You guessed it, another shooting.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Doesn't anyone think that the solution should be to ban all guns for civilians?

NO. If you lived somewhere other than an Island City-State with a population density enough to make Venice look like a rural farmstead, you might understand that, in fact, sometimes you will be somewhere in which a Black Bear decides to say hello to you. I've walked to the top of a trail, turned a corner before, and been six feet from one. I would have been in a fight for my life if I'd done anything other than silently keep walking right along the trail, and the bear hadn't decided to sleepily amble past me and down the trail in the direction I'd just come from. This kind of retarded attitude is exactly what has alienated rural dwellers with real political power from the democratic party in the US. Systems like Finland's can work fine for regulating them, but in a country with rural areas, which your's entirely lacks, guns are, in fact, necessary.

[Zixinus]

To partly play devil's advocate here: What about banning anything that is not a hand-fend? You know, so the only legal weapons would be ones that can only fire one round at a time and would have to be drastically altered to do otherwise?

It would be enough for hunting and defending yourself from bears on errant trips, but would make spree-killing much harder to do?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

To partly play devil's advocate here: What about banning anything that is not a hand-fend? You know, so the only legal weapons would be ones that can only fire one round at a time and would have to be drastically altered to do otherwise?

It would be enough for hunting and defending yourself from bears on errant trips, but would make spree-killing much harder to do?

At very close range, if you miss with the first shot you wouldn't get another chance with a bear, then. Pump-action shotguns are not normally used in commission of crimes, and tend to be the weapon of choice for those kinds of encounters. Rifles can be fired very rapidly despite being hand-loaded; the Werder has claimed 15 - 24 rounds before, which is certainly unaimed wild blind firing rather than the 15 rounds rapid aimed fire of an Enfield in the hands of an Old Contemptible; but nonetheless that's very close to the 30 rounds per minute that the Aurora shooter got off. Basically a lot of innovations in rifles in the past century have been about giving a 6-week trained conscript the same fighting ability as a veteran who has trained for five or six years, but someone like Breivik certainly could have accomplished his massacre with a single shot Werder. Semi-automatic rifles tend to be best in "burst" firing where a few shots occur as you rapidly pull the trigger and then stop and re-aim, better for where you have to put out a lot of bullets in seconds, rather than sustained fire. In sustained fire, guns start to become surprisingly equal in how well they perform.

Banning everything except muzzle loaders would theoretically stop a lot of spree shootings since then you do see a drastic performance change, but wouldn't have stopped John Allen Muhammad, for instance, who could have had a couple of Springfield muzzle loading rifles in his car and thus successfully committed all of his Beltway killings.

[Zaune]

*le sigh* If we're going to rehash this all over again, how about making most forms of firearm (except fully automatic weapons, and possibly any calibre in excess of .50BMG) legal to obtain by the general public, but only if they can demonstrate a clean police record, a certificate from a medical professional asserting that they are of fully sound mind and a couple of references from "persons of authority"* stating that they are a fit person to bear arms?

I'd also add something in there about requiring anyone applying for a permit to buy an appropriate gun-safe and keep their weapons under lock and key when not in use, on penalty of a very large fine and loss of permit if it gets stolen through their own negligence, but the only way to really enforce that proactively is to have a police officer go around and make spot-checks; quite the logistical headache in sparsely-populated rural areas.

* I don't recall exactly what these are defined as in UK law, but your boss and your family doctor are typical examples.

[Channel72]

Um - are we really going to optimize our laws based around bear attacks? I mean - I'll admit, I live in an area where bear attacks have zero chance of happening (unless you wander into a bear cage at the zoo), but really, the stats say there are on average 2 reported bear attacks per year in the United States. Not to mention this study, which says that statistically guns are actually not particularly effective at reducing bear-attack injuries, and alternatives like bear-spray are just as effective.

I mean, the rate of fucking shark attacks in the US is higher than bear attacks! I guess we should also allow automatic weapons on beaches in Hawaii.

A much more cogent argument against gun-control could be made by city-dwellers, since the rate of inner-city murder and crime absolutely dwarfs any kind of animal attack in rural areas.

I appreciate the political angle behind the idea that historically citizens living in rural areas have felt alienated by Democratic gun control measures designed for big cities, but really - it's hard to sympathize with this. The root of the problem seems to be more that people living in rural areas seem to have this aversion to government regulation, probably because they rely a lot less on societal infrastructure and thus don't really see a need for that much government influence in their daily lives.

Regardless, I do think it makes sense to more have relaxed gun restrictions in less populated areas.

[Purple]

Just make a special provisions for areas prone to bear attacks than?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just make a special provisions for areas prone to bear attacks than?

That isn't the only kind of dangerous wildlife you encounter, it was just a bloody example. Anyway, the point is also that sometimes it just physically takes the police MUCH longer to respond to even a GRAVE emergency. Where I grew up was an 8.5 mile long dead end, 3.5 miles north of the nearest town, patrolled by a Sheriff's officer whose nearest station was more than 15 miles away. Even full-bore, the average patrolling cop would take 20 - 30 minutes to respond to an emergency; the need for a gun for self-defence in such a situation is much more rational than in a city where "active shooter" brings police in 2 - 3 minutes, by literally an order of magnitude of time. Clearly the need for firearms in rural areas is much greater than in suburban or urban areas.

This does create a pretty intractable problem of course since you can have bleedover from one region into the other; on the other hand, how many gang bangers are going to drive to Montana to buy guns? Distance will have a mitigating effect. The point I'm trying to say is that, addressing this issue remains politically dangerous for the democrats and there are other things we could do to eliminate inner city violence. Once the murder rate has been shorn of hopeless black kids shooting hopeless black kids, through social programmes that the democrats can only achieve if they are not massively alienating rural regions, we can worry about things like going postal and spree killings. They are ultimately a very small part of gun violence in the US.

Gun violence in the US is not a gun control issue. That just revolves around the showy massacres which ultimately kill very few people. Gun violence in the US is an issue of racial inequality. Full. Stop.

[Purple]

Just make a special provisions for areas prone to bear attacks than?

That isn't the only kind of dangerous wildlife you encounter, it was just a bloody example.

That isn't the only kind of special case that might be required, it was just a bloody example.

Anyway, the point is also that sometimes it just physically takes the police MUCH longer to respond to even a GRAVE emergency. Where I grew up was an 8.5 mile long dead end, 3.5 miles north of the nearest town, patrolled by a Sheriff's officer whose nearest station was more than 15 miles away. Even full-bore, the average patrolling cop would take 20 - 30 minutes to respond to an emergency; the need for a gun for self-defence in such a situation is much more rational than in a city where "active shooter" brings police in 2 - 3 minutes, by literally an order of magnitude of time. Clearly the need for firearms in rural areas is much greater than in suburban or urban areas.

Ergo, allow people to keep guns at home just not take them out on the streets. I have no problem with the castle doctrine just as long as it stays in the proverbial castle.

[Simon_Jester]

Purple, I think you're missing the point here.

If the nearest police officer is twenty minutes away, then relying on police to provide security for anything is risky. Whatever crime might be committed, will happen and be over before they arrive. It might be someone attacking you in your home. It might be someone attacking you elsewhere- in some other place where the police are still ten or twenty minutes away. It might be something entirely unpredictable.

Most arguments for 'absolute' gun control are based on the idea that private citizens have no business looking out for their own physical safety against violence, not if that means arming themselves with weapons that pose threats to others. In a rural society that argument simply does not work. And even though I'm a suburban-dweller who's lived in safe neighborhoods, I get that. I understand it. I don't have trouble with this concept.

So I advise you to try and understand the world from someone else's perspective, before you tell them it's illegal for them to carry weapons.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ergo, allow people to keep guns at home just not take them out on the streets. I have no problem with the castle doctrine just as long as it stays in the proverbial castle.

How does that prevent Aurora from happening again? Oh right, it's just another pointless regulation! if you trust people with the gun in their house, why does it magically become dangerous? Nobody saw these crazies packing before they opened up: They concealed their guns illegally, even if they acquired them legally (Loughner did not have concealed carry, nor did the VA Tech shooter).

[Broomstick]

Doesn't anyone think that the solution should be to ban all guns for civilians?

I'm sure we can find someone who thinks that, but not me. Why should I have to give up the option to use a tool when I find it useful just because some human beings are criminal and/or irresponsible?

I will note that I, myself, have never actually owned a gun. I don't feel a need to, any more than I need to personally own a forklift. I do like having the option to purchase such tools, even if I don't feel an immediate need for one.

[TimothyC]

Doesn't anyone think that the solution should be to ban all guns for civilians?

Not around here, and with such things as the Wiki Weapon Project, banning personal firearms will become next to impossible (ie you would have to ban home 3D printers in the process).

[Channel72]

Most arguments for 'absolute' gun control are based on the idea that private citizens have no business looking out for their own physical safety against violence, not if that means arming themselves with weapons that pose threats to others. In a rural society that argument simply does not work. And even though I'm a suburban-dweller who's lived in safe neighborhoods, I get that. I understand it. I don't have trouble with this concept.

This line of reasoning (that rural dwellers are more likely to need guns) strikes me as totally backwards. So you're saying that we can't ban guns everywhere because rural inhabitants can't rely on the police to protect them. Yet statistically, a city-dweller is much more likely to actually need a gun for protection, regardless of police response times. This should be obvious, but I guess for some reason you need to be reminded of the actual crime rate in Montana versus the crime rate in New York. Again, the crime rate in an urban setting absolutely dwarfs the rate of animal attacks, or home invasions, or whatever else might happen that would give a rural dweller reason to use a gun. Whereas, a city dweller is much more likely to actually need a gun for self protection. So this whole argument, that absolute gun control doesn't work in a rural-setting, strikes me as totally backwards. I mean, the rate of accidental gun-related deaths is probably higher than the rate of violent gun crime in many rural areas.

On top of that, the police response-time argument is pretty flaky as well. The average police response time in NYC is over 8 minutes - more than enough time for someone to shoot you and run off with your stuff. Realistically, you can't always rely on the police to protect you from a crime, no matter where you live. Response times are much more meaningful for fire and health emergencies than for police, and someone that lives 80 miles from the nearest hospital is fucked anyway if they go into cardiac arrest.

The only reason gun-control doesn't work in a rural-setting is because people who live in a rural setting are statistically more likely to have political opinions favoring a less restrictive interpretation of the second amendment. I'm not saying total gun control is necessarily the answer, and I agree with Duchess of Zeon that systemic poverty and racial bias is the real reason why there is so much gun violence in the US, as opposed to outliers like the Batman shooter or the subject of this thread. But saying that rural dwellers should be given more gun rights than urban dwellers doesn't even make any fucking sense.

[General Zod]

This line of reasoning (that rural dwellers are more likely to need guns) strikes me as totally backwards. So you're saying that we can't ban guns because rural inhabitants can't rely on the police to protect them. Yet statistically, a city-dweller is much more likely to actually need a gun, regardless of police response times. This should be obvious, but I guess for some reason you need to be reminded of the actual crime rate in Montana versus the crime rate in New York. Again, the crime rate in an urban setting absolutely dwarfs the rate of animal attacks, or home invasions, or whatever else might happen that would give a rural dweller reason to use a gun. Whereas, a city dweller is much more likely to actually need a gun for self protection. So this whole argument, that absolute gun control doesn't work in a rural-setting, strikes me as totally backwards. I mean, the rate of accidental gun-related deaths is probably higher than the rate of violent gun crime in many rural areas.

On top of that, the police response-time argument is pretty flaky as well. The average police response time in NYC is over 8 minutes - more than enough time for someone to shoot you and run off with your stuff. Realistically, you can't always rely on the police to protect you from a crime, no matter where you live. Response times are much more meaningful for fire and health emergencies than for police, and someone that lives 80 miles from the nearest hospital is fucked anyway if they go into cardiac arrest.

The only reason gun-control doesn't work in a rural-setting is because people who live in a rural setting are statistically more likely to have political opinions favoring a less restrictive interpretation of the second amendment. I'm not saying total gun control is necessarily the answer, and I agree with Duchess of Zeon that systemic poverty and racial bias is the real reason why there is so much gun violence in the US, as opposed to outliers like the Batman shooter or the subject of this thread. But saying that rural dwellers should be given more gun rights than urban dwellers doesn't even make any fucking sense.

Simon's not entirely wrong. Stray bullets kill a lot of people every year, and when you're in a densely populated urban area you're a lot more likely to shoot someone with a stray bullet unintentionally if you have to use a gun in self defense. The likelihood of that happening in a rural setting where the population is one or two people for several miles drops drastically. I won't argue need vs not need, but you can't ignore the increased risks when using guns in a densely populated area.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Channel, two points:

One of them is that police response times in cities are arbitrarily bad; police response times in rural areas are structurally bad. I.E., the police don't respond effectively to crimes in urban areas because they're overburdened by not having enough police. The police don't respond effectively to crimes in rural areas because having enough police to do so would cost several times the US military budget and they'd be in virtual sinecures with nothing to do most of the time if they were hired. You can improve police response in cities, but not in rural areas.

Two, gun crime in rural areas being lower may actually be correlated with gun ownership. That is to say, "an armed society makes a polite society" is part of the culture of rural areas, so there's cultural influences which discourage gun violence in rural areas as it is an accepted fact that if you go try to rob someone they'll probably shoot you. Even if it is unlikely to really be a threat, it's part of the regional culture and influences the area you live in and the way you think such that committing such a crime seems riskier in your decision-making process.

In short, to a certain extent, rural gun rights advocates and urban gun control advocates can both be saying things that are factually correct because the rates of gun ownership in rural areas versus urban areas will actually influence culture and criminal behaviour to the point that the two different lifestyles to a certain extent become self-fulfilling prophecies. But these cultures are tied to their respective environmental-structural ways of life, so it's hard to say if you can port one to the other.

[Simon_Jester]

Put another way: imagine two countries in the context of gun culture: Finland and Britain. Very different approaches to firearms and their role in society- and note that from now on, when I say "British" I mean "like the attitude toward guns they have in Britain," when I say Finnish I mean the same thing about Finland. Not trying to draw any other analogies.

Trying to impose British gun laws on America as a whole is just... incredibly stupid, it's a guaranteed waste of time and a way to needlessly antagonize a lot of people. British gun laws may seem 'tidier' from a technocratic point of view, or to people who live in the British state of mind and can't easily visualize the Finnish environment. But that's about all they've got going for them, and you don't change the laws just to make things 'tidy.'

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Aside from potentially dangerous wildlife and rural crime, there are a fair number of people who at least partially feed their families through hunting. I grew up in a town where that's pretty much the norm.

[Captain Seafort]

Aside from potentially dangerous wildlife and rural crime, there are a fair number of people who at least partially feed their families through hunting. I grew up in a town where that's pretty much the norm.

Which simply means that while Tritio's solution can be quite easily adapted into a realistic model - ban individual civilian ownership of all handguns, all semi-automatic weapons, all longarms with a magazine capacity greater than (for example) five rounds, and all firearms within metropolitan areas. This would allow a compromise between the basic principle that firearms should be restricted to state ownership, and the reality that there are circumstances where they're required for defence against wild animals and subsistence.

[ArmorPierce]

How about carrying bear spray instead of requiring more than a single shot gun to ensure your safety. It should be about as effective for the given situation, which would be walking onto a bear in close distance.

[General Zod]

How about carrying bear spray instead of requiring more than a single shot gun to ensure your safety. It should be about as effective for the given situation, which would be walking onto a bear in close distance.

The right tool for the right job. Going out in unseasonable weather? You don't want the bear spray blowing back in your face thanks to winds.

[Simon_Jester]

Aside from potentially dangerous wildlife and rural crime, there are a fair number of people who at least partially feed their families through hunting. I grew up in a town where that's pretty much the norm.

Which simply means that while Tritio's solution can be quite easily adapted into a realistic model - ban individual civilian ownership of all handguns, all semi-automatic weapons, all longarms with a magazine capacity greater than (for example) five rounds, and all firearms within metropolitan areas. This would allow a compromise between the basic principle that firearms should be restricted to state ownership, and the reality that there are circumstances where they're required for defence against wild animals and subsistence.

The question to me is why?

Why should firearms be restricted to state ownership? "Because you can kill people with them?" Then why isn't the same argument extended to motor vehicles?

You're trying to answer the following question: "How can we allow the minimum amount of guns required to keep people from hating us, while essentially banning guns for civilian ownership?"

But from my point of view, and that of many Americans, that's a question that doesn't need an answer. It's not a policy goal for most Americans, and a large fraction of people in the rural US are deeply hostile and suspicious to it.

We just do not, as a nation, view "more gun bans" as a sign of social progress the way we might view "less racism" as a sign of progress.

[Tritio]

The Duchess is entirely correct about my lack of understanding about the necessity of guns for self defence (against people and dangerous wildlife) in a large country. I didn't think of it from that angle. However, that could be covered by restricting gun sales to non-automatic weapons of a certain ammunition capacity (as others have suggested) and this would prevent or reduce the lethality of gun crimes.

My current impression is that people in the US can easily get their hands on a wide variety of guns and unlimited ammunition which isn't a good idea to me. You don't need guns in Wal-Mart to protect people against wildlife. It's an ideology thing. The whole thing about freedom to own guns. But why don't you see that this directly leads to allowing people to commit serious gun crimes like massacres? The situation has clearly changed since that part/s of the constitution was written.

Gun violence in the US is not a gun control issue. That just revolves around the showy massacres which ultimately kill very few people. Gun violence in the US is an issue of racial inequality. Full. Stop.

That sounds silly to me. Gun violence is a gun control issue. No guns, no gun violence. Racial inequality causes crime, fair enough; but without guns, most of that crime will remain of the non-shooty type.

Why should firearms be restricted to state ownership? "Because you can kill people with them?" Then why isn't the same argument extended to motor vehicles?

Because the primary function of motor vehicles are not to kill people/animals? Exactly because you can kill people with guns, and now you have a problem of gun crime and massacres.

We just do not, as a nation, view "more gun bans" as a sign of social progress the way we might view "less racism" as a sign of progress.

From my perspective, that's exactly one of the causes of the problem.

[fordlltwm]

I strongly suspect that the majority of day to day gun crime is committed in the ghettos with guns that are illegally obtained in the first place. If you're already buying illegal guns, making them more illegal won't make a blind bit of difference. It might stop a few break-ins but will be ineffective in the way you want it to.

A quick search didn't find any stats showing legal / illegal gun ownership in crime unfortunately.

[Broomstick]

The Duchess is entirely correct about my lack of understanding about the necessity of guns for self defence (against people and dangerous wildlife) in a large country. I didn't think of it from that angle. However, that could be covered by restricting gun sales to non-automatic weapons of a certain ammunition capacity (as others have suggested) and this would prevent or reduce the lethality of gun crimes.

It is already forbidden for US civilians to own automatic weapons outside of a few very specific (and expensive) exceptions. Essentially, civilians can't own automatic weapons in the US, so that's already in effect.

Many, if not most, locations also restriction ammo capacity - so that, too, is already in effect.

I can't recall any sort of gun crime in my lifetime involving automatic weapons (my parents dimly remember such a time, but that was pre-WWII). The guns typically used in crime do not have extended capacity magazines. So I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that those "changes" (which are, essentially, already in effect) will "prevent or reduce the lethality" of gun crimes.

Do keep in mind that "gun crime" doesn't always involved someone getting hurt - more often, a gun is used to threaten violence and/or gain compliance.

My current impression is that people in the US can easily get their hands on a wide variety of guns and unlimited ammunition which isn't a good idea to me.

This is true. I fully respect your right to think that's not a good idea. However, the architects of our government disagreed and that is why they wrote it into the basic framework of the government (the constitution) that there is a right to keep and bear arms. That right is not unlimited, but it does exist in the US and will for the foreseeable future.

You don't need guns in Wal-Mart to protect people against wildlife.

Um.... well, if Wal-Mart is the major retailer in the area and there are no dedicated gun stores I'm not sure where else they're going to be sold. Actually, the selection of guns in my local big box stores is pretty pitiful, and some don't sell the guns, just the ammo (and that's still a limited selection). Then again, we have some rather large gun shops in my area so most people seeking firearms or their supplies go there.

I'm sure it's shocking to you, the idea that I can purchase guns and ammo at the same location I buy bread, milk, and eggs. I get that. But for many Americans purchasing ammunition for their gun is about on the same level as purchasing nails for their nailgun or a new sawblade. Guns are seen as tools as much as weapons. They actually are regulated and controlled, like explosives which also have legitimate uses, just not as much here as many other places.

It's an ideology thing. The whole thing about freedom to own guns. But why don't you see that this directly leads to allowing people to commit serious gun crimes like massacres?

Oh, you mean like Timothy McVeigh's mass slaughter in Oklahoma City? Oh, wait, that was a bomb, not a gun. Outlawing guns doesn't stop people from killing in large numbers.

Most "gun crime" is not massacres, it's small scale robbery and gangs shooting at each other. The mass killings are newsworthy and stand out, but they are actually extremely rare events.

The situation has clearly changed since that part/s of the constitution was written.

What, you think guns didn't exist in colonial days?

Gun violence in the US is not a gun control issue. That just revolves around the showy massacres which ultimately kill very few people. Gun violence in the US is an issue of racial inequality. Full. Stop.

That sounds silly to me. Gun violence is a gun control issue. No guns, no gun violence. Racial inequality causes crime, fair enough; but without guns, most of that crime will remain of the non-shooty type.

It may be no less lethal, however. Guns are not the only distance weapons that exist you know.

Why should firearms be restricted to state ownership? "Because you can kill people with them?" Then why isn't the same argument extended to motor vehicles?

Because the primary function of motor vehicles are not to kill people/animals? Exactly because you can kill people with guns, and now you have a problem of gun crime and massacres.

OK, outlaw guns and put the gun manufacturers out of business. You have now disarmed the law-abiding civilian populace.

Next problem: it's not that hard to make a gun. It's old technology and the knowledge is out there. I know a guy whose hobby is making his own guns. Making your own ammo isn't that tough, either. Even if you take the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding the criminals will still be able to get or even make guns.

Add that to the issue that guns aren't the only way to kill people, even in large numbers, and you haven't really solved the underlying problem. Sure, crime won't be committed with guns, but death and violence will still be there.

You see, there are heavily armed communities that rarely see any form of crime. There are communities where guns are forbidden that have lots of crime, much of it with illegal guns. It's not the existence of the guns themselves that are driving the problem.

We just do not, as a nation, view "more gun bans" as a sign of social progress the way we might view "less racism" as a sign of progress.

From my perspective, that's exactly one of the causes of the problem.

Well, OK, I get that you see things differently. Nonetheless, Simon's statement is a good summation of the American position on the topic.

[Beowulf]

Some state constitutions are rather less ambiguous than the US constitution as to the right to bear arms, like Vermont: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State". The purpose of arms is to defend yourself. No bullshit about it being a "collective" right unlike every other right in the Bill of Rights. Nothing about hunting, or sporting purposes. Maine has a similar one: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." Both these were written near contemporaneously with the US Constitution.

Gun violence is a violence issue, full stop. Guns are a means to an end, not the problem itself. Banning guns, or banning guns with certain features, will not solve the real problem, which is violent crime, and poverty, and mental illness. And there's little guarantee that criminals would actually be affected by a gun ban. Simple guns are easily made by anyone with a badly equipped machine shop, and more complicated guns can be done by those with a reasonably well equipped machine shop (really, all you need is a plan, a metal saw, and a hardware store; a welder may help). Heck, you could plausibly 3D print everything required in a gun except for the barrel, bolt, and springs. And those are easy to make, assuming you don't care about rifling the bore.

So, what percentage of items have to be used "badly" for you to think that they must be banned? 50%? 10%? 5%? 1%?