8 yr old girl shot dead by 11yr old boy

[gowlerk 1,914]

a) you are mis-quoting me. That thing about the boat in the desert was from someone else.

b) I was only answering your question about why there is a debate. I'm not really wanting to engage you further in debating it. You are one of those who think it's worth the price. I get it.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jbscout2002 1]

Fatal accidents 2010: Total - 120,859; Firearm - 606 (0.5%)
Suicides 2010: Total - 38,364; Firearm - 19,392 (50.5%)
Murder 2010: Total - 16,259; Firearm - 11,079 (68.1%)

Victims killed in mass shooting: 55 (0.5%)
- Since 2010 was a slow year for fuck heads (but that's where my other data was from), 2014 was 153 out of 12,562 total (1.2%)

Based on data about suicides in 16 National Violent Death Reporting System states in 2010, 33.4% of suicide decedents tested positive for alcohol, 23.8% for antidepressants, and 20.0% for opiates, including heroin and prescription pain killers. 


Firearms were the leading cause of death among males (59.6%) Poising was the leading cause of death among females (34.8%)

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.pdf

Top 10 states with strictest gun control laws with gun murder rate per 100,000 residents:

1. California - 4.4
2. Connecticut - 2.4
3. New Jersey - 3.9
4. Maryland - 6.1
5. New York - 3.1
6. Massachusetts - 2.0
7. Hawaii - 1.8
8. Illinois - 5.3
9. Road Island - 2.4
10. Delaware - 5.8

Average gun murder rate for top 10 states with toughest gun control laws is 3.72 per 100,000 residents

Top 10 states with least restrictive gun control laws with gun murder rate per 100,000 residents:

1. Louisiana - 10.3
2. Mississippi - 8.6
3. Arizona - 4.7
4. Kentucky - 3.6
5. Wyoming - 2.7
6. Missouri - 6.6
7. Alaska - 5.6
8. South Dakota - 2.3
9. Vermont - 1.6
10. Kansas - 3.1

Average gun murder rate for top 10 states with least restrictive gun control laws is 4.91 per 100,000 residents

2014 Top 10 U.S. cities with highest gun murder rates

1. East St. Louis, IL
2. Camden, NJ
3. Gary, IN
4. Chester, PA
5. Saginaw, MI
6. Flint, MI
7. Detroit, MI
8. Trenton, NJ
9. New Orleans, LA
10. Newark, NJ

[kallend 1,623]

jbscout2002

all.

I think the conspiracy theory that the NRA doesn't let anyone collect data is laughable. That is a convenient excuse for people who prefer not to publish their findings because they are not getting the results they want.

NRA lobbied hard for this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

jbscout2002

Average gun murder rate for top 10 states with toughest gun control laws is 3.72 per 100,000 residents


Average gun murder rate for top 10 states with least restrictive gun control laws is 4.91 per 100,000 residents

Last time I checked, 4.91 > 3.72

32% higher in fact.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

***

Average gun murder rate for top 10 states with toughest gun control laws is 3.72 per 100,000 residents


Average gun murder rate for top 10 states with least restrictive gun control laws is 4.91 per 100,000 residents

Last time I checked, 4.91 > 3.72

32% higher in fact.

I just transferred some numbers over so people can make their own inferences.

One of my takeaways was that half of the top 10 states with toughest gun laws have higher murder rates than half of the top 10 states with the most relaxed gun laws.

Another was that 4 of the nations top 10 cities with highest gun murder rates (including the number 1 and 2) are within the 10 states with the toughest gun laws.

I guess when it comes to what's what, people will see what they want to see. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so to speak.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

***all.

I think the conspiracy theory that the NRA doesn't let anyone collect data is laughable. That is a convenient excuse for people who prefer not to publish their findings because they are not getting the results they want.

NRA lobbied hard for this.

One January 16, 2013, President Obama signed 23 executive orders in regards to gun control.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

TEN SURPRISING FINDINGS FROM A NEW REPORT ON GUN VIOLENCE
HUMAN NATURE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND LIFE.JUNE 24 2013 10:29 AM

Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.

The gun control debate is certainly worth reopening. But if we’re going to reopen it, let’s not just rethink the politics. Let’s take another look at the facts. Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways......

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

Maybe if it came back more heavily weighted with anti-gun statistics it would have been shoved down our throats. Instead, it was basically ignored.

*This same article is on the Guns and Ammo website, but the addition comments contain a lot of gloating and of course trying to highlight it in the most pro-gun way possible. I haven't actually found the full report fm the CDC yet.

[jbscout2002 1]

For the record, I am just as appalled as anyone else when these mass shootings happen. When the Newtown shooting happened I was 8 miles away in Danbury visiting family for the holidays. My wife's cousin was a teacher there, but was on maternity leave when it happened.

It hits close to home. My immediate instinct was that I wanted to go to the local school and guard the front door for the rest of the time I was on leave. I didn't do anything like that, but that is the way I think. I have always tried to place myself between innocent people and anyone who would do them harm.

I have been very opinionated during this, and the "mass shooting" threads. My goal was not to simply offend anyone. I have my convictions, and I have an interest in firearms that many do not. I'm a military vet from a military family. I pay for my shooting and other hobbies by doing Gunsmithing working on the side.

I am of the belief that 99% of proposed gun control legislation is in effort to target 1% of gun crime. If someone can legally purchase the gun, and laws are imposed to make it more difficult for that person, then said person still can obtain the gun, but it now requires additional taxes and fees, takes longer, requires going to multiple places before the transaction can be completed.......but the end result is aside from the inconvenience, nothing changed.

When a person does go through all the hoops to get through the new red tape, their teenaged son can still kill them with that gun and walk into a school. People with legal guns in their home will still get in alcohol or drug induced arguments or catch heir wife with four other guys at the same time and shoot someone. The 80% of gun violence being done by criminals with illegal weapons will still happen regardless of new laws.

I believe there are solutions to some of the violence. There will always be gangs, drugs, robberies, disputes, illegal arms trading, ect, but I think a dent can be put into it. The problem I see is two groups standing on each side of the road. No one will cross to the others side, but if they try to meet in the middle they get hit by a car.

I think I've learned a lot by going back and forth with everyone. All my view points and "isms" have been challenged, and I feel like I have a better understanding of where the other side is coming from. Impute from Canadians, Swiss, Germans, Aussies, and Britts have also provided additional prospective.

I'm going to start spending my free time compiling numbers. Not trying to prove one way or another, but trying to get a no shit center of the road report of statistics. With that I'm going to see what ways I think could have any positive effect on those numbers. I'll pitch a few ideas in a thread and watch them get ripped apart and then go back and refine them and try again. I'm no genius but I think with a little poking around I can come up with a couple small ideas. If anything looks worthwhile, then some smart people can take them and trim off the rough edges.

I think there are a couple of small regulations, such as safe storage requirements, that can prevent kids from killing kids with their parents guns. This doesn't restrict people from owning a gun or require them to go to unreasonable measures to exercise that right. It simply means they must use the free trigger lock that comes with it or face criminal charges. Or even requiring a safe. If someone has several thousands of dollars worth of guns it is not only reasonable, but wise to buy a $500 gun safe to protect them.

I have a feeling though, that while mostly ignoring any notion of gun control, I can come up with a couple ways to reduce some numbers. By reducing the numbers, I effectively prevent any unreasonable restrictions. If it can be shown that a new restriction on me will stop Jonny combat skinhead guy from targeting a black church, then by all means, but if the restriction has no effect, then we are grasping at straws and driving the wedge further between both sides as far as any future cooperation goes.

Thanks everyone for letting me stir it up on your forums

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***all.

I think the conspiracy theory that the NRA doesn't let anyone collect data is laughable. That is a convenient excuse for people who prefer not to publish their findings because they are not getting the results they want.

NRA lobbied hard for this.

Good

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***

Average gun murder rate for top 10 states with toughest gun control laws is 3.72 per 100,000 residents


Average gun murder rate for top 10 states with least restrictive gun control laws is 4.91 per 100,000 residents

Last time I checked, 4.91 > 3.72

32% higher in fact.

yes
Or
1.19 per 100,000

Funny how numbers look different

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jbscout2002 1]

I don't know if this is the report mentioned, but it is an interesting read for anyone who cares. All aspects of gun violence are analyzed and methods to reduce each of them are explored.

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf

From:
-Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
- Executive Office Institute of Medicine
- Committee on Law and Justice; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Excerpts:

Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defen- sive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimiza- tion Survey (Cook et al., 1997).

Successful interventions to reduce firearm-related injuries, like many other public health efforts, must involve the health and public safety communities, educators, and other community groups. During the past 20 years, significant declines in death and injury from automobile crashes, fires, and drowning have been achieved through comprehensive preven- tion strategies that recognize the characteristics of the agent, the victim, and the physical and social environment in which the injury occurred. A similar public health framework may be particularly effective in the case of gun violence (Hemenway, 2001; Hemenway and Miller, 2013) if the interactions of these characteristics are analyzed. 
Prevention strategies may affect one or all of these players through a systems or holistic approach, and they can be applied at the time and lo- cation of imminent risk (e.g., removing guns temporarily when suicide risk is high), at times of transition (e.g., under an order of protection for domestic violence), or prior to periods of high risk (e.g., interventions for young children).

One recent study found that the states with the most firearm legislation have a smaller number of firearm fatalities (Fleegler et al., 2013). It is not clear whether this legislation is affecting firearm violence directly or whether states where there is less firearm violence tend to pass more laws related to guns.

[RMK 3]

blue_bert

***You will also note that that article was from the UK. The U.K. banned all hand guns and severally restricted most long guns as the result of a school shooting. As a result, the rate of violent crime has increased by 74% and the number one weapon of choice has become the common kitchen knife. There is a group of Doctor advocating to put a ban on long and pointy knives in the UK.

Talk about making stuff up! Thats a complete load of bull and i would love to know where you got that stat from?

Yes, jbscout2002's grasp of statistics can be described as "tenuous" at best.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[jbscout2002 1]

RMK

******You will also note that that article was from the UK. The U.K. banned all hand guns and severally restricted most long guns as the result of a school shooting. As a result, the rate of violent crime has increased by 74% and the number one weapon of choice has become the common kitchen knife. There is a group of Doctor advocating to put a ban on long and pointy knives in the UK.

Talk about making stuff up! Thats a complete load of bull and i would love to know where you got that stat from?

Yes, jbscout2002's grasp of statistics can be described as "tenuous" at best.

Funny in your response, you cut out were I replied with the source proving that info to be accurate, but here are some more interesting reads.

For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here see Table 1.01 and the column marked “Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population”). After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. The homicide rate only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

In 2009, twelve years after the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed, Daily Mail Online reported that Britain was “the most violent country in Europe.” They also reported that Britain’s home figures showed “the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

The data on the UK is from 2003 and it is not new as prviously written however, newer data from 2009 shows gun violence in the UK has increased by 89 percent in the past decade, making the 35 percent figure insufficient.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

The most current statistics available show that firearms were used to kill 59 people in all of England and Wales in 2011, compared with 77 such homicides that same year in Washington, D.C., alone.

A 1988 ban after the Hungerford massacre outlawed semiautomatic weapons and limited sales of some types of shotguns, a move that experts say was partly symbolic because such weapons in Britain were exceedingly rare. Crime statistics from the late 1980s and 1990s indicate the measure failed to have a significant impact on firearm-related crime.

After Britain’s sweeping handgun ban was imposed in 1997, for instance, tens of thousands of weapons were collected from legal owners in exchange for fair market value, cutting off supplies of stolen handguns that ended up in criminal hands and largely forbidding their sale by gun dealers in Britain. Nevertheless, statistics show that gun violence in Britain increased for the next several years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-shooting-tragedies-britain-went-after-guns/2013/01/31/b94d20c0-6a15-11e2-9a0b-db931670f35d_story.html

According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America.

In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase.

Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.

Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen.

Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned.

Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population).

Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries.

The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

In 2009, twelve years after the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed, Daily Mail Online reported that Britain was “the most violent country in Europe.” They also reported that Britain’s home figures showed “the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa.”

Yeah, the problem is that's bollocks, and it always was. it comes down to classification of a 'violent' offence. In the UK that covers an enormous range of incredibly petty situations that the US and SA (and many others) do not classify in the same way.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RMK 3]

I'm certain you know your way around a war zone better than I, however it doesn't seem that you use statistics for other than a casual hobby. I'm assuming you spend little time in boardrooms really debating math-related issues.

I don't have the patience to get into a cut/paste challenge.

Thank you for informing the Brits here what is like living in the UK. I've also lived in the US for 15 yrs, so have a good comparison of both. While living in the US, I owned guns - but now that I'm older/wiser, see there is no real reason for every man/woman/child to have a gun - I see society is more civil when they don't.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[jbscout2002 1]

This is the reason I own guns, and why I think most people here like the freedom to own them as well. Examples shown in attachments.

AR 15, chambered in .223 Remington, high powered scope, 24 in free floated heavy match grade barrel, used for hunting predators and varmints such as coyotes, foxes, prairie dogs, groundhogs, that require accurate long range shooting with small caliber high velocity rounds. Used for long range and 3-gun shooting competitions.

Various hunting riffles, with or without scopes, chambered for 7mm, 30-06, 270, 308, to name but a few, most often operated by bolt action or lever action, used for hunting large game such as hogs, deer, elk, moose.

Shotguns, .10 .12 .16 .20 and .410 gauge, single shot, double barrel over/under or side by side, pump action, lever action, or semiautomatic. Used for skeet shooting, foul or pheasant hunting, home defense, and 3-gun competitions.

Handguns, semiautomatic or double and single action revolvers, used for self defense/home defense, target shooting, 3-gun competitions, commemoration pistols made for collectors.

Most "military assault" weapons are pieces of prized collections that are carefully protected and maintained to museum quality and are never even fired.

.22 cal rifle, semiautomatic, pump action, lever action, bolt action, single shot. Great for teaching youth about gun safety and marksmanship, hunting squirrels and chipmunks, target practice.

[jbscout2002 1]

In contrast, this would be the weapons of war that anti gun advocates like to compare to the average firearm.

HK 416 gas piston carbine, chambered in 5.56x54mm NATO, 10.4 in barrel, AAC sound suppressor, SureFire tac-light, Eotech optic sight, Eotech 3x magnifier on flip side mount, PEQ 15 IR laser sight/flood light with red visible laser. (This gun killed Bin Laden)

Colt M4 carbine, chambered in 5.56x54mm NATO, 14 in notched barrel, M203 40mm grenade launcher, PEQ 2 target designator/ IR laser sight and flood light, 4x12 power Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight

Super Shorty .12 gauge, 6.5 in barrel, holds two 2 3/4" or two 3" shells in the magazine tube plus one in the chamber, used for breaching doors.

M249 MK 46 mod 1 squad automatic weapon, medium machine gun, belt or magazine fed 5.56x54 mm with 7.62x51mm variants, paratrooper stock, PEQ 2 target designator/ IR laser sight and flood light, M145 machine gun optic sight (bottom) ACOG sight (top).

Barrett M82(A1)v2 .50 cal sniper riffle, Barrett Optical Ranging System, QDL sound suppressor, semi automatic with 10 round detachable magazine.

[stayhigh 2]

Only if 8 yr old girl has access to firearm to stop the 11 yr old boy.

Guns for everyone.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[christelsabine 1]

Nice ads you have there, cowboy!

You get benefication?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[jbscout2002 1]

christelsabine

Nice ads you have there, cowboy!

You get benefication?

No, I just get called a cold hearted and self centered liar, and get reminded that I am nothing but a lowly little ole Soldier and not a corporate big shot attorney, so I couldn't possible understand violence.

I'm beginning to realize that violence or any possible measures to reduce it are irrelevant. Violence is just the battle cry for people trying to get rid of something they don't care for.

Some people just won't see the forest through the trees.

[christelsabine 1]

jbscout2002

***Nice ads you have there, cowboy!

You get benefication?

No, I just get called a cold hearted and self centered liar, and get reminded that I am nothing but a lowly little ole Soldier and not a corporate big shot attorney, so I couldn't possible understand violence.

I'm beginning to realize that violence or any possible measures to reduce it are irrelevant. Violence is just the battle cry for people trying to get rid of something they don't care for.

Some people just won't see the forest through the trees.

Understand. So, you entered this forum to help the poor non-believers and uninformed outta them misery. And to tell them what weapons to buy to be happy and safe and which telescope to use to look through the forest.

I don't care what you are called, you are a professional.

Anyhow, you would not be the kind of guest I would welcome on my site.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[jbscout2002 1]

christelsabine

******Nice ads you have there, cowboy!

You get benefication?

No, I just get called a cold hearted and self centered liar, and get reminded that I am nothing but a lowly little ole Soldier and not a corporate big shot attorney, so I couldn't possible understand violence.

I'm beginning to realize that violence or any possible measures to reduce it are irrelevant. Violence is just the battle cry for people trying to get rid of something they don't care for.

Some people just won't see the forest through the trees.

Understand. So, you entered this forum to help the poor non-believers and uninformed outta them misery. And to tell them what weapons to buy to be happy and safe and which telescope to use to look through the forest.

I don't care what you are called, you are a professional.

Anyhow, you would not be the kind of guest I would welcome on my site.

No again, I was trying to argue the fact that it is not the presence of guns in the USA that leads to violence, and therefor focusing so much political capital and energy on fighting gun ownership will not do anything to solve the problem of said violence, but only serves to go after people who on and legitimately use firearms.

I attempted to do that by trying to explain the correlation of violent crimes in areas with various levels of gun laws or gun bans and showing that data doesn't support gun control as a conclusion.

I tried to spark discussion on possible solutions to the real problem, but it was always dismissed and steered back to typical anti gun rhetoric. The last thing I did was show the contrast between the firearms most Americans own and use for sporting purposes compared to weapons designed specifically to kill human beings in war.

Obviously this just isn't that kind of forum. No one cares about resolving any of the problems we have in this country. This is nothing more that a place for naive people to complain that scary guns are floating around causing death and destruction everywhere.

Since this is not an actual debate, but merely a gripe session, I don't belong here anyways. I was interested to enter a discussion about the topic that excluded the extreme right and left, but where actual ground could be gained in this age old debate. Anti gun groups whole heartedly believe that tougher background checks and banning assault weapons (used in 1% of gun violence) will fix everything. NRA says F off, it's my right. Somewhere in the middle, CDC and other organizations have good research and good ways to fix it. No own cares what the CDC came up with because they didn't want to lose their argument.

Beg your pardons for interrupting your peaceful and peace-loving haven of tranquility where everyone ignores facts and prefers a "blind leading the blind" type society.

[piisfish 135]

You are partially right. It is not the presence of guns. It is "too many guns in the wrong hands ". Yet no one wants to admit that the wrong hands are not only the thugs and "traditional "criminals.
And yes, there are LOTS of responsible gun owners, even in the US.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[jbscout2002 1]

piisfish

You are partially right. It is not the presence of guns. It is "too many guns in the wrong hands ". Yet no one wants to admit that the wrong hands are not only the thugs and "traditional "criminals.
And yes, there are LOTS of responsible gun owners, even in the US.

I believe you are right as well, however, the CDC has found that about 80% of gun violence is in fact thugs and common criminals. They also found that 50% of gunshot victims are African American, despite making up only 13% of the total American population.

So it seems, as they have been claiming, no one cares until a couple white kids are affected by it. Seeing as how the mass shootings account for 1.3% of gun violence, but that is what is driving the gun control debate.

[wmw999 2,122]

If 80% of gun violence is among thugs, that doesn't really make it OK. It does make it less likely to affect us (most of the Americans on this forum are probably white and middle-class). But by assigning the impacts to another group, we devalue them.

Personally, I agree with you about both ends and the fact that there's a middle ground. Where it is, of course, is a matter of opinion. But I do think that we, as Americans, need to own the effects of fun violence as ours, and not just as belonging to ghetto-dwellers.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jbscout2002 1]

I'm not great at articulating my ideology, and I easily get sucked into simply defending guns, but irregardless of what restriction lay ahead, the loan wolf, antisocial, crazy, nut job will always be a threat. Nothing short of total ban and an effective total confiscation program could be expected to combat that.

The majority of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally, which means that no amount of legislation will affect it. Even with a total ban and confiscation, there are still guns that will be smuggled in or manufactured here.

In 1994, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act went into effect until it expired in 2004. It banned assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Crime data analysis showed no measurable change in crime rates, but the program cost 30.2 billion dollars. It is estimated that to simply reinstate that same ban today would cost in excess of 45 billion dollars.

This is a lot of money that produces no results and alienates a lot of Americans who disagree with it. 45 billion dollars could go an awful long way in after school programs, intervention programs, additional law enforcement resources, better access to mental health care and so on. These strategies would have a large impact on crime.