The science of gun crimes

[myp]

As the debates are surely to stem from today's travesty, the points in this piece are good to keep in mind: http://boingboing.net/2012/12/14/what-science-says-about-gun-co.html#more-200655

Summary in four words: it isn't that simple.

 

[whocky]

Why not have some gun laws? I'm from the UK and to be honest because it is so hard to get a gun stuff like this rarely happens.

Now that been said I'm not saying it is hard to get a gun as you can though what happened today is just beyond belief. I think the laws need changing and tightening A LOT.

 

[tecoyah]

We can enact laws....and those who are criminals will get them anyway.

In the UK you never allowed things to get this screwed up....we did.

The Jeanie is out of the bottle over here.

 

[Cerise]

Isn't it time you tried to put the Genie back in and secure the cork then?

 

[myp]

Isn't it time you tried to put the Genie back in and secure the cork then?

Even if you wanted to, is it possible? There are literally hundreds of millions of guns out there.

 

[Cerise]

Isn't it better to try rather than to shrug shoulders?

 

[tecoyah]

We will try, make a few changes that the NRA allows politicians to make (Tighten Background checks, Change Gun Show Laws...etc....). These things might help a bit but they will not change the culture.

I do not see a solution to this problem.

 

[myp]

How about a change on the media's part in how they present these things? Would leaving the killer's name out of it instead of glorifying their evil remove an incentive to do this kind of thing? At least in some cases? I think it might. Focus on the victims, not the coward.

 

[tecoyah]

How about a change on the media's part in how they present these things? Would leaving the killer's name out of it instead of glorifying their evil remove an incentive to do this kind of thing? At least in some cases? I think it might. Focus on the victims, not the coward.

That might eventually make a few nut jobs think twice...but it would not change a damn thing. I would prefer we label these bastards as terrorists, hang the bodies naked in a public square, and burn the corpse on TV.

 

[myp]

That might eventually make a few nut jobs think twice...but it would not change a damn thing. I would prefer we label these bastards as terrorists, hang the bodies naked in a public square, and burn the corpse on TV.

If it makes a few nut jobs think twice it is worth it. Does the public really need to know the name of Adam Lanza? I don't know why people want to know it- there is no need to. And hanging them in a public square is basically what media does right now- it is what I am saying might be increasing these events. The shooters want to be hung in the public square.

 

[myp]

Focusing on mental health access is another huge part of this. This is quite a moving story: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

 

[Nemo]

There's no science to it, just plain common sense. I think that we need to adopt a more adult attitude about firearms that should be reflected in responsible gun laws. There is no reason for anyone not in the military or police service to have weapons designed for use in combat. Likewise, the public obsession over handguns for personal protection is beyond reason. Unless you are a qualified expert, or police-trained in handling small arms, it is a mistake to think you will be safe in you home with a loaded pistol. (You are more likely to shoot yourself than ward-off anyone intent on doing you harm.) If you must have a gun for protection, then get a 12 gauge, double-barrel shotgun, load it with medium bird-shot and keep it ready to hand. For most people, you are probably better protected with a cell phone with one-touch dialing for emergency calls.

 

[misterveritis]

Before the solution we need to know the problem

Isn't it better to try rather than to shrug shoulders?

What do you believe the problem is?

We should spend way more time discussing the nature of the problem. Then we can determine what courses of action will have an impact.

Why do the few mass killings occur in gun-free zones for example? Could it be that in our zeal to disarm people we have unwittingly made then ideal targets?

 

[misterveritis]

We will try, make a few changes that the NRA allows politicians to make (Tighten Background checks, Change Gun Show Laws...etc....). These things might help a bit but they will not change the culture.

I do not see a solution to this problem.

Why bring up the NRA? Isn't your real problem one of freedom and liberty? If only we did not have that pesky Bill of Rights...

Maybe it is time for some common sense restrictions on the First Amendment.

 

[misterveritis]

There's no science to it, just plain common sense. I think that we need to adopt a more adult attitude about firearms that should be reflected in responsible gun laws. There is no reason for anyone not in the military or police service to have weapons designed for use in combat. Likewise, the public obsession over handguns for personal protection is beyond reason. Unless you are a qualified expert, or police-trained in handling small arms, it is a mistake to think you will be safe in you home with a loaded pistol. (You are more likely to shoot yourself than ward-off anyone intent on doing you harm.) If you must have a gun for protection, then get a 12 gauge, double-barrel shotgun, load it with medium bird-shot and keep it ready to hand. For most people, you are probably better protected with a cell phone with one-touch dialing for emergency calls.

You got your way completely in the gun free zone that ensured no defensive weapons were available. The results are always the same. The murderer takes his time firing two or three times into each victim, reloading at a leisurely pace and killing until someone better with a gun shows up to stop him.

Imagine how different this mas murder would have been if every administrator and teacher had been trained and required to carry a weapon. Instead of two dozen murdered we might have seen one, or two, if any at all.

We need to focus on what we know. We know that there will always be evil people among us. We know that some evil people want to hurt us. We know that having the state disarm us turns us into victims.

So let's reverse this. Let us require that everyone who is eligible to vote must buy, train with, and carry a firearm.

 

[tecoyah]

Though your logic makes sense, this solution carries great risk. Imagine the mistakes made by a fully armed public...in fact one need not use all that much imagination, as much of the public already is. We humans are inherently unstable in many ways, we are unpredictable, emotional and flawed. Giving us all guns might not be a very good idea in the long run.

I can absolutely guarantee you that every single mass shooting in this country will have two things in common.

1) A human
2) A gun

When we decide to increase the ratio of both, we will increase the incidence of violence.

 

[misterveritis]

Though your logic makes sense, this solution carries great risk. Imagine the mistakes made by a fully armed public...in fact one need not use all that much imagination, as much of the public already is. We humans are inherently unstable in many ways, we are unpredictable, emotional and flawed. Giving us all guns might not be a very good idea in the long run.

I can absolutely guarantee you that every single mass shooting in this country will have two things in common.

1) A human
2) A gun

When we decide to increase the ratio of both, we will increase the incidence of violence.

I understand your desire to be safe. I do not understand your desire to give up your right and obligation to defend yourself.

Human and guns are present in large numbers all around us every day. We do not have high profile mass killings every day.

We do have mass killings where gun-free zones are announced, Identified and enforced. So the third thing you should add to your list is victims, disarmed by state action.

We can reduce that to zero on Monday. It won't even require a costly new government program.

 

[myp]

I don't think these people choose schools because they are gun-free, which is the point you seem to be alluding to. It just so happens that they are gun-free. And I am not sure having guns in schools would reduce the number of deaths including accidents over the long run, although it might be possible. And the numbers including accidents when every single person is armed? I don't even want to think about that.

I'll admit I am split on the gun issue, but I know personally, I do not feel the need to buy a gun for myself in the name of protection.

 

[ThirdTerm]

It's been speculated that Nancy Lanza collected deadly weapons because she was more than a gun enthusiast who frequently visited shooting ranges with her sons and her relative claimed that Nancy believed in survivalism or doomsday prepping, a movement based on the premise that the economy is on the brink of collapse and survivialists stock up food and weapons to prepare for the doomsday scenario and the Chinese man who killed more than 20 children just days after the CT school shooting was reported to be one of those survivalists and there may be ideological links between mass shootings and doomsday prepping.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/17/newtown_and_the_doomsday_preppers?page=0,0

 

[whocky]

After the school shootings its reported that there is a rise in people buying guns to protect themselves, although i would do the same don't they need to tighten the gun laws up so that everyone just cant get approved for one and buy one.