Here are some primers for reading. Read them in order(I've included arguments from both sides), then let me know what you think. There is a good deal of reference to Australia as a test case.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/17-years-after- ... f-control/

http://theconversation.com/hard-evidenc ... work-18374

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... aves-lives

There is a lot of mythology built up around guns, that will have to be circumvented if any sort of solution to the present situation is to be found. It's a similar idea to, say, motorcycles. These are inherently more dangerous than travelling in a sedan with four wheels and air bags. I've not doubt though, that if any cycle enthusiasts are reading, they will now be rushing to their keyboards to tell me exactly how and why I am mistaken. If you were to ask some sort of AI computer what to do, it would no doubt say: through them in the ocean. Alas, any human resolution will not be nearly so easy.

Not that it hasn't been done. FDR sold the population on regulation of the market place, despite violent opposition. LBJ sold the people on increased civil rights. Some essential ingredients for success here are include a charismatic figure, and some dramatic events to prod folks in the right direction. We have seen plenty of the latter, but few of the former.

To an extent today, I think the gun issue has become a subset of a wider issue of Libertarian thought, or what might be more accurately described as corporate anarchy. It fits very neatly with the idea that community rights don't really exist, and if attempts by social organization are made to make them to so, that tends to lead to failure and inefficient waste. Wise business practice may prevail here, so this line goes, disregarding of course the unpleasant notion that self interest may well trump community interest . And if this is not to be, then it is the strong right arm of the individual, and/or his weapons, that will carry the day. Images of frontiersmen with flintlocks are popular at this point, enlisting nostalgia, patriotism, and Madison Avenue successes in one well packaged commercial.

If individuals are on their own, and government, and similar civic institutions are corrupt, or at least useless, then the alternatives are to arm for some sort of quasi road warrior society, or, put one's faith in a strong warlord, feudal style. Today of course, that entity is more likely to look like a group of corporate lobbyists, or a conservative think tank, than Genghis Khan.

We are very unlikely to have a road warrior society. But the image, if not the actual issue, fits a political style. The more financial, intellectual, and physical separation there is of disparate segments of modern society, again, the more alluring the idea of the individual. With no agency for common purpose, and materialism transcendent over humanism, so the more urgent the need for individual self defense, and indeed the more justified it is. An end product of this is the "stand your ground" laws, that means xenophobia and social isolation are such that discovering a dodgy looking teen in your garage means, shoot him, and do it now, and get away with it.

The actual world we live in is somewhat different to all this. It consists of declining crime rates, increasingly effective investigation techniques, and, paradoxically, increased societal wealth, which would allow for programs to address remaining violent social issues, but for a prevailing philosophy.

It is the national mind set that is the problem as much as the available firearms

In the US the problem is the second amendment, and the pro-gun lobby and who they're sleeping with in politics, and the revenue of guns n' ammo, and the government being unwilling and unable to do anything about nationwide change regarding laws. The latest several massacres that made the news...all legally owned weapons. Where we live they have "gun buy backs" several times a year. Bring in up to three weapons to one of several designated locations and get $300 a piece with no questions asked. It's an attempt to get at least some weapons off the street. But the problem is also the laxity of controls for buying weapons. One of my children is on the autism spectrum, she can speak fairly well, sign her name, read simple forms. In a few years she would conceivably be old enough to walk into a sports store and legally purchase a rifle. She has the cognitive reasoning of perhaps an eight year old. Do you see where there could be a problem? Minimal background checks, no way of evaluating if an individual has a mental illness or has a mental deficit. At least in the US gun violence is not going to change.

Guns should be regulated and insured just like cars are. If a gun is stolen, as with a car, that gun has to be reported stolen, otherwise, as with a car, if that gun kills someone, it is the responsibility of the last owner. And believe me, if insurance companies were insuring gun owners, it would weed out the mentally ill real quick. I’m tired of people saying that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Yeah, mentally ill people, so why not do the necessary background checks? And yes, cars do kill more people per capita, but cars were not designed specifically to kill. And as far as these open-carriers, what unbelievably irresponsible people. Only a matter of time one of these idiots gets shot by a non-open carrier protecting his family from someone walking into a public place with a machine gun and without his intentions being known. Funny that conservatives fight background checks for guns, but demand background checks for voting.

Milly Ross wrote: I’m tired of people saying that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Yeah, mentally ill people, so why not do the necessary background checks? And yes, cars do kill more people per capita, but cars were not designed specifically to kill. And as far as these open-carriers, what unbelievably irresponsible people. Only a matter of time one of these idiots gets shot by a non-open carrier protecting his family from someone walking into a public place with a machine gun and without his intentions being known. Funny that conservatives fight background checks for guns, but demand background checks for voting.

Personally I agree with some kind of license/register on purchase and ownership of guns. But my views does not change facts related to discussion.

You say you are tired of hearing "people kill people", and give implications of some causal relations.

If guns kill people there would be a proportional relation between number of guns and gun related deaths. Comparing statistics between countries one can see there being no causal relation. I find it hard to believe that being mentally ill is relevant factor as well.

The intent or purpose of using tools like guns are perhaps more interesting than the tools themselves. Why do people in the US interact differently than Canada to use one example?

VallHall, how can you not see how mental illness might be tied in with gun violence? Someone with anger management issues isn't a textbook case of mentally challenged necessarily however having access to firearms might lead such an individual to use it to solve an injustice. Lacking a weapon the individual might resort to fists, potentially lethal depending on the situation, but not as easily as having a gun or knife at one's disposal.

I have a cousin who carries a weapon during his commute through certain urban areas. I feel this is insanity to say the least. He lives in frickin' Minnesota, not Dodge City. If he were to feel threatened and open fire, only to find out that he had misjudged a situation...I actually live in a dicey area and there have been muggings locally, shootings and break-ins as well. But even as a petite sized senior citizen I feel safe.

Do I carry a weapon? No. Would I ever consider carrying a weapon or having one in my home? Absolutely not. I have a dog with a face that makes some grown men shriek like little girls. At home he's an obedient lap dog, but I trust him with my life when we're outside. He's not a loaded weapon, he's a well trained household pet. Better that people consider adopting a serious faced canine ...a way help all the homeless big galoots in the process win-win.

Vallhall wrote:

Milly Ross wrote: I’m tired of people saying that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Yeah, mentally ill people, so why not do the necessary background checks? And yes, cars do kill more people per capita, but cars were not designed specifically to kill. And as far as these open-carriers, what unbelievably irresponsible people. Only a matter of time one of these idiots gets shot by a non-open carrier protecting his family from someone walking into a public place with a machine gun and without his intentions being known. Funny that conservatives fight background checks for guns, but demand background checks for voting.

Personally I agree with some kind of license/register on purchase and ownership of guns. But my views does not change facts related to discussion.

You say you are tired of hearing "people kill people", and give implications of some causal relations.

If guns kill people there would be a proportional relation between number of guns and gun related deaths. Comparing statistics between countries one can see there being no causal relation. I find it hard to believe that being mentally ill is relevant factor as well.

The intent or purpose of using tools like guns are perhaps more interesting than the tools themselves. Why do people in the US interact differently than Canada to use one example?

We are in a form of virtual dialogue here, so I can only assume that you are engaging in a bit of virtual humor.

The correlation between gun ownership and gun death is massive and undeniable. The US has many more guns in circulation, and many more gun deaths. Canada has considerably less guns, and considerably less gun death. The UK has even less access to firearms, and even less death by gunfire.

And you don't believe someone with paranoid schizophrenia who is convinced God is telling him to kill the demon, that masquerades daily as an elementary school teacher at the local school, might just up the gun death statistics?

You are making light of a dark subject, I believe.

etudiant wrote: We are in a form of virtual dialogue here, so I can only assume that you are engaging in a bit of virtual humor.

The correlation between gun ownership and gun death is massive and undeniable. The US has many more guns in circulation, and many more gun deaths. Canada has considerably less guns, and considerably less gun death. The UK has even less access to firearms, and even less death by gunfire.

And you don't believe someone with paranoid schizophrenia who is convinced God is telling him to kill the demon, that masquerades daily as an elementary school teacher at the local school, might just up the gun death statistics?

You are making light of a dark subject, I believe.

I am only providing facts. Like the fact of correlation not being causation.

Listen to Steven Pinker about the subject. I recommend the entire segment. But to jump directly to the core of discussion you can start at 18:30.




I really don`t care what anyone believes, so I will not waste my time arguing. All I intended was to inform you about the problem being far more complex than the simple answer people would like it to be. Scientific data and examination of them are easy to find.

Vallhall wrote:I am only providing facts. Like the fact of correlation not being causation.

If guns kill people there would be a proportional relation between number of guns and gun related deaths. Comparing statistics between countries one can see there being no causal relation.

Correlation is as good as the data.

You say there is no causal relation between guns and gun related deaths between countries. That does not follow from there being no correlation, depending on the quality of the study you're referencing.

Do you have a link to your source? Did the source compare the US to similar countries? Prosperity, Laws, Population Density, Religiosity, and other qualitative measures were all equal?

When your data is good, and proper method is used, correlation hints at causation. The aphorism is that correlation doesn't "prove" causation. The fact is, correlation between data is necessary in showing causation. But it's really the quality of data that matters.

Etudiant mentions a comparison between Canada and the US. That's a close enough comparison. The two countries are the same with respect to many of the controls. I'd ask to see that data as well.

If the data is good, then the correlation hints at causation.


Here's a good article by Greg Laden on the aphorism, if anyone is interested: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/ ... elation-i/