Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Most gun laws are state level, IIRC.  That's part of the problem with current gun laws, really. Some state police and FBI engage in turf wars over this, not least because federal agencies often pretend that everywhere in the US is the same and try to apply blanket policies that simply don't work in local conditions.

Yeah, they're more state than anything. The federal firearm laws aren't really that... anything, honestly. They're often even lower level, too; the laws regarding firearm ownership can change between cities, nevermind states.

And erk, maybe read the rest of the paragraph. If had been a weapon with a lower mag size (like, again, the limitations on legal ones in cali, as mentioned. Assuming they haven't changed again, anyway.), it's fairly likely the casualties or injuries would have been less. More reloading is less firing, et al. Not a guarantee, because basically nothing is, but it'd up the chances less people got hurt.

[LoSboccacc]

Most gun laws are state level, IIRC.  That's part of the problem with current gun laws, really. Some state police and FBI engage in turf wars over this, not least because federal agencies often pretend that everywhere in the US is the same and try to apply blanket policies that simply don't work in local conditions.

Yeah, they're more state than anything. The federal firearm laws aren't really that... anything, honestly. They're often even lower level, too; the laws regarding firearm ownership can change between cities, nevermind states.

And erk, maybe read the rest of the paragraph. If had been a weapon with a lower mag size (like, again, the limitations on legal ones in cali, as mentioned. Assuming they haven't changed again, anyway.), it's fairly likely the casualties or injuries would have been less. More reloading is less firing, et al. Not a guarantee, because basically nothing is, but it'd up the chances less people got hurt.

because if you ban them surely terrorist will obey and trow sticks instead of firing weapons next time around. look, I'm pro ban, but legislation won't change a thing. won't stop a Hebdo and won't stop a Breivik, and mixing arguments to obtain stricter gun legislation won't go anywhere because of how ridiculous is the assumption that banning would remove gun from the baddies. Now, it may reduce accidents and reduce force escalation, but for determined attackers it's just a minor inconvenience at most.

[Erkki]

Most gun laws are state level, IIRC.  That's part of the problem with current gun laws, really. Some state police and FBI engage in turf wars over this, not least because federal agencies often pretend that everywhere in the US is the same and try to apply blanket policies that simply don't work in local conditions.

Yeah, they're more state than anything. The federal firearm laws aren't really that... anything, honestly. They're often even lower level, too; the laws regarding firearm ownership can change between cities, nevermind states.

And erk, maybe read the rest of the paragraph. If had been a weapon with a lower mag size (like, again, the limitations on legal ones in cali, as mentioned. Assuming they haven't changed again, anyway.), it's fairly likely the casualties or injuries would have been less. More reloading is less firing, et al. Not a guarantee, because basically nothing is, but it'd up the chances less people got hurt.

He was going to kill people in a nation filled with high capacity magazines banned in a handful(if that) states.

There were kinda many wounded to killed still. Breivik finished off his victims, but he also used hollow points. Not because hollow points are deadly against unarmored targets, but because he wanted to poison his bullets and hollow points had a hole ready... Terrorists aren't always too smart. 

[MasterFancyPants]

The FBI found that more officers were killed with guns, but knife attacks were 3x more lethal.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2013-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted (This isn't the exact study so you'll have to dig in a bit)

And I love how you ignore all stats. The US has lax gun ownership and a (relatively) high homicide rate, ok. UK has strict gun ownership and has a bit lower homicide rate, ok. The Swiss have lax gun ownership and have a much lower homicide rate than both. My corner of south west Missouri (region with the highest guns per capita in the world) has 1/14 the homicide rate of gun-free Chicago and 1/2 of London.

... UK has a homicide rate about a forth that of the US. That is... not a "bit" smaller. You'd have better luck making a case for violent crime in general in a comparison between those two, just be careful about the differences in categorization (What the UK calls violent crime is significantly broader than what the US does... something along those lines, anyway. UK's actually a bit more violent or around par once you correct for that, iirc, but again, somewhere in the ballpark of 3-4x more likely to walk away.) Switzerland also has pretty strict bullet control measures, even if their gun ownership laws are fairly lax. It's basically never the example you want to bring up to say gun control laws don't have an effect, because it actually has pretty strong ones, just not centered around the guns themselves.

Uh. Also, that link says that none of the officers killed that year were killed by knives. Maybe you were intending a different link? Digging a bit more both on FBI's site and google has provided nothing supporting th'claim that knife attacks were 3x more lethal. Got no clue how you'd even come to that conclusion, especially using US statistics. Will see if I can dig up where the statement is coming from, but maybe you just linked to the wrong article?

E: Okay, checked pretty much everything those 2013 FBI statistics had to offer and... you couldn't get knives being more lethal than firearms out of that data pretty much regardless as to what you did (short of multiplying by negatives or somethin', I guess.). Firearms killed more and they killed more relative to the number assaults. Compare tables 30 and 70. Cops were more likely to be injured by knives, but were almost never killed by them; firearms are several dozen times more lethal by the data on officer deaths and assaults, and significantly more likely (to the tune of somewhere between 2 and 3 times) to be encountered even if they're less likely to injure in comparison (by around a forth, if I'm offhand mathing right).

The UK conviction rate is 1/4 of the US.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/html/cjusew96/cpp.cfm
Most of the research I've seen suggest that the real numbers are much closer.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm

Homicide statistics too vary widely. In some developing countries, the statistics are known to be far from complete. Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. The adjustment is made only in respect of figures shown in one part of the Annual Criminal Statistics. In another part relating to the use of firearms, no adjustment is made. A table of the number of homicides in which firearms were used in England and Wales will therefore differ according to which section of the annual statistics was used as its base. Similarly in statistics relating to the use of firearms, a homicide will be recorded where the firearm was used as a blunt instrument, but in the specific homicide statistics, that case will be shown under "blunt instrument".

I'll admit that knife stat was miss remembered.
 

Even if you evaluate only violent crimes committed by attackers armed with a firearm, only 4.6% of victims were actually shot (5).
Criminals armed with knives and clubs were far more likely to use the weapons to inflict injury to their victims.  Club assaults resulted in injury 36% of the time (most injuries were minor, however).  Knife armed attackers cut or stabbed their victims in 12.7% of violent crimes (6).

People with knives are more likely to use them than those with guns.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=570
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/resistance-to-violent-crime-what-does-the-research-show

[Loud Whispers]

He was going to kill people in a nation filled with high capacity magazines banned in a handful(if that) states.

There were kinda many wounded to killed still. Breivik finished off his victims, but he also used hollow points. Not because hollow points are deadly against unarmored targets, but because he wanted to poison his bullets and hollow points had a hole ready... Terrorists aren't always too smart. 

I think it's more of a training thing than an intelligence thing. Like how local yurop jihadis are well educated, intelligent young men who get military training from Iraqi officers to conduct bloody mayhem in the west, or how Boko Haram weren't all too competent until they started getting military instructors as well

[Baffler]

The Orlando Police have released details on the incident to the media. A lot of this confirms what was already publicly known, though I do note that he didn't use an AR-15, but a SIG MCX. The difference is mostly academic, but I thought this part was interesting:

The shooter had been contacted by U.S. law enforcement at least twice in recent years. He had traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2012 to attend the hajj — an annual pilgrimage to Mecca, reports CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton. NBC News reports he had also traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2011.

Mateen surfaced on the FBI’s radar in 2013, when coworkers said he’d made inflammatory remarks about terrorist ties.

“Mateen was interviewed twice,” says the FBI’s Ron Hopper, who is leading the investigation into the Orlando attack. “Ultimately we were unable to verify the substance of his comments and the investigation was closed.”

In 2014 he came to the FBI’s attention again, this time because of contact he had with Moner Abu-Salha, the first known American suicide bomber in Syria. But once again, Mateen was cleared of any wrongdoing

He was not on a current terror watchlist, a U.S. intelligence source tells CBS News’ Len Tepper. He was entered into a terrorist screening database during the time the FBI was questioning him, but he was removed when the FBI closed the investigation, Tepper reports.

Despite those two investigations, Mateen was not on any list that prevented him from purchasing a weapon.

So he was on a watch list, but got taken off when the investigation was closed.

He was going to kill people in a nation filled with high capacity magazines banned in a handful(if that) states.

There were kinda many wounded to killed still. Breivik finished off his victims, but he also used hollow points. Not because hollow points are deadly against unarmored targets, but because he wanted to poison his bullets and hollow points had a hole ready... Terrorists aren't always too smart. 

I think it's more of a training thing than an intelligence thing. Like how local yurop jihadis are well educated, intelligent young men who get military training from Iraqi officers to conduct bloody mayhem in the west, or how Boko Haram weren't all too competent until they started getting military instructors as well

I remember hearing reports from American servicemen in Afghanistan about how Taliban fighters would almost always have their rifles sighted for their maximum ranges, misunderstanding and thinking that it increased the "power" of the weapon so it would shoot straighter at long range, and therefore be more effective in close. The result was that they couldn't shoot for shit. Training, even very basic training, absolutely makes a difference.

[Loud Whispers]

I remember hearing reports from American servicemen in Afghanistan about how Taliban fighters would almost always have their rifles sighted for their maximum ranges, misunderstanding and thinking that it increased the "power" of the weapon so it would shoot straighter at long range, and therefore be more effective in close. The result was that they couldn't shoot for shit. Training, even very basic training, absolutely makes a difference.

Absolutely

I recall for one instance when Al-Qaeda's Indian branch had the bright idea to attack a US Carrier - disabling one of those would be a huge loss of materiel and lives for the USA. Sadly, being ill-trained goat herders from mountain valley villages, they had never seen warships in their life. Despite being well equipped, they ended up boarding a Pakistani frigate thinking it was the US Carrier they were sent to raid, and quickly got overwhelmed by the Pakistani sailors on board resulting in three of them killed, the rest captured and then even more captured after interrogations revealed their members who weren't on the raid.

In contrast, whilst it was not terror related, I do recall one rather unique case where a gangster had enlisted in the US military and managed to make his way past clearance checks. Once he'd done his service he went back to his gang and ended up in a shootout with two police officers - despite being outnumbered by two police officers, he killed them both, laying down surpressive fire whilst circling around their cover, something he'd learned in military. Gangsters with military training is a big problem. At least gangsters are restricted to thuggery and vice though, whereas people who do thuggery, vice and terrorism? Sheeit.

[Ghills]

Most gun laws are state level, IIRC.  That's part of the problem with current gun laws, really. Some state police and FBI engage in turf wars over this, not least because federal agencies often pretend that everywhere in the US is the same and try to apply blanket policies that simply don't work in local conditions.

Yeah, they're more state than anything. The federal firearm laws aren't really that... anything, honestly. They're often even lower level, too; the laws regarding firearm ownership can change between cities, nevermind states.

And erk, maybe read the rest of the paragraph. If had been a weapon with a lower mag size (like, again, the limitations on legal ones in cali, as mentioned. Assuming they haven't changed again, anyway.), it's fairly likely the casualties or injuries would have been less. More reloading is less firing, et al. Not a guarantee, because basically nothing is, but it'd up the chances less people got hurt.

Not sure what your second paragraph is trying to say?  I don't see what magazine sizes, which are currently regulated at the state level afaik, have to do with federal agencies trying to apply inappropriate policies to all states, which is a problem across the board for federal agencies.

[Frumple]

because if you ban them surely terrorist will obey and trow sticks instead of firing weapons next time around. look, I'm pro ban, but legislation won't change a thing. won't stop a Hebdo and won't stop a Breivik, and mixing arguments to obtain stricter gun legislation won't go anywhere because of how ridiculous is the assumption that banning would remove gun from the baddies.

... you might want to go back and reread what I've been typing. It's not a matter of stopping any and all terrorists from having access, and if I managed to say it was, I definitely miscommunicated and it wasn't the message I was intending to get across, at all. It's not a matter of stopping a hebdo or a breivik. It's a matter of raising the bar of entry. Of making things that much more difficult. Of maybe, just maybe, making it so the one that was just not quite determined enough doesn't manage to do anything, or at least one or both sorts doesn't manage to do as much. It's acknowledged that it's still going to be possible for particularly determined individuals to get their hands on firearms, even particularly deadly ones, and it's doubly acknowledged that the state of saturation in the US would make any changes take a pretty damn long time to kick in. But if it makes things even marginally harder, well... probably mission accomplished, especially if hobby shooting and whatnot is unaffected (which isn't exactly difficult).

And yeah, @Erk, of course. The whole saturation thing is a known issue. State of things as is, even if it had been illegal it probably would have still been fairly likely the guy could have gotten a hold of it with enough effort. It'd just have been less likely, and continually less likely as saturation was brought down. Is whole point.

The UK conviction rate is 1/4 of the US.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/html/cjusew96/cpp.cfm

Which would put them about in line with the US, since their homicide rate is generally considered about 1/4th the US, too. Those numbers aren't per 1000 cases, they're per 1000 population. As, uh. As the page itself notes, a bit down. Conviction rates are also a whole 'nother discussion to be had.

Most of the research I've seen suggest that the real numbers are much closer.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm

... how much closer? 'Cause that links to something from '00, and it's... not exactly what I'd call research. It says things are maybe wrong, goes no further, and seems to reference very little aside, heh. This actually seems to be one of the better things I've noticed trying to correct for the reporting differences (and is significantly more recent besides), and the conclusion they end up with is that it is fairly possible the UK's actual homicide rate is ~double what they report. Which, y'know. Still puts them somewhere in the ballpark of half the US's. It is several different kinds of pain to navigate different statistics gathering standards, for what it's worth.

I'll admit that knife stat was miss remembered.

Even if you evaluate only violent crimes committed by attackers armed with a firearm, only 4.6% of victims were actually shot (5).
Criminals armed with knives and clubs were far more likely to use the weapons to inflict injury to their victims.  Club assaults resulted in injury 36% of the time (most injuries were minor, however).  Knife armed attackers cut or stabbed their victims in 12.7% of violent crimes (6).

People with knives are more likely to use them than those with guns.

And massively less likely to kill. Like, last I checked we're aware that folks are indeed more likely to attack if they're not using a firearm, especially when it's, y'know, much, much quieter. We're also very much aware the victims are a whole hell of a lot more likely to come out of the encounter alive, injured or not (though note, by the statistics you linked, even the worst case scenario for injury likelihood -- blunt objects, basically -- you're still more likely to come out uninjured than not). Though the numbers in the quote seem to be a bit off from the numbers in the data y'linked to. You can check wuvc01t08 in the zip -- the injuries broken down by weapon for all the crimes they're counting come out to 15/27.7/36, firearms, knives, clubs. For something of a reference, wuvc01t11 notes that the homicide percentages are 86/9/5, similarly. The rates are per 100k, 4, <0.5, <0.5. Basically, ah. We'd really probably rather people be injured by knives than killed by guns. Which y'may have been aware of and not claiming otherwise, but hey, doesn't hurt much to note it just in case.

... also, y'wouldn't happen to be aware of more recent data, would yeh? Those numbers are from '01. They're probably on the site somewhere, s'just kinda' annoying to find the bloody things.

Not sure what your second paragraph is trying to say?  I don't see what magazine sizes, which are currently regulated at the state level afaik, have to do with federal agencies trying to apply inappropriate policies to all states, which is a problem across the board for federal agencies.

Ah, nothing at all, in particular. The second paragraph was directed at erkki, and a separate point. Probably could have stood to separate it better or somethin'.

[Leafsnail]

Don't know about Leytonstone, but the Lee Rigby killings was not for a lack of mechanisms, the jihadis who beheaded Lee did so because he was in military uniform and they wanted to kill a soldier. They even had friendly conversations with the infidels around them whilst their hands were covered in blood. Adebolajo and Adebowale had guns on them, which they tried to use on the police, the police won that fight. This is in contrast with say Paris, where their focus is maximizing casualties for maximum impact

Most of that is true but I'd point out that they only had one gun and it was a 90-year-old revolver that failed to fire a single shot because it was a rusty piece of shit. I think that counters the argument that terrorists will always have access to the best weapons even if you restrict them (and the perpetrators of the Woolwich attack had a far more direct link to terrorists than Mateen has seemed to so far).

[milo christiansen]

You know, all this talk of gun control is ludicrous.

At home on my bookshelf I have two books by "Firepower Publications". One details how to make grenades, including detailed instructions for making various fillers (several quite easy to make from common chemicals), fuses (impact, timed, timed+impact, etc), frag casings, how to calculate lethality, how to decide how heavy to make it for maximum throw-ability vs effectiveness and dozens of other considerations. The other book details how to make a simple blowback submachine gun with a drill press, torch, welder, etc (all tools that any farm or repair shop would have), with the whole process broken down so even an idiot could do it if they were careful to follow the directions exactly.

If I can make expedient automatic weapons and grenades with common tools and materials, how is gun control supposed to stop any idiot who wants to kill a bunch of other idiots? Making improvised weapons is incredibly simple. Most people think it's a lot harder than it is. For what this particular idiot spent on his guns, he could have bought materials to make a sten or other simple automatic weapon, AND all the tools he needed.

For that matter, why shoot up a nightclub when you could hit substations, trains, industrial areas, etc. One chlorine tanker with a hole in the bottom from an IED along the tracks would kill a hell of a lot more people, and a couple of bombs in a hospital power substation and backup generators would cause a lot more terror with far less chance of getting caught. Getting caught is stupid, not getting caught lends some mystery to the whole deal, magnifying the effect.

I guess it's a good thing terrorists are (or at least appear to be) stupid...

[Sheb]

You know, all this talk of gun control is ludicrous.

At home on my bookshelf I have two books by "Firepower Publications". One details how to make grenades, including detailed instructions for making various fillers (several quite easy to make from common chemicals), fuses (impact, timed, timed+impact, etc), frag casings, how to calculate lethality, how to decide how heavy to make it for maximum throw-ability vs effectiveness and dozens of other considerations. The other book details how to make a simple blowback submachine gun with a drill press, torch, welder, etc (all tools that any farm or repair shop would have), with the whole process broken down so even an idiot could do it if they were careful to follow the directions exactly.

If I can make expedient automatic weapons and grenades with common tools and materials, how is gun control supposed to stop any idiot who wants to kill a bunch of other idiots? Making improvised weapons is incredibly simple. Most people think it's a lot harder than it is. For what this particular idiot spent on his guns, he could have bought materials to make a sten or other simple automatic weapon, AND all the tools he needed.

For that matter, why shoot up a nightclub when you could hit substations, trains, industrial areas, etc. One chlorine tanker with a hole in the bottom from an IED along the tracks would kill a hell of a lot more people, and a couple of bombs in a hospital power substation and backup generators would cause a lot more terror with far less chance of getting caught. Getting caught is stupid, not getting caught lends some mystery to the whole deal, magnifying the effect.

I guess it's a good thing terrorists are (or at least appear to be) stupid...

Or maybe you've not considered all issues. Like where to get bullets from.

[Loud Whispers]

Don't know about Leytonstone, but the Lee Rigby killings was not for a lack of mechanisms, the jihadis who beheaded Lee did so because he was in military uniform and they wanted to kill a soldier. They even had friendly conversations with the infidels around them whilst their hands were covered in blood. Adebolajo and Adebowale had guns on them, which they tried to use on the police, the police won that fight. This is in contrast with say Paris, where their focus is maximizing casualties for maximum impact

Most of that is true but I'd point out that they only had one gun and it was a 90-year-old revolver that failed to fire a single shot because it was a rusty piece of shit. I think that counters the argument that terrorists will always have access to the best weapons even if you restrict them (and the perpetrators of the Woolwich attack had a far more direct link to terrorists than Mateen has seemed to so far).

Ah, so you can't drive out black market guns, but you can suppress them and their quality to the point where day to day police can walk around unarmed safely
And should it come to a gunfight, the police will usually be better equipped without having to resort to battle tanks

[milo christiansen]

Or maybe you've not considered all issues. Like where to get bullets from.

That's trivial.

You can buy empty brass even in places with strict gun laws. Bullets are easy enough to cast from lead and such like (lead is both easy to get and easy to cast). You would have to gild the bullets OR you could give them a good layer of high temp grease. The hardest part would be powder and primers, but honestly, how many places really control access to them? In a worst case you make what you need, it wouldn't be top quality, but you would be firing it at close range with a cheaply made sub-gun anyway...

[Neonivek]

Plus in the US it is legal to buy armor piercing bullets.

And I have yet to hear of a person shooting up police officers with those.