap, one made solely on your opinion.  you compare the US against one single country, one that has not participated anywhere near to the same extent, and only with anecdotal info.  Is that quality analysis? If you compare Aussie and Brit results, especially in the Gulf war, you will see some notable differences too.

 

I will say this one last time: numbers without context don't mean much.  There were over 40 times more Americans serving in Vietnam than Aussies, so there are bound to be more accidents. How many missions per servicemember also can play a factor... burnout is a real thing.  If the situations aren't comparable, their relative statistics mean less.

 

The Gulf war was even more difficult to compare results.  there were 1000 times the relative personnel serving between our two countries, with almost all Aussies serving on board frigates.  Of course comparing the two will be skewed.

 

You go on to generalize making a prejudicial comment about our shoot first mentality.  with 100 million gun owners all shooting first, wouldn't our death counts be so much higher?  Like so many in the anti-gun movement, you persist in ignoring the 99.99+% of people who do not shoot anybody.

 

I can admit you may have some merit to your theory.  It is still only a theory, one that is difficult to prove, as detailed info is hard to come by.  before I go all in, I want more substance supporting it.

There are only a couple of hundred things our species is absolutely certain of and a big chunk of those are on the periodic table.

As I write this there is another shooting in your country this time in california,apparently the gun was sold legally however the magazine was illegal.

What your arguments prove is like the rest of our species Americans are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again because you refuse to admit you are making a mistake in the first place.

 

 

Edited by Ilunga
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to post this here as well:

 

"i've reviewed the literature," @kyblot wrote, "and there are basically no studies on the therapeutic benefits of getting shot."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/health/nra-tweet-doctors-react/index.html

Doctors share gun stories, demand action after NRA tells them to 'stay in their lane'

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Had to post this here as well:

 

"i've reviewed the literature," @kyblot wrote, "and there are basically no studies on the therapeutic benefits of getting shot."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/health/nra-tweet-doctors-react/index.html

Doctors share gun stories, demand action after NRA tells them to 'stay in their lane'

Not the best timing by the NRA....:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Not the best timing by the NRA....:rolleyes:

That's one organization that couldn't give a (expletive deleted) about anyone or anything that doesn't involve or love guns. These shootings are an inconvenience to them. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ilunga said:

There are only a couple of hundred things our species is absolutely certain of and a big chunk of those are on the periodic table.

As I write this there is another shooting in your country this time in california,apparently the gun was sold legally however the magazine was illegal.

What your arguments prove is like the rest of our species Americans are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again because you refuse to admit you are making a mistake in the first place.

I get the impression that you don't think I believe there is a problem here.  If so, you would be wrong.  We do appear to have different ideas for resolving the problem (well, more than one, actually).

 

My arguments were to show that you were making persistently illogical or unrealistic assumptions and/or connections, nothing more.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kragar said:

I get the impression that you don't think I believe there is a problem here.  If so, you would be wrong.  We do appear to have different ideas for resolving the problem (well, more than one, actually).

 

My arguments were to show that you were making persistently illogical or unrealistic assumptions and/or connections, nothing more.

 

Peace.

I do not believe that I was,it seems obvious to me the connection Americans have to their guns and their desire to kill the fellow Americans with their guns.

The way guns are used in your society, are portrayed in your TV shows.

Back at the start of this decade when I first joined this community and participated in discussions such as this one it used to blow me away that Americans did not feel safe in their own homes without a gun.

 

What happened with Justine Damond,seeing videos of police gunning down unarmed people running away from them.

The way Americans think this is no big deal.

 

Since your Civil War where Americans took killing their fellow man to another level your people shoot and kill others for what I believe is no good reason.

 

I believe you think there is a problem but seem unable to see the easy solution, the solution the country I live came up with after the Port Arthur Massacre.

 

Peace to you Brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ilunga said:

I do not believe that I was,it seems obvious to me the connection Americans have to their guns and their desire to kill the fellow Americans with their guns.

The way guns are used in your society, are portrayed in your TV shows.

Back at the start of this decade when I first joined this community and participated in discussions such as this one it used to blow me away that Americans did not feel safe in their own homes without a gun.

 

What happened with Justine Damond,seeing videos of police gunning down unarmed people running away from them.

The way Americans think this is no big deal.

 

Since your Civil War where Americans took killing their fellow man to another level your people shoot and kill others for what I believe is no good reason.

 

I believe you think there is a problem but seem unable to see the easy solution, the solution the country I live came up with after the Port Arthur Massacre.

 

Peace to you Brother

And now we've come full circle to the beginning of our discussion, with the faulty assumption that Aus' solution had the impact many people think it did.  I'm not going through all that again unless there is something new to add/counter to what I have already posted. 

 

Regardless, that solution is not easy here.  Having an actual, documented right to own a gun complicates things more than a little.  And, the horses have left the barn... there are already a crap load of guns out there, and it is not easy to change that.  Plenty of people in Aus failed to register or turn in their weapons.  With our love of guns being so widespread and beyond that of your citizens, what makes you think that kind of plan would be successful?  Even Aus' US ambassador (assuming the post hasn't changed in the last 9 months), who was involved in the gun ban legislation, doesn't think it would work here.

 

There have been cases of voluntary forfeiture of guns here.  After Sandy Hook, the SF Bay area (one of the most left-leaning in the country) had a buy-back program, offering $200 to anyone surrendering a gun.  Guns turned in: over 600.  Perhaps the most successful (based on the number of guns involved) was our first buy-back in Baltimore, with over 13,000 guns turned in:

 

Quote

What is believed to have been the first gun buyback program was in Baltimore in 1974. Gun homicides and assaults actually rose during the two-month program, and it was deemed a failure, though no reason for the crime rate increase was given. Similar programs followed in other cities, including some cities that repeated their programs. However, no evaluation of such programs were published until 1994, after three researchers analyzed a 1992 buyback in Seattle, Washington. The study found that the "effect on decreasing violent crime and reducing firearm mortality is unknown."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#United_States

 

That's why I advocate going after the underlying issues (solutions to which aren't simple nor quick, but more likely to be effective and also stand up legally), instead of the cosmetic, high-profile symptom you are focusing on.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kragar said:

And now we've come full circle to the beginning of our discussion, with the faulty assumption that Aus' solution had the impact many people think it did.  I'm not going through all that again unless there is something new to add/counter to what I have already posted. 

 

Regardless, that solution is not easy here.  Having an actual, documented right to own a gun complicates things more than a little.  And, the horses have left the barn... there are already a crap load of guns out there, and it is not easy to change that.  Plenty of people in Aus failed to register or turn in their weapons.  With our love of guns being so widespread and beyond that of your citizens, what makes you think that kind of plan would be successful?  Even Aus' US ambassador (assuming the post hasn't changed in the last 9 months), who was involved in the gun ban legislation, doesn't think it would work here.

 

There have been cases of voluntary forfeiture of guns here.  After Sandy Hook, the SF Bay area (one of the most left-leaning in the country) had a buy-back program, offering $200 to anyone surrendering a gun.  Guns turned in: over 600.  Perhaps the most successful (based on the number of guns involved) was our first buy-back in Baltimore, with over 13,000 guns turned in:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#United_States

 

That's why I advocate going after the underlying issues (solutions to which aren't simple nor quick, but more likely to be effective and also stand up legally), instead of the cosmetic, high-profile symptom you are focusing on.  

 

What I am focusing on is the fact that Americans kill one one another with their guns like no other civilised society does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.