Can Our Guns Protect Us From A North Korean Attack Or Are They For Just Shooting Our Fellow Americans?
(too old to reply)
Gun Lords of The NRA
2017-08-10 02:38:43 UTC
Raw Message
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only
part of the problem, though. The gun culture's worship of the
magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be
wielded against perceived enemies -- including the federal
government -- is a message that resonates with troubled
individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking
vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to
the Charleston killer who echoed the Tea Party mantra of taking
back our country. I've been researching gun violence -- and
what can be done to prevent it -- in the U.S. for 25 years. The
fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in
reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest
homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the
highest homicide rate (by a wide margin). The U.S. is by far
the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The
stricter gun laws of other "advanced countries" have restrained
homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents -- even when, in
some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from
their armed citizens. The state of gun control in the U.S.
Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including
Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the
unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws
to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe
storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with
stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort
was dealt a blow earlier this month when the U.S. Supreme Court
-- over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia --
refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns
not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive
step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every
year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the
hands of criminals and children. The dissenters, however, were
alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be
immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how
unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under
attack. For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of
violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the
period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal
violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime
Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a
gun in 99.2% of these incidents -- this in a country with 300
million guns in civilian hands. In fact, a study of 198 cases
of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in
Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping)
found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the
victim's gun than to have the victim use a firearm in
self-defense. The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman,
concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well
heed: On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat
is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a
bedside drawer. A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an
insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time
you need it, but has the constant potential -- particularly in
the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by
children and more attractive for use in crime -- to harm
someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large. More
guns won't stop gun violence For years, the NRA mantra has been
that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns would reduce
crime as they fought off or scared off the criminals. Some
early studies even purported to show that so-called right to
carry laws (RTC) did just that, but a 2004 report from the
National Research Council refuted that claim (saying it was not
supported by "the scientific evidence"), while remaining
uncertain about what the true impact of RTC laws was. Ten years
of additional data have allowed new research to get a better
fix on this question, which is important since the NRA is
pushing for a Supreme Court decision that would allow RTC as a
matter of constitutional law. The new research on this issue
from my research team at Stanford University has given the most
compelling evidence to date that RTC laws are associated with
significant increases in violent crime -- particularly for
aggravated assault. Looking at Uniform Crime Reports data from
1979-2012, we find that, on average, the 33 states that adopted
RTC laws over this period experienced violent crime rates that
are 4%-19% higher after 10 years than if they had not adopted
these laws. This hardly makes a strong case for RTC as a
constitutional right. At the very least more research is needed
to estimate more precisely exactly how much violent crime such
a decision would unleash in the states that have so far
resisted the NRA-backed RTC laws. In the meantime, can anything
make American politicians listen to the preferences of the 90%
on the wisdom of adopting universal background checks for gun

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. I suspect that the
country has also experienced a cultural shift between the shock
of the Port Arthur massacre and the removal of guns from every
day life as they are no longer available for self-defense and
they are simply less present throughout the country. Troubled
individuals, in other words, are not constantly being reminded
that guns are a means to address their alleged grievances to
the extent that they were in the past, or continue to be in the

2017-08-10 03:25:11 UTC
Raw Message
<snip> massive bullshit pitch for public disarmament and standing there
helpless as evil kills you. But no problem. You may be dead but YOU now
have the "high ground"!

And besides "comes the revolution" Comrade Pol Pot proved it's far
easier to murder citizens when they are defenseless and your men are armed.

Comrade Lenin reminds us that one Democrat with a gun can control 100
Republicans without them! Just watch those ball players scatter! Haw Haw!
2017-08-10 09:16:25 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Gun Lords of The NRA
The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only
part of the problem, though.
The problem is, gun control isn't an anti-crime measure, or it wouldn't be
directed at non-criminals.