How Do Rampage Killings Affect Our Opinions On Gun Control?

This isn't science news.

Popular Science seems to have become strikingly political and reaching for notoriety at any means. You aren't helping the situation that has been tragic for so many in Conn. You're using their blood to write an article about gun control. A "scientific" website such as yourself should also do their homework, and have more respect for the dead instead of pushing for an agenda.

Banning guns does not prevent senseless violence:

www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

Connecticut had bans in place that didn't work:

www.nytimes.com/1993/05/28/nyregion/weapons-ban-is-approved-by-connecticut-senate.html

Lastly, how do you prevent people from illegally obtaining firearms when there are plenty of books to show you how to make them? Plenty of people that will sell to you?

I think we need to figure out how to identify troubled individuals...it's the brain that went wrong...not the guns.

Answer - Poorly, if this article and website are any indication.

It's interesting that gun control laws have a positive correlation with gun violence, and CO2 has a positive correlation with temperature increase, over the past 30 years.

Which ones does popsci consider irrefutable evidence worthy of trillions of dollars of policy change, and which one does popsci consider irrelevant? Hmm...

Oh, and gun factory stock holders didn't cheer on Obama because he was pro-gun rights. They cheered him on because of the massive sales produced out of fear that Obama will "take meaningful action". Their fears seem warranted.

Opinions do not change, because the question of gun control is a philosophical question, not a statistical one.

If giving up your first amendment freedom of speech could potentially save hundreds of lives, would you do it? What about your sixth amendment rights to a trial? Where would you stop? Would you take those rights from others against their will? How many lives are our freedoms worth?

238 years ago, American Colonists overwhelmingly believed these freedoms were worth dying for. Our freedoms are paid for with blood, would you trade our rights for the illusion of safety?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

S Monkey

@Fummfur. Guns can evolve quicker than people, figure out how to identify "troubled individuals" seems more controversial than banning people from the right to protect themselves, your scarily sounding a lot like Tony Blair or Hitler both of whom are and were hypocrites. No, the way we use arms should change not the way we look at people. People thought Einstein was "troubled", some of the brightest often are. Perhaps each home should have a designated firearm, like an ip adress, you see what I did there? This is a science magazine, now B off!

..DO YOU CONFORM..

"Connecticut had bans in place that didn't work:
www.nytimes.com/1993/05/28/nyregion/weapons-ban-is-approved-by-connecticut-senate.html"

Check those bans with what is still legal here in CT. Not to mention pre-ban rights of ownership. This could have been done with a plethora of legal weapons.

I don't feel that more gun restrictions will help either. I don't blame the NRA, they don't build the guns or sell them to people who ain't quite right in the head. If someone is going to pop and go on a killing spree, they'll find a way to do the best they can.
Like most of the slaughters lately, they all seem pre-planned and there's the few who say "I knew something wasn't right with him lately".
In fact, just a couple/few months ago, some dude's mom got that feeling and managed to get him derailed before he could go on his spree.

My genuine condolence to the victims families, however

Every time there is an occurrence like the event in Conneticut, this cabal emerges, jumping up and down preaching how evil guns are. In this scenario they never talk about victims rights. For example, the right to self defense.

No matter how many guns are taken away, the violence will not disappear.

Nothing in more horrible, than to be such a victim, and be able to do NOTHING in self defense.

The gun control cabal believes that such victims are acceptable. It is okay for victims of violent crime to have NOTHING to defend themselves. NOTHING to defend themselves.

This article should have nothing to do with gun control and more about dealing with mental illness. Lately you have been printing many articles that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with pushing a liberal left wing agenda. I have been a subscriber to your publication since I was a child, but if you keep taking sides on political issues I would rather start finding my technical/scientific information from other sources. Please don't allow this to happen.

The knee jerk emotional decision of 9/11 laws was to remove more rights and freedoms of the American citizen out of fear with the newly built NSA.

Now NSA is listening to every conversation in the world in real time, if they are guilty of of a crime or not.

The same knee jerk law policies maybe put upon people now with gun control, exploiting people current emotional vulnerability.

@ Robot Robot you have no right. Emotional vulnerability? Why don't you just think of the people who lost their lives and remember them.

Nazi's liked gun control @Metamorphosis because they liked control...and all politicians are hypocrites...just look at Obama and his crocodile tears when he heard about this news only to dance on the families yet to be dug graves to bolster gun control when every day he authorizes drone strikes that have, in his administration, killed more children in Pakistan than that man in Connecticut ever could. And Einstein never tried to kill anyone mass slaying style when gun control was not a big thing in the states yet.

And @Trooper Brian I think the identified gun was a .223 semi-auto caliber rifle...besides the pistols being legit to own in Conn...it doesn't mean this guy being 20 could of obtained any weapons pre-ban seeing he would of been two years old during the ratification of the ban. I don't think he could of gotten a retroactive permit at that age. I think it's safe to say it was all obtained illegally...and when people find ways not to follow rules, well, how good are they?

Just look
www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ct-school-shooter-made-combat-weapon-article-1.1220431

So when people do things illegally...making laws doesn't do anything if they can avoid them. Being proactive and enforcing laws does.

China, like in the article I posted, had a man stab 22 children...they aren't allowed to have guns over there...but these crazy things still happen because of disturbed individuals not getting the love or attention they needed to feel like they belong. So identifying such people would be useful unless you want this to snowball to what China has now with laws where there are knife control laws...you have to use your issued ID card there and register yourself if you are buying big knives...you know the ones which everyone has in their kitchen. Laws don't do anything to stop an unloved individual taking it out on other people to share their misery. Identify the individuals...help them. My love goes out to the families, and my pity goes to those who jump on bandwagons, like we have here, and don't read and formulate opinions for themselves.

I believe in the right to bear arms and I understand the necessity to manage and regulate weapons with laws voted from calm rational minds.

How about instead of banning guns we work around them? It's our right to have possession of guns. Let's instead focus on safety measures such as increased security at the front of entrances of buildings where there is going to be a dense amount of people. This will also increase security job availability; both additional safety to the people and a better chance to get a job all in one package.

First, I agree that this is an article that should not be featured in any publication with "science" in the title.

Second, the 2nd amendment has run its course. If we were still in jeopardy of being infiltrated by foreign troops, then I could agree. But, in this day and age, sending platoons to conquer the U.S. is laughable. We don't need guns in every household anymore.

Third, it's unavoidable that every now and then, someone is going to go ballistic. Whether of not they have access to weapons decides how many fatalities there will be. Notice in the story on China, it says 20+ people were WOUNDED by a knife, not killed. If the Chinese psycho had a gun, you can bet those kids would be dead and not merely wounded.

The fact that this Conn. man was able to acquire a gun is due to the fact that guns have been legal for so long. Since they're so readily available, it's easy to get one when you want to go ballistic. If guns were not legal, yes there would still be guns on the street, but in perpetually diminishing numbers. Thus, the odds that any psycho could get one to murder a schoolhouse would decrease. That outweighs any rednecks feeling of gun entitlement.

Home printed guns are available now too....
Sure, it failed after eight shots.

However, the fact is, it shot eight shots!

We don't need safety labels on everything

If some idiot kills themselves, then the worlds sort 1 less idiot

@Apoca-Risk

Does this mean we will finally be free of your incessant whining?

Is anyone calling for pharmaceutical control? Even a ban on all antidepressants that have now been proven ineffective? Isn't the real killer here the ill monitored list of psychological drugs that play an even bigger roll in creating these horrific tragedies?
Philosophically; the control of guns would work but only in certain hypothetical situations moreover, statistically the control of guns do not, have not, will not & could never save lives. Think about it; what would you get if you placed a 'Gun free Zone' sign in your front yard? more that likely you will meet a criminal that knows you are unarmed, intends to rape & shoot your wife then shoot you because gun control does not, will not ever keep guns out of that killer's hands. Are we to stay in a perpetual ban-fest until all weapons are banned? Even then, guess where they would all manage to migrate to...that's right! the criminals! I say we hold the psychotic drug maker responsible for creating a killer. Be aware of the false media being spoon fed to millions and break away to reality!

First off, killing a person with a knife is much harder, and much essayer to disarm. Second, killing a person with a knife is much harder on the psyche, you can feel the knife going in, you have to see the victim up close, and there is the danger of a retaliatory strike from the victim.

But, a gun, all you need to see is the Silhouette of the victim. Ask any soldier, most of the killing happens without true recognition of the enemy. I would know I was one. A gun is about pulling a trigger, almost like pressing a button. A knife is very different, you cannot compare the two, and to do so is VERY stupid.

As for pop sci posting such articles as they have in the past 6 months, I get it. Look at the "articles" with the most coverage. Look how much we Comment, and when people comment they have to come back and check, to see if other people answered. Therefore a better chance for people to click on ad's and for them to make money off posting these "free" articles. They have to pay the rent too.

AS for gun control I don't know, nor is this the place to discus such, but i just wanted to add truth behind this knife debate.

Less Money On War more Money on Science

How does the school shooting affect my views on gun control? Simply put it makes me despise gun control all the more. These mass shootings could never become bloodbaths at all if someone in all areas had access to a weapon to defend against the attack. All mass shootings occur within unarmed victim zones such as schools. They do not take place in areas of the country where people are expected to be packing heat. Crime in general doesn't occur with the same frequency in areas with high citizen gun ownership and lax gun control laws.

We as a nation need to get over the irrational fear of guns. People who open carry need not be harassed by those misguided people who feel uncomfortable around them. There is estimated to be almost as many guns in the US as there are people, if not more considering estimates of illegal weaponry are essentially baseless. They cannot be banned outright and will never be removed from existence, much like illicit drugs. The best thing for all involved is better education about gun use to eliminate fear and promote ownership to have an armed society to combat such attacks.

I wonder if anyone actually read the quartz article this author was referencing. This is hardly a political statement. It could be Interpreted that way, but the tone is mild and inconclusive. As for the analysis I think the rest I country agrees with all of you (just click the link and check out the data).

Condescending Wonka's words of wisdom on the gun control issue: http://i.qkme.me/3qbgrj.jpg

Maybe it should result in a rethinking of the concept of schools where large groups of children and teachers congregate. In the age of computers, internet and online education it is long past time to think outside the old box. Smaller schools, home schooling and alternative education concepts. I expect the main opposition would be from unionized teachers and the politicians they've bought.

After every tragedy there's an outcry of rage. I understand it. How can we justify the loss of life? At that moment people start to think that restrictions will prevent the next tragedy, and that we as a society need to embrace this for the greater good. The simple truth is, society will never stop law breakers, from breaking laws, by passing more laws. It's been tried, statistics have been kept, and many very smart people have spent years absolutely pouring over those statistics and have come to the conclusion that laws just don't work. Personally, I think the constant noise coming from the media is in no small part, responsible for making these tragedies turn into the same old pedantic "gun control" debate. They turn a problem into a two-sided debate that never ends, which limits peoples ability to think about the problem in pragmatic ways. We should be thinking creatively and collaboratively instead of pointing fingers. So, in the spirit of opening up a productive dialog, I'll start by suggesting that maybe we should consider employing full-time L.E.O officers at our school. Officers specially trained to not just neutralize a threat, but to recognize signs of abuse, bullying as well as potential dangers.

Those who don't want guys available need to be LOUDER than those who do. It is that simple.

We said "simple," not "easy."

http://www.rainydaymagazine.com
"We Entertain When It Rains"

Those who don't want guns available need to be LOUDER than those who do. It is that simple.

We said "simple," not "easy."

http://www.rainydaymagazine.com
"We Entertain When It Rains"

Popular Science has degenerated into repeating talking points of the ideological left. If they're not beating the drum for global warming (the biggest hoax in history), they're subverting the 2nd Amendment by pressing for more gun control laws.
This used to be a decent magazine, but I won't renew my subscription as long as nutty, regressive politics fill the pages of this magazine instead of science.

Lol good. Take your ignorance and quixotic thoughts elsewhere. It'll save you some scrutiny from the scientific community and subsequent embarrassment.

I served in the British Army for eight years and know how to handle various firearms, I enjoy shooting but I am very glad that our gun control is quite rigorous. I can walk down the road without the fear that some Toe Rag is going to pull a gun on me. My girlfriend's father was the inventor of the de Lisle Carbine, and as much as I would like to fire one, I am truly grateful that I can't. Sometimes these horrendous acts happen here, but they are very rare (even taking into consideration the population difference). I believe this is due to gun control. I'm not too sure that there can be any reform in the USA with the number of weapons in circulation.
I think that this article was posted to provoke a debate, not the first time it has been done and won't be the last!
My heart goes out to all those affected by this tragedy and I hope you guys over there find some solution.

P.S. @ Robot; You have often made me smile (in a good way!) over this last year. Be well.

My heart and prayers go out to all those who suffer!

yeah!! it is not a tech news but can lead to one. Related to Guns, i believe one of the best technology is the fingerprint matching and voice control. In both, the machine understands only its owners and no other one can use it.
Although the law must be stricter and do not allow guns to person below 25.

Americans, let's not get fooled into any gun control laws! It's that darn guvmint planning to take away our shooters, and then come at us and KILL US ALL! And guess what, they ain't comin' with guns only, it's gonna be tanks an' planes, so we gotta be prepared! Let's fight for our right to own anti-tank mines, RPGs and Stinger launchers, I tell ya, the Founding Fathers would love this for sure, a Stinger in every home! And ya know what would prevent those horrible, horrible shootings? I say let's give a gun to everyone, yeah! Arm those six-year olds with magnums and they will defend themselves when some nutcase will come an' try to shoot them. Guns for six-year olds, that'll make America a safer place to live!

Really, I didn't realize how many idiots there are in America until I started reading internet comments. We have very strict gun control laws in Europe, and guess what? We had less mass shootings since WW2 than USA had in a decade. When living in Europe you can be 99% sure there is no gun at any given house, and guess what? We don't have robbers and rapists going in through doors and windows. In many countries there is no such thing as a "gang problem". The USA, with all those guns flying around, has nearly three times as many rapes per capita as Netherlands, twice as much as Mexico! And as for the right to self-defence, try this one: ban all guns and let citizens carry knives, even swords, instead. It's easier to even run away from someone assaulting you with a knife, than to dodge a bullet!

Still can't believe that after all this horrible events taking place there are still people that support "guns for everyone" laws in the states, and label anyone that is against it as a leftwing liberalist... If you read a science magazine like this one I think you believe in statistics, why dont you take a look at the statistics of fire arms deaths taking place here in "lefwing" gun-controlled Europe? I'm sure you will find them very different from your country. Other issue is comparing your constitution with the law of bearing firearms? That's pitiful, I somewhat compare that to the bullfight tradition that some people here in Portugal defend just because is a tradition (nevertheless it existed much before your land was discovered), most of our citizens dont care for bullfigting, and it's doomed to end just like any other barbaric laws and events that were taken place in the past, somethinhg that you all have to think about it...

@EVERYONE

Ignore KotekMaya. He is just trolling.

For all the "why do we/you have a 2nd amendment right, its so outdated/old/run its course". If you read our history you'll understand. When our amendment was written the founding fathers understood that the only thing keeping a gov. from being tyrannical and abusive to its citizenry was weapons. How did they come to this conclusion? They saw the British Empire ban weapons in the colonies and confiscated them very often. Also how do you suppose they overthrow British rule? With blogs, and newspapers....? With all of our rights in our constitution there have been hard pills to swallow, like watching out flag burn, and funerals protested while using the first amendment, criminals let go because of violations of many different amendments. With these liberties come sacrifices. And once we start letting these liberties go in exchange for comfort and warm fuzzies, thats when we truly have to start worrying.

(1) We have a second amendment because we, as colonies, descided that we no longer wanted to be England. That Canada choose to stay was their choice (we asked them, particlarly Quebec to join us, they dissented). Why would we want to give up our second amendment and become more like that tyrranous nation we fought two wars to be free of.

(2) The second amendment also protects us from our own government, should it ever overreach itself (and taking our guns was always the straw in the writings of the founding fathers that led into slavery to an unopposable government).

(3) Britian has had not shortage of bombings, riots, and violence over the past few years.

(4) Psycopaths are always a very small percentage of the population, therefore, if crimes are primarely committed by 2% of the population, then having an armed population is like having a police officer in every citizen. How many mass shootings occur at NRA meetings, gun shows, or at the range? 0 If you outlaw guns, only that 2% will be armed. If you legalize them everywhere, then that 2% will know that they are always outgunned.

(5) Gun Free Zones paint targets on our children's schools, our theaters, our polical rallies, and our malls. Depriving teachers of the tools to defend themselves (as protected by Heller) and our children is the greatest of crimes.

Europe is exactly like the US except for the guns. There are no cultural differences whatsoever.

@Oaksparr7777

That is a compelling and well thought out argument, which holds many important truths. I would argue however, that we can keep our freedoms but still put restrictions on gun use and ownership.

The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world. The number two country is Yemen and they only have 54/100 carriers to non carriers whereas we have 88/100.

http://m.guardiannews.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

We can limit the amount of guns in circulation and make them harder to obtain. I currently live in TN and all I would have to do to be able to carry a concealed gun would be to take an 8 hour course. It shouldn't be that easy.

@TheKID11
Dude your phraising it allwrong. Why would you want to "limit the amount of guns in circulation" you make them sound liek coins that just float around....hey if you want buy back plans from people thats cool, if they don't want them or they are dysfunctional thats cool, raises the prices of the rest of mine ;) plus its makes them less availible to steal, most of these guns are nto properly stored. But to restrict the selling of legal firearms is strange. Also why would you want to make them harder to obtain through training? I say if you have appropriate training it should be easier to get. Also don't forget the kid from CT was denied gettting a gun legaly. The system worked as is.

Because restricting the guns in circulation would mean the kid who shot up the school would have a harder time getting guns illegally. Also, an 8 hour course is hardly "training." All I would have to do is sit down for 8 hours and then I get a license and can carry my gun around concealed.

There are plenty of debates we could have about how to restrict guns in circulation, and legally would be the only way we could control how many citizens responsibly carry guns.

so by "remove from circulation" you mean get rid of all guns? And whos going to set the number, or designated who can carry/own guns? you? The gov? Like i said if you want to have voluntary gun turn in/buy backs/amnesty days thats fine with me. But saying "only X amount of guns will be availible in the US, and only x amount fo citizens can carry" is scarry

It is understandable that when a crisis like this occurs people crave an answer to sooth their fears. Because you have no control if a person commits mass murder or not, it is natural to latch on to what you can change even if it will bring no different results. Like flapping your arms while falling, you may feel you are “doing something” but accomplishing nothing. It is a psychological placebo. After all guns are banned and we read where 25 children are burned to death by a nut case with 5 gallons of gasoline and a road flare, what will you ban then? Sad nothing is said about the 30 children who die EVERY year because they were left in a car in the sun.

@TheKID11

The 88/100 statistic doesn't mean 88% Americans own a gun. It is the total number of privately own guns divided by the total population. It does not account for the fact that most gun owners in the US own more than one gun.

Based on annual Gallup polls, between 35 and 40% of Americans own guns.

also...

The article below has some telling charts on gun ownership vs murder rates.

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns

@iambronco

Again, to answer your question. NO. You didn't cite (quote) me correctly. Restricting guns in circulation would be a decision base on hefty analysis and would most likely fall on congress.

@Berke99

You should be ashamed of such a statement because 1) it is not based off of any analysis but your own opinion, and 2) beause it is irresponsible to think it is acceptable to do nothing. We cannot let an increase in mass killings (4 of which occurred recently) be an inevitable happenstance. We need to do SOMETHING regardless of whether or not a hypothetical policy ends up being effective. Doing nothing is not an answer.

@democedes

Clearly that statistic wet well over your head. I was making a comparison I the gun rate in the US to the gun rate in Yemen (Yemen is the second highest rate). These two are statistically significant. We could due with less guns overall.

Secondly, the link you sent is not credible, represents nitpicked data, and is a misinterpretation of the graphs the author presents. I'd be happy to discuss this more in depth with you. However, the main point of this link is tht it is not relevant. A relevant statistic would be the number of firearms used in murders, which is currently 2/3. BUT wait this is still distracting from the analysis that really matters: how rampage killings relate to guns. Care to take a guess at how many rampage killings involve guns?

@TheKID11

I haven't posted on this article...

I think TheKID11 meant me.
@TheKID11
what i'm trying to say is how are you going to "remove from circulation" firearms? By type? By function? By Color? By brand? etc...
also how do you define "rampage killing"

Yes sorry guys. I mean ianredneck. I am on my phone and couldn't see the difference there. My apologies.

Okay, I get what you are asking now, and to be personally honest, I am not sure. I could propose some ideas but I don't know if they would be effective. They would also be met with much opposition (gun advocates/current owners). However, I wasn't promoting "removing" guns from circulation. I was promoting restricting guns from circulation. By making it harder for citizens to obtain guns, future generations would have less guns per capita. This would decrease the number of guns available illegally or legally to dangerous individuals.

I must point out I am not and have not advocated removing all guns from the hands our nation. This would not only be impractical, but would be against our freedoms. However, we can still have our rights to bear arms, but like other rights in our country, you have to work for it and pass tests. Think of it like getting a degree. Everyone has the right to a proper education and a high level degree, but you have I work for it, and others have to assess your worth. An 8 hour class (as Ientilned earlier) does not measure someone's worth in any way. Anyone can walk into the class, sit down and listen, and put in a little effort to then go pick up their license, and there you have it: the ability to carry a concealed weapon.

I was taught to shoot a rifle as a boy. I was later taught in the military to shoot a variety of weapons and use explosives too. I am proficient in the use of these weapons.

I am middle age and from all I have seen of life, I will not own or have a weapon in my home.

Again, my heart and prayers goes out to all who suffered!!!!!!

@TheKID11
I think yuo start gettign into dangerous territory went you start restricting like that especially with defined quantities. Whats to stop the gov. from restricting the numebr to one per person, and no less than a 1/4 of the population total. That kinda defeats the purpose of guns. To respect the 2nd Amendment you must understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose is let the citizens have means of defending themselves against a tyranical gov. And restriciting it to numbers does not allwo for that ability. Again like i said voluntary measures are great. If people that no longer want them but can't sell them or don't know how, or are afraid too get this ability to turn them all the better. One thing i wouldn't mind is to set standards on scuring weapons in your home. Weapons must be in a safe(not that sheet metal crap) but you may also have one weapon stored in your house for defense purposes. That i could live with.

I do have another issue with your comment off of guns. You do have the right to education....up to the 12 grade level....no one.....i repeat no one has the "right" to education beyond that. It is a privellage. If you can fidn the means privately fine do it. But the Gov. should not be paying that. Hell we are seeing a college tuition bubble because of the subsidized loans. And no one is willing to work lower wage jobs anymore. 2 yr tech schools are great, cheaper, more focused on tech careers. I support anyone who does this. I also support apprenticeships. Straight out of high school into work.

@Iantheredneck

I can't tell whether or not you are just trolling (sorry if I am wrong, it just seems like your username was created for this purpose).

To continue the discussion though.

I don't think it is treading into-dangerous territory, I think it is treading out-of dangerous territory. Restrictions to 1/4 of the population would not be a good policy, because that is limiting the freedom of the individuals to bear arms (unless this number arises naturally do to stricter gun control). Limiting one gun per person might be a bit extreme, but I don't necessarily think it would be a problem. People would still be able to defend themselves with one gun. There is already talk in washington of policies towards restricting the sale of the AR-5 assault rifle. To me these, weapons aren't necessary for protecting youself, you can do just fine with a handgun (although the intimidation factor for the assault rifle is much higher ;) ).

As for storing weapons in a safe...This makes sense for a parent or someone who owns a larger quantity of guns, but it seems to defeat the purpose of protecting yourself a bit, if you have to run and open a safe to get your handgun to stop the guy breaking into your home.

On top of that, as it goes for protecting yourself from a tyrannical gov, I think that is a bit of a paranoid position, although in principle it is accurate and just. It is important to realize however, that the military has access to technological warfare that civilians do not currently have access to. So we are pretty much already at a disadvantage to such a drastic happenstance as our democratic government turning into a tyrannical dictatorship that puts military in the streets. I like to think our system is strong enough on all levels to eliminate this possibility before it would arise.

As for your last paragraph. This dives into a whole other debate. People do have the "right" to a higher degree, but they have to have the resources and ability to obtain it. The same should apply for guns. (I won't get into the student loans bubble and how messed up our banking system is, but I see your point).

@TheKID11
No trolling, all serious, yeah bad screen name, i had it from my AIM days, and you know old habits and all that.

The point i'm making with 1/4 of the pop. only being allowed to own guns and only one gun per person is that is what could happen. We may start out with 10 guns per person limit and 90% of the pop. But afte each tragedy where one indivudal goes off their rocker we shrink it and shrink it to that previously stated number. You start restriciting and it gets harder to stop restricting for "good causes"

Restricting "AR-15" style weapons is silly, they are just like anyother semi-automatic weapons, they just look scary, but are no more or less dangerous than anyother semi-auto. And actually shotgun are the best weapons for home defense not pistols. But i guess thats a matter of opinion.

The idea behind the safe thing is that you have one gun ready outside the safe. The rest in the safe. Not all in the safe.

I think your not being paranoid enough. The gov. can easily and kinda allready has become tyrannical. Did you know that if the gov. defines you even as a possible terrorist, they can tap into your phones, internet, emails, web traffic etc. without a warrnt? And if your overseas and you get designated as a terrorist as a US citizen you can be killed without a trial? Its allready happened. Tyranny is jsut a hop away. To think other wise i believe is niave and also completely forgetting the revolutionary war. i know its a cliche but its still valid. You don't need adavance warfare tech, or advanced training to defeat a modern military, ask the viet cong, afghans from the 80's etc.

@TheKID11 "I was making a comparison I the gun rate in the US to the gun rate in Yemen (Yemen is the second highest rate)."

I understood your point. My issue was with the accuracy of this statement:

"Yemen and they only have 54/100 carriers to non carriers whereas we have 88/100."

The US does not have 88/100 "carriers to non carriers". The statistic you are using is total guns over total population. Only about 40% of US citizens actually own guns. That is an important distinction. Also, the use of the word "carriers" is inaccurate as well. Most gun owners don't normally leave their house with their firearms.

It is also worth pointing out that the country with the third highest gun rate is Switzerland (46/100). It has a .77 firearm homicide rate (Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop). The US, in contrast, has a 2.97 homicide rate. If it's guns causing the problem, why doesn't the country with the third highest gun rate have a gun violence problem?

"Secondly, the link you sent is not credible, represents nitpicked data, and is a misinterpretation of the graphs the author presents."

Care to back that up with some evidence? The article I linked gets its data from the same source as your 54/100 and 88/100 statistics: the UNODC & small arms survey. I plotted it myself with the same result. And as I pointed out in my post, it is the charts that are of interest, not article as a whole.

"BUT wait this is still distracting from the analysis that really matters: how rampage killings relate to guns."

Why is rarest kind of gun violence suddenly the only kind that matters?

"However, we can still have our rights to bear arms, but like other rights in our country, you have to work for it and pass tests."

Name one US constitutional right where a citizen has to first pass a test to exercise that right.

My CCW was also an 8 hour class, with some time on the range, but most of it in the classroom. Most of the people there couldn't shoot worth a darn - and I would not want them protecting my back.

Still, me and the family members I was there with, had thousands of rounds down range and I would stand with any of them.

So, perhaps more class isn't as needed as more range time? That, and perhaps, retention drills, drawing, holding a threat, and shot placement.

@democedes

First things first. I am at work and on my phone, so I apologize for not embellishing on my statements. It is laborious to type everything out (especially after I have drafted a response and then lose it because I timed out when I went to post).

Second, I want to say I was wrong to post "carrier to non carrier" it is misleading. I knew the rate statistic was guns per capita, and I reported it in the comments thread incorrectly, so I will say in caps do everyone can see. I WAS WRONG. I will say being on my phone makes it difficult to read through an reiterate data accurayely, though this is no excuse for incorrectly stating that particular rate statistic. However, I am going to go on to discuss how this does not detract from my argument or further statements which I made, which I will back up COMPLETELY. Please be patient until I can get home and hop on my computer. I will explain how your link to "Secondly, the link you sent is not credible, represents nitpicked data, and is a misinterpretation of the graphs the author presents."
As well as the other comments you presented. Please be patient and expect a response.

Democedes

Okay, sorry for the delay. I've been busy.

To start again, I will admit I was wrong about how I posted that statistic as you pointed out. However, let's move on to why that doesn't hinder my argument much at all.

"Only about 40% of US citizens actually own guns. That is an important distinction."

Yes it is. If 40% of the pop owns guns than that is about 2 guns for every person who owns a gun. Since the gun rate per capita is 88 guns/100 people  that means there is almost a gun for every person in the United States. This should point out how easy it is to obtain a gun in our Country (something we pride ourselves in). Of course, the allocation of these guns across the country is whole other debate, but is accurate to say our private ownership of guns still significantly outweighs all other countries.

"It is also worth pointing out that the country with the third highest gun rate is Switzerland (46/100). It has a .77 firearm homicide rate (Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop). The US, in contrast, has a 2.97 homicide rate. If it's guns causing the problem, why doesn't the country with the third highest gun rate have a gun violence problem?"

Because it is not ONLY guns that are the problem. Switzerland is a very rich nation and for the most part has been isolated from the social culture that makes up the United States (like gang violence and the drug war). Too often, gun advocates use the Swiss as exemplars of why guns aren't a problem. However I revert back to my argument, and what I have said in previous posts.  IT IS ABOUT HOW GUNS RELATE AND CONTRIBUTE TO RAMPAGE KILLINGS. For example, the low homicide by gun rate per 100,000 people in Switzerland (which you pointed out is at a high of 2.97 in the US (tho it is actually higher than this)) tells us nothing about how guns are involved in mass killings, or even homicides for that matter. Switzerland's number of homicides is extremely low, which is why its homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 people is so low. The real measure that would be indicative of how guns effect killing capacity would be the homicide by firearm percentage, which is high in both the US and Switzerland. In fact, even higher in Switzerland since they last reported data in 2004. There are obviously a large number of factors that contribute to homicides, but the real focus is how guns play a role in homicides, but more importantly RAMPAGES. Guns were invented for the purpose of killing. This is their primary purpose. They have taken on secondary roles as entertainment for countries like the US and Switzerland in the form of sport, but guns were designed for killing things, and the high percentage of guns used in homicides in BOTH countries reflects this.

In reference to my comments about the article, your next paragraph was as follows:
"Care to back that up with some evidence? The article I linked gets its data from the same source as your 54/100 and 88/100 statistics: the UNODC & small arms survey. I plotted it myself with the same result. And as I pointed out in my post, it is the charts that are of interest, not article as a whole."

I do care to back that up to the fullest. It is "nitpicked, and misinterpreted." You thinking it is the charts that are of interest worries me about how you plot data to explore relationships between measures. Allow me to explain...
The whole argument the author is trying to make is based off of the first graph, so we will address this first.

This first graph plots the gun rate (as we have discussed is the number of guns per 100 people) for various countries by the homicide per 100,000 people rate. THIS TELLS US NOTHING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GUNS AND HOMICIDES.
"Some of the homicide statistics from the UNODC were from different years; to account for this and some fluctuations due to extraordinary events, I used the average of whatever years between 1995 and 2011 were available."
He uses an average of trend data from more than a decade. This doesn't show the proper relationship he is trying to explore.

In the authors own words:
"This chart shows no relationship at all between civilian gun ownership (which can also be used as a proxy for relaxed gun laws) and murder rates. The U.S. is a true outlier in just how much we love guns (we have 270 million of them—a nice defensive cache) but this set of data points tells us nothing about the impact of gun ownership on homicide, if there is any. It looks almost completely random."

My response: NO SH*T! It is because it can't. A plot of the gun ownership rate by the homicide per 100,000 people rate doesn't allow for a comparison of the relationship between gun laws and homicides. The only way you could explore this relationship would be to plot OVER TIME (and conduct statistical analysis for error). This would allow you to see whether a change in the gun rate (reflective of gun laws, according to the author) effects changes in the homicides per 100,000 people rate. That way you can see between points in time where policy changed (gun rate changed)and whether or not this correlated with increases or decreases in homicide rate. However, this STILL wouldn't give you the answer we are looking for because it doesn't include the right metric. What you would have to do is plot the gun rate and the HOMICIDES BY FIREARM rate (percentage of homicides by firearm) over time, and compare them using a regression analysis.

"Accepting the ever-present bar argument challenge, I decided to do the math."

The fact that the author mentions this should have immediately pointed to his incentive to nitpick...

Now, for the second graph:
This graph IS in fact telling, but becomes slightly misinterpreted by the author (because he relies on his first graph for the basis of his argument). The graph actually CONTRADICTS what the point author is trying to make. It shows A) how high the homicide rate is (homicides per 100,000 people) in the US compared to other countries (VERY HIGH), B)The gun per capita ratio (again as we already pointed out, VERY HIGH), and C)The Homicides by firearm rate, which again is VERY HIGH. This last part being the most telling.

The author even points the trends out in his own words:
"Killers in countries where civilians tend to be armed show a slight preference for guns." (Because of their destructive capacity, as I mentioned is the most important data to look at as it relates to rampage killing). The author in the same sentence then tries to cover this important point up by relying on his first graph: "but just as in the first scatter plot, gun ownership and murder rates show no relationship."

Now to the third graph, which is just downright "WHACKY" (for lack of a better word). This graph is exploring the relationship of human development index on homicides per civilian gun. Because he is plotting homicides over civilian gun (a smaller number devided by a larger number) your getting the small fraction values in the x-axis, which is great for what it shows for less developed countries, but not for countries like the US. We can't even see the trend among the more industrialized nations because he plots it this way. Again, this is also using the wrong metric because it is exploring across countries and not over time points which would reflect changes in homicides by firearm. "NITPICKED."

My "BUT wait" comment is referring now to how this exploration still isn't indicative I how guns play a role in mass murders.

"Why is rarest kind of gun violence suddenly the only kind that matters?"

To answer your question: it's not. Please don't twist my words around. My comments don't indicate I think that in any way. Any kind of violence matters and our country puts a lot of money into law enforcement. What I was stating is the importance of guns playing a role in rampages. Most rampage killings involve the use of guns, and as gun control has been steadily relaxed (tho mostly constant) over the past three decades, rampage killings have been on the rise.

On top of increasing security at schools policies need to be included that can limit gun accessibility to these particular individuals.

"Name one US constitutional right where a citizen has to first pass a test to exercise that right."

Perhaps I wasn't very clear on this so I want to clarify, when I say test I don't necessarily mean a sit down paper based exam (tho that wouldn't be a bad idea as an amendment). Tests can come in different formats, and to answer your question: There is one very relevant constitutional right I can think of, an it relates to the debates that occur on popsci as well as the science that popsci reports on. It's the freedom of press. Particularly as it relates to "scientific freedom." (research and it's publication). Scientific research is peer reviewed before it can be published. It is "tested" by experts in that particular field and assessed carefully and often scrutinized. Most often, research that is submitted for publication is responded to by reviewers with more tests (experiments) that the scientist needs to conduct before the findings can be deemed conclusive and worthy of publication in the journal of choice.

(sorry for the spellin errors, I'm on my phone again)

@TheKID11

I have to comment on your very last point... you're reaching a bit with that one in my opinion.

First of all, unlike 'freedom of the press', scientific freedom is generally not address directly in the constitution; rather, it is seen as an extension of other first amendment protections and principals. Regardless, it is decidedly less black and white than some other rights, such as speech, religious practice, etc.. This is what allows certain fields of scientific research to be outlawed, but the point is not an important one other than to say that the right you're using as an example is a decidedly gray one.

Specifically, freedom of the press, as protected in the first amendment, merely prohibits the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions (or in digital media, as the case often is today). That of course, does not prevent private institutions, such as many scientific journals, from refusing to publish content, and does not protect or guarantee anyone the right to have something published in any given news outlet. The right merely states that the Government cannot ban or prevent it's publishing.

This is much like freedom of speech; you can certainly say whatever you like, but no one has to listen.

That being said, peer review and vetting of scientific research is a self imposed 'test' by the scientific community, and not at all required in order to publish a scientific paper. Granted, you may not get a non-reviewed study published in a reputable journal, it is by no means required in order to exercise your right to free speech through exercise of our free press.

I would have to agree with Democedes on this point. By the very premise of our rights being inalienable, they generally are not, and should not, be contingent on certification by test or training administered by the very government these rights are in place to prevent blocking you access to.

There are no certifications required to exercise free speech, none to exercise free press, no certification required to contest unwarranted search or seizure, no license required to be provided protection from cruel or unusual punishment, or to enjoy a trial by jury.

I would say that currently, the only wide ranging exception would be the second amendment. Many states require licensing and certification in some form before purchasing a firearm, and in some states it is required to own ANY firearm (long gun or pistol). Hawaii, Illinois, and DC are examples of this.

@iambronco

Yessir. Well argued, and you're absolutely right, it was a reach. However, I do want to point out that the government does restrict certain types of press if they break confidentiality laws or are accusational in denouncing someone without proper sources. There are both state and federal laws that serve to this effect. But I digress...

I think the important thing to consider is that there is room in the 2nd amendment for policy change without denying people their inalienable right to bear arms. If not better restriction on guns, than at least the removal of semi-automatics. It's going to to be controversial any way it is approached, but we need policies in place that limit the accessibility to guns. If appointing restrictions like "tests" as I discussed earlier is too much I an infringement on the first amendment then policy makers need to look to weapon concealment laws. Like storing weapons, or guns that can only be fired by the owner (as other commenters have discussed). I would still argue that their NEEDS to be a form of gun control in addition to other policies if we are going to limit the damage of rampage killers in the future.

@TheKID11

Agreed, there are some limitations to the first amendment with respect on libel. I didnt want to muddy the waters too much, however... but point taken.

I don't disagree that there is room for some legislation and over-sight to the second amendment (though that room is getting pretty crowded in my opinion).

My concern is that there is generally little understanding of firearms technology in the vast majority of the populace who is crying for restrictions on this or that.

For instance, the suggestion you've just made to remove (assuming additional determiner of 'all' is implied here) semi-automatic weapons. Unfortunately, many suggest this (you're not likely in this category) because they do not understand that there is a different between semi-automatic and automatic firearms. This is partially due to ambiguous use of both terms in news media, and partially due to a lack of interest. I refuse to have this discussion on this premise, as a meaningful discussion cannot take place with one or more misinformed parties.

Still others with better understanding recommend this because a semi-automatic rifle can generally fire a higher volume of rounds than some common 'manual action' rifles on the top of their heads (bolt action, pump action, etc.). there is, of course, truth to this, which makes them more efficient for these types of rampage killings. Conversely, this makes them the best option for self defense as well.

Now, there are, of course, numerous other options for self defense. I honestly don't like the idea of being limited to a slower revolver when reaction time is so vital, but if it would heavily impact the amount of innocents killed by guns every year then I could be persuaded and am willing to have that discussion.

Unfortunately (or rather, very fortunately in my mind), the vast majority of firearm related deaths in America are not due to rampages or high body count incidents... they are one or two off conflicts that occur far more regularly than shootings with death tolls in the dozens that are more nationally publicized and grieved. We don't have this conversation on a national level when a city racks up 80 firearm related deaths in a month, only then we get 10, 20, or 30 in a single incident, which skews the discussion towards a threat that is, in a broader sense, not as relevant.

Framing the gun control debate in the broader problem of more frequent, lower loss incidents changes significantly the impact of the semi-automatic weapon. No longer is our greatest threat a man running into a crowded building and shooting as many people as possible; it tends more to be more intimate confrontations between individuals, whether do to crime (theft, assault, etc.), gangs, drugs, or dommestic violence. When viewed in this light, it becomes clear that the type of firearm, how many rounds it can fire, or what size the clip is is much less important than access and enforcement, as two examples. As many say to those who advocate for personal defense, "A revolver is more than sufficient."

Now, more than 1 in 10 privately owned firearms is a semi-automatic, whether it be a pistol or long gun. Further, semi-automatic pistols constitute the majority of personal defense weapons used by civilians. This is an incredibly pervasive type of action when you consider all the options on the market. On one hand, that makes this class of firearms very difficult to cut out of the market without causing significant economic repercussions due to enforcement and market losses(but of course, who cares about economic impacts, right?), but it will severely impact the way lawful Americans go about exercising their right to self defense. This, in my opinion, is unacceptable given the minimal impact this will likely have on the majority of gun violence.

Rather, I believe that if we are going to have a meaningful discussion about gun control legislation it needs to both be on topic and and focus on broadly effective measures. Emotional knee jerk reaction from both sides will do nothing but increase the gap and lead to more unilateral action. "Think of the children" and "they're coming for our guns" will be nothing but barriers to meaningful solutions.

Let us focus on education, focus on enforcing existing regulations. Let us discuss training requirements and working towards a more homogenous licensing/certification cation system nationally. Let's discuss mental health screening, reoccurring license requirements. Perhaps even discuss magazine capacity restrictions. These are meaningful reforms that can have broad potential to impact gun violence, while balancing the needs of personal defense. Neither is ideal for each side, but at least it focuses on items that focus on the problem; the human element.

Additionally, we tend to focus on 'assault weapons', primarily military analog rifles, as a result of their common usage in rampage killings. Again, the rampage killings that we often see as a depiction of the epidemic of firearm violence is not representative of the actual problem. The vast majority (nearly 70%) of murder by firearm is the result of a pistol. yet we continue to focus on the 'assault rifle' straw man because we see it on the news, and it looks scary.

I would argue that the concealed pistol is far more imposing.

I suppose my overall point, if you found all that too long to read, is we need to have the discussion on the basis of honest reflection on the problem, not our emotionally driven reactions to the images we see. Identify what the true problem is then sit down and focus on measures that address that problem directly.

@iambronco

Yes. I have to say I have never owned a gun, so my knowledge o semi-automatic weapons is far from ideal in asserting my credibility and opinion on the matter. Thank you for that insightful message. I have to say that I agree with you, and being able to separate emotion and an overly rigid stance on the matter has opened my eyes to what solutions for addressing the problem are plausible and seemingly effective. I hope our countries policy makers abide by the principles you discussed above and set forth a realistic plan of action in focusing on the human primary factors that contribute to these atrocities as well as the secondary factors.

Let's face it, there's no way to protect against a lone gunman who has a legitimately acquired gun -- for himself or from his Mom.

But how about if you had your guns, just not all the time.
1) All gun owners are REQUIRED to join a gun club -- NRA can't argue with that one!
2) All gun owners are required to go to their club once a month or something -- ostensibly to Practice -- but this also allows other people to observe the gun owner, at least once a month -- all important social interaction.
3) Yes you will have to PAY for the membership and pay for storage of each gun.
4) All rifles and handgun (with no license to carry) must stay there in locked storage.
5) If you do not keep up attendance or membership you don't get access to your gun.
6) If you have a license to carry a handgun that is the only weapon that can be kept with you when you leave. A bit of a risk but not too bad. Hunting rifles can be taken out whenever -- but if it ain't hunting season or varmit hunting ... raises a red flag there.

Most casual gun owners would soon tire of the time and expense and turn in one or all of the weapons.

Anyone trying to check out a weapon 'for hunting' on a Monday morning at 9AM .. well.. pretty suspicious and a quick call on the hotline gets law enforcement in motion real quick.

Just got to get something like this worked over by legal and legistature .. law enforcement and see if it can be done ..

J

@JimStars
You got some good ideas and some terrible ideas. Not all target shooting, with rifles, are done at ranges. If i'm hunting small game in the deep woods, but i want to sight my rifle in or just have fun and shoot i'm gonna bring it. Also i have a big issues with laws that state "if you don't do x, i take away your right to a firearm" these type of laws can be easily abused. Its a very slippery slope. And why should laws be focused in an atempt to reduce the number of firearms i have? And i have gone "hunting" at 9 am on a lot of mondays, and tuesdays, and wednesdays, and thursdays, and fridays......and just because i am getting my gun at weird time makes me a criminal? Actually you know what none of your ideas are good.

@iantheredneck

What about legal consequences as a result of someone using your gun for a crime. Like if you don't keep your guns well protected or secured and someone uses them for a rampage killing...

Should you be held legally responsible? What do you guys think?

you allready can be. Accessory to murder/homicide etc.

I believe in the wisdom behind our rights. I believe in them in a way that seems alien to more and more Americans as they sit idly and watch the ceaseless attack on all of them. Our rights are now just bs to many, as shown every single time I put my name out on an ever shrinking list of citizens that oppose those attacks.
You all want to finish letting the LAST TWO RIGHTS Americans have get destroyed, well that's on you, cowards, but my rights are MINE. Come get em, punks. Vote yours away, but mine live til I do not.