Discussion of US gun laws

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BrassScorpion**

This is well written and well thought out. Michael Shermer's take on this topic:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/07/31/gun-control-and-the-law-of-large-numbers/

The Colorado Massacre, Gun Control, and the Law of Large Numbers
by Michael Shermer, Jul 31 2012

It is too soon to tell what the motive was behind the accused James Holmes’ mass murder in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, especially now that he has stopped talking to the authorities in charge of his case. Reports about his personality, thoughts, and behaviors from friends, fellow students, professors, and the police are conflicting. He was smart, brilliant in fact. No, he wasn’t; he was a sub-standard student who dropped out of his doctoral program at the University of Colorado after failing a preliminary exam. He was a quiet man who said nothing to indicate he was on the verge of cracking. Also not true; he left an incoherent and rambling voice message on the phone service of a gun club he wanted to join, the owner of which noted: “It was this deep, guttural voice, rambling something incoherent. I thought, ‘What is this idiot trying to be?’.” He rigged his apartment with explosive devices but then warned the police about them after his capture. Initial reports described the event as spontaneous and random, but he mailed a notebook to his psychiatrist at his university describing in detail with diagrams precisely what he (pre)planned to do.

It may be months before we have any clue to his mind and motive. And short of something obvious like a brain tumor pressing against his amygdala (the brain’s emotion center)—similar to that in the brain of Charles Whitman, the University of Texas bell tower shooter who in 1966 killed 49 people including himself after leaving a note to authorities to autopsy his brain because he felt there was something wrong—we may never know the motive behind James Holmes murderous actions.

We do know something for certain, however, and that is that this will happen again…and again and again. The reason is the law of large numbers that I will outline below that are disturbing enough that it really is now time to rethink our gun-control laws to include the prohibition of semi-automatic assault rifles like those Holmes’ allegedly used to murder 12 and wound another 58 in a matter of seconds. Had he not had such weapons—possessing, say, only a pistol purchased for self-defense—the tragedy would surely have been lessened. Thus, even though I am a life-long libertarian who champions freedom in all spheres of life and has previously opposed gun-control measures in principle (I do not personally enjoy hunting or recreational gun shooting), I now believe that the freedom of a few people to own WMMs (Weapons of Mass Murder) conflicts with the freedom of the rest of us to enter the public sphere without the chance of our ultimate freedom of life itself being cut short. Here are a few figures that should give even the most freedom-loving libertarian and conservative pause.

First, there’s a good chance that James Holmes is schizophrenic, suffered from severe depression, or is a psychopath. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, Schizophrenics account for about 1.1 percent of the U.S. population over the age of 18, with the onset of occurrence most likely in the early to mid 20s. Major depressive disorders strike about 6.7 percent of Americans over the age of 18. Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by lacking empathy and guilt, shallow emotions and cold-heartedness, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors, and most notably criminality. According to University of Cambridge psychologist Kevin Dutton, author of the forthcoming book The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, October 16, 2012), whom I queried for this article, “estimates of the incidence of psychopathy tend to vary from 1–3 percent in men to 0.5–1 percent in women,” and in prison populations “around 50 percent of the most serious crimes on record—crimes such as murder and serial rape, for instance—are committed by psychopaths.”

As a back-of-the-envelope calculation, let us employ a figure of 2 percent across these three disorders (Schizophrenia, major depression, and psychopathy) for men only (since such mass murders are almost always committed by men)—by the law of large numbers the following calculations indicate that the Aurora tragedy is by no means a one-off event and that it will happen again:

The current U.S. population is approximately 314 million, about half of which are males, so if 2% of the 157 million American men suffer from one of these severe disorders, this results in a figure of 3,140,000. Most of these men are not violent; in fact, recent studies on psychopathy, for example, show that many are successful CEOs, politicians, and Wall Street traders and executives who employ their psychopathic personality traits of tough-minded and emotionless impulsive decision making to great effect in the rough-and-tumble world of business and politics. And most Schizophrenics and sufferers of severe depression are not violent. So let’s conservatively estimate that if only 1% of these 3,140,000 men commit any kind of violent act, this results in 31,400 acts of violence per year, a nontrivial number.

If only 1% of those violent acts involve murders, this leaves us with 314 unnecessary tragic deaths caused by psychopaths. And, finally, if only 1% of those murderous violent acts involves killing multiple people at once, this results in a rate of 3.14 Aurora-size mass murders per year in America, which is actually lower than the rate of around a dozen per year that we have been averaging the past half century, depending on what constitutes a mass murder (school-shootings alone that amount to more than one killed in one event happen on average once a year in the U.S.).

Again, it’s too early to say whether or not Holmes was a Schizophrenic, suffered from severe depression, or was a psychopath, and the specific figures of how many mass murders there are per year vary across different data sets, but my point is a larger one: A large-numbers analysis allows us to understand on a societal-level scale why such events happen randomly and without any specific cause common to all (drugs, gangs, bullying, depression, psychopathy, psychosis, violent video games, and the like). History and population demographics for rates of mass murder show that Aurora-size events are going to happen again and again and again, and there is no way to predict who is going to do it, where, or when. (With the possible exception of a national database that tracks and alerts authorities to the purchase of mass quantities of guns and ammunition by private citizens.) All we know is that it will happen again—for certain.

Thus, damage control is the only option we have, if we want to do something about this tragic social problem. And by damage control I mean gun control. Specifically, I mean outlawing all automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles for anyone who is not in law enforcement or the military. When the Second Amendment was written stating that citizens have a right to “keep and bear arms,” rifles took over a minute to load one bullet at a time. The most crazed 18th century American could not possibly commit mass murder because no WMMs existed at the time.

My fellow libertarians are likely to see this as another loss of freedom, but I disagree. The principle of freedom states that all people are free to think, believe, and act as they choose, so long as they do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. But the freedom for me to swing my arm ends at your nose. The freedom for you to own any gun you like is in conflict with my freedom to interact freely with my fellow citizens in public spaces when so many madmen mingle among us. We should ban assault weapons of all kinds. We already disallow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, missiles, grenade launchers, and the like. WMMs that can be secreted into a movie theater should be categorized among those we can no longer tolerate. This is no loss of freedom. It is, in fact, an increase in freedom—the freedom to move about our living spaces without fear of being gunned down in cold blood.

If you think I am exaggerating, or that my calculations are nothing but mathematical hyperbole, just consider the case of Aurora victim Jessica Ghawi, who was almost gunned down in a shopping mall in Toronto in another public shooting the month before, after which she reflected on her blog: “I was shown how fragile life was on Saturday. I saw the terror on bystanders’ faces. I saw the victims of a senseless crime. I saw lives change. I was reminded that we don’t know when or where our time on Earth will end. When or where we will breathe our last breath.”

**Frazzled**

I'd rather rethink why crazy people keep getting found by psychiatrists, no one ever calls the authorities to check them out, and even if done so the authorities can't do anything until the wackjob blows a bunch of people away.

And your answer is restricting non crazy law abiding citizens from their Second Amendment RIghts.

Nuts.

**Relapse**

BrassScorpion wrote:This is well written and well thought out. Michael Shermer's take on this topic:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/07/31/gun-control-and-the-law-of-large-numbers/

The Colorado Massacre, Gun Control, and the Law of Large Numbers
by Michael Shermer, Jul 31 2012

It is too soon to tell what the motive was behind the accused James Holmes’ mass murder in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, especially now that he has stopped talking to the authorities in charge of his case. Reports about his personality, thoughts, and behaviors from friends, fellow students, professors, and the police are conflicting. He was smart, brilliant in fact. No, he wasn’t; he was a sub-standard student who dropped out of his doctoral program at the University of Colorado after failing a preliminary exam. He was a quiet man who said nothing to indicate he was on the verge of cracking. Also not true; he left an incoherent and rambling voice message on the phone service of a gun club he wanted to join, the owner of which noted: “It was this deep, guttural voice, rambling something incoherent. I thought, ‘What is this idiot trying to be?’.” He rigged his apartment with explosive devices but then warned the police about them after his capture. Initial reports described the event as spontaneous and random, but he mailed a notebook to his psychiatrist at his university describing in detail with diagrams precisely what he (pre)planned to do.

It may be months before we have any clue to his mind and motive. And short of something obvious like a brain tumor pressing against his amygdala (the brain’s emotion center)—similar to that in the brain of Charles Whitman, the University of Texas bell tower shooter who in 1966 killed 49 people including himself after leaving a note to authorities to autopsy his brain because he felt there was something wrong—we may never know the motive behind James Holmes murderous actions.

We do know something for certain, however, and that is that this will happen again…and again and again. The reason is the law of large numbers that I will outline below that are disturbing enough that it really is now time to rethink our gun-control laws to include the prohibition of semi-automatic assault rifles like those Holmes’ allegedly used to murder 12 and wound another 58 in a matter of seconds. Had he not had such weapons—possessing, say, only a pistol purchased for self-defense—the tragedy would surely have been lessened. Thus, even though I am a life-long libertarian who champions freedom in all spheres of life and has previously opposed gun-control measures in principle (I do not personally enjoy hunting or recreational gun shooting), I now believe that the freedom of a few people to own WMMs (Weapons of Mass Murder) conflicts with the freedom of the rest of us to enter the public sphere without the chance of our ultimate freedom of life itself being cut short. Here are a few figures that should give even the most freedom-loving libertarian and conservative pause.

First, there’s a good chance that James Holmes is schizophrenic, suffered from severe depression, or is a psychopath. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, Schizophrenics account for about 1.1 percent of the U.S. population over the age of 18, with the onset of occurrence most likely in the early to mid 20s. Major depressive disorders strike about 6.7 percent of Americans over the age of 18. Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by lacking empathy and guilt, shallow emotions and cold-heartedness, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors, and most notably criminality. According to University of Cambridge psychologist Kevin Dutton, author of the forthcoming book The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, October 16, 2012), whom I queried for this article, “estimates of the incidence of psychopathy tend to vary from 1–3 percent in men to 0.5–1 percent in women,” and in prison populations “around 50 percent of the most serious crimes on record—crimes such as murder and serial rape, for instance—are committed by psychopaths.”

As a back-of-the-envelope calculation, let us employ a figure of 2 percent across these three disorders (Schizophrenia, major depression, and psychopathy) for men only (since such mass murders are almost always committed by men)—by the law of large numbers the following calculations indicate that the Aurora tragedy is by no means a one-off event and that it will happen again:

The current U.S. population is approximately 314 million, about half of which are males, so if 2% of the 157 million American men suffer from one of these severe disorders, this results in a figure of 3,140,000. Most of these men are not violent; in fact, recent studies on psychopathy, for example, show that many are successful CEOs, politicians, and Wall Street traders and executives who employ their psychopathic personality traits of tough-minded and emotionless impulsive decision making to great effect in the rough-and-tumble world of business and politics. And most Schizophrenics and sufferers of severe depression are not violent. So let’s conservatively estimate that if only 1% of these 3,140,000 men commit any kind of violent act, this results in 31,400 acts of violence per year, a nontrivial number.

If only 1% of those violent acts involve murders, this leaves us with 314 unnecessary tragic deaths caused by psychopaths. And, finally, if only 1% of those murderous violent acts involves killing multiple people at once, this results in a rate of 3.14 Aurora-size mass murders per year in America, which is actually lower than the rate of around a dozen per year that we have been averaging the past half century, depending on what constitutes a mass murder (school-shootings alone that amount to more than one killed in one event happen on average once a year in the U.S.).

Again, it’s too early to say whether or not Holmes was a Schizophrenic, suffered from severe depression, or was a psychopath, and the specific figures of how many mass murders there are per year vary across different data sets, but my point is a larger one: A large-numbers analysis allows us to understand on a societal-level scale why such events happen randomly and without any specific cause common to all (drugs, gangs, bullying, depression, psychopathy, psychosis, violent video games, and the like). History and population demographics for rates of mass murder show that Aurora-size events are going to happen again and again and again, and there is no way to predict who is going to do it, where, or when. (With the possible exception of a national database that tracks and alerts authorities to the purchase of mass quantities of guns and ammunition by private citizens.) All we know is that it will happen again—for certain.

Thus, damage control is the only option we have, if we want to do something about this tragic social problem. And by damage control I mean gun control. Specifically, I mean outlawing all automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles for anyone who is not in law enforcement or the military. When the Second Amendment was written stating that citizens have a right to “keep and bear arms,” rifles took over a minute to load one bullet at a time. The most crazed 18th century American could not possibly commit mass murder because no WMMs existed at the time.

My fellow libertarians are likely to see this as another loss of freedom, but I disagree. The principle of freedom states that all people are free to think, believe, and act as they choose, so long as they do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. But the freedom for me to swing my arm ends at your nose. The freedom for you to own any gun you like is in conflict with my freedom to interact freely with my fellow citizens in public spaces when so many madmen mingle among us. We should ban assault weapons of all kinds. We already disallow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, missiles, grenade launchers, and the like. WMMs that can be secreted into a movie theater should be categorized among those we can no longer tolerate. This is no loss of freedom. It is, in fact, an increase in freedom—the freedom to move about our living spaces without fear of being gunned down in cold blood.

If you think I am exaggerating, or that my calculations are nothing but mathematical hyperbole, just consider the case of Aurora victim Jessica Ghawi, who was almost gunned down in a shopping mall in Toronto in another public shooting the month before, after which she reflected on her blog: “I was shown how fragile life was on Saturday. I saw the terror on bystanders’ faces. I saw the victims of a senseless crime. I saw lives change. I was reminded that we don’t know when or where our time on Earth will end. When or where we will breathe our last breath.”

I read that, insert statistics of the people drunk drivers kill and injure, then call for Whiskey to be more closely regulated and further say people should only be allowed one beer a week.
By doing so we will limit drunk drivers killing so many people as they do in a year.

**Jihadin**

Problem is not everyone thinks that way. Owning a vehicle regardless of type is "freedom". Drinking your brand of whiskey is "freedom". smoking your brand of cigerette is "freedom". owning a vast collection of knives including Klingon is "freedom" Eating your choice of high cholesteral food is "freedom". Owning certain type of fire arms is a "stigma"

**MrDwhitey**

Comparing all of those to firearms makes me smile.

And this is coming from someone who thinks people should be allowed to own guns, before Frazzled posts something silly at me.

**Relapse**

MrDwhitey wrote:Comparing all of those to firearms makes me smile.

And this is coming from someone who thinks people should be allowed to own guns, before Frazzled posts something silly at me.

Here's one of many good examples I can give of a drunk driver killing as many or more people than someone with a gun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision

The thing is drunk drivers kill about as many people yearly as people with guns do. The answer, obviously is to cut down on the amount and type of alcohol people are allowed to drink.

**Jihadin**

All those things have one thing in common. Personnal Responsibility

**Bromsy**

We all know the answer to all of this.

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:Comparing all of those to firearms makes me smile.

And this is coming from someone who thinks people should be allowed to own guns, before Frazzled posts something silly at me.

Your wish is my command.

**BaronIveagh**

Not sure about the rest of it, but Shermer has one thing wrong I can spot right out:
An experienced person with a muzzle-loader can manage three shots a minute and deal far more substantial damage per shot then most modern firearms, depending on load.

I will point out that this garbage is pure propaganda. I love the idea that 'the most crazed 18th Century American could not commit mass murder'. I draw your attention to one Barnett Davenport, veteran of the Revolutionary war and mass murderer. A gun was even involved, but only in the portion of his Feb 3rd, 1780 killing spree where he beat one man to death with his own firearm.

**thenoobbomb**

Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

**streamdragon**

I like the way that article casually mentions him booby trapping his apartment and then goes on to conclude he wouldn't have killed as many people if he didnt have the gun the gun that jammed on him.

It took the way cops about three days to disarm the traps on his door and his apartment, if I remember the timeline correctly. Sans his assault rifle perhaps he would have simply brought explosives with him?

Obviously I can't know if he would or wouldn't have, but if the guy was determined to cause as much harm as possible, there are plenty of methods beyond a jamming assault rifle for him to use, while avenues of self defense would become more limited if some had their way. Makes no sense to me.

**AustonT**

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Lots of stuff. Keep poor hill people like me and mine fed. And stuff like this.
http://mommyish.com/stuff/oklahoma-teen-mom-sarah-mckinley-shoots-and-kills-intruder-to-protect-3-month-old-baby-268/

**thenoobbomb**

AustonT wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Lots of stuff. Keep poor hill people like me and mine fed. And stuff like this.
http://mommyish.com/stuff/oklahoma-teen-mom-sarah-mckinley-shoots-and-kills-intruder-to-protect-3-month-old-baby-268/

The news, true, and I'm okay with guns for hunting, but I'm not really happy 'bout keepin firearms in houses. Sure, I don't leave in the US, but I think more murders are comitted thanks to that as well.

**streamdragon**

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

**purplefood**

streamdragon wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

This is why we killed everything that was a threat to us in Britain...

**streamdragon**

Oh these werent feral or anything; they had collars and tags. We saw them in their owners yard later and I warned her if I saw her dogs chasing my animals again she eas unlikely to get them back.

Couple months laterthey got out again and killed some goats in another farm nearby. Animal control ended up taking them away I believe.

**thenoobbomb**

Well, I can see what your point is there, but it seems so stereotypical

'They eatin' mah dogs! Lets shoot 'em, ned!'
Also, the British can do good things indeed.

**Frazzled**

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Good for what? Whats your question?

**AustonT**

purplefood wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

This is why we killed everything that was a threat to us in Britain...

Cept for those big cats....

**Frazzled**

purplefood wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

This is why we killed everything that was a threat to us in Britain...

We have manlier beasts. Not only can jackalopes breed like rabbits, but they can do the one hundred yard dash in seven seconds to impale you.

**thenoobbomb**

The English are manlier.
They got tea and scones

**purplefood**

AustonT wrote:
purplefood wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

This is why we killed everything that was a threat to us in Britain...

Cept for those big cats....

Those damn cats...
Everytime we're sure they don't exist something damn well turns up that's part way convincing that they exist somewhere...
And it's not like Britain is that big! You'd have thought there is someway would could find the damn things with the technology we have today...

**streamdragon**

thenoobbomb wrote:Well, I can see what your point is there, but it seems so stereotypical
'They eatin' mah dogs! Lets shoot 'em, ned!'
Also, the British can do good things indeed.

Except for the part where I didnt want to shoot them, sure. But I had no intention of trying to chase off just about any breed of dog unarmed, let alone two pitbulls.

And Im not sure what Brits doing good things has to do with anything but sure!

**filbert**

AustonT wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Lots of stuff. Keep poor hill people like me and mine fed. And stuff like this.
http://mommyish.com/stuff/oklahoma-teen-mom-sarah-mckinley-shoots-and-kills-intruder-to-protect-3-month-old-baby-268/

This is all well and good but the point is for every success story about someone fending off an intruder by use of a gun, you have ten stories of people getting shot, or a toddler getting killed because he/she found an unsecured gun, or an intruder breaks in, finds a gun and shoots the homeowner and so on and so forth. At what point does the ineffable right to bear arms and hunt and all that good stuff get outweighed by all the other bad crap that comes from having a society filled with guns? I think that is what the European mentality struggles to understand; I would love to go and hunt owls or something but on the whole, I would rather not run the risk of being shot by a robber or in a bank or in a cinema, and whichever way you look at it, there is much less risk of that happening here, not because we are a more peaceful or different society but purely by dint of not having millions of firearms floating about. I'm sure guns can be a force for good in the proper and trained hands; but surely the events of the past few weeks and years have demonstrated that too many times, the wrong pair of hands are the ones handling the weapons, whether it is the nut on a rampage, the robber on the street or simply the idiot who can't keep his guns locked up away from his kids.

**AustonT**

filbert wrote:

This is all well and good but the point is for every success story about someone fending off an intruder by use of a gun, you have ten stories of people getting shot, or a toddler getting killed because he/she found an unsecured gun, or an intruder breaks in, finds a gun and shoots the homeowner and so on and so forth. At what point does the ineffable right to bear arms and hunt and all that good stuff get outweighed by all the other bad crap that comes from having a society filled with guns? I think that is what the European mentality struggles to understand; I would love to go and hunt owls or something but on the whole, I would rather not run the risk of being shot by a robber or in a bank or in a cinema, and whichever way you look at it, there is much less risk of that happening here, not because we are a more peaceful or different society but purely by dint of not having millions of firearms floating about. I'm sure guns can be a force for good in the proper and trained hands; but surely the events of the past few weeks and years have demonstrated that too many times, the wrong pair of hands are the ones handling the weapons, whether it is the nut on a rampage, the robber on the street or simply the idiot who can't keep his guns locked up away from his kids.

Well Fil:

At what point does the ineffable right to bear arms and hunt and all that good stuff get outweighed by all the other bad crap that comes from having a society filled with guns?

When the elected representatives of the United States overturn the second amendment to the constitution.

surely the events of the past few weeks and years have demonstrated that too many times, the wrong pair of hands are the ones handling the weapons, whether it is the nut on a rampage, the robber on the street or simply the idiot who can't keep his guns locked up away from his kids.

Not really, You and I *probably* have a fundamental difference of opinion on firearms. I'm ok with that. There are perfectly good and decent arguments for gun control. I see incidents like those as exceptions rather than the rule. Overall firearms are tools, not just tools but machines. Machines for many purposes kill and maim, that's pretty much the way it is. If it wasn't guns it would be clubs, knives, or bare hands. It's fairly easy to kill a person, guns just make it easier. A common comparison made is that automobiles kill a pretty close number of people as guns, but that includes suicide. If you remove suicide from both, which is a conscious, even if tragic, decision. The number skews overwhelmingly to automobiles. No one is agitating to remove cars from our streets. Guns are simply more emotive than cars.

The United States has enacted gun control in stages on several occasions. The result has typically been seen in an increase in murder and non negligent manslaughter. The sole exception being the assault weapons ban, the expiration of which has not seen a particular growth in gun violence in the past 8 years. Certainly not in the manner murder exploded following the gun control act of 1968, or the Hughes amendment in 1986. All four of which didn't happen in a vacuum.

**BaronIveagh**

In the 1830's, a man in France committed mass murder with a billhook. A week ago, one in China managed to kill six and wound ten with a knife.

**MrMerlin**

BaronIveagh wrote:In the 1830's, a man in France committed mass murder with a billhook. A week ago, one in China managed to kill six and wound ten with a knife.

Now, what do you want to say with that? Imagine that chinese had had access to a semi automatic rifle.... things would have been MUCH worse. So actually, the fact that you can't get a gun easily in china saved a few lifes!

**Melissia**

Or... not really. All it takes is a crazed man with a sharp object or three to go on a killing spree.

**Nocturn**

GalacticDefender wrote:
Poppabear wrote:Guns kill people.... simple as that.

And guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people

You guys have it all wrong. Bullets don't kill people. A lack of molecular integrity in the skin cells of the person being shot is the real danger here.