Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Switzerland and Australia are two countries we could learn a lot from in terms of reducing gun violence.

Switzerland has over 2 million guns (about .25 guns for every citizen) and guns are very important to them culturally (they have a large shooting contest for 13-18 year olds each year, and see gun ownership as a patriotic way to guard against potential invasions) but hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001 and often have less than 50 gun related homicides per year in a country with over 8 million people.

Specific laws that reduce gun violence in Switzerland include:

1) Gun sellers follow strict licesning procedures : Gun permits are doled out locally and they keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region in what they call a "canton." Cantonal police don't take their duty doling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived to vet the person.

2) Violent people or those with substance abuse issues can't have guns: People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland.

Those who "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" also can't own a gun.

Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" also have to prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license.

3) The Swiss banned the use of automatic weapons, silencers, laser sights, and heavy machine guns.

https://www.businessinsider.com/swit...-deaths-2018-2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjlT4BME2aE



Australia had a mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996 in which 35 people died.
The Australian Government, then led be a Conservative named John Howard pushed through strict gun laws 12 days later.

The laws: 1) Banned semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession.

2) Forced people to provide a legitimate reason to own a gun, and to wait 28 days to buy a firearm.

3) Had a massive mandatory buyback of guns, resulting in the confiscation and destruction of about 700,000 guns reducing gun-owning households by half.

Australia has had only 1 mass shooting since 1996, and gun violence has been reduced by over half.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Arc3c8Pc8

The problem here is that these figures given do not address what the rates and trends were before the bans - only looking at after the bans. That can't tell us much.

Switzerland
I looked up such incidents in these nations, by using a common search. I'm not claiming a masters thesis here. Switzerland has had 5 massacres since 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Switzerland). One in 1912, 1932 (a police shooting on protestors incident, not really the same thing as we are discussing here as the State is exempted from gun regulations across the world and in every serious proposal I have ever seen), 1976, 2001, and 2015.

So we have had 1 in the 21 years since their 2001 ban you discussed. They had last had one 25 years before the ban. Before that one in 1976, it had really been since 1912 that this happened. We have 4 real incidents, 2 before, the 1 precipitating the ban, and one after the ban. This is a truly tiny sample size, but nothing here suggests that gun control laws have reduced massacres (technically they are up after the ban, but with a sample of 1 that is just as garbage data)

The homicide rate appears to have declined after the ban. It was also declining before the ban though, as it was in most places in the first world during this period. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...-homicide-rate. It does not looks like this reduced the murder rate.

The laser sight provision seems odd to me as a shooter - it is about the least efficient method of target acquisition that exists. Old school iron sights are faster to get on target than a laser in most use cases.


Australia

There's too many in Australia to list every one as I did in Switzerland. 1996 was 26 years ago, so splitting into blocks that size and counting off the list by hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Australia):

1969-1995: 20
1996: 2
1997-2022: 37

It does not seem to me that this ban has reduced massacres whatsoever. Massacres have almost doubled since the ban. I doubt that has anything whatsoever to do with the ban, but the data pretty clearly tells us it has not reduced massacres (or if it has, something else has happened that more than offsets its effect and made things worse).

The overall homicide rate follows the first world global trend, it goes up some years, down some years, but the overall is a downward glide (a very good thing). This glide did not begin with the ban. It's about flat on the whole from 1995-2000 (1998 was a good year, 1999 a bad year). Again, the data does not suggest that this ban saved lives. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...-homicide-rate

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

The problem here is that these figures given do not address what the rates and trends were before the bans - only looking at after the bans. That can't tell us much.

Switzerland
I looked up such incidents in these nations, by using a common search. I'm not claiming a masters thesis here. Switzerland has had 5 massacres since 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Switzerland). One in 1912, 1932 (a police shooting on protestors incident, not really the same thing as we are discussing here as the State is exempted from gun regulations across the world and in every serious proposal I have ever seen), 1976, 2001, and 2015.

So we have had 1 in the 21 years since their 2001 ban you discussed. They had last had one 25 years before the ban. Before that one in 1976, it had really been since 1912 that this happened. We have 4 real incidents, 2 before, the 1 precipitating the ban, and one after the ban. This is a truly tiny sample size, but nothing here suggests that gun control laws have reduced massacres (technically they are up after the ban, but with a sample of 1 that is just as garbage data)

The homicide rate appears to have declined after the ban. It was also declining before the ban though, as it was in most places in the first world during this period. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...-homicide-rate. It does not looks like this reduced the murder rate.

The laser sight provision seems odd to me as a shooter - it is about the least efficient method of target acquisition that exists. Old school iron sights are faster to get on target than a laser in most use cases.


Australia

There's too many in Australia to list every one as I did in Switzerland. 1996 was 26 years ago, so splitting into blocks that size and counting off the list by hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Australia):

1969-1995: 20
1996: 2
1997-2022: 37

It does not seem to me that this ban has reduced massacres whatsoever. Massacres have almost doubled since the ban. I doubt that has anything whatsoever to do with the ban, but the data pretty clearly tells us it has not reduced massacres (or if it has, something else has happened that more than offsets its effect and made things worse).

The overall homicide rate follows the first world global trend, it goes up some years, down some years, but the overall is a downward glide (a very good thing). This glide did not begin with the ban. It's about flat on the whole from 1995-2000 (1998 was a good year, 1999 a bad year). Again, the data does not suggest that this ban saved lives. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...-homicide-rate

Your wikipedia link doesn't work when I click on it. Where are you seeing 37 "massacres" from 1997 - 2022?

Switzerland has ALWAYS had stronger gun laws than the U.S. so there isn't an exact before-and-after time to compare to.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Your wikipedia link doesn't work when I click on it. Where are you seeing 37 "massacres" from 1997 - 2022?

Switzerland has ALWAYS had stronger gun laws than the U.S. so there isn't an exact before-and-after time to compare to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Looks like the earlier link is picking up an extra paren.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Looks like the earlier link is picking up an extra paren.

Not sure I see the relevance of your link to the discussion, other than to point out that the "massacres" are not mass-murders caused by guns. They include fires, car accidents.

You may wish to consider actual studies done on the topic, such as
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...agreement.html that show that gun violence has been reduced dramatically by the 1996 laws in Australia

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not sure I see the relevance of your link to the discussion, other than to point out that the "massacres" are not mass-murders caused by guns. They include fires, car accidents.

You may wish to consider actual studies done on the topic, such as
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...agreement.html that show that gun violence has been reduced dramatically by the 1996 laws in Australia

So we do not care about massacres using any other tool; it only requires bans if it's a gun that was used because it's a gun that was used? If massacres using other tools are way up after a gun ban, this doesn't signify anything? I guess this is largely about perspective, I would think the reasonable goal would be reducing killings and massacres, not shifting on an island the weapon used to commit the murder. An innocent stabbed is not less tragic than an innocent shot.

We'll list every gun massacre:

1970-1995: 14
Hope Forrest Massacre
Campsie murders
Party shooting spree
Wahroonga murders
Milperra massacre
Pymble shootings
Top End shootings
Hoddle street massacre
Queen Street massacre
Oenpelli shootings
Surry hills shootings
Strathfield massacre
Central coast massacre
Canai seige


1996: 2
Hill crest murders
Port Arthur Massacre

1997-2022: 14
Wright St. Bikie Murders
Monash University Shooting
Oakhampton Heights shooting
Hectorville Seige
Hunt family murders
Wedderburn shooting
Sydney hostage crisis
Parramatta shooting
Port Lincoln murders
Brighton siege
Osmington shooting
Hills District murders
Darwin shooting
Melbourne nightclub drive-by shooting

So.... it's exactly the same. Gun massacres have not changed, total massacres have almost doubled, even as overall crime and homicide has decreased for many many years before and after the bans.

I too can produce studies from my side claiming the opposite. I don't like to hide behind an appeal to authority though, I like to look at the data. I have other concerns, I don't think turning things people did when it was legal into a crime overnight like bans do, I like the Constitution, I believe a fellow has the right to defend himself and his family with the prevalent tools of the time and should not be forced to be outraged by the criminals. These are personal opinions I have though and on which we may all reasonably differ. Whether or not a particular action has led to the solution it was intended is something we can look at more objectively. The data does not suggest that these bans have accomplished anything.

I would even posit that there is somewhere in the world where heavy regulation probably HAS actually had an impact, in a place where arms ownership was not so commonplace, valued so highly, and there were far fewer millions with the technical know-how to maintain or build their own arms.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

So we do not care about massacres using any other tool; it only requires bans if it's a gun that was used because it's a gun that was used? If massacres using other tools are way up after a gun ban, this doesn't signify anything? I guess this is largely about perspective, I would think the reasonable goal would be reducing killings and massacres, not shifting on an island the weapon used to commit the murder. An innocent stabbed is not less tragic than an innocent shot.

We'll list every gun massacre:

1970-1995: 14
Hope Forrest Massacre
Campsie murders
Party shooting spree
Wahroonga murders
Milperra massacre
Pymble shootings
Top End shootings
Hoddle street massacre
Queen Street massacre
Oenpelli shootings
Surry hills shootings
Strathfield massacre
Central coast massacre
Canai seige


1996: 2
Hill crest murders
Port Arthur Massacre

1997-2022: 14
Wright St. Bikie Murders
Monash University Shooting
Oakhampton Heights shooting
Hectorville Seige
Hunt family murders
Wedderburn shooting
Sydney hostage crisis
Parramatta shooting
Port Lincoln murders
Brighton siege
Osmington shooting
Hills District murders
Darwin shooting
Melbourne nightclub drive-by shooting

So.... it's exactly the same. Gun massacres have not changed, total massacres have almost doubled, even as overall crime and homicide has decreased for many many years before and after the bans.

I too can produce studies from my side claiming the opposite. I don't like to hide behind an appeal to authority though, I like to look at the data. I have other concerns, I don't think turning things people did when it was legal into a crime overnight like bans do, I like the Constitution, I believe a fellow has the right to defend himself and his family with the prevalent tools of the time and should not be forced to be outraged by the criminals. These are personal opinions I have though and on which we may all reasonably differ. Whether or not a particular action has led to the solution it was intended is something we can look at more objectively. The data does not suggest that these bans have accomplished anything.

I would even posit that there is somewhere in the world where heavy regulation probably HAS actually had an impact, in a place where arms ownership was not so commonplace, valued so highly, and there were far fewer millions with the technical know-how to maintain or build their own arms.

Of the gun "massacres" from 1997-2022 you sight, most of them are of 2 or 3 people, something that occurs virtually EVERY DAY in the USA. The few that exceeded 3 are generally restricted to a single household.

You say that you can produce studies showing that Australia's guns laws have not reduced gun violence, but you haven't produced any.

Instead you have cited Wikipedia.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Of the gun "massacres" from 1997-2022 you sight, most of them are of 2 or 3 people, something that occurs virtually EVERY DAY in the USA. The few that exceeded 3 are generally restricted to a single household.

You say that you can produce studies showing that Australia's guns laws have not reduced gun violence, but you haven't produced any.

Instead you have cited Wikipedia.

Yes, I looked up the list of massacres on Wikipedia. I do not look up an independent scholarly source of every incident on JSTOR, but used a readily accessible list as common sense would suggest. How many deaths would you like to redefine as a massacre? Which here massacre is incorrect and wrong because the list is on Wikipedia (not exactly a bastion of the right)? It would seem rather silly to compile a list from scratch that already exists. I'm sorry the list does not support your narrative.

[CollectingAmericasPastime]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That I said before seems like a non-starter. Too many good guys make dumb decisions. If there isn’t a desire to try to restrict high capacity guns from bad guys maybe there is no way to agree on something.

Originally Posted by Carter08

To be clear, not looking to take away your guns in that you get to keep a ton of them. But just like you’re not allowed to own surface to air missiles and such, maybe you’d agree you don’t need to own automatic assault rifles. Or agree that future purchases of them should be limited.

Originally Posted by Carter08

Ok that’s a good start. There seems to be a gun of choice for these whackos - the AR. Can we get rid of that or restrict purchases? If it already is restricted let me know.

Responding to the bold...

1) Then it doesn't seem you're willing to be reasonable with responsible gun owners in a discussion.

2) You cannot own an automatic assault rifle. First of all, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. Second of all, to own an automatic rifle, you essentially have to sign over your rights; not to mention no mass shooting has been committed with an automatic rifle aside from Vegas, which we still don't have answers on (that's an entirely different discussion).

3) False. The #1 firearm used for murder is the handgun, and it's not even close. The mechanics are the exact same between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle (i.e. AR-15). Magazine capacity is a moot point, as the typical handgun used in these murders is around half or even less of a 30 round AR magazine, yet is responsible for far more deaths. If you want to get technical in regards to mass shootings vs handguns, fine, the AR is preferred; I would argue that's due to the copycat nature of these events rather than any mechanical advantage.

Tell me how Chicago is doing with their restrictive gun laws. Same with NY, which has had multiple shootouts in the streets in just the past week. How are there shootings in California?