CDZ The Dallas Shooter

[boedicca]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

There are 8 million of these rifles in private hands right now.....do you know how many people have been killed by these rifles.....wanna guess?

in 34 years 154 people have been murdered with these rifles....that's right....34 years....

Care to guess how many people have been killed by knives.....

in 2014 1,567 people were murdered by knives...and every year over 1,500 people are killed by knives over 6 times more people than are killed by all types of rifle.......

So......tell me again how bad these rifles are.....

The shooter also had military training, so next up the Loons will start labeling all veterans as a terror threat....oops, they already did.

Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’

WND? lol...what happened to you Bodie?

However, good. Right wing extremists are in this country in greater numbers than ISIS and are a far greater threat.

Clearly, your powers of observation are rather faulty.

I am not bodecea. She is my evil bearded twin from the anti-matter universe.

I was here first.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

If the shooter had used an assault rifle Reagan and Brady would have died almost instantly.

 

[320 Years of History]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

If the shooter had used an assault rifle Reagan and Brady would have died almost instantly.

Though I understand why you said that, the more likely reality is that were Hinkley to have used a rifle of pretty much any sort and at the same range in which he used his handgun, he probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to shoot Reagan or Brady. After all, he began shooting from just 10 feet away from the President. I think the Secret Service would have noticed him carrying a rifle long before he managed to fire it and either confiscated it or removed Hinkley from the scene.

 

[320 Years of History]

I haven't looked for this piece of information. I don't know if it has been published yet. How far was the Dallas shooter from his targets? To the best of my memory, if the Dallas shooter was quite distant (100+ yards) from his targets, this is the first instance in which a "crazed" civilian shooter used the long range ability of a rifle to kill multiple individuals.

 

[westwall]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

You claim that an outright gun ban will prevent those nasty guns from getting into the hands of bad people. My factual data refutes your assertion, totally, completely, and utterly. In other words, your assertion is not just false. But catastrophically so.

Look at what what asked and what I wrote in reply to it. I did not say anything about "bad people" or what guns they may get hold of. I'll repeat what question I answered and the question itself:

Question: How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Answer: I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.
​

I directly answered the question that was asked. I didn't go off on some tangent about "bad people" or how many guns "bad people" may obtain, how they may obtain them, or why.

Your statement is not material. It is a merely political statement that has no bearing on anything other than the illegal confiscation of weapons from law abiding citizens.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

You claim that an outright gun ban will prevent those nasty guns from getting into the hands of bad people. My factual data refutes your assertion, totally, completely, and utterly. In other words, your assertion is not just false. But catastrophically so.

Look at what what asked and what I wrote in reply to it. I did not say anything about "bad people" or what guns they may get hold of. I'll repeat what question I answered and the question itself:

Question: How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Answer: I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.
​

I directly answered the question that was asked. I didn't go off on some tangent about "bad people" or how many guns "bad people" may obtain, how they may obtain them, or why.

Your statement is not material. It is a merely political statement that has no bearing on anything other than the illegal confiscation of weapons from law abiding citizens.

Since when did giving a direct answer to a simple question become a political statement. Do you honestly think that were the assault weapons ban maintained there would be no fewer "assault weapons" in circulation than there are now?

 

[Howey]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

You claim that an outright gun ban will prevent those nasty guns from getting into the hands of bad people. My factual data refutes your assertion, totally, completely, and utterly. In other words, your assertion is not just false. But catastrophically so.

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

Gun control around the world
As an academic exercise, one might speculate whether law could play a constructive role in reducing the number or deadliness of mass shootings.
Most other advanced nations apparently think so, since they make it far harder for someone like the Charleston killer to get his hands on a Glock semiautomatic handgun or any other kind of firearm (universal background checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed countries).
• Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).
• Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.
• Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).
• France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).
• United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens.
While mass shootings as well as gun homicides and suicides are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these competitor nations.
While NRA supporters frequently challenge me on these statistics saying that this is only because "American blacks are so violent," it is important to note that white murder rates in the U.S. are well over twice as high as the murder rates in any of these other countries.
Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996
The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996 but none in the succeeding 19 years, is worth examining.
The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.
In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the country. A large array of weapons were banned -- including the Glock semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.
The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides)fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it a crime to use firearms in self-defense.
When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to close to one per 100,000 while the U.S. rate, thankfully lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000-- over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only about half the rate of the U.S. (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000 in the U.S. in 2012).
How did Australia do it? Politically, it took a brave prime minister to face the rage of Australian gun interests.
John Howard wore a bullet-proof vest when he announced the proposed gun restrictions in June 1996. The deputy prime minister was hung in effigy. But Australia did not have a domestic gun industry to oppose the new measures so the will of the people was allowed to emerge. And today, support for the safer, gun-restricted Australia is so strong that going back would not be tolerated by the public.
That Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996 is likely more than merely the result of the considerable reduction in guns -- it's certainly not the case that guns have disappeared altogether.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

If the shooter had used an assault rifle Reagan and Brady would have died almost instantly.

Though I understand why you said that, the more likely reality is that were Hinkley to have used a rifle of pretty much any sort and at the same range in which he used his handgun, he probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to shoot Reagan or Brady. After all, he began shooting from just 10 feet away from the President. I think the Secret Service would have noticed him carrying a rifle long before he managed to fire it and either confiscated it or removed Hinkley from the scene.

Refrain, if you would, from posting the obvious. NO KIDDING.

The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious but I guess not everyone knows the difference between a pistol round and what type ammo is used in an assault weapon. Hinkley used a very cheap $50 .22 pistol. The rounds were explosive rounds but the one that hit Reagan didn't explode. They think the one that hit Brady in the head did explode, but it was a .22 so even a direct hit in the head didn't kill him.

Velocity of a .22 long rifle about 1,200ft/sec
Velocity of a .223 round from an AR-15 about 3,200ft/sec

Nearly three times the velocity. Damage done to tissue corresponds to the energy contained in the projectile when it enters tissue. Brady's head would have likely exploded and Reagan wouldn't have made it to the hospital.

No one hit by Hinkley died from ten feet away because the gun he used fired the cartridge on the left. A .22 long rifle or similar, even an explosive round didn't kill Brady. The shooter in Dallas used a weapon that fired something similar to the cartridge on the right. From moderate distance on moving targets and he killed 5 people very rapidly.

This is the problem with assault rifles, it isn't the rifle, it is the ammo it uses. Pass a law so that all assault rifles can only physically use the cartridge on the left and there is no need to ban these weapons. They then become the same as an 1880's .22 rifle.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

 

[Howey]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

Correct. All at the behest of the NRA. Believe it or not, the NRA hasn't always been like this. At one time, before the crazies took over and before politicians realized there's money in guns, the NRA actually supported common sense gun control.

 

[320 Years of History]

Refrain, if you would, from posting the elementary school version of the obvious.

The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious...

It's not obvious that the comment was about the rounds used and not the weapon because the OP question to which you responded asks about weapons not the rounds they fire. Maybe the OP meant to ask about the rounds that different guns fire, but that's not what he asked about. He asked about the weapons, the gun itself

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

So I ask you, why was it not obvious to you that the question asked asks about the gun and not about the bullets the gun fires? Even the article the OP-er cites opens, "Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings." What about that makes you think the type of rounds fired are the central theme of the article and thus the central theme of the OP?

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

Correct. All at the behest of the NRA. Believe it or not, the NRA hasn't always been like this. At one time, before the crazies took over and before politicians realized there's money in guns, the NRA actually supported common sense gun control.

Red:
Yes, I'm aware of the history of the NRA. Those who aren't, or those who think they do, may care to read this: From my Cold Dead Hands": the role of the NRA in the lack of gun reform in the United States from 1996-2014.

Blue:
I agree.

Green:
I think that's a bit of a mischaracterization that places emphasis on the money aspect when the money aspect, though certainly present, wasn't the prime mover behind the alignment of the GOP with the NRA.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Refrain, if you would, from posting the elementary school version of the obvious.

The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious...

It's not obvious that the comment was about the rounds used and not the weapon because the OP question to which you responded asks about weapons not rounds in them. Maybe the OP meant to ask about the rounds that different guns fire, but that's not what he asked about. He asked about the weapons, the gun itself

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

So I ask you, why was it not obvious to you that the question asked asks about the gun and not about the bullets the gun fires? Even the article the OP-er cites opens, "Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings." What about that makes you think the type of rounds fired are the central theme of the article and thus the central theme of the OP?

Fair enough, my above post addresses why the rifle itself needs to be seen in context with the ammo it uses. And yes most people probably don't know the difference in the ammo, which is THE difference. The image posted should be sufficient to illuminate why the ammo, and thus the rifle that uses that ammo, is a problem. I could be clearer so I'll take responsibility for that.

 

[kaz]

!

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

Hey guys, if you support higher taxes on the rich, it cures acne!

If you oppose the wars in the middle east, you'll lose weight!

If you do more background checks, people who want to kill as many people as they can won't be able to get a gun and it'll be fine!

Oh, and did I mention the tooth fairy and the easter bunny?

 

[westwall]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

A completely untrue statement. What is funny is the CDC has been doing ongoing research into gun violence trying to classify it as a disease, and yet, if they truly wanted to reduce needless deaths all they would have to do is reduce the amount of deaths that doctors commit due to malpractice, misdiagnosis, faulty drug prescribing, and simple mistake. That amounts to (according to the AMA) 220,000 people per year. Compared to gun deaths at around 30,000 and it is quite easy to see where the most benefit would, and could, be done.

But, it doesn't further their political aim which is to turn this country into yet another third world failure.

 

[westwall]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

You claim that an outright gun ban will prevent those nasty guns from getting into the hands of bad people. My factual data refutes your assertion, totally, completely, and utterly. In other words, your assertion is not just false. But catastrophically so.

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

Gun control around the world
As an academic exercise, one might speculate whether law could play a constructive role in reducing the number or deadliness of mass shootings.
Most other advanced nations apparently think so, since they make it far harder for someone like the Charleston killer to get his hands on a Glock semiautomatic handgun or any other kind of firearm (universal background checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed countries).
• Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).
• Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.
• Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).
• France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).
• United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens.
While mass shootings as well as gun homicides and suicides are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these competitor nations.
While NRA supporters frequently challenge me on these statistics saying that this is only because "American blacks are so violent," it is important to note that white murder rates in the U.S. are well over twice as high as the murder rates in any of these other countries.
Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996
The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996 but none in the succeeding 19 years, is worth examining.
The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.
In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the country. A large array of weapons were banned -- including the Glock semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.
The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides)fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it a crime to use firearms in self-defense.
When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to close to one per 100,000 while the U.S. rate, thankfully lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000-- over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only about half the rate of the U.S. (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000 in the U.S. in 2012).
How did Australia do it? Politically, it took a brave prime minister to face the rage of Australian gun interests.
John Howard wore a bullet-proof vest when he announced the proposed gun restrictions in June 1996. The deputy prime minister was hung in effigy. But Australia did not have a domestic gun industry to oppose the new measures so the will of the people was allowed to emerge. And today, support for the safer, gun-restricted Australia is so strong that going back would not be tolerated by the public.
That Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996 is likely more than merely the result of the considerable reduction in guns -- it's certainly not the case that guns have disappeared altogether.

We get our information from non biased sources. Unlike the gun ban advocates. Here's the deal Howey. The laws they want ALREADY exist. France, and Norway both have even more draconian gun laws than what they are currently pushing for, and between the two of them they have had more people killed in their two mass shootings than the US has had in the last 20 years.

That is a fact that renders every gun ban argument false.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

A completely untrue statement. What is funny is the CDC has been doing ongoing research into gun violence trying to classify it as a disease, and yet, if they truly wanted to reduce needless deaths all they would have to do is reduce the amount of deaths that doctors commit due to malpractice, misdiagnosis, faulty drug prescribing, and simple mistake. That amounts to (according to the AMA) 220,000 people per year. Compared to gun deaths at around 30,000 and it is quite easy to see where the most benefit would, and could, be done.

But, it doesn't further their political aim which is to turn this country into yet another third world failure.

Blue:
Really? Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago

Red:
Well, then it should be quite simple for you to point us to one of those studies, shouldn't it?

 

[320 Years of History]

We get our information from non biased sources.

Really? I may have missed the posts in which that's happened, but among the posts in multiple "gun threads" I've read, I have never seen anyone post a peer reviewed objective research study that has not also been roundly discredited.

I have noticed that I often post peer reviewed studies that have not suffered from critical discrediting and I've noticed that folks frequently respond to the posts containing the links to those studies without having read the study(s), which is something I can tell because nobody would make the remarks some folks have made were they to have read the study.

So while you may be correct that the references the other member posted do come from biased sources (I don't know because I didn't read them), you cannot credibly claim that the opposing camp refrains from doing the same thing. The nature of the "gun debate" discussion on USMB strikes me as bickering back and forth among a bunch of "pots and kettles calling one another 'black.'"

 

[westwall]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

A completely untrue statement. What is funny is the CDC has been doing ongoing research into gun violence trying to classify it as a disease, and yet, if they truly wanted to reduce needless deaths all they would have to do is reduce the amount of deaths that doctors commit due to malpractice, misdiagnosis, faulty drug prescribing, and simple mistake. That amounts to (according to the AMA) 220,000 people per year. Compared to gun deaths at around 30,000 and it is quite easy to see where the most benefit would, and could, be done.

But, it doesn't further their political aim which is to turn this country into yet another third world failure.

Blue:
Really? Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago

Red:
Well, then it should be quite simple for you to point us to one of those studies, shouldn't it?

DOH! You know how they say "you couldn't write a story like that!" Here you go, TWO studies, among many, that were done by the CDC and the second link was last year. So....if they aren't allowed to do the research, why are they publishing the studies they are doing?

Hmmmmm?



PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE

"This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor. The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project."

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ii


DOH! NUMBER TWO....

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

A completely untrue statement. What is funny is the CDC has been doing ongoing research into gun violence trying to classify it as a disease, and yet, if they truly wanted to reduce needless deaths all they would have to do is reduce the amount of deaths that doctors commit due to malpractice, misdiagnosis, faulty drug prescribing, and simple mistake. That amounts to (according to the AMA) 220,000 people per year. Compared to gun deaths at around 30,000 and it is quite easy to see where the most benefit would, and could, be done.

But, it doesn't further their political aim which is to turn this country into yet another third world failure.

Blue:
Really? Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago

Red:
Well, then it should be quite simple for you to point us to one of those studies, shouldn't it?

DOH! You know how they say "you couldn't write a story like that!" Here you go silly person, TWO studies, among many, that were done by the CDC and the second link was last year. So....if they aren't allowed to do the research, why are they publishing the studies they are doing?

Hmmmmm?



PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE

"This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor. The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project."

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ii


DOH! NUMBER TWO....

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf

Thank you. I'll read them provided you tell me you think they are credible studies. Do you think they are credible studies?