Not necessarily refuting this point, because it makes sense that having more guns in an area increases the likelihood of accidental shootings. According to the Brady Campaign, 606 people died in the United States in 2010 from unintentional firearm discharges. And, in 16 states in 2007, according to the CDC, 65% of these occured in the home, with an additional 17% in natural areas. Four percent occurs in what the CDC calls "Other" and eight percent in "Unknown", the only two categories that, of the ones available, I would think apply to a gun-free zone. So, roughly, 606 * (4% + 8%) = 73 gun deaths due to accidental discharge in a year that may have occurred in gun-free zones. The Brady Campaign reports 11,583 homicides by guns per year, averaged between 2009 and 2011. The CDC, using the same sample set and time period as before, found that 45% of these occurred in the home, and 26% on a public street/highway. About 20% occurred in areas that might include gun-free zones, such as schools, hospitals, commercial areas, office buildings, prisons (?!), bars, public transportation, and unknown/other areas. Again, roughly, 11,583 * (20%) = 2,317 gun deaths due to homicide in a year that may have occurred in gun-free zones. I'm not fond of the math behind this, but it's the best I have to work with. So I'll let the reader draw his own conclusions. [Edited for misleading grammar.]
You realize that different countries tally the term "violent crime" in different ways, right? Making direct comparison of these numbers very difficult? For example: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_united_states" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_united_states</a> The murder rate in the UK is 1.4 per 100,000, while the U.S. murder rate is nearly 4.8. That's a direct comparison.
I had also read from various news sources that there was security footage showing the car that he was in driving up to the movie theaters and then moving along. Evidently, the other theaters had police outside or security of some sort, most likely watching all those badass middle school kids hanging around outside. I mean, I also suppose it could have been coincidence. But with people like Holmes, I don't believe in coincidences of such a great nature. He was a doctoral student. Things are rarely left to chance with people like that. If it was, he had a 1 in 12 chance of picking the only theater without any security.
Gawd, I know right? I mean, the next thing you know, we'll allow people to get into their cars in the parking lot of those bars and drive away.
I assume it has occurred to you that most people who are accidentally shot do not in fact die, since the person was not trying to kill them. Unlike in homicides. This study suggests that there are over 21,000 accident firearm injuries (or at least that seems to be the clearest reading. That might include some number of unsuccessful suicide attempts).. Edit: You know what, it seems I'm wrong and violent people are bad shots. How are there between 50,000 and 60,000 non-fatal violence-related injuries, compared to order of 10,000 - 12,000 annual homicides? That seems absurd given that if you shoot at someone in a violent altercation, you generally intend to kill them. Are these people just terrible shots?
Now that is some wild west shit. Was the idea of getting shot for bad manners supposed to support gun advocacy? To be honest, the school thing isn't that big of an issue for me. I only threw that out there because I imagine there's a lot of parents uncomfortable with strangers having guns near their kid without a reason. I'm ok with CCL holders being able to carry in most areas unless it's demonstrated to be a high risk area, or gives patrons a legitimate reason to feel uncomfortable. Some of the time isn't good enough. At least we can agree there. Without closing the gun show loophole you can sell to someone on parole for second degree murder because you don't have to bother looking into the person whatsoever. In fact, the loophole makes the background checks required by licensed dealers almost pointless. Any felon just has to go a little bit out of their way and can still buy a huge variety of guns from complete strangers. Yes, there are other ways to circumvent the law, but it doesn't get much worse than a 'look the other way' policy. The current laws don't even make it marginally difficult for criminals. Which is why drunk driving is illegal. Banning firearms from bars can't stop someone from walking in with one, but it at least shouldn't be allowed. Thankfully, in most places it isn't.
My state passed a bill to allow guns in bars in 2009, and amended it in 2010 to exclude establishments that derive more than half their revenue from alcohol sales. The initial bill sparked a contentious debate, mostly because the local media jumped on the opportunity to stoke their ratings / subscriber base by prefacing every report on the issue with "GUNS IN BARS! GUNS IN BARS!" As you've demonstrated, it tends to evoke a rather basic and impulsive response. Why in the hell would anyone let a bunch of drunks have guns?! It'll be the Wild West all over again! We're all going to die! This, of course, overlooks the fact that most decidedly non-rowdy establishments include bars, or, perhaps most importantly, that permit holders aren't allowed to drink while carrying a firearm. The former point was addressed when the bill was revisited, notwithstanding the latter. So worry not, carry permit holders can now sample their choice of the $9.99ers (TM) at their local O'Charley's and, in spite of the presence of alcohol in the same building, not once has the presence of a gun galvanized the entire patronage into a contemporary recreation of the OK Corral. Though, admittedly, the evidence isn't yet statistically significant, so time will tell if one day otherwise law-abiding gun owners suddenly decide to open fire on each other over the last Overloaded Potato Skin after spotting bottles of liquor on a shelf across the restaurant. The moral of this story is that a newspaper article stating that some states allow guns and bars in the same ZIP code in the most sensational way possible doesn't immediately label the constituency as "fucktarded".
Nope. 1989 Stockton school shooting, a guy came on campus, killing 5, wounding 29, then killing himself. That wasn't an "accident". That and previous incidents like that spurred the legislation. Gun Free School Zones have been in existence since 1990 (temporarily not in effect due to being ruled unconstitutional, 1995 saw a reintroduction that was constitutionally kosher). There have been many school shootings since 1990, many involving a psycho who was not warded off. It is a useless law that does nothing other than randomly turn city streets into automatic-felony zones; you see, "Gun Free School Zones" extend for 1000 feet from the school, regardless of line of sight or obstacles. If your city is well-planned from an educational standpoint, you've just turned huge chunks of your city into restricted areas where otherwise law-abiding citizens become felons.
Can we just make fun of these people now? <a class="postlink" href="http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWx9GxXYKx_8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Wx9GxXYK ... x9GxXYKx_8</a> Apparently there's a sandy hook truther movement starting.
Okay, so it was a reactionary and ineffective law. This now feeds into my second question. If eliminating gun free zones succeeds in preventing mass shootings, but the resulting number of accidental shootings creeps up enough to offset this gain, what happens next? My concern is if the focus is solely on mass shootings, are you running the risk of solving one problem by creating another and effectively failing at the goal of preserving life.
Were there any accidental school shootings before the "Gun Free Zone" idea was implemented? Remember that the law was not implemented in order to combat accidental shootings. If a law is "reactionary and ineffective" what danger do you suppose its elimination presents? I grew up in the '70's and '80's, before any of these laws were in effect. I used to carry my pocket knife to school every day, starting in the 2nd grade. There were never any stabbings, and we never worried about someone shooting up our school. The police only visited the school for career days. What changed in that time? Why was it perfectly acceptable for a 7-year-old to carry a knife to school in 1977 and why do we now need armed guards to protect students? Those are the questions we need to answer, instead of arguing about the chances of an accidental vs. intentional shooting.
That's true, those figures don't lie. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Oakland-leaders-have-lost-grip-on-violence-4194028.php This is a typical article from one of the more violent metro areas in America. It is unremarkable in that it is the same story as found in Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, LA, Miami, etc. Would you think these are the same circumstances found in the UK or other developed countries? It seems as though it isn't. We have a certain strata of people in our society who are prone to this behavior for several reasons. It is also the same communities where a disproportionate amount of the crime occurs. If we make firearms illegal, if we make high-cap mags illegal, if we ban assault weapons, if we have more stringent background checks will this behavior in these areas end? This may sound callous but these communities need to start policing their own, they have a real culture problem, that's the only way this will improve. If you discount the crime typical to this article, it would be interesting to see what homicide rates actually would be? Let's face it. This article is representative of high violent crime or to a finer point high homicide rates in America. As much as I want to do something to change the situation in this country, none of the things discussed will even put a dent into this problem. I know we are all up in arms about mass homicides like Sandy Hook but events like these represent a very small percentage of actual crime. I really have a hard time believing that any of the ideas for enhanced laws will curb mass homicide either. In short, I believe that our problem isn't just guns. It's culture, we have a culture problem in this country. Guns just happen to be a convenient target for people to say they are doing something about it.
Noo Yawk done did it now: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/article/Highlights-of-NY-gun-control-bill-4193665.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/art ... 193665.php</a> What reactionary times we live in. The question someone should have asked is, would any of these new provisions have prevented Sandy Hook? I'm sure some legislator felt real good about that mental health item, forgetting the legal owner of the weapons used was the mother, not the sick child.
This is basically in-line with what the laws are in Connecticut and still not as strict as Massachusetts. Most of these are fairly reasonable. The background check on ammo sales and magazine restrictions is a little overboard and will probably have no impact on anything. I'm actually surprised gun owners weren't required to report stolen guns in 24 hours, I thought it was the norm. The only other issue I see is that it poorly defines assault weapon. Again, it's kind hard to comply with and enforce a law when it's so broad. Technically, gun makers could just change whatever feature is restricted and keep on selling. Stupid.
It hinges the definition of "assault weapon" (no such thing in reality, but what the hell...) on cosmetics again. It's nothing more than politicians pretending to do something (because something needs to be done, and this is something, therefore it must be done!!) to appease suburban tree huggers who know as little about firearms as the politicians themselves.
What I'm wondering is, how were these politicians not educated on guns so they at least have a basic understanding that these "assault rifles" are no more lethal than a hunting rifle? And if they were, why the fuck didn't they listen?
They don't care about the lethality of a hunting round vs any other round. They are wising up this time around. Too many simple loopholes last time. One "feature," transfers illegal, NFA registration. It might only have a snowballs chance in hell passing congress but they certainly were paying attention. They tried a ban once, failed miserably in their goals and are back with a vengeance.
Anyone else catch this in the New York act? I'm pretty fucking glad I don't live in New York right now... Also I wish the journalists/media would know the difference between "live ammunition" and just "bullets," because that makes a big difference (especially above).