Dear Connecticut...

[dadagoboi]

It's very interesting that assault weapon violence has been addressed in both Australia and the UK and positive results have been achieved...of course there has to be the will to change things.

Why do Americans think we are "special" and if we can't find an answer there must not be one?  I have the feeling most people not American on this forum have difficulty understanding what exactly our problem is.

On a side note:  the governor of Michigan now has to decide whether to sign or veto a bill passed last week to allow concealed carry in Michigan schools.  It's already legal to carry a visible holstered or slung gun at school but apparently that wasn't considered enough of a deterrent.

From The Economist yesterday:

The gun control that works: no guns

Dec 15th 2012, 4:56 by Lexington

I HESITATE to offer thoughts about the school shooting in Connecticut that has seen 20 children and seven adults murdered and the gunman also dead. Your correspondent has been in the rural Midwest researching a column and heard the news on the car radio. Along with a sense of gloom, I found I mostly wanted to see my own, elementary-school-age children back home in Washington, DC, and had little desire to listen to pundits of any stripe: hence my reluctance to weigh in now.

To be fair, on NPR, the liberal columnist E.J. Dionne had sensible things to say about President Barack Obama's statement on the killings, and how it was probably significant when the president seemed to suggest that he was minded to take action on gun control, and never mind the politics. On the same show the moderate conservative columnist, David Brooks, expressed sensible caution about assuming that stricter gun controls could have stopped this particular shooting.

Switching to red-blooded conservative talk radio, I found two hosts offering a "move along, nothing to see here" defence of the status quo. One suggested that listeners should not torment themselves trying to understand "craziness", though it would, the pair agreed, be understandable if some parents were tempted to remove their children from public education and homeschool them.

To that debate, all I can offer is the perspective of someone who has lived and worked in different corners of the world, with different gun laws.

Here is my small thought. It is quite possible, perhaps probable, that stricter gun laws of the sort that Mr Obama may or may not be planning, would not have stopped the horrible killings of this morning. But that is a separate question from whether it is a good idea to allow private individuals to own guns. And that, really, is what I think I understand by gun control. Once you have guns in circulation, in significant numbers, I suspect that specific controls on things like automatic weapons or large magazines can have only marginal effects. Once lots of other people have guns, it becomes rational for you to want your own too.

The first time that I was posted to Washington, DC some years ago, the capital and suburbs endured a frightening few days at the hands of a pair of snipers, who took to killing people at random from a shooting position they had established in the boot of a car. I remember meeting a couple of White House correspondents from American papers, and hearing one say: but the strange thing is that Maryland (where most of the killings were taking place) has really strict gun laws. And I remember thinking: from the British perspective, those aren't strict gun laws. Strict laws involve having no guns.

After a couple of horrible mass shootings in Britain, handguns and automatic weapons have been effectively banned. It is possible to own shotguns, and rifles if you can demonstrate to the police that you have a good reason to own one, such as target shooting at a gun club, or deer stalking, say. The firearms-ownership rules are onerous, involving hours of paperwork. You must provide a referee who has to answer nosy questions about the applicant's mental state, home life (including family or domestic tensions) and their attitude towards guns. In addition to criminal-record checks, the police talk to applicants' family doctors and ask about any histories of alcohol or drug abuse or personality disorders.

Vitally, it is also very hard to get hold of ammunition. Just before leaving Britain in the summer, I had lunch with a member of parliament whose constituency is plagued with gang violence and drug gangs. She told me of a shooting, and how it had not led to a death, because the gang had had to make its own bullets, which did not work well, and how this was very common, according to her local police commander. Even hardened criminals willing to pay for a handgun in Britain are often getting only an illegally modified starter's pistol turned into a single-shot weapon.

And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America's. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

I would also say, to stick my neck out a bit further, that I find many of the arguments advanced for private gun ownership in America a bit unconvincing, and tinged with a blend of excessive self-confidence and faulty risk perception.

I am willing to believe that some householders, in some cases, have defended their families from attack because they have been armed. But I also imagine that lots of ordinary adults, if woken in the night by an armed intruder, lack the skill to wake, find their weapon, keep hold of their weapon, use it correctly and avoid shooting the wrong person. And my hunch is that the model found in places like Japan or Britain—no guns in homes at all, or almost none—is on balance safer.

As for the National Rifle Association bumper stickers arguing that only an armed citizenry can prevent tyranny, I wonder if that isn't a form of narcissism, involving the belief that lone, heroic individuals will have the ability to identify tyranny as it descends, recognise it for what it is, and fight back. There is also the small matter that I don't think America is remotely close to becoming a tyranny, and to suggest that it is is both irrational and a bit offensive to people who actually do live under tyrannical rule.

Nor is it the case that the British are relaxed about being subjects of a monarch, or are less fussed about freedoms. A conservative law professor was recently quoted in the papers saying he did not want to live in a country where the police were armed and the citizens not. I fear in Britain, at least, native gun-distrust goes even deeper than that: the British don't even like their police to be armed (though more of them are than in the past).

But here is the thing. The American gun debate takes place in America, not Britain or Japan. And banning all guns is not about to happen (and good luck collecting all 300m guns currently in circulation, should such a law be passed). It would also not be democratic. I personally dislike guns. I think the private ownership of guns is a tragic mistake. But a majority of Americans disagree with me, some of them very strongly. And at a certain point, when very large majorities disagree with you, a bit of deference is in order.

So in short I am not sure that tinkering with gun control will stop horrible massacres like today's. And I am pretty sure that the sort of gun control that would work—banning all guns—is not going to happen. So I have a feeling that even a more courageous debate than has been heard for some time, with Mr Obama proposing gun-control laws that would have been unthinkable in his first term, will not change very much at all. Hence the gloom.
 

[Aussie Mark]

^^^^^
Great post Carlo.

It's sad that most Americans are appalled at the number of Americans who were killed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, yet more Americans are shot in the USA every year by Americans than were killed in a single year of any of those conflicts - and nothing is done to stop it.

The second amendment was an enabler for an armed militia to defend America, back in a time when there was no effective organised American military force.  That reason is no longer valid in 2012.

[Aussie Mark]

And, yes, people kill, not guns, but if guns are readily available then when mentally ill people snap and they can lay their hands on a firearm very easily, then that's always a disaster waiting to happen.  If the only weapon the person can lay their hands on is a knife, baseball bat, hammer, or tire iron, then they may still cause injury or death, but they're not going to rack up a body count of the magnitude that results from a mass shooting.  And there is a far better chance of unarmed bystanders overpowering and disarming a crazy with a knife/bat/hammer/tire iron than there would be of someone with a holstered handgun taking on the crazy who has a semi-auto assault rifle.

[Basvarken]

+1 to what Carlo and Mark said.

[gweimer]

I've never owned a gun, for various reasons.  The first thing I realized about having one was this - in order for it to be an effective defense weapon, it would have to be easily accessed and loaded.  That makes for problems when you have children in the house.  There's really no middle ground.

[patman]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. It was good for me to hear I'm not alone. Thanks.

[Dave W]

Carlo, Mark and the columnist are assuming that correlation equals causation.

Ask the relatives of the 69 shooting victims of Anders Breivik how comforted they are by Norway's strict gun laws. Ask the relatives of the victims of the Jokela and Kauhajoki school shootings (18 total, not including the gunmen who committed suicide) how they feel about Finland's strict gun laws.

And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America's. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

Highly misleading, because firearm crimes were extremely low in England and Wales long before handguns were essentially banned there.

Our society is violent, much more so than the UK, Australia and the rest of the European-oriented world. Murder rates and mass killings have not gone up since the assault weapons ban expired, and there's no evidence that they would go down if it were reinstated. A complete ban on handguns would lower the rate, but there's absolutely no chance of that ever happening so long as there's a United States of America with a constitutional government; and even then, I don't think it would help much. The violent elements of society would just kill each other with long guns.

[Aussie Mark]

Dave, Australian culture is pretty much the same as the US, only we have less religion, less melted cheese, and more sarcasm.  Our TV shows, video games, and movies are the same, we watch the same news coverage, our kids take the same drugs, we have organised crime, we killed the natives when we arrived, we like to hunt varmints and native fauna, we like to drink beer.  I've been to the US, was married to an American, have worked for an American company, and have many American friends.  We are closer culturally than you may imagine.  Gun control can work.

[westen44]

Dave, Australian culture is pretty much the same as the US, only we have less religion, less melted cheese, and more sarcasm.  Our TV shows, video games, and movies are the same, we watch the same news coverage, our kids take the same drugs, we have organised crime, we killed the natives when we arrived, we like to hunt varmints and native fauna, we like to drink beer.  I've been to the US, was married to an American, have worked for an American company, and have many American friends.  We are closer culturally than you may imagine.  Gun control can work.

I wish you were right.  But I think Dave understands the inherent violent nature of American society all too well.  I haven't been to Australia.  (Did have extensive personal contact with an Australian once.)  I have been to Europe a number of times and always feel safer there.  We have some strong points, but being non-violent isn't an American strong point.  And I think like Dave is pointing out--never will be.  Just the American South is incredibly violent.  I'm not knocking the South, being a Southerner myself.  I'm just stating the facts. 

[lowend1]

I do think children are exposed to too much graphic violence in games, movies, television and even music.

And there is no fix. We can only hope that the pendelum of public opinion swings back to peace and decency.

I agree. Oddly, alot of the people who are all for clamping down on guns are just fine with violence in movies, video games, etc. It's been said that art imitates life. I believe it's the other way around.
I don't own a gun, and have never fired one - but I support the right to keep and bear arms.
The USA is obviously a very big country with lots of people. It's easy for someone with the smorgasbord of issues that Adam Lanza had to "disappear" or fall through the cracks in the system. In a smaller, less populated country, he may have been outed sooner. The latest reports are stating that his mother, feeling she was out of options, had started the legal process of having him committed.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/
He was aware of it, and the suspicion is that this was the trigger. How it ties to the school itself is still unclear. Apparently, he had the presence of mind to destroy his computer - even to the point of damaging the hard drive in such a way as to make data impossible to retrieve. Point is, if you take the guns out of the equation, a guy with that kind of baggage, motive and intellect (one high school friend referred to him as a genius) is going to find a way to unleash hell. Unless you get lucky and stumble onto his plan, the only way to stop him is with swift deadly force. If my kids were in that school, I wouldn't care whether he was dropped by the cops, a well - armed janitor or a visiting parent with a carry permit.

[Aussie Mark]

if you take the guns out of the equation, a guy with that kind of baggage, motive and intellect (one high school friend referred to him as a genius) is going to find a way to unleash hell.

Maybe, but it will never be as easy as picking up a semi-auto rifle that his mum left unsecured, and blasting away with it.  The convenience factor of urban residents keeping assault rifles and handguns in their homes for mentally ill people to use when they're having a bad day is the issue.  In most countries, if someone cuts you off in traffic, you give them the bird, or worst case, you pull over and have a fist fight. But in the US, you might get shot.  That's the difference - access to weapons that can kill with ease and can kill multiple people quickly is the difference between the US and most other nations regarding gun policy.

Yes, the bad guys will always have guns, but in most countries the bad guys most often use their guns on other bad guys, not on school children or cinema patrons.

[lowend1]

Maybe, but it will never be as easy as picking up a semi-auto rifle that his mum left unsecured, and blasting away with it.  The convenience factor of urban residents keeping assault rifles and handguns in their homes for mentally ill people to use when they're having a bad day is the issue.  In most countries, if someone cuts you off in traffic, you give them the bird, or worst case, you pull over and have a fist fight. But in the US, you might get shot.  That's the difference - access to weapons that can kill with ease and can kill multiple people quickly is the difference between the US and most other nations regarding gun policy.

Yes, the bad guys will always have guns, but in most countries the bad guys most often use their guns on other bad guys, not on school children or cinema patrons.

No question that his mother exercised the ultimate in poor judgement in teaching a kid with huge problems to shoot. According to what I've read thus far, she kept her guns properly secured and was otherwise very responsible about their use and care.

[Dave W]

Mark, go back before the weapons laws in Australia and look at the historic homicide rates for, say, 50 years, then compare it to the corresponding US rates. You'll find the US rates have always been at least four times as high. We have a lot in common, but the US has always had a lot more violent crime.

Another assault weapons ban here might help lower the number of mass shootings (although the ban that expired in 2004 did not). It's not going to transform American society.

[Lightyear]

Just the American South is incredibly violent.  I'm not knocking the South, being a Southerner myself.  I'm just stating the facts.  

Why is it the south that is always violent, racist, F'd up?  Is East L.A. less violent than the south?  What about Washington DC?  They have a gun ban and the  body count due to guns is tremendous.  What about Chicago?  Multiple generations of enlightened leadership and their murder rate is one of the worst in nation.  Remember, this deranged monster that killed these innocent kids was most certainly from the north.

One thing I heard, on NPR of all places, is that this type of violence has steadily declined and that it was apparent that the assault gun ban did nothing to reduce the incidence of this type of violence in society.

[Aussie Mark]

Mark, go back before the weapons laws in Australia and look at the historic homicide rates for, say, 50 years, then compare it to the corresponding US rates. You'll find the US rates have always been at least four times as high. We have a lot in common, but the US has always had a lot more violent crime.

Another assault weapons ban here might help lower the number of mass shootings (although the ban that expired in 2004 did not). It's not going to transform American society.

Access to handguns and semi auto rifles has always been restricted in Australia.  However, prior to 1996, as the holder of a shooter's licence, I could legally own a semi auto rifle, and as many rifles of any calibre I liked - I owned an SKS for shits and giggles target shooting, and I had other rifles that were properly suited to genuine hunting purposes in the woods and pastures near where I lived at the time.  Handguns have always been restricted here - to law enforcement, permitted security officers, and licenced target shooting club members.

After Port Arthur in 1996, the changes that were made were -

1. Ban all semi auto centrefire rifles.  Semi auto rimfire rifles were still permitted for licensed shooters who are primary producers, for vermin control.
2. Ban all bolt or lever action centrefire rifles with a magazine capactity greater than 3 rounds (I think 3 is the number, this is off the top of my head)
3. Restrict ownership of shotguns, and rimfire rifles and centrefire rifles that meet 2. above to licenced shooters who are either members of a registered target shooting club, or primary producers who can demonstrate a need, for vermin control.

When you look at that 50 years of history you mentioned, there were 13 cases of mass shootings in Australia prior to 1996, and NONE since 1996.  These days, most shootings in Australia seem to be bad guys shooting bad guys, which doesn't really bother the average citizen.