[Mr Tonka]

In the Washington Post of all places...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.d2d2801720c7

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

[gonzo]

Him?

[Haywood]

Originally Posted by JIMT8292

Any country that can see 20 children murdered in a school and still do nothing isn't a country I would want to live in or be proud to call my home.

Excellent. Don't come here. I love going to the UK, but would never live there since half your salary goes to a Royal family who does nothing. Also, your gov't doesn't protect their citizens from terrorist attacks. Why would I want to call that home? See how ignorant that sounds?

[1 AKY]

Originally Posted by Haywood

Excellent. Don't come here. I love going to the UK, but would never live there since half your salary goes to a Royal family who does nothing. Also, your gov't doesn't protect their citizens from terrorist attacks. Why would I want to call that home? See how ignorant that sounds?

Are you capable of pointing to the UK if given a world map?

[Lups]

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

Are you capable of pointing to the UK if given a world map?

Can you point out Kansas?

[JIMT8292]

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

Are you capable of pointing to the UK if given a world map?

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Maestro

I meant drugs prescribe by a Dr, there are lots of Legal drugs that cause people all kind of issues, most times the person just kills themselves, in a few case they take others with them. Think about the guy in the Colorado movie theater. No one want to talk about this guy, there were warning all over the place and this guy complained about his drugs making him feel like he wanted to kill people. No one want to hear this it was the guns fault, all guns must go since drugs your Dr prescribes to you can make you kill people.

Not to mention he purposely drove 20 miles past dozens of movie theaters to this particular one because this one didn't allow firearms. It was a gun free theater. Nobody mentions that either.

[insanecoder]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Sounds similar to what Austrailia did a while back. Their annual murder rate is the same as it was before they banned guns. Taking one tool away won't stop the real problem. It makes it very marginally harder.

The guy owned two planes... if he had not used guns, I wonder what he would have done.

EXACTLY
its people who kill other people
NOT guns or knives etc

people made the decision to use it to murder others.. a gun/knife is a tools & knows no conscience

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by Lups

Can you point out Kansas?

I'm not sure I could point out Kansas, but I bet I would be pretty damn close!

[Lups]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

I'm not sure I could point out Kansas, but I bet I would be pretty damn close!

Don't worry, i tried to find that state three times, and found it only once while driving through usa.

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Sounds similar to what Austrailia did a while back. Their annual murder rate is the same as it was before they banned guns. Taking one tool away won't stop the real problem. It makes it very marginally harder.

The guy owned two planes... if he had not used guns, I wonder what he would have done.

Originally Posted by Lups

Can you point out Kansas?

That is where Dorothy is from right?

Originally Posted by insanecoder

EXACTLY
its people who kill other people
NOT guns or knives etc

people made the decision to use it to murder others.. a gun/knife is a tools & knows no conscience

This whole debate over whether guns are the problem is fruitless--sure if there were no guns at all then there would not be anyone killed by guns. So, what about airplanes, vehicles and bombs? Ban all of those? Obviously if is easier to get an assault weapon than use an airplane and a good bomb is probably several levels more difficult than acquiring some guns.

But the latest tactic of using a vehicle is as easy at it gets and there are plenty of outdoor festivals, parades etc where large casualties would be inevitable.

I will go as far as it does seem as if Assault weapons have very little place for citizens other than entertainment, but the notion of removing all guns from a society entrenched with them is a pipe dream.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

A vast majority of Americans do so that is a pretty solid guess.

What are you talking about?

[img]https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod...IWZIBEHZ3A.png[/img]

[Lups]

Oh damn, that bitch probably has made some horny teenager google the location.

[CosmosMpower]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

True, not everyone is William Munny. But if you have 2 or 3 guys coming for you, 8 shots should be enough. You will either scare off the bad guys, or your 2 or 3 guys against you ends with you (probably) getting killed, whether you have 3 or 30 bullets in your magazine. Plus, I would think defending your home with a shotgun would be far preferential than any kind of rifle or pistol, and those typically hold 3+1 shells.

Let's see, if you miss more than half the time and have 8 rounds, you have 3-4 rounds. Have you seen what someone being shot once with an average handgun round does? Typically they carry on what they were doing before you shot them if you don't hit the central nervous system or wait until they bleed out enough to stop functioning.

The best gun for home defense would be whatever gun you have trained on, are comfortable with, can clear a malfunction on without thinking and matches your living situation. I'd take a .223 over a shotgun personally. Birdshot is not an effective round, buckshot will go through walls into other rooms and .223 is both effective and breaks apart in drywall into fragments.

[Mr Tonka]

Another good article.

This week, an evil human being murdered nearly 60 Americans and wounded more than 500 others in Las Vegas. His attack was well-planned: The shooter had some 23 guns in his hotel room, including a semi-automatic rifle affixed with a "bump stock" allowing the shooter to operate the rifle like an automatic weapon; he had another 19 guns in his home. Video of the incident is chilling: the rat-a-tat of the gun raining bullets down on unsuspecting innocents from the hulking profile of the Mandalay Bay on the horizon, the wounded concertgoers screaming in the darkness.

But there was heroism, too.

The stranger who threw his body atop Amy McAslin and Krystal Goddard to shield them from the rifle fire. "Just truly incredible," McAslin later said, "a stranger, jumping over me to protect me."

The off-duty nurse from Orange County who told local news that she ran back into the danger to help the wounded: "I'm a nurse and I just felt that I had to ... There was so many people, just normal citizens, doctors, cops, paramedics, nurses, just off duty. ... It was completely horrible, but it was absolutely amazing to see all those people come together."

The anonymous man who threw 18-year-old Addison Short over his shoulder and carried her to safety. The couple who pulled their truck over to carry the wounded to the hospital. The off-duty police using their own bodies to cover the vulnerable. The father who protected his children from gunfire, saying, "They're 20. I'm 53. I lived a good life." Jonathan Smith, a 30-year-old who reportedly saved up to 30 lives, taking a bullet to the neck in the process.

It took hundreds of heroes to save hundreds of people; it took one evil man to wound and kill that many.

On the one hand, it is impossible not to lament the extent of evil: A man attacking those who harmed him in no way, possibly gleefully murdering people attending a concert, makes us wonder at the rot that can infect the human heart. But on the other hand, in each incident of horror we must remember how much the good outweighed the evil. Were there hundreds of people like Stephen Paddock, thousands would have died; were there only one person attempting to stop the impact of Paddock's evil, thousands would have died.

All of which means that as we mourn the victims in Las Vegas, we must also celebrate the heroes. We should see the incident as proof of just how much light infuses America from its citizens — how many normal people run to help each other when evil strikes, when darkness threatens to divide us. So long as that light continues to unite us, America will emerge ready, as always, to fight that darkness.

[Haywood]

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

Are you capable of pointing to the UK if given a world map?

Been there many times for a few football games. It just rains all the time. It's funny how ignorant you all are when I talk American politics with folks there. It's the same liberal bullshit the MSM spews here.

[CosmosMpower]

Originally Posted by JIMT8292

I don't know how you stop people renting vans and running people over but here in the UK we do have a pretty good success rate at stopping alot of attacks and as a result have suffered less than those in mainland Europe.

If I was American I'd support any change in the law that aimed to reduce gun ownership.

I would make all hand guns and semi auto guns illegal from 1st Jan 2020.

I would ask people to hand all soon to be illegal guns in at disposal centres and compensate them at $500 a weapon (it'll be worthless in 2 years and will land you in prison).

I would then allow any firearms licence holder own a max of two long barrelled weapons after they had re-applied for their licence with new licencing laws and background checks.

I would then have a fixed 5 year prison sentance for anyone illegally holding a firearm.

I'm not stupid enough to think it will ever happen as there is alot of stupid people in the world.

... and for the record it breaks my heart to see whats happening in your country, I've only been once and loved it but your children deserve a better way of living. Stop being afraid of everyone and everything.

Don't ask anymore questions as I'm done with this thread now.

Have a nice day

Now I know how you fools lost the war

Also....

[1MOREMOD]

Can't legislate thought or behavior. Bad people will still be that way no matter the consequences. Ask me how I know

[Banana Hammock]

For fuck sakes.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

What are you talking about?

[img]https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod...IWZIBEHZ3A.png[/img]

Bet they're including illegal households. Notice they say %, don't define it. Also notice they don't say there's a growing number of households. If they used number of gun owners it would be an upward line.

[geogerf]

I know for some, this was just "in another part of the world" but real people died here guys.

This was my friend (the girl):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e38_story.html

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by geogerf

I know for some, this was just "in another part of the world" but real people died here guys.

This was my friend (the girl):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e38_story.html

Terrible, I just found out an old friend of mine was there. She got out safely, fortunately.