Another shooting in the USA. Remind me about the reason for having guns again.

SubJeff on 24/8/2012 at 14:58

Third one in less than a month.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19372533)

I know we've talked about it before but if this goes on (mass shootings every few weeks/months) will it change anyone's views on gun ownership.

I know there are reason why there is a difference between deaths per population in countries with easier access to guns, but is there anything that can be done about it in the USA? Or are there so many illegal guns floating around now that making it harder to get them legally would result in a situation like in South Africa, where honest people can't get them but the criminals can.

Edit: Ja ja original title was incorrect.

Ulukai on 24/8/2012 at 15:19

Live by the sword, die by the sword. The US lives with its choice.

I think Prince Harry getting naked was more shocking over the pond, hey?

Stitch on 24/8/2012 at 15:21

The reason: you don't punish the millions of responsible gun owners for those few who use guns to tragic ends.

But still: holy fuck this is not good.

Chimpy Chompy on 24/8/2012 at 15:26

As I recall the batman shooter had a 100-round magazine for his (semi automatic) rifle? That strikes me as rather unnecessary for the average private gun owner, and the sort of thing that it would be reasonable to restrict.

But I don't see the US ever having gun laws as tough as ours in the UK. It's a different culture over there.

SubJeff on 24/8/2012 at 17:09

Quote Posted by Stitch

The reason: you don't punish the millions of responsible gun owners for those few who use guns to tragic ends.

Whilst I see where this argument is coming from it kind of strikes me as having a statistical bent. Which you may not have meant at all. But if we are looking at it that way we start to be utilitarian, pragmatists even. And in that event I think (though I'm not sure) that its true to say taking MDMA is safer than horse riding. And so on and so forth.

Renault on 24/8/2012 at 17:20

Even if you take their guns away, they're still wacko, psychotic, dangerous individuals. That's the real problem. Sure, having access to a gun might make it easier for them to do crazy things, but guys like Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Kazcynski never needed one.

Azaran on 24/8/2012 at 18:49

No matter how many shootings may happen, I doubt guns will ever be banned in the US. The pro-gun lobby is too powerful and they throw a huge tantrum every time the question is raised.

LarryG on 24/8/2012 at 18:56

What we need are guns that don't (can't) kill people or do other harm. Then you can let as many crazys own as many guns as they want for whatever purpose, and no one will get harmed, ever. I think gun manufacturers should hop right on this and start figuring out how it can be done. Then we could take away all the dangerous guns and replace them with the non-dangerous equivalents without abridging anyone's constitutional rights to gun ownership. I think this could be a real boon to gun sales too!

Next we need non-lethal knives, good for cutting up your pork roast still, just not for stabbing or cutting people. Cutlery industry: get cracking!

While we are at it, how are the cigarette manufacturers coming with their still addictive, but DDYH (doesn't-damage-your-health) smokeless cigarettes? Shouldn't they be about ready to start up their marketing campaign?

- - - - - - - - - - -

While I personally think that only sane people should be allowed to own guns, I also think that only sober people should be allowed to drive cars. But as we all know sometimes sober car owners get drunk and drive, and sometimes supposedly sane people go crazy from stress and shoot other people.

Sure we could make a breathalyzer-starter interlock a standard feature on all cars, but that would be only a partial solution. What about the person who starts the car and then starts drinking? Now you need a breathalyzer-throttle interlock with the requirement to wear the mask while driving. I don't think so. Similarly, even if we could have a breathalyzer-sanity-checker-trigger-interlock for guns, I'm sure that some crazy person would figure out how to defeat it.

- - - - - - - - - - -

According to the (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf) Center for Disease Control's National Vital Statistics Reports for 2007:

Quote:

In 2007, 31,224 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18-20), accounting for 17.1 percent of all injury deaths that year.

and according to the (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe) National Center for Injury Prevention, 75,685 gun related non-fatal injuries took place in 2000. That's a rate of 26.89 people per 100,000 in population. Apparently that is not enough of a price yet to deprive the "responsible gun owners".

Quote Posted by Stitch

The reason: you don't punish the millions of responsible gun owners for those few who use guns to tragic ends.

So I guess, approximately 100,000 deaths and injuries a year are inside of the meaning of the definition of the word "few".

Are a few deaths worth the freedom to own a gun for the few gun owners? Well, just how many does "few" mean when we are talking about gun owners and not gun victims? In 2005, (http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx) Gallop estimated gun ownership at 3 in 10 Americans, which would put the number at about 84,000,000. So the injuries caused by guns per gun owner is only 0.0012. Boy that seems like a real low number! Doesn't it seem like a small number to you? I guess most gun owners are reasonably responsible in avoiding the shooting of other people (unlike our ex-vice president). They only have slightly more than 1/10th of 1 percent likelihood of actually harming someone with their gun in any given year. Over 10 years that's, what, only 1.2 % likelihood that they will injure someone? Assume most gun owners will live long enough to own guns for 50 years (that's how long I've owned my guns ... and without injuring anyone ... but then I don't own any bullets, so other than hitting people with the guns, it's not likely that I would), that's only a 6% (or less) likelihood of them injuring anyone over their gun owning lifetime. Surely this is a risk we can take?

So, how many deaths per year are OK? Is there a tipping point where a society says enough is enough, this is too high a price to pay for what is essentially a frivolous hobby (i.e. sports/target shooting and hunting)? Clearly the voting American population thinks the numbers so far have not reached that tipping point, because it isn't upset enough by those numbers to change our gun laws.

What do you think: how many deaths are too many for a society to tolerate?

Chimpy Chompy on 24/8/2012 at 19:04

Question is how many of those deaths and injuries would have happened anyway, either with illegal guns or some other implement. Less, probably, but how many less?

[edit]also what might the knock-on effects be on other crime rates? ie would there be more rapes and robberies resulting from emboldened criminals? Of course then you get into some dodgy moral calculus ie how many robberies is a dead person equivalent to.

LarryG on 24/8/2012 at 19:15

I don't think that's the question because it is totally unanswerable without conducting the experiment of banning all guns, removing all legal and illegal guns from private ownership and then waiting a 10 years and then comparing the death and injury statistics before to after, and you still wouldn't know because there are too many other factors involved that you have not held constant over the 10 years.

So rather than asking unanswerable questions, assume the best case, that none of them would have happened due to other means of intentional violence, or some other case if you want, 50% or 25%, assume that rest of the national injury and fatality numbers would then apply to these people, assume any numbers you want, the question I ask remains the same: How many deaths and injuries per year are worth having this freedom? Obviously 100,000 per year is not enough. What about 200,000? Would that be too many? 500,000? What price human life?