teh gunz Ctrl

[Goofball]

Well, it has been a while since I posted anything in the Backroom, so I thought I'd jump back in with this old chestnut:

Resolved: More gun control and fewer guns means less gun violence.

Came across this article that talked about the situation in Australia that I was previously ignorant of:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinio...tml?hpt=hp_bn7

The very interesting bit, talking about the results of Australia's major gun control legislation and buy-back program that was instituded in 1996:

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979--96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.

So, in order not to ignore the elephant in the room, I ask: Do gun rights advocates deny that if James Holmes had not been allowed to legally purchase an assault weapon with a 100-round drum that either: 1) The most recent massacre might not have happened, or: 2) even if he still attempted it, the results would have been less deadly?

Game on...

[rory_20_uk]

Although I am an advocate of gun control, in the USA homicides have decreased as gun ownership has increased.

I am torn in two directions.

I see no reason why anyone requires a 100-bullet magazine. Bears aren't that much of a problem.
But if this were banned, I would imagine persons would either modify a gun to be belt-fed or make their own magazine. I couldn't, but asuming this is the last act before a lengthly jail sentence or death you've got time to learn.

I was amazed he had done nothing more lethal such as nail bombs / blocking exits / dipping bullets in cyanide (administered dose would be low, but every little helps).

I would personally have rigged something to mix carbon monoxide and Chlorine in the presence of UV light (in a movie theatre, who'd notice?) Phosgine is pretty lethal, but tasteless and colourless.

In conclusion, the rules as they stand make things easier for crazies to kill. But stopping this outlet would most likely have caused a different massacre. And at a population level gun controls do not correlate well with death rates in the same country.

[Major Robert Dump]

Still would have happened

But would have been less deadly

They are saying now his rifle jammed. In a week or so, we should now how many rounds he fired from the AR15 before having to swtich to the handguns, after they finish all the crime scene work. If it turns out the AR15 jammed early on, then this debate becomes a different animal. It only takes 3 seconds to change magazines in a pistol/rifle, and if someone has multiple pistols there will be less reloading.

** I may also add the bigger factor here was the way he was dressed and the smoke bomb. His outfit made people think it was part of the show or that he was possibly a cop, the smoke made it impossible to counterattack. I am waiting for the call to ban gas masks and smoke bombs now

[PanzerJaeger]

So, in order not to ignore the elephant in the room, I ask: Do gun rights advocates deny that if James Holmes had not been allowed to legally purchase an assault weapon with a 100-round drum that either: 1) The most recent massacre might not have happened, or: 2) even if he still attempted it, the results would have been less deadly?

Game on...

Yes. There are well over 300 million guns in the United States, and just as many high capacity magazines, I would guess. Whether legal or not, purchasing such items will be very easy for years to come.

In general, it is a very bad idea to legislate based on tragedy. The results never reflect the intentions. If someone is hell bent on wreaking havoc, there is not much that legislation can do about it.

'Normal' gun crime has been steadily decreasing while gun ownership has been increasing. Do we want to let James Holmes dictate policy that will affect us all? We've learned what it means to sacrifice freedoms in the wake of a tragedy in this country, and I hope we do not go down that road again.

I, for one, am in no great hurry to outsource my safety to incompetent law enforcement agencies.

[rory_20_uk]

And, of course, guns are the citizenry's last resort against a tyrannical government. Take away the guns and you're damning future generations who may some day have to fend off a government that has become too powerful and corrupt.

Hilarious!

Unless you give the general public access to gunships, SAMS etc etc this is frankly ridiculous.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hilarious!

Unless you give the general public access to gunships, SAMS etc etc this is frankly ridiculous.

Syria says different.

[rory_20_uk]

Syria says different.

1) Compare the armed forces in Syria to those in the USA. The fact that the USA outspends the rest of the planet should be a clue.
2) The syrians are receiving weaponry from outside agencies / countries.
3) The progress that the Syrians is making is limited by only having light weaponry. Lybians only won when outside forces bombed all the heavy stuff. Given that the USA has vastly better weaponry means that the populace would also require vastly better weaponry to stand a chance. Such as gunships, SAMs, tank regiments etc.

I'm sorry, but Red Dawn was merely a film.

[Hooahguy]

Some interesting things I found:

Shotguns and Assault weapons account for fewer deaths than knives.

Another interesting article about how violent crime is at its lowest since 1973.

A study done from prison inmates.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

[PanzerJaeger]

1) Compare the armed forces in Syria to those in the USA. The fact that the USA outspends the rest of the planet should be a clue.
2) The syrians are receiving weaponry from outside agencies / countries.
3) The progress that the Syrians is making is limited by only having light weaponry. Lybians only won when outside forces bombed all the heavy stuff. Given that the USA has vastly better weaponry means that the populace would also require vastly better weaponry to stand a chance. Such as gunships, SAMs, tank regiments etc.

I'm sorry, but Red Dawn was merely a film.

Well, try Iraq or Afghanistan.

The United States is also an enormous country with a comparatively tiny military to civilian ratio. If the US military with all of its sophisticated weaponry cannot subdue Afghanistan, there is no way it could subdue the Rocky Mountain region, much less the entire nation - and that's before the possibility of defections/outside assistance/etc. is considered.

Sure, small arms will not allow a direct confrontation, but that is never the way these things work out. Small arms do give you a chance at guerrilla conflict. They give you time and options.

[Montmorency]

Syria says different.

Defections and foreign aid & agents.

You just don't know what you're talking about. All the people I've met who I thought most likely to grab a gun and fight the power were in the damned military. There's more to it than you think, and an angry and armed population is enough to give any government pause--even our own.

Defection from the military to a revolting populace is the most potent weapon against a "tyrannical" government there can be, short of overwhelming foreign intervention. If the military or security forces of a state find the state's activities and directives to be illegitimate, that alone will be enough to bring it down. An armed (segment of the) populace is only useful in 'persuading' cowards and those on the fence.

[HoreTore]

Well, try Iraq or Afghanistan.

The United States is also an enormous country with a comparatively tiny military to civilian ratio. If the US military with all of its sophisticated weaponry cannot subdue Afghanistan, there is no way it could subdue the Rocky Mountain region, much less the entire nation - and that's before the possibility of defections/outside assistance/etc. is considered.

Sure, small arms will not allow a direct confrontation, but that is never the way these things work out. Small arms do give you a chance at guerrilla conflict. They give you time and options.

...and all that means that having a population armed is meaningless. When hits the fan, getting guns is no real problem. Having them before that is irreleant.

If you actually meant business with a "fight the power"-stance, you'd be supporting the draft, which will ensure that the vast majority of the population has military training and the army cannot be made up of just one segment of society, thus making it harder to turn on its own population.

[PanzerJaeger]

...and all that means that having a population armed is meaningless. When hits the fan, getting guns is no real problem. Having them before that is irreleant.

Can you explain this further?

[Centurion1]

I would say that afghanistan is a superb example of the validity of an armed civilian resistance...

to simply laugh and say you can't fight a modern military without gunships and sams is not right. Modern technology can do quite a bit but it can't eradicate a determined civilian population that easily.

60+ % of the military is from the American South alone. Also where the most gun owners are ironically.

And let's be honest, there would be too many foreign agencies to count willing to help american citizens revolt against a tyrannical federal government for noble or ignoble reasons.

[Lemur]

There is no political will to revisit gun control in the U.S.A. right now. Sorry. It ain't gonna happen, no matter how fervently Bill Moyers and the NRA would like it.

The only high-profile figures currently calling for another go-round are Rupert Murdoch and Mayor Bloomberg. I can guarantee you than neither Obama nor Romney are going to breathe a word about any new regulations.

So ... a discussion is fine, naturally, but let's be clear on the reality: Ain't gonna happen.

[Centurion1]

...and all that means that having a population armed is meaningless. When hits the fan, getting guns is no real problem. Having them before that is irreleant.

If you actually meant business with a "fight the power"-stance, you'd be supporting the draft, which will ensure that the vast majority of the population has military training and the army cannot be made up of just one segment of society, thus making it harder to turn on its own population.

Everyone in Afghanistan has a weapon so that is absolute ****.

It is a proven and accepted fact that a draft would never be effective in 21st century america. Everyone is too flawed to accept without lowering military standards. A draft would be a joke with a nation composed of boys and girls.

[rory_20_uk]

Afghanistan is some of the most rocky and inhospitable terrain there is on the planet. The populace is some of the most irrepressible and hardy peoples on the planet. I doubt Americans - or most other western peoples - would put up with what they do.
The armies of all powers have been fighting with one hand tied behind their back. The population hasn't been rounded up and controlled. The locals are still trusted. Most cases where insurgents have been beaten has involved rounding up the entire populace and concentrating it and throttling the life out of the opposition. Be that the British vs the Boers or the Soviets against Latvians.
The number of soldiers present in Afghanistan in numbers compared to the size of the country is tiny.
The borders are utterly porous with fighters slipping in both directions when beneficial.

There might be several countries willing to help insurgents. However, most would also be rightfully concerned about what happens if the USA government wins. Getting supplies in would be problematic, considering the infrastructure the USA has to monitor borders.

[Montmorency]

Re: Afhanistan - Let's distinguish between an armed populace resisting its own state, and an armed populace resisting a foreign military & perceived puppet regime.

[Major Robert Dump]

Afghanistan is some of the most rocky and inhospitable terrain there is on the planet. The populace is some of the most irrepressible and hardy peoples on the planet. I doubt Americans - or most other western peoples - would put up with what they do.
The armies of all powers have been fighting with one hand tied behind their back. The population hasn't been rounded up and controlled. The locals are still trusted. Most cases where insurgents have been beaten has involved rounding up the entire populace and concentrating it and throttling the life out of the opposition. Be that the British vs the Boers or the Soviets against Latvians.
The number of soldiers present in Afghanistan in numbers compared to the size of the country is tiny.
The borders are utterly porous with fighters slipping in both directions when beneficial.

There might be several countries willing to help insurgents. However, most would also be rightfully concerned about what happens if the USA government wins. Getting supplies in would be problematic, considering the infrastructure the USA has to monitor borders.

I think you are still ignoring the level of defection and deserters and "civilian acquisitions of military grade weapons" that would occur in the event of some sort of military control of the civilian population.

It already happens in small doses in relation to operations in foreign lands, with whistleblowers and people who refuse an order on the grounds that it is either unlawful or reckless (This happens far more than people think).

While I was not there personally, my unit had a heavy presence at Katrina. New Orelans police drew down on National Guardsmen at one point, when the Guardsmen tried to bust up some Cops Gone Wild action involving wal mart, a pharmacy and some black folks skulls.

We cannot even get the multiple military branches to agree and cooperate on some of the most straighforward joint missions, thinking that they will suddenly come together to rape and pillage their own country is absured, even more absurd when you consider that at any given time, roughly half of the military will not approve of the current administration.

[rory_20_uk]

So... the best source of up-to-date weaponry is going to be from the state, operated by those that know how to use them. The biggest check against the state against its own people is its own people. Sounds reasonable to me.

In the Civil War, American soldiers did pillage their own country. The ability to do this is probably closer than you might think.

In this case, the populace doesn't need weapons that have any utility in overthrowing the government, merely ornaments to make them make up for their microphallus, or in some areas actually for hunting.

[Centurion1]

I think you are still ignoring the level of defection and deserters and "civilian acquisitions of military grade weapons" that would occur in the event of some sort of military control of the civilian population.

It already happens in small doses in relation to operations in foreign lands, with whistleblowers and people who refuse an order on the grounds that it is either unlawful or reckless (This happens far more than people think).

While I was not there personally, my unit had a heavy presence at Katrina. New Orelans police drew down on National Guardsmen at one point, when the Guardsmen tried to bust up some Cops Gone Wild action involving wal mart, a pharmacy and some black folks skulls.

We cannot even get the multiple military branches to agree and cooperate on some of the most straighforward joint missions, thinking that they will suddenly come together to rape and pillage their own country is absured, even more absurd when you consider that at any given time, roughly half of the military will not approve of the current administration.

Probably a bit more in favor of republican administrations if we look at the numbers....

[Major Robert Dump]

...and all that means that having a population armed is meaningless. When hits the fan, getting guns is no real problem. Having them before that is irreleant.

If you actually meant business with a "fight the power"-stance, you'd be supporting the draft, which will ensure that the vast majority of the population has military training and the army cannot be made up of just one segment of society, thus making it harder to turn on its own population.

Someone has been listening to John Kerry speeches again. This ain't Vietnam, dude (which used the draft, btw, and minorities were over represented due to the college exclusion)

I believe page vii you will find what you don't want to find

http://www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil...ics_Report.pdf

[Lemur]

Probably a bit more in favor of republican administrations if we look at the numbers....

Absolute hard numbers would be impossible to get, due to privacy laws, but recent studies suggest you're singing from an outdated hymnal.

1. The military, and especially its senior officers, are more Republican and conservative than the country as a whole. But the extent of this is grossly exaggerated, because the media naturally focuses on the attitudes of the officer corps, particularly more senior officers.
2. These differences are almost entirely explainable by the demographic makeup of the military, which is self-selected.
3. As with the rest of the country, the younger cohorts of the military—including its officer corps—are less Republican and less conservative. See, for example, the enormous swings in attitudes on gays in the military over the last 20 years.

[Major Robert Dump]

Probably a bit more in favor of republican administrations if we look at the numbers....

In favor is not the same as blind loyalty

There were plenty of detractors in the Bush military
And the Obama military is not on the verge of a coup

@Rory
The Civil War was 150 years ago. If comparisons to Afghanistan will not hold water, then neither will this.

[rory_20_uk]

People haven't altered in what they are like in the last 150 years. The point was that what was inconceivable in 1840 was undertaken in 1864.

[Ronin]

I´m with Chris Rock on this one...you guys don´t need gun control...you need bullet control.

[Montmorency]

In the Civil War, two states armed their own populaces and set them against each other in conventional military conflict.

[HoreTore]

Someone has been listening to John Kerry speeches again. This ain't Vietnam, dude (which used the draft, btw, and minorities were over represented due to the college exclusion)

I believe page vii you will find what you don't want to find

http://www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil...ics_Report.pdf

John Kerry? Vietnam?

Bloody hell mrd, I'm a euroweenie, of course my references aren't american. People are able to exclude themselves? Disallow exclusions then.

The reasons why Norwegian males are able to avoid it is because our military is both shrinking in size and moving towards professionalism, so the demand is lower than the annual crop of young males. That shouldn't a problem in the US, if your goal is to prepare the nation for tyrannical oppressors.

Don't worry about people unfit for service gets in; they don't exist. A guy in my battalion was so fat he actually didn't fit through the door of the coms containers. The army still found a use for him, and he was made a corporal as well...

And while such measures may have an effect on getting rid of a tyrant, it also makes it much easier for a would-be tyrant to take control, of course. A fanatical horde of armed and trained men(hello Hitler and Mussolini!) is any demagogoue's wet dream. What the "we must fight the oppressive state"-ideology really is, is a recipe for a protracted civil war in the event of a tyrant? It has no effect on the likelyhood of said tyrant gaining control.

[Major Robert Dump]

Some interesting things I found:

Shotguns and Assault weapons account for fewer deaths than knives.

Another interesting article about how violent crime is at its lowest since 1973.

A study done from prison inmates.

I think your graph is dated.

Looks like AW deaths have increased as of 2010, surpassing knives, page 27


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Actually, looks like your graph conveniently cut off right where the spike started to happen. Not blaming you for this, just pointing this out. I saw the page sourced the BJS so I went there and dug around a bit

[Major Robert Dump]

In the Civil War, two states armed their own populaces and set them against each other in conventional military conflict.

Two states armed hordes of poor, uneducated people whose best source of information was weekly newspapers and guys standing on corners shouting

[HoreTore]

I only just started reading this book which offers a different perspective on graphy-graphs....