I didn’t realize the NRA had lobbied for years to prevent scientific study of gun violence. I read an article to this effect a while back and now, of course, one of the president’s exec orders involves more study of the issue. So what aspects should we study?
Me, I’m a data guy. I’d like to see more good data. Who’s shooting who? Is it mostly crooks on crooks or crooks shooting civilians? How often is a gun actually used by a private person to defend themselves? And of those times how often was a gun the level of force that was necessary to prevent the perceived threat? Could the person have just ran away?
We hear that if we outlaws guns “only the criminals will have them.” Is that actually true? I see countries like the UK and Australia with very restrictive gun laws and very low firearm homicide rates. Do the crooks have guns but maybe they’re just not killing people with them? Or do most of the crooks just not have guns? If not, how was that accomplished in those countries?
And what is the true correlation between private gun ownership and violent crime rates. I’ve seen conflicting data.
So what are your thoughts? What other aspects should we examine? Mental health, video games?
I think a lot of gun lovers barely give a damn about the philosophical principles behind the 2nd amendment.
Study the psychology of gun lovers and I suspect you will find a lot of psychological BS. But that does not mean that I think lots of those people are likely to go on random shooting sprees. I do think we need to find out what is behind people who do that.
My father had rifles and hunted whenever he could but I never regarded him as a gun lover. It was just a tool and he never seemed to want an excuse to shoot someone. I don’t doubt that he would have if the situation demanded it. But if he wasn’t planning on a hunting trip the guns were never mentioned.
psik
[ Edited: 18 January 2013 10:12 PM by psikeyhackr ]
We hear that if we outlaws guns “only the criminals will have them.” Is that actually true? I see countries like the UK and Australia with very restrictive gun laws and very low firearm homicide rates. Do the crooks have guns but maybe they’re just not killing people with them? Or do most of the crooks just not have guns? If not, how was that accomplished in those countries?
Chris
There is no harm in studying every issue imaginable in regards to gun violence, but hasn’t that been going on for a while?
I think in the UK and Australia, any guns beside shotguns and small caliber rifles are completely banned; these are hard to conceal while walking around so it’s unlikely a perpetrator would use them for attacking others, (unless suicidal) also the number of untraceable guns, illegally available on the street in Britain is much lower then in the states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom IDK how accurate these stats are.
Another more controversial explanation, is that the general public of the US is more just violent then the public of the UK or Australia.
Firstly, I was also amazed that the study of gun violence at the CDC had been thwarted by the NRA. Imagine if the a religious body had the study of AIDs blocked due to ideological reasons… quite Orwellian really.
Regarding the study? I think we’re talking about a large number of statistical studies:
- what is the likelihood of death/accident/injury of a gun in the home
- the rate of suicides and connection to access to guns
- domestic violence and the prevalence of guns
- who are the victims: are most victims of gun violence related or known to the shooter? Much abuse and violence (including rape) is committed by a person known to the victim
- do guns prevent violence?
- does the reduction/banning/restriction of guns reduce violence
There is an enormous amount to study there. Research is vital and imperative.
Here’s my list of what should be done, especially to reduce the number of shooting sprees:
1) Tougher gun control laws
2) More budget for school psychologists
3) Better awareness about the consequences of (online) mobbing and bullying
4) Less violence in movies, tv series and computer games
5) Better scripts showing how conflicts can be handled without violence (STNG is a good example)
4) Less violence in movies, tv series and computer games
Looks to me like the introduction of violent video games or Quentin Tarantino’s violent movies (both brought out in 1990s) correlates with a decline of crime.
Here’s my list of what should be done, especially to reduce the number of shooting sprees:
1) Tougher gun control laws
2) More budget for school psychologists
3) Better awareness about the consequences of (online) mobbing and bullying
4) Less violence in movies, tv series and computer games
5) Better scripts showing how conflicts can be handled without violence (STNG is a good example)
Numbers 1 and 2, absolutely. Tightening the laws already on the books would be curtail the mentally ill from carrying out their psychotic fantasies. As to competent school counselors, expensive but vital. Identifying kids with sociopathic behavior needs to begin in the first grade. Number 3 is already on the books as cyber bullying and is now labeled a crime as well as sexting. Students here (Ohio) must attend sessions held by law enforcement officials to explain the consequences of same. Adults too may be held to the same standards if the bullying results in a felony. As to 4 and 5, I agree with George. There is no evidence IMO that links violent video games or movies to an increase in murders and school shootings. I would however restrict violent games and movies to older kids who a more able to determine reality from fantasy. Bottom line, tighten the gun laws and outlaw automatic and semiautomatic weapons for civilians. One southern congressman is now insisting that all civilians have access to military weapons (a tank in your back yard?) so we can fight our own soldiers when the government takes our freedom. Livin’ the dream Ted Nugent style.
It occurred to me that since the NRA says everyone who is a potential victim should have
a gun for self defense, wouldn’t it be more effective, rather than just having one armed
marshall at each school which would mean s/he couldn’t be everywhere, to are those
potential victims, that is, give each kid a gun so that if a crackpot comes into the
classroom, they can shoot back. Sounds just a reasonable as most of the other NRA
tatements.
Since the government redfines common words, e.g., we all accept the definition of
“representative” however, when you consider the members of Congress, they certainly
don’t behave according to our definition of the word. So, my solution to the 2nd
Amendment problem: President Obama could issue an executive order redfining the word,
“arms” to mean “clubs”.
Occam
(Wow, I had to work really hard to get the text back into the standard page.
I don’t understand why some people have to post stuff the spills way
over to the right and off the page.)
Actually, we could redifine to only include the weapon of the times it was written, unrifled muskets, amd on Yeah, everyone has to report a weekend a month for militia excersizes, bringing their own musket..
Unfortunately, I tried that argument on a gun lover, Gary, and his response was, “If you want to
limit the Second Amendment to the time the Constitution was written, then, to be consistent,
you’d have to eliminate all electronic communication from First Amendment protection.”
