As found in the NY Times today regarding this subject:
"In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.
The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.
In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent".
It was legislation, intelligent legislation, that worked. It did not advocate the complete abolishment of firearms, which many pro-gun advocates seem to be making the mental leap towards when any discussion of gun "rights" is brought up. Thinking this problem isn't partially-solvable is ignorant.
People can use any weapons they want in mass attacks.
Cho (the VA Tech shooter) used two handguns, no long guns at all, and that attack was more lethal. [1]
The Monash University shooting (7 people hit) doesn't count as an Austrialian mass shooting? It took place in 2002, after the new Australian law. [2]
Finally, I'm sorry to say this and I know it gets old, but the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms. Even if the arguments in favor of banning guns were convincing, you can't maintain respect for the constitution or the rule of law while enacting laws that violate the constitution.
The proximal reason for this event was the killer's mother, who it seems drove him insane with her paranoid end-of-the-world mentality.
This is actually an effective argument for comprehensive gun control. An assault weapons ban would not prevent those two mass killings you cite. But, however, having a comprehensive system where, for example, mental health records are tied to gun purchase background checks would have prevented Seung-Hui Cho from purchasing handguns.
Gun control is not just one policy. It's a broad policy with many possible facets: an assault weapons ban, federal standards for background checks, cracking down on sales at gun shows, eliminating loopholes, tying mental health records to background checks, the list goes on.
EDITS (reply to below, additional things constantly added):
I'm not naive enough to say that comprehensive gun control is going to eliminate all gun violence. I'm saying that it's a step forwards towards reducing gun violence.
>We arguably have comprehensive drug control. How well does that work?
This is a non sequitur. Just because the drug war has failed and the phrase "comprehensive drug control" shares two words with the phrase "comprehensive gun control" is not enough to logically lead to the conclusion that gun control is/will be a failure. The comparison needs to be elaborated. Let me elaborate on a few differences: people don't get addicted to guns like they do with drugs, someone using a drug can not directly physically injure someone else, drugs are much smaller and easier to hide (EDIT: for smuggling on an individual basis, not for a cartel), guns are hard to mass produce without people noticing. Drunk driving is not really relevant unless there is a large trend of accidents caused by cocaine/heroin/marijuana (rather than just alcohol). Guns are much less profitable for cartels than drugs are (for reasons of addiction).
I think nitpicking over the specifics of an assault weapons ban does not really counter my point. I meant semi-automatic weapons with magazines/cartridges (and automatic weapons). Even if my definition misses something, I'd be willing to just concede that and expand my definition. Yes, it's obvious that a ban implemented today would not stop Adam Lanza, because the guns are already bought. It might reduce the number of deaths of an Adam Lanza 5 years from now (I'm acknowledging of course that he also had two handguns with him).
To be clear, I don't propose that we should have a blanket handgun ban. It's simply not a realistic goal (politically and in terms of all the guns already out there). There are ways to improve gun control without banning all handguns.
I also think that the mental health system in America is broken and needs fixing. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Can you please avoid using the term "assault weapon" without defining it? If you mean all semi-auto rifles, say that. If you mean scary looking rifles with certain evil cosmetic features, like the ineffectual, now-expired 1994-2004 ban dealt with, say that instead.
[edit] Okay, you've defined it, although pretty much all semi-auto rifles have magazines; I think the distinction you're after is whether they have detachable magazines, which affects how fast they can be reloaded. What you're asking for goes far beyond the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Furthermore, by "ban" do you mean grandfathering in old firearms, like the 1994 ban did, or would you run a buy-back program to "get them all"? That's in quotes because if you think such a buy back program will get most "assault weapons", I think that's wishful thinking. It's also less likely to be politically viable. At most, the anti-gun establishment will be able to reenact something roughly akin to the 1994 ban, maybe expanding what it covers a bit, and even that would come at a very heavy political cost.
None of your proposals would probably stop another Lanza. Most of the people crazy enough to drive their kids crazy like this won't obey a federal mandate to turn in their guns.
What you call "comprehensive" gun control, would have to be a ban on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, semi-auto handguns and revolvers, because all of those can be quickly reloaded. If it could be enforced, it might work, but there's no way to either collect them all or prevent new guns from being smuggled in (or stolen) without extensive 4th-amendment violations. Not to mention that it would require a constitutional amendment (or one of the pro-gun supreme court justices could be replaced with an anti-gun justice, I suppose).
This needs to be re-stated: What are you calling an "Assault Weapon"? The federal Assault Weapon ban pertained to cosmetic features only, not the rate of fire. If the firearm could only fire one round, with each pull of the trigger, but possessed a cosmetic feature (pistol grip adjustable stock, etc) then it was illegal as an "Assault Weapon". This ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons. Both the CDC and the United States DOJ published reports after the Assault Weapons ban stating that it had little to no effect on violent crime.
The problem is, the media sensationalizes guns, and what you think of when someone says "Assault Weapon", is actually a military grade "Assault Rifle", which is very different. An Assault Rifle is a firearm that can fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms can not do this, and they can not be changed to do this without expensive modification, by a highly skilled machinist that is licensed to do so. Just to be clear, Assault Rifle's are very regulated by the ATF, are very expensive, and have a long (months) process required in order to get one.
Not to stir the pot too much, but all of these shootings are happening at schools, which are Federally mandated "Gun Free Safety Zones". These nut jobs know that no one there can defend themselves. I'm not saying everyone should have a gun. I am saying that when the bad guys can't tell who has one and who doesn't, they are going to be a lot less likely to do regrettable things
While you're right about bad guys in the form of criminals / gang members, I don't really think the people going into schools to kill are in a state of mind where they worry about what kind of resistance they meet.
> people don't get addicted to guns like they do with drugs
I agree with you on this one -- but only fifty percent of the way. Some people love guns. But it's more like being addicted to video games -- the addictive behavior doesn't directly provide a chemical substance which alters the brain's behavior the way drugs do.
> Someone using a drug can not directly physically injure someone else
Have you looked at drunk driving statistics lately? The altered brain states caused by drugs result in lethal behavior toward innocent bystanders. Depending on your definition of "directly," your statement may be technically true regardless, but that doesn't make them any less dead.
> Drugs are much smaller and easier to hide.
Only for the end-user. They're less easy to hide if you're a drug cartel shipping them thousands of miles, by the ton, on a regular basis.
Speaking of cartels, you do realize that gun control would be loved by organized crime? It gives them something else illegal but common that they can sell for dear prices.
That's America's problem as well. The majority of gun homicides committed in the United States are either directly drug related, committed by gangs who exist primarily because of drug prohibition, or committed by felons previously arrested for drug crimes.
We had comprehensive alcohol control, too, and that was with enough national support to get an amendment to the Constitution passed. That worked out almost as well the drug ban.
In the US, starting a conversation with "we need comprehensive gun control" is going to mostly a conversation with oneself. I am not in favor of a gun ban, but I'm completely OK with there being some additional requirements before being allowed to acquire on.
How would you deal with the stockpiles built up by career criminals and people who actually believe in the Constitution? (Of course, comprehensive gun control would legislatively unify these two categories.)
We arguably have comprehensive drug control. How well does that work?
I don't understand why you think that criminal record checks, mental health checks, etc. would make people who own guns into "career criminals".
As brianchu pointed out, the Virginia tech shooter was involuntarily detained because of mental illness about 15 months before he bought his guns. He then killed 32 people with them. Would prohibiting a law prohibiting people like Seung-Hui Cho from buying guns for a few years really be a step along the road to tyranny?
More to the point, how is it that 15 months after being involuntarily committed Cho was worse than he started? That sounds a lot more like a failure of the mental health system than a lack of proper gun control.
The anti-gun myth implicitly assumes that if you have someone who, given access to guns, would shoot a bunch of people, but you take those guns away, that person suddenly becomes harmless. I don't want anyone like that walking around free in society; I don't want them buying guns, and I don't want them driving cars or buying anything at hardware stores or pool supply stores. They're a clear danger to themselves and to others. However, I'm not going to support gun control measures just because the mental health system isn't perfect.
Adding regulations that restrict what free people can do or buy based on their past history doesn't tend to be very effective. Ex-cons who are disqualified from owning guns, and who cannot buy them legally, have no trouble acquiring firearms through other means.
>More to the point, how is it that 15 months after being involuntarily committed Cho was worse than he started? That sounds a lot more like a failure of the mental health system than a lack of proper gun control.
Treatment for mental problems isn't an exact science. It may be that he would have been worse had he not been committed. Personally I don't want more restrictions on guns, but I find the argument that the mental health system is the point of failure in these kinds of crimes to be pretty unpersuasive.
>Would prohibiting a law prohibiting people like Seung-Hui Cho from buying guns for a few years really be a step along the road to tyranny?
If I'm understanding your use of the double prohibiting correctly - maybe. The devil, of course, is in the details. Once you have a mechanism to declare people unfit to possess guns the reasons for such a declaration will grow in number. You need only look at the behavior of 20th century governments like the USSR to see the way psychiatry was used to marginalize people the government considered a threat.
I don't remember the specifics of the Cho case - clearly if someone has made explicit threats or is hearing voices he shouldn't possess a firearm. But there's a huge grey area there - conditions like depression are pretty common in people who function perfectly normally.
Time goes on; people with guns die, bullets are used and the police arrives where that happens, guns and bullets get oxidized and everyday become harder to get. The career criminals usually want to kill the competence (other carer criminals) or the police; two sides that would remain armed.
>We arguably have comprehensive drug control. How well does that work?
Straw man; when killing another person with cocaine becomes a trend we can start discussing this.
It's worth pointing out that your definition of "assault weapon" covers, say, the Glock 22 handguns used by, among others, the police. They are semi-automatics (one trigger squeeze = one round fired, no manual removal of the old cartridge case or manual chambering of the new round) with swappable clips, eliminating the majority of your reload time.
It's also worth pointing out that a double-barreled (or heck, even a semi-auto non-magazine-fed) shotgun would not fall under your definition of an assault weapon, and there are few better tools for causing mass carnage in a small confined area, so even if magazine-fed weapons were all magically eliminated, the crazies would still have access to weapons that they could accomplish their goals with.
> Finally, I'm sorry to say this and I know it gets old, but the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms. Even if the arguments in favor of banning guns were convincing, you can't maintain respect for the constitution or the rule of law while enacting laws that violate the constitution.
Well, there are two things to unpack there.
First, the 2nd Amendment is one of the most vaguely-worded sections of the entire document. If we're relying on the Constitution alone, there's really nothing about it that's cut and dry. It's even so ambiguously worded that the Supreme Court has had to make a decision about what its syntactic structure should be considered to be. Worse, I've a relative who's actually known as an expert on whether one bit of ink is a comma or an ink blot. Meaning two things: One, even that's something that's ambiguous enough that learned people are capable of disagreeing about it, and two, the question is relevant enough to how the sentence should be interpreted that there's a demand for people to develop expertise on the question. That's how ambiguous and poorly-worded this particular piece of legislation is. With all that in mind, there's a strong argument to be made that one's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's meaning has more to do with one's pre-existing opinions than it does to do with what the sentence actually says.
Second, there is a well-known process for creating laws that are specifically designed to go against what the current version of the Constitution says. Such laws even have a name. . . and that name happens to be the second word in its name. In light of that, to suggest that the 2nd Amendment means that it's impossible to enact legislation that alters the law to be other than what the 2nd Amendment says - or whether doing so would violate rule of law - is patently silly. Did the 21st Amendment violate rule of law?
the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms. Even if the arguments in favor of banning guns were convincing, you can't maintain respect for the constitution or the rule of law while enacting laws that violate the constitution.
What is with you Americans and the Constitution? If back then female circumcision would have been considered a good idea and somehow got wrote in the constitution then you will be defending it now days because it is in the constitution?
If the constitution is wrong, it needs to be changed, is just that simple.
The reason we Americans are so strongly tied to our Constitution is multifaceted, but one of the key tenets is that it is a so called "living document" and allows itself to be modified via an amendment. The criticism that it should not be made illegal is a criticism that we are directly in violation of a document with extremely clear language. Instead of doing so, we should do the "correct" thing and pass an amendment to correct the original language with our current up-to-date understanding.
It is my personal opinion that the reason we don't is because enough people disagree with modifying it, and so it has to be curtailed slowly (rightly or wrongly.)
What's funny is that many changes were pretty fundamental legal changes, such as the abolition of slavery, massively extending the right to vote, allowing a wide range of pornography & allowing abortion & contraception. To claim those as "merely updating our understanding of what the founding fathers wanted" is misleading, but eh, if it makes you sleep at night.
I'm not sure how you could call those changes "fundamental". Some of them were pretty far-reaching in terms of resulting impact, but they did not fundamentally alter the Constitution.
They altered US society in some pretty massive ways, altered who controlled the government, and had large and fundamental impact on many people's lives.
Well, that's a debatable point. What is the core concept? That the people should elect the government? Well it went from white landowning males electing the government to all adults (excl. prisoners)? Does that count?
>If the constitution is wrong, it needs to be changed, is just that simple.
Yep. And there are two methods for doing just that. But they both require a fair degree of consensus, and in the US the consensus in recent years has shifted toward more freedom regarding firearms instead of less.
You should be a bit clearer about what you mean. There's a big difference between advocating that the government ignore the Constitution, and advocating a constitutional amendment. Your last sentence hints at the latter, which is hopefully your position, but "obsession with the Constitution" would by definition include the willingness to amend it, since the amendment process is itself contained in the Constitution.
I don't believe anybody here would disagree with you--now, please explain to what degree you believe the 2nd amendment to be wrong, right, or outdated.
(a) the US seems to working its way to tyranny just fine with the 2nd amendment intact.
(b) many other countries seem to do a pretty passable imitation of freedom without a 2nd amendment.
Update:
(c) on closer examination, it almost seems like an "opiate for the people" kind of thing: people being lulled into thinking they are free because they can kill innocent children with their high-powered weapons when the fact is that actual armed insurrection against the government is as ludicrously impossible with those weapons as it is without.
At the same time, real freedoms have been largely eliminated, habeas corpus is gone, 4th amendment largely gone, freedom of speech going away, freedom of assembly AWOL, elections manipulated and legislators bought, the president can have anyone incarcerated indefinitely without charges and without a trial, or summarily executed by simply labeling them a "terrorist" (and those labels fly looser every day). Focusing on these issues will have a much larger impact on actual liberty than trying to prevent meaningful gun control.
Yet, yay, we are "free" because we have our Glocks. Yeah, right.
"freedoms"; what a concept, freedom to what exactly? freedom to easily kill I am guessing... because that being the case you should allow the posetion and creation of nuclear weapons by any USA citizen; those things give a lot of freedom to kill.
Funny you mention my country; because just here in my City, the 3° biggest of South America, the amount of murders have reduced significantly since the ban of weapons in the streets; its called Bogota.
And you can keep playing to the hypothesis that someday you will need a revolution and guns will be useful, in real life in the present there is just people dying because you have associated your national identity with abusing gunpowder.
There is nothing positive about guns; your group illusion of "self-protection" is quickly diminish by the fact that legal guns many times end up in the hands of the criminals, provoking accidents or in hands of mentally unqualified people... so even 1 death is enough.
>There is nothing positive about guns; your group illusion of "self-protection" is quickly diminish by the fact that legal guns many times end up in the hands of the criminals, provoking accidents or in hands of mentally unqualified people... so even 1 death is enough.
The idea that "even 1 death is enough" to take away a basic human right is just plain idiotic. How many times have assaults and murders been deterred by a gun? That doesn't show up in homicide statistics, does it?
How many times a gun has ended in murderer's hands after being bought legally? That doesn't show up in homicide statistics either, does it?
Human rights as popularly known are the global rights established by the UN and I am pretty sure they don't mention guns. Or it must be a list of human rights you created yourself that I am not aware of.
>How many times a gun has ended in murderer's hands after being bought legally? That doesn't show up in homicide statistics either, does it?
Eh, actually they show up in homicide statistics as, you know, homicides.
>Human rights as popularly known are the global rights established by the UN and I am pretty sure they don't mention guns.
The UN has no particular legitimacy in the recognition of rights. Human rights are intrinsic, so to a certain extent they're subjective. Clearly you don't believe the right to self defense is a human right, but I think most people would disagree with you.
> Eh, actually they show up in homicide statistics as, you know, homicides.
Just like you have your own human rights maybe this is from your own statistics too because the cdc.gov and other recognized institutions show nothing about the legality of the weapons used in murderess.
Human rights are the rights that should be respected by anyone; if you need some sort of self-defense by definition you are taking actions derived from a violation of your rights; so your self-defense is already out of any kind of human rights paradigm.
And self-defense is one of the most ambiguous concepts there are; if Palestinians could use an atomic bomb in Israel it would be self-defense? I think it would be, but it also would be wrong, very wrong.
USA is the developed country with the highest death rate by gunshots[1]; as much as you like to believe your own words data is not at your side.
>Human rights are the rights that should be respected by anyone; if you need some sort of self-defense by definition you are taking actions derived from a violation of your rights; so your self-defense is already out of any kind of human rights paradigm.
There's no logic in that statement. I have a right to self defense, and for the state to deprive me of the means of self defense is a violation of my rights.
>USA is the developed country with the highest death rate by gunshots
Irrelevant. I don't care about suicides or legitimate shoots. For the purposes of this discussion only murders matter.
I was just answering to OP who talked like the fact that it is on the constitution is somehow a valid reason not to change the law.
>Finally, I'm sorry to say this and I know it gets old, but the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms.
But ok; I am going to pile on the other hundreds of comments making noise and tell you what I think America should do.
Decriminalize all drugs first (or at the same time). Then change the constitution and proclaim nobody should have guns except the police/military and some special cases (some bodyguards, bank guards); despite the popularity of "guns don't kill people" is pretty clear that where guns are the number of gunshot victims are always higher. Anyone who thinks they can overthrow the USA government from inside is delusional, before there is even 1000 people organized all forms of communication would be shout down; even internet. Your only hope to overthrow the USA government if such thing ever is required is that some generals and soldiers of the USA army itself revel.
Obviously this change would need to happen gradually; first the high caliber guns and then progressively the others; the government should pay for the guns so citizens have one more incentive to give them away.
> Anyone who thinks they can overthrow the USA government from inside is delusional, before there is even 1000 people organized all forms of communication would be shout down; even internet.
"Overthrowing the government" makes it sound like an offensive operation, which is indeed fairly impractical. However, the real value of a large armed population is that it makes martial law and military occupation extremely difficult. It's a defensive advantage against an oppressive government. Look at the difficulty the US military has faced in its attempts to occupy Iraq, with a much smaller, poorer, and less sophisticated armed population. If the US government wanted to simply commit genocide against its population, sure, it could use chemical or nuclear weapons with little chance of civilian resistance, but there's not a huge advantage for even the most insane oppressive regime to do that.
> Then change the constitution and proclaim nobody should have guns except the police/military and some special cases (some bodyguards, bank guards).
Constitution or not, this is a deeply disturbing recommendation for many reasons, the most obvious of which is the fact that many people use guns for subsistence or income supplementation.
I don't see any reason why we couldn't overthrow our government. It happens all over the world on a regular basis. Don't confuse "don't want to overthrow the government" with "can't overthrow the government".
So does the amount of resources available to potential rebels.
And you're making a classic mistake here. Revolutions don't succeed in the face of unified military opposition. In any country. The scenario in a successful US revolution would be a schism or complete mutiny of the armed forces.
You are very naive; take a look around, unless somehow most Americans stop being fat slow ignorant arrogant elitist self-rightous fools you have a pretty incompetent guerrilla; wish most likely would use the guns just to kill other citizens who disagree with the revolution and many would die because those have guns too. The 2nd amendment was wrote in a time were the enemy was an external entity (Britain), now it would be pointless and more nasty... well, actually it already is.
I have to chuckle when you, of all people, call me naive. I can only think your opinion of Americans is formed solely by watching television, as you have no idea what you're talking about.
Well, I don't expect someone to understand when he lives in a country full of drug traffickers and communists. Probably gun control is the right thing for you.
If you were still interested in having a fruitful conversation you could had ask what data do I have to confirm Americas wouldn't make successful revolutionaries; or at least you would try to explain me why citizens against and pro-government would't kill each other. But instead you decided to call me names.
Let me give you a history lesson; the people you call "drug traffickers" were actually formed as guerrilla and is still called a guerrilla today (FARC and ELN groups); to start a revolution against the government, unfortunately it didn't go so well so the years flied by and they slowly became a rural mafia that kidnap and kill anyone that gets in their way and had long forgot what their purpose is. Another situation that can happen in any country, including America. So yeah, you are very naive about the possible conclusions of an armed revolution.
>If you were still interested in having a fruitful conversation you could had ask what data do I have to confirm Americas wouldn't make successful revolutionaries; or at least you would try to explain me why citizens against and pro-government would't kill each other.
As if you could actually know something like that better than I.
>But instead you decided to call me names.
Which was entirely appropriate after your last comment.
And yes, I'm aware of the genesis of drug traffickers in Columbia. Your condescending attempt at a "history lesson" isn't required.
I don't think I'm being particularly arrogant by pointing out your knowledge of my country is of the primary school variety. Even if you had a more average grasp of US society and politics, you still wouldn't know as much as an American. That's just basic common sense, something which seems to be in short supply on your end.
>And you avoided many points, like civiliant against civilian violence in the scenary of a civil war.
That's not a "point" at all. How does it relate to the discussion?
Well; you say that guns are good because if a revolution is needed is better if the citizens have guns; the problem is that in revolutions the civilians who doesn't want it also have guns; so it gets really violent without affecting any "tyrant".
Of course it depends on the circumstances. Typically a tyrant maintains power by buying off a small portion of the total population. It can be as little as 10%. Somebody like Marcos in the Philippines comes to mind.
The US has a peculiar attachment to its current constitution and it's founding fathers. There seems to be a semi religious adherence to that one document and those original people, as if the US constitution is the first and only document that can grantee liberty and freedom. Many arguments in the US seem to be around "what did the founding fathers really mean?" The hell what they meant, they were wrong!
>The US has a peculiar attachment to its current constitution and it's founding fathers.
We have an attachment to the document because that's the blueprint for our government. A nation of laws and not men. The founding fathers some people are more attached to than others.
Many people (like me) believe if you're going to have a written constitution the meaning of the document is fixed, so you have to use secondary sources to be clear on how it was understood when it was ratified. Thus the arguments about "what did the founding fathers really mean".
>The hell what they meant, they were wrong!
No, they weren't. They understood tyranny, having lived under it. You'd think after the 20th century people would be a little leery of investing too much power in their government, but I guess Santayana was right after all.
...if someone else wants to look up the population numbers and do the division, ok. But it's clear that the US's rate improved similarly or better than Australia's. Please try to keep in mind that the nytime's has a strident agenda.
ED: I didn't read the .AU text. Their numbers went from 1.9 per to 1.3 per.
as a percentage, the improvement isnt all that different, and going from terrible to bad is presumably easier than when rates are just poor to start with.
That said, your data paints USA in a worse light than a brief skim read of Google does for me.
That doesn't make it wrong. There is a reason the public started to support stiffer sentences, after all - they believed (correctly, as it turns out) locking up criminals means you get less crime.
Except that crime rates dropped the same way in just about every other western country without harsher sentencing, and without locking up large sections of the population.
Nice catch. I didn't read carefully enough. 'Western world' being a key phrase. I got my stat from this statement "New Zealand has the second highest rate of imprisonment in the Western world.[12]" from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Corrections_(New_...
Even so, mpwieher's comment still stands to some degree. At a rate of 190, NZ is still around the same level as other Western countries which range from 70 to 150ish. It's nowhere near the proportion of people imprisoned by the US at 730. That's a pretty big dropoff between first and second place.
So... your reasoning is... that a skyrocketing prison population does indeed reduce crime significantly... and at the same time, gun laws in the US were mostly responsible for the reduction in crime drop?
I mean, you're agreeing with me at the same time you're disagreeing with me, in a way that just doesn't make sense.
Tragic as these things are, I cannot endorse such a proposal for the United States.
This year alone we've seen how many articles on wiretapping, government databases, executive assassination orders, and drone usage? Any citizen needs to hang on to whatever tools they have.
Please be explicit when making this argument: you want the capacity to wage civil war against the policies of the current administration.
This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it and you should probably be organizing in advance of the civil war that you believe to be necessary.
You can't say these things and sit on the fence. Admit what you are saying.
Similarly to how strong password policies are no match for good hackers, but make compromising many accounts expensive or prohibitive, an armed populace cannot defeat a trained army, but can make "martial law" and other military actions against civilians risky and expensive -- and that is enough. It is the same principle as the older threat of a mob or peasant revolt.
The United States is a strange country because it encourages armed rebellion in any second- and third-world country but tries not to follow its own law that gives its civilians and states the same option. This is partly a result of the American civil war but the civil war does not excuse any weakening of civilians, especially considering the special provision for them that is in the US Constitution.
Note that nowhere do I or the parent post of yours say a civil war is necessary or even a good idea. I would like you to agree that it is possible to advocate for the option to do something without actually wanting that thing to happen.
Is there some reason he can't have guns to wage civil war? I believe that the entire point of the second amendment is to enable us to form militias should the need develop.
Organizing in advance of 'the war' isn't something he 'must' do either, as militias are historically formed in reaction to the events that predicate their formation, and are often composed of hodge-podge firearms possessed by their owners.
The point being, it seems you're accusing him of wanting to own guns to protect his right to form a militia, but that is exactly the point of the right. Had we not been able to form up some 200 years ago, we would not be the nation we are, for better or worse.
If I'm misreading your post, please accept my apology in advance, but I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.
> I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.
The reason the parent post ignores the possibility of such a middle ground is that some people find arguments in favor of gun control more persuasive if anyone who defends it is painted as a traitor.
To me, if you accuse pro-gun people of being "revolutionaries," call anti-homosexuality people "hate criminals," or refer to the pro-choice as "baby killers," it suggests that your actual argument is weak. You're appealing to people's emotions, rather than logic.
This is why I firmly believe that logical argument should be a mandatory part of middle and high school curricula.
I feel that it is completely reasonable to assert that, at some point in the future, a bad actor could bring about domestic policies which serve to undermine further the principles of civilization we hold important. I additionally assert that such an occurrence would seem easier with a populace not in possession of modern small arms.
I did not, do not, and will not assert that there is any reason to believe we must organize against the current administration. I additionally did not state and do not believe that civil war is either desirable or neccesary.
Edit-- look what you did now all the crazies are going to come out and shit up the thread :-(
>This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it
This isn't necessarily true. War simulations have been repeatedly won by poorly-equipped guerilla "red teams" who out-think slow-moving American commanders/generals. Not that I'm advocating civil war.
This is the entire purpose of the second amendment, like it or not. The people who wrote it knew that the first 5 amendments were protections against what they thought was tyranny. The ability to have the ability to wage civil war is an inherent right of any United States citizen, regardless of the non-existent right to actually wage it.
Imagine the suffering of the world if the United States turned even more 'evil' - with such a nuclear and technological arsenal we have a duty to the rest of the world to ensure that no tyranny takes root here.
False, you are going to be comfy enough to not start a civil war. Civil wars only start when a government abuse its own people; the American government tries to avoid this but is not very good at it. The abused are usually foreign countries and America have invested way too much money and people in military to be defeated by any other.
Murder is banned. He committed more than twenty murders. Why do people think that you can ban mental illness? The focus on guns as opposed to the person is similar to the TSA's focus on weapons vs. terrorists.
As for the cause and effect line you draw, hardly so clear cut. Switzerland has assault rifles in every home and a low crime rate. The UK has an effective gun ban and a very high crime rate.
I know that if a Vancouver or London style riot comes to my town, that I want my Glock handy. There were many videos on Youtube of no-go zones with no police and rampant chaos during those riots. 911 will not be there when everyone needs it at once.
"As for the cause and effect line you draw, hardly so clear cut. Switzerland has assault rifles in every home and a low crime rate. The UK has an effective gun ban and a very high crime rate."
Thanks for bringing that up: the Swiss firearm-related murder rate is 10x that of the UK. In a country that overall not only has a much lower crime rate (as you rightly point out), but is generally proverbially peaceful.
(Examples: when my sister moved to Aigle in the south of Switzerland, she noticed that the flower shop had left some very valuable plants outside over the weekend. With price tags, so you knew which ones to take. She thought someone was obviously in trouble, but the owners left those plants outside very weekend. And yes, nobody locked their doors.
I was walking with a friend in Basel, and we saw a key taped to the gate of an apartment building. With a note reading "Only for the owner!!".)
Switzerland is an almost comically peaceful and safe place. Yet 10x the gun murder rate of the much less peaceful and safe UK (I lived in London for 3 years).
So how does this support the idea that having firearms widely available does not have a negative effect?
There isn't any good evidence either way. It's too hard to control the variables. It's possible that banning guns increased homicides from guns and other means. It's possible that it prevented homicides from guns and other means. There is really no way to tell from the evidence. But it is certainly not clear that it helps.
I wonder if the relationship a country has with their military has a role? Having a large number of ex-service men and women trained in efficient use of firearms? Just pondering, as I've been reading around the subject for the last hour and cant find anything.
So the tech community believes that "frictionless sharing" is a thing, but that the converse isn't?
It's fine if guns are legal. But it should be way more inconvenient to kill a lot of people. I want it to require a great deal of skill and/or planning to start a massacre.
It's just too convenient for people to cause mass murder right now.
So where does that leave non-firearms related weapons? Potassium nitrate bombs are easy to make and can result in far more deaths than guns can. You can make napalm by soaking styrofoam in gasoline. Should we control the usage and distribution of packing peanuts? It may sound like a ridiculous argument, but it's the exact one you're making. What about machetes or hunting knives?
If the real focus is to inflict mass casualties, there are tools far more appropriate for that sort of thing than guns and non-automatic rifles that take as much (or as little) planning as getting a hold of a gun and ammo.
As someone else already said on this thread: you can't ban mental illness with legislation.
"It's just too convenient for people to cause mass murder right now."
We've had repeating firearms for more than a century--this is not a new thing to be afraid of.
We've been killing each other on much larger scales much more inefficiently and painfully than that--try millenia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots ).
The problem is not inefficient killing. The Rwandan genocide was performed largely without firearms, but required massive planning and mobilization. It was a collective and political massacre involving the complicity of many.
The problem I have is with the proverbial army of one. It needs to be harder for a single person to murder 30 people in one incident.
> Murder is banned. He committed more than twenty murders. Why do people think that you can ban mental illness? The focus on guns as opposed to the person is similar to the TSA's focus on weapons vs. terrorists.
Of course you can't ban mental illness, however you can make it more difficult for people to access the tools that enable them to kill many people.
Guns are very much are a part of the problem. I'd also think that the culture of gun worship is also a big part of the problem.
The culture of freedom worship is also part of the problem. If we had checkpoints every 1 mile that you had to present papers and submit yourself and your vehicle to a full search, he'd never get anywhere near that school. Do you see where it is getting? As soon as you start treating people's right as means to an end, you come to the conclusion people without rights are much more convenient means to whatever end you seek.
As soon as you start treating people's right as means to an end,
you come to the conclusion people without rights are
much more convenient means to whatever end you seek.
Precisely! And I wonder why none else has made this argument so far. I think it's a strong argument (and well put; thank you).
The odds of dying in one of these mass shooting incidents in the US are infinitesimally small. These incidents are the price of freedom, and I'm sad to hear the Aussies are no longer willing to pay it.
Yes, I don't understand why no one will come out and say it - such mass murders are simply the price of the freedom to have guns. If everyone is armed, things aren't going to be better, they're going to be worse, as innocent bystanders will get hurt in shootouts between armed civilians and the evildoer they're trying to take out.
One interesting thing that I read recently is that the extremely high rate of firearm murder in America is largely inflicted by and on impoverished black males living in urban areas. If you eliminate those cases/areas from the picture, things are not all that different in America from Europe. You have a higher chance of getting stabbed by a chav in London than you do of getting shot in suburban America.
Of course, there are occasional mass murder incidents (which make the news). But given that most mass murderers are white and have mental problems, mental healthcare reform would take care of those cases that do occur outside of urban areas.
As for the high rate of firearm homicide in urban/black areas, that has more to do with the endemic problems in contemporary African American culture than anything else, and will require a much more comprehensive social policy to correct.
>One interesting thing that I read recently is that the extremely high rate of firearm murder in America is largely inflicted by and on impoverished black males living in urban areas. If you eliminate those cases/areas from the picture, things are not all that different in America from Europe.
While I laughed at the dark irony of your response to the subject after a few moments of reflection it's actually pretty depressing because when you really ponder it, political correctness and agendas are the reason that things like a bunch of little kids in a school being senselessly murdered will never get addressed properly and any laws enacted will only be laws of agendas. People won't let go of their own crap for 2 seconds to actually do something good for someone else.
>such mass murders are simply the price of the freedom to have guns.
This is absolutely not true. There are plenty of places with standing armies (i.e. pretty much all eligible males have guns in their homes) and don't have anything remotely like the gun murder rate of the US.
Micheal Moore made "Bowling for Columbine" to prove that the reason for the violence was guns themselves. By the end of the his movie, he didn't seem to believe it anymore himself.
> This is absolutely not true. There are plenty of places with standing armies (i.e. pretty much all eligible males have guns in their homes) and don't have anything remotely like the gun murder rate of the US.
As I noted in my comment and you apparently failed to understand, mass murders (primarily committed by mentally unbalanced white males) are statistically insignificant compared to the murders committed by and on young poor black urban males on a daily basis. The countries you're comparing the US to here, like Israel and Switzerland, do not have that self-destructive and violent subculture. That is why the US has more firearm homicides per capita than both countries with high rates of gun ownership (like Israel and Switzerland) and those with strict gun controls (like Japan and England).
Neither stricter gun control laws nor looser gun control laws will do much to move the needle on the US statistics because the bulk of murders are committed by and on individuals in a community that systematically ignores the law in the first place. Solving that problem will require a comprehensive social policy that will dismantle large aspects of contemporary African American culture. Unfortunately, it seems that any such suggestions would be political suicide, and therefore are avoided by all politicians.
Eliminating mass murders (which, while currently statistically insignificant, should still be targeted), OTOH, would best be accomplished by providing comprehensive and free asylum-based care to the basket cases that commit such atrocities. Parents should not be allowed to overrule the judgment of medical professionals in such situations.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that eliminating the sales of guns without background checks (such as at gun shows) needs to end right now, as it is a no-brainer.
>Neither stricter gun control laws nor looser gun control laws will do much to move the needle on the US statistics because the bulk of murders are committed by and on individuals in a community that systematically ignores the law in the first place.
Exactly, so why were you arguing that gun control is the solution?
>Of course, none of this changes the fact that eliminating the sales of guns without background checks (such as at gun shows) needs to end right now, as it is a no-brainer.
Where in the US can you buy a gun without a background check? I've been away for a while but I was under the impression that this was the norm if you bought from a store (obviously not enforced in private sales, but then the seller better hope the buyer doesn't kill anyone).
> Exactly, so why were you arguing that gun control is the solution?
Because preventing ex-felons and mentally deranged people from buying guns (well, anyone who hasn't had a background check done) is an effective form of gun control.
> Where in the US can you buy a gun without a background check?
40% of gun sales occur at gun shows, where no background checks are performed.
As a matter of federal law background checks are not required in sales between private parties. I'm not sure how you would implement a background check system that allows for private party sales while at the same time prevents people from fishing the database for dirt on their neighbors.
Of course there are some states, like California, that don't allow sales between private parties.
> > Exactly, so why were you arguing that gun control is the solution?
> Because preventing ex-felons and mentally deranged people from buying guns (well, anyone who hasn't had a background check done) is an effective form of gun control.
"Concrete isn't edible."
"I know, but limestome-based concrete is the most nutritious kind."
>This is absolutely not true. There are plenty of places with standing armies (i.e. pretty much all eligible males have guns in their homes) and don't have anything remotely like the gun murder rate of the US.
You're confusing standing armies and militias/reserves. A standing army is a group of people who are in the army as an occupation.
You are right that the prevalence of gun ownership isn't the whole story. Certainly part of it is cultural. But for now, in this time and in the current state of the US, these incidents really are the price we pay for freedom.
> A standing army is a group of people who are in the army as an occupation.
It's not the occupation. They're normal citizens that periodically do military training and are expected to be ready at all times should an attack happen. That means having weapons and ammo at home.
I don't disagree with that. However, I don't think that anything will change with stricter gun laws - the people committing all those firearm homicides are the same career criminals who make a living by selling illegal drugs that are smuggled into the country. Do you really think that making guns illegal will change anything for them? In fact, guns are already illegal in many of the urban areas where they live, and that has had no effect at all.
There's no need to punish law-abiding Americans who responsibly own and use firearms under existing laws while maintaining a firearm homicide rate that is similar to that in Europe.
Those who are law-abiding and have no history of mental illness shouldn't be affected. Data shows about 40% of firearm sales require no background check. [1] Between 1994 and 2008 data also showed that background checks obstructed firearm sales to 1.8 million prohibited people. [2] There is room to improve.
[1] Philip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research in Brief 6-7 (May 1997).
[2] Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2008 – Statistical Tables.
I don't object to eliminating the sales of guns without background checks. I also believe that children such as the one in this story[0] should be institutionalized (at the state's expense, if need be), so they can be cared for by professionals and not allowed to hurt other people.
I do object to blanket bans of semi-automatic assault weapons, however, or the restriction of concealed carry permits.
If you eliminate those cases/areas from the picture, things are not all that different in America from Europe
That's a dishonest and misleading comparison. You're taking 2 regions (USA & Western Europe) and then removing unhelpful numbers from the USA side and comparing it with W. Europe.
Wrong, it's not dishonest or misleading at all. What is dishonest is ignoring the fact that Europe lacks a self-destructive and violent subculture that is disproportionately responsible for firearm homicides in the US when comparing rates of firearm homicides in the US and Europe. It would be like blaming Europe's nomad problem on their social laws while ignoring the fact that there's a huge gypsy community that simply refuses to integrate into society.
By ignoring this fact, you pin the problem on the presence of guns when in fact there's a much deeper problem in society that, if solved, would bring firearm homicides down to the levels in Europe without banning any more types of guns. It also ignores the fact that banning guns would do nothing to stop those who are committing most of the firearm homicides from obtaining guns, since those people are already in the very business of smuggling in another illicit object into the country.
The rate in the US is 470, which puts us below the bottom of the list. That dichotomy probably does have something to do with guns - breaking and entering is far more dangerous in the US than it is in the UK.
ignoring the fact that Europe lacks a self-destructive and violent subculture
If you think Europe lacks violence, I suggest you read a 20th century history book. For example, there have been organised, government promoted genocides in Europe after the Linux kernel was first released.
> If you think Europe lacks violence, I suggest you read a 20th century history book.
You speak in the present tense ("lackS"), yet you refer to the 20th century, which ended more than a decade ago. I think you are more than a little confused.
> For example, there have been organised, government promoted genocides in Europe after the Linux kernel was first released.
Please name one country in Western or Northern Europe that has had a "government promoted genocide" since the beginning of the 21st century.
We are just at the start of the 21st century, so events from the mid to late 20th century are still relevant and culturally important. Why is 10 years suddenly the distant past?
It is and it isn't when you're talking about policy prescriptions. I don't see why my ability to own a firearm should be restricted because people in other demographics can't use them responsibly.
Stop putting words in my mouth, I never suggested that anyone is "irrelevant". My interpretation, which should have been obvious, is that you cannot legislate away cultural problems. Banning guns to stop people from obtaining them is completely moronic when those people are in the very business of smuggling of illegal items into the country in the first place.
There is a difference between banning guns and improving the background check process to ensure less mentally instable and people with a history of crime acquire firearms. Also, it is my opinion that a culture of crime is no excuse to give up on improving firearms regulation.
> There is a difference between banning guns and improving the background check process to ensure less mentally instable and people with a history of crime acquire firearms.
I'm not suggesting that we not implement an improved background check process. I'm suggesting that we not start banning semi-automatic assault weapons all of a sudden in order to win some political points over the recent spate of shootings.
I respect your opinion and am actually opposed to the banning of any firearms to those who are qualified and have passed mental and criminal examinations. Currently, about 40% of firearm purchasers are not examined and I believe this number is too high. I appreciate the dialogue, as I believe we need more discussions on this topic.
The current nastiness is due directly to the theft of the weapons from a qualified gun owner. Should we extend background checks to include members of the family? Crazy friends? Bad neighbors?
I'm generally in favor of freedom, but you can't assume it's always a good, at any cost. If (and I don't really believe this) frequent mass murders were the cost of freedom, we would have to seriously consider whether it was worth it.
Find any of the recent threads here on the Connecticut shooting. We (in the US) do seem to have a relatively high per-capita mass-murder rate, at least compared to other first-world countries. That wasn't my main point though.
It isn't misleading! You're the one being misleading by claiming we need to cook the data to come up with the result you want to have instead of the reality of the situation.
He isn't "cooking the data". Or, more accurately, he's the one who isn't cooking the all of the data in one big pot, without regard for whether all of the data are actually describing the same thing.
The point he's making is that there are qualitative distinctions within the data that demand their own discrete analysis. What's misleading here is ignoring distinctions in the data in order to falsely posit a uniform source of causality.
I'm not suggesting we "cook the data", I'm suggesting that we shouldn't boil the data down to one statistic just so that we can get a number that conveniently agrees with our worldview. See my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4932547
Wrong again. That's what you are doing. You're taking the number of firearm homicides per capita in the US (one number) and just comparing it to that in other countries.
It's still not what I would call "frequent". Our murder rate has gone down in recent years and isn't high enough to justify new restrictions on firearms, IMO.
I don't really disagre with you on gun control, but... You're still hammering on that one word of my original comment. Since you've said nothing against my real point, that the end (that is freedom) doesn't necessarily justify the means, can I assume I've gotten it across? We need to actually think about if and how access to guns improves people's lives overall.
Let me put it this way, then: I don't believe these kinds of incidents are at all common enough to make any changes to American gun laws. Your chance of getting caught up in one is statistically zero, so if people want a gun to hunt or for self defense it outweighs any safety benefit of tighter gun laws.
I live in a country with gun control laws. Despite what you may think, this is not a totalitarial oppressive regime. I'm willing to give up my right to bear arms (and my right to pollute the air, etc.)
Highly unlikely. I live in a small country (Ireland), without any nuclear forces or advanced military. Even the police force aren't armed (except for a special branch), and they have one helicopter. I stand a much better chance against that than you do against the US armed forces.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
"Lesser" crimes increased during the banning yet decreased overtime, but influences on burglary are not readily available.
Unfortunately I wrote a paper in high school detailing a 300% increase in burglary and violence during the ban period, which came from the US DoJ, and I have not been able to find the source since (10 years or so).
>"The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent".
That statistic is only useful if we only care about murders committed with firearms. Honestly why would that be meaningful? At the end of the day the only thing that matters is total homicides.
Looking at total homicide rates in Australia (per hundred thousand): 1.9 in 1996, up to 2.0 in 2000, and down to 1.3 in 2007.
In the US 7.4 in 1996, down to 5.9 in 2007.
A similar decline in both the US, and Australia. The evidence doesn't show that the gun ban did anything to significantly lower overall homicide rates.
First, thank you for the stat. But do you really think someone as disturbed as this person could not just use basic fire arms or knives to do as much devastation? A bag full of shells with the blocks removed from a pump shotgun? The kid had what he had.. and just ran with it.
This is entirely plausible. Mass shootings aren't carried out by a random sampling of gun owners -- they're carried out by exactly the people who would be prohibited from owning guns if we tightened the laws around gun ownership a bit.
The best example of this is Seung-Hui Cho, aka the Virginia Tech shooter, who was able to buy handguns completely legally despite being involuntarily detained at a mental hospital less than two years beforehand. He then went on to kill 32 people.
You're inferring that mass shootings are carried out exclusively by the sort of person who would sell the government his weapon under a buy-back program. (Otherwise there still would have been shootings, even if fewer, with guns bought before the new regulations on sales) Just how realistic do you think that is?
The failed drug war has taught us you can regulate and draft laws until it's illegal to even think about making a gun let alone get a hold of one without the appropriate credentials, but it won't change a thing at the end of the day. While it can be argued that we might see people printing their own guns in the future when 3D printing becomes affordable, what's stopping people from printing knives and other sharp pointy objects that could be used to kill or maim someone else? If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that. If someone doesn't get hold of a printed weapon, they'll get their hands on a legitimately made metal one (or whatever material it is they build guns out of these days).
The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number.
I find it particularly amusing that many of the people I hear calling for the legalization of all drugs on the grounds that banning them doesn't work, are the same people calling for the outlawing of all guns.
Additionally, there is a very good argument for being free to take substances which release/alter your voluntary control of self. What are the arguments to own any gun? Imaginary civil war, fantasy home defense, pride of ownership, and practicing marksmanship? For this, we have to suffer the fact that any crazy can buy push-button killing machines, or that any sane owner thereof can subsequently lose his shit and kill the rest of us?
There doesn't seem to be much of an upside for the rest of us.
Yep. A long-barreled rifle, of small-ish calibre (.223 maybe) and with a fixed 5-shot magazine should be good enough for them. A determined person can hold up a mini-mart with that, but he'll be much less effective if he tries to go on a spree. Any features you add to such a weapon are, essentially, for the purposes of increasing its lethality to humans.
It's a good point. I actually would advocate no guns, but I could find it acceptable to compromise with hunting rifles only. But still, apart from hunting rifles then, what are the arguments to own any gun?
Hunting, recreation, self defense, home defense. Those are the main arguments I know. This generally corresponds to rifles/shotguns, plinking/antique guns, handguns, and shotguns/handguns respectively.
It's also sort of in the roots of the country, so you could say it's sort of patriotic to own a gun and train yourself in its use, but that is of course not a cold, practical argument.
Note: "Self defense" may have raised eyebrows; in particular, I am referring to people like judges and police officers who handle violent criminals. Typically these people are allowed to carry just about anywhere even off-duty.
Note2: In case you aren't actually aware, shotguns are commonly used for hunting, typically for small game and birds.
I would like to see some numbers for the home defense case -- it seems that the reasoning is mostly based on common sensical intuitions. IIRC guns in the home are multiple times more likely to be used against the family, than against an intruder. Permitted law-enforcement use is also acceptable to me.
Everything else you mentioned can, I think, be narrowly compromised on -- for shotguns, we can have single or double-barreled breechloaders only, 20 gauge only. That is plenty lethal, and the freedom to own pump-loading and larger gauges are, I think, acceptable casualties.
I think there really is not a fact-based case for the civilian ownership of the majority of weapons designed and sold in the market. Why does anyone need a Bushmaster or knockoff AK?
I'm not a big proponent of guns as home defense, I was just listing the arguments as you asked for them.
As for shotguns, while I'm partial to breech loaders, I imagine pump-loaders would be nice when bird hunting- you have literally seconds to take your shots. 12 gauge is popular for hunting, particularly when using a shotgun as a poor man's deer rifle (buckshot or slugs). Anyway, don't worry about shotguns so much. They aren't used much in crime, and I gather they are pretty survivable at all but very close range.
If you want to save lives, forget shotguns, forget rifles, forget even assault rifles- while mass shootings are big news, from a pure numbers point of view handguns are the biggest nail to pound down. More people in rural California in 2010 were killed with handguns than the count for the Connecticut shooting:
I've come to develop the POV that we should focus on ensuring that the gun control laws we already have are made effective. When murderers keep showing up with automatic weaponry (when automatic weaponry is basically outlawed) we should start by figuring out how they are getting automatic weaponry.
Are they really the same people? Gun ownership isn't something I am interested in, but neither does it frighten me. My drug if choice is already legal in my state.. and federally, but I think drugs should be legal.
I don't know.. maybe I just universally underestimate risk, but the targets of these bans or proposed bans all seem motivated by the irrational fear of tragic edge-cases.
No part of my comment mentioned calling for the legalisation of drugs nor am I calling for the outlawing of guns. Please do not misconstrue my words, and lets not confuse the real issue here. We are talking about people being able to potentially print functional firearms in the comfort of their own home using a 3D printer.
I've thought about this one, and I think drug prohibition is an unfair comparison. Drugs bring a immediate and addictive reward, that the user seeks continuously. This drives up their demand. Not to mention they have higher profit margins, and are a temporary good. If gun's were illegal, owning one would be a constant threat to the owner. Drugs can be easily disposed, and are not permanent. Decent guns are made by manufacturer's, which is much easier to regulate than drugs which are made in labs and farms. Finally, gun's are metal and therefore much harder to smuggle... metal detectors and such.
Not saying I can prove any of this, but I think the comparison just doesn't work.
I always hear the argument "If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that..."
In the heat of the moment can you easily get a gun? Especially if you are looking for banned weapons? How many incidents have occurred due to guns being easy to access?
How many school shootups have been "in the heat of the moment"? Every time the police follow up, it looks pretty apparent they were planned. I mean, who has full body armor available "in the heat of the moment"?
(Aurora and the most recent shooter were both in full body armor)
Even when these events are planned, there is still a time when you go "I need a big gun" to getting one. If mom has one in the closet, this obviously makes that event happen instantly. If there are more roadblocks to the process of acquiring an assault rifle, wouldn't it be worth it even if it saved a single life?
If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that.
> Except the lack of guns
The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number.
> Except smart filesharers already can't be caught
There will never be a lack of guns. America is too big to police efficiently. The drug war which has well and truly failed is a perfect example of this.
Filesharing is different. Printing a gun from a 3D printer requires materials, materials which can easily be traced back to their purchase point of origin. You could argue said materials could be obtained on the black market as well as the printers, but you have a better chance of tracking a created gun back to a particular type of 3D printer. I'm not saying it would be that reliable, but at least law enforcement agencies would stand a better chance than they currently have. Tracking a gun without a serial is like treasure hunting in the pacific ocean without a map.
Why not both? There is a ridiculous number of ways to kill other people, with and without guns, and trying to control them all is impossible. But making it terribly inconvenient to perform mass murder is very possible, and it will definitely save the lives of many people at the behest of a few loons.
The article is about the impending 3D printing revolution and being able to print your own guns, not gun control in itself. I don't see how mental health relates to printing 3D guns at home.
Two things were necessary for the latest school tragedy to occur: The shooter had to be mentally ill, and he had to have access to the gun(s) he used.
Let's suppose a significant fraction of gun-related crimes contain these two elements, and it would be worthwhile to make a political push for the prevention of this specific subset. (Not to imply that any other subset of gun-related crimes is unworthy of attention.)
The obvious way to attack this class of crimes would be to remove either mental illness or access to weapons from the equation.
The article seems to be saying that denying people access to guns will become much more difficult in the next few years as new technology will make it much easier to people to manufacture them privately and inexpensively.
This implies that policy efforts in that direction will likely end up wasted, and we should instead focus on removing mental illness from the equation (presumably by increasing research to create new treatments, improving access to mental health services to do a better job of bringing existing treatments to people who need them, and reducing bureaucracy and waste).
But the article did not talk about the latest school tragedy. It talked about gun control in general, including using gun to commit crime like, for example, robbing a bank.
We've moved on from discussing the content of the article's content to how the article provides an essential link in a particular chain of reasoning about the best way to address a specific subset of gun violence.
This process is called "discussion." To me, comments that merely restate the article's content without any additional information or commentary are noise; if I want to know what the article said, I can read it directly, and I probably already did if I'm reading (much less writing) comments.
Printing guns is curious, but irrelevant for the stated purpose - "gun" "control". Various resistance movements mass-produced guns under Nazi regime. If the regime as brutal as Nazis was unable to prevent it in 1940s, how much chance any modern democracy has to prevent it in 2010s and beyond?
Obviously the point is not to completely eliminate guns, that is too stupid even for public politics. The point is to scare the average citizen so much and to distance them so much from the guns that if he wants to commit a crime, he would be too scared of the guns to find one, and others around him would be too scared of the guns too much to provide it for him. We can see that works well because the same works quite well with drugs, which are not available to ordinary citizens and only available to hardened criminals via their underground criminal networks. Oh wait, that's wrong - anybody who cares knows where to get some pot, and anybody who cares enough knows where to get stronger stuff - or knows somebody who does. However, for some reason people think with guns it would work differently. Even though making a primitive gun takes only basic knowledge in material working and basic metalworking tools sold in any hardware shop and all over the internet. Of course, you may go the way of the drugs and severely restrict even basic chemicals and tools under the pretense they could be (and are) used to manufacture drugs. And you'd end up exactly the same place as with drugs - nowhere. With only exception that drugs are consumable and guns can be bought once and remains with you - so you'd need much less production capacity to reach the same level of saturation.
CAN SOMONE PLEASE KILL-OFF THIS THREAD BEFORE HN BECOMES ANOTHER HOME FOR LOONIES? JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY.
I am an American. I don't own any guns. I have lived in other parts of the world, sometimes under military regimes. I have never --EVER-- felt the need to own firearms in order to feel secure, protect my family or defend myself from a rogue government.
I do enjoy an occasional trip to the shooting range where we rent the weapons and have a good time shooting at metal targets or clay pigeons. Then I go home and that crap stays behind. I don't need it. I know with 100% certainty that none of my kids will ever have an accident in my home with a firearm 'cause there isn't one to be found.
I don't have any particular issue with the idea of people owning guns. Artillery and mass-killing weapons are a different story. There have to be sensible limits and strict rules. I don't know what these limits and rules might be. There are experts who have studied this far and deep. I'll defer to them.
To be sure, there's a mental health issue that must be dealt with as well. Don't know the answers.
Still, I think this thread needs to be shut-down before the nut-cases who think they are going to have to defend their homes from hordes of their own neighbors after each power outage take over.
> I have never felt the need to own firearms in order to feel secure
robomartin: I enjoy many of your posts and understand where you're coming from. Regarding this point, however, if you saw videos of Koreatown during the LA Riots, or in New Orleans after Katrina, or of Vancouver or London recently, you saw video of real times - in industrialized society - where the police were absent and law & order broke down.
The Koreans with guns defended their stores against rioting looters. That happened in America. It happened to the parents of people I know.
I hope you'd agree then that you don't have to be a "nut case" to imagine you need to defend your family, property, and loved ones from fellow Americans in the event of riots. It's happened, multiple times, as the clips above show.
I'll grant you that there might be circumstances under which one has to be able to defend self and loved ones. And it isn't my intent to suggest that guns ought to be taken away from people. The vast majority of gun owners wouldn't hurt a fly.
With regards to riots and stores being looted. On the side of the store owner, he or she should have insurance for that. I would not want to shoot someone for stealing from my store. I am not sure the law justifies that. I am not sure that I can morally justify it regardless of the law.
The deeper problem is societal. Was there any looting in Japan after the tsunami. Nope. Why? Different culture. Different behavioral patterns. What is it about our society and what we teach kids and people that would lead them to equate a natural disaster or a little civil unrest with the idea of taking and destroying other's property? Don't know.
The issue that is touching a nerve today with this horrific tragedy is that guns are simply too available or they are being sold to people who should not have them. I am speaking as someone who has zero problems with the concept of gun ownership. That said, as a father, I'll be damned if I'll choose gun ownership over my kids right to be safe at school or at the mall. That's not a tough decision to make at all.
I'm a numbers guy and I know full-well that the statistics found at reputable sources such as the CDC or FBI show that deaths due to guns almost pale in comparison to other causes of death, particularly when combined. The same Hollywood actors who pull at the heart-strings and stand for gun control after a disaster such as Newtown go and get drunk at parties and don't express outrage for the fact that drunk drivers kill ten times as many kids per year as guns do. It's unfortunate but true. And, I do get it. Considering that there are about 350 million guns in the US it is easy to conclude that the vast majority of them are absolutely harmless.
When you look at what happened in Newtown you have to wonder how and why these guns got into this household. By all reports this kid had very serious issues. I don't know how one would do this, but these guns shouldn't have been available to him and perhaps even his mother. It is horrific and there is no pro-gun argument that can stand a chance against the brutal death of a child in this manner.
When I go to the shooting range I am sometimes in awe of the weapons I see there. Some guys show up with stuff that looks just amazing. As an engineer I appreciate the tech. But sometimes I think that these guys could go from harmless-hobbyist to mass murderer in a second if a single bit flipped in their brains. I have fired AR-type weapons rented at the range. They are a blast. But they are also nasty-deadly. These are tools built for rapid killing and almost nothing else. Same with semi-auto handguns that can squeeze-off rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. Do we really need to own these things to defend our homes? Are we going to be invaded by hordes of armed thugs?
Shotguns are a different story. Particularly breach-loaded shotguns. Here you have a particularly intimidating self-defense (and hunting) weapon that is a lot harder to use for mass murder. One or two shots and a good pause to reload. I can't see someone justifying needing an AR for self-defense vs. a shotgun. If you take any of these mass shootings and substitute whatever weapons they used with breech-loaded shotguns I guarantee you that the outcomes would have been very, very different. People at least have a chance to overtake the shooter.
This is a complicated issue for sure. It becomes far less complicated when you have parents in fear of their kids being mowed-down with semi-automatic weapons. Today, that is a potential reality anywhere in the US where you combine these kinds of weapons with a lunatic. The NRA and gun lobbies need to tread lightly here because, today, there isn't a single parent who would not support a vote for serious gun control --even if irrational-- at some level.
And, yes, the nut-jobs need to keep their mouth's shut. Your right to own a gun doesn't stand a chance against my kids' right to not get shot in school, at the mall or in the movie theater.
Hey, we can avoid the nutcases--see my list. Add stuff. Talk about other interesting ramifications. Give other things for the people to look at that aren't just "NOT MUH GUNS" or "EVIL PUPPY KILLING RIFLES".
The hard part of all of this is primers. Virtually everything else is straightforward (propellant is hard, but not as hard as primers. Reloading from infinite primers and powder is essentially something a one-armed blind person can do with a reloading press.
Most of the parts of guns are not under much mechanical stress, and the parts which are, tend to not be the regulated items. A convicted felon could buy commercially made barrels all day long (they're not firearms or in any way controlled), which are probably the firearm part with the greatest difficulty of manufacture, along with springs.
Of course, one can manufacture a gun from a 3D printer plus some additional stuff. But there is a qualitative difference between 'click print' and you get everything you need and a project to get everything you need to build a gun, which utilizes a 3D printer ( and some chemistry and some additional metalwork). After all, it is today possible to manufacture a (completely unregistered) gun yourself utilizing a CNC cutter and some craftsmanship.
Yeah, you'd have to go to metal shop for some of this. "Download, click, print" model won't work for guns for a bit, but you could get there with some pre-manufactured metal parts, or just manufacture them yourself.
He did. Six shots is merely an unreliable gun, not, fundamentally, a non-functional gun (see also the point about 6-vs-100 shots and 0-vs-1 shot), and frankly, an AR-15 seems unnecessarily ambitious for a proof-of-concept. They probably would have gotten better results with something better suited for printing; I bet AK's print better. AFAICT, it's just a matter of sufficient precision with sufficiently strong materials.
One of the major arguments in the article is that instructions exist for printing an Assault Rifle (AR). I doubt that the rounds fired have the same lethal capacity of a "real" firearm; however, I certainly wouldn't want to be hit by the weapon in the video.
The "AR" in "AR-15" stands for "ArmaLite", the original manufacturer, not for "Assault Rifle". An AR-15 is not actually an assault rifle, which implies the capability of fully automatic fire (pull the trigger, spray bullets). The AR-15 is semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull, but with no manual action required to reload).
Here are a few simple methods to make working guns with 3D printers.
1. Print plastic shaped like gun
2. Load bullet.
3. Fire bullet with now destroyed gun.
1. Model gun
2. Print wax cast
3. Make cast
4. Melt and pour steel into cast.
1. Buy everything except a upper receiver without a gun permit.
2. 3D print an upper receiver and attach to normal gun parts.
3. Use like normal gun (for a little bit)
Let me point out some interesting issues that are related to this, just so that we can have something beyond the normal gun/anti-gun rhetoric:
1. If we legislate 3D printing to prevent weapon manufacture, we run directly counter to the idea of "Print anything you need at home!". How do we reconcile these two ideas?
2. If we want to fingerprint, say, a lower receiver and identify which machine made it, how would we do so? (My hunch would be looking for misalignments in the fill pattern, but that's just a first guess).
3. What sort of technology would be required to automatically detect the production of a weapon? Could we identify a pressure container, for example, for use in holding a shotgun shell for firing? Could we distinguish that from something else?
4. Taking (3) a step further--this technology could obviously also have applications in preventing patent infringement. Is it desirable to require that 3D printers can recognize infringing mechanisms? Why or why not?
> If we legislate 3D printing to prevent weapon manufacture, we run directly counter to the idea of "Print anything you need at home!".
It's not necessary to refer specifically to the means of manufacture. Homemade weapons are already regulated. The legal risk you run by illegal possession is separate from how you obtained it.
> Is it desirable to require that 3D printers can recognize infringing mechanisms?
Again, a simpler question would be: "Is it necessary?" And the answer, of course, is no.
Seriously, this article is talking about completely hypothetical problems. There is plenty of time to legislate on 3d printing if and when it becomes a serious problem in and of itself.
I think the realization of it is likely to be much simpler: I expect widespread 3d printing (if it ever really becomes a common in-the-home thing, as opposed to stores printing stuff on demand) to be a curated, extremely simple experience, along the app store model.
Though I'm not sure that the economics/frequency of use would make it make sense to have one in every home, at all. Being able to get whatever replacement part or tool I might need fabricated on demand at Home Depot would be extremely cool to me; having to purchase all the equipment and consumables to do it in my own home appeals much less.
So I don't know that it would really derail a policy designed to greatly reduce the frequency of mass shooting events by making gun acquisition much more difficult. (Focusing strictly on the feasibility of that, and leaving aside for now any questions of whether private citizens need to have the right to have guns for other purposes.)
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there's a 3D printer in every home or not, because there will always be a non-negligible number of people who find the ability to rapidly prototype objects on demand in their homes appealing. You wouldn't argue that the law can ignore the fact that many people have general purpose computers just because most people use iPhones, right?
wrt to your first point: in the article, they say:
"Will 3D printers refuse to print parts, the way 2D ones are supposed to refuse to print bills? "
That's an interesting analogy, although the outcomes are not the same (and I doubt any 2D printer would be capable of duplicating a banknote anyway).
(That being said, I can't find any references to ink printers being unable to print bills- if anyone has additional info, that'd be very much appreciated!)
AFAIK, it's copiers, not printers. Color copiers in particular will fail with an obscure error code if you try to copy money. If you call that code in, your visitor won't be the technician...
(I used to make drivers for high end color copiers back when)
I honestly don't see the problem with (1), this is already the case when it comes to paper printers and what you are allowed to produce with with your hammer and anvil anyway. I'd actually be surprised if there aren't plenty of countries having legislation in-place that will cover exactly this, whether you use a 3D-printer or not is simply not an issue.
I don't see a problem with balancing rights. After all, you can do anything you want in the privacy of your own home. However you can't beat & rape your kids. No-one suggests that this is a massive problem and infringment on rights.
I see (1) as being the only feasible scenario. The problem you identify is only an issue for purists -- most people will be fine with "print anything you want, within reasonable limits."
guns are not the key here, it is ammunition. chris rock made a great argument about it, no clue if he re-hashed an old saying or came up with it himself:
make ammo really expensive.
make ammo really regulated.
ammo contains explosives. it can be used to build bombs. bombs equal terrorism. so, get the whole wrath of homeland security upon buying, selling, handling live ammo upon it. make it so unbelievably complex that people simply give up.
oh, you want to buy 9mm? sure, please apply for a 9mm cartridge license, that's forms 12, 3274234, 423-1836, t5 and 0815. process takes a year, is valid for 5mins and usually ends with you on a no fly list. you don't wanna know what you need for 5.56. and selling? oh boy.
no need to ban anything. bureaucracy was invented for exactly this. crowd control. just look at how it was applied in the austro-hungarian monarchy, kafka's process is exactly that.
Chris Rock is a moron--here's a life tip, comedians say things because they're funny, not because they're right. I do not take political advice from Chris Rock, George Carlin, Lewis Black, or Larry the Cable Guy.
Making black powder is not difficult. It's easier than making drugs. You can make it from charcoal, potassium nitrate (KNO3, you can get that from urine), and sulfur (an extremely common chemical). Home-made black powder might be risky in firearms but would certainly be lots of fun for blowing things up. You can make all kinds of explosives, as the movie says, from common household items.
I once watched that monologue. He argued that bullets should cost 5k$ to make killing unaffordable, IIRC.
This raises another point, with regard to the original article: will printing bullets be easy with 3d printing technology? I may not be as easy (you probably need to insert manually the powder at some point), but I think it will eventually happen.
this is my point - printing the whole thing does not do anything without adding gunpowder. creating that out of a 3d printer is a bit longer off, re-arranging molecules is a tad hard.
the US already regulates handling of explosives. simply expand that regulation to any amount of gunpowder. no need to ban guns, no interference of the constitution. having a right does not mean that it needs to be easy or cheap.
What do you think happens when bullets cost $5000? You've just created a new revenue stream for drug cartels. Manufacturing ammunition isn't any more difficult than running a meth lab.
do you think the black market for ammo would be more like the drug market rather than the current black market for guns&explosives?
remember, it needs to be hard for mentally unstable kids like the recent one to get ammo. no one will ever stop someone like Breivik or the Unabomber, who spent years planning their attacks.
I think you underestimate how ingrained guns are in our culture.
If you priced ammunition out of the reach of an ordinary citizen, you've effectively banned guns for the ordinary citizen.
The first problem you have to deal with is the number of lives that will be lost in the armed insurrection you've caused. There are thousands of people just waiting for the government to take their guns and I can guarantee you any kind of gun ban (even if it's only an effective ban) will cause enough deaths to offset any drop in murders for the next 50 years or so.
After that's over there is still going to be a large criminal element who isn't going to stop fighting each other over drugs and will need ammunition to do it.
> it needs to be hard for mentally unstable kids like the recent one to get ammo
How many people die each year to mentally unstable kids as opposed to crimes committed by hardened criminals usually involving drugs?
If you haven't looked at the statistics, it's overwhelmingly the latter.
to lay this out more precisely, and I live in Austria, so I have a front row seat on how to use bureaucracy to steer behavior:
you do not simply raise prices to 5000$. no, you gradually boil the water through addition of red tape. selling ammo should not be banned, the drug war shows what happens then. no, it needs to be legal, just amazingly, mind-numbingly complicated. the cost of the process would then be the markup on the sale.
make the IRS, TSA, EPA whichever other three-letter agency you can find go all in and creative on ammo manufacture, sales, distribution. oh boy, the CO2 emissions alone should be fun. and quality standards, only the purest gunpowder should be approved, FDA-style. to protect the shooters of course, misfires are bad in your fight against the government - even the NRA can't deny that.
Call it all the "Make Gun-Owners Safe" act, drop it in front of the republicans, tie some tax decreases to it. Try voting against that one.
>Call it all the "Make Gun-Owners Safe" act, drop it in front of the republicans, tie some tax decreases to it. Try voting against that one.
Won't happen. There's too much organized resistance against gun regulation.
Besides, something like you're proposing was already tried. The EPA floated the idea of banning lead bullets, and within hours the mailing lists were circulating and the attempt was utterly and completely destroyed.
The pendulum has been swinging in the direction of less restrictive gun laws for the past 20 years or so, even many of my otherwise extremely left wing friends now own guns, and support gun rights.
Readers here are likely on the forefront of some of these technologies... we need to stop ignoring these discussions because they're too controversial and start doing our part to improve the discourse.
"In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.
The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.
In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent".
It was legislation, intelligent legislation, that worked. It did not advocate the complete abolishment of firearms, which many pro-gun advocates seem to be making the mental leap towards when any discussion of gun "rights" is brought up. Thinking this problem isn't partially-solvable is ignorant.