maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted.
So you could look someone in the eye and tell them a mass shooting is just as likely to
occur at a gun target range as anywhere else that people congregate?
where was the "American Sniper" Chris Kyle killed? He's not the only one, people are shot at gun ranges more often than alloak might think...
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-check-vermont-gun-range/
[Edited on 6/21/2016 by gondicar]
Where did I ever say that nobody is ever shot at a gun range? Go ahead and put some wheels
on the goalpost.... But in a mass killing scenario? Look back through all the cases of mass killing
with a firearm and you will find that NONE have occurred at a gun range. Probably just a coincidence?
I was merely pointing out that murders via shooting occur at gun ranges pretty regularly...they are not exempt from gun violence and are not the safe havens from gun violence that you are making them out to be.
As far as anything being a coincidence, well I work in a furniture factory and as far as I can tell there has never been a mass shooting in a furniture factory. What kind of coincidence is that?
[Edited on 6/21/2016 by gondicar]
1. The frequency of accidental death, much less "murder" that occurs at gun ranges
is statistically insignificant. Only a handful of cases in the last five years, despite the
vast expansion the number of these facilities.
2. The workplace is one of the most common locations for mass shootings.
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
Anybody's guess what this has to do with Gun Free Zones..............anyway
Each time a mass shooting takes place, going straight to the podium to blame an object? You
expect success with this? Does it surprise you he's a failure?All his anti-gun rhetoric accomplishes is selling more guns. Obama abhors the fact that citizens are
allowed to own firearms.No matter how many times you say "blaming the object" it won't ever be true.
You seem to know more about what Obama thinks than sixty8 seems to know about Trump, yet you asked sixty8 "You have a lot of inside info about Mr. Trump and his makeup. How long have you known him and where did you all meet?" So how many times have you met Obama.
It's gotten to where I can predict what you're going to say. Actually it's been that way for a while...
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
Looks like Bob knows a few terrorists 
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
Anybody's guess what this has to do with Gun Free Zones..............anyway
Each time a mass shooting takes place, going straight to the podium to blame an object? You
expect success with this? Does it surprise you he's a failure?All his anti-gun rhetoric accomplishes is selling more guns. Obama abhors the fact that citizens are
allowed to own firearms.No matter how many times you say "blaming the object" it won't ever be true.
You seem to know more about what Obama thinks than sixty8 seems to know about Trump, yet you asked sixty8 "You have a lot of inside info about Mr. Trump and his makeup. How long have you known him and where did you all meet?" So how many times have you met Obama.
It's gotten to where I can predict what you're going to say. Actually it's been that way for a while...
This isn't about me. Although if that is true it is only because it is in reacting to the same things that you say over and over and over again ("blame the object") in hopes it may some day become true.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
Looks like Bob knows a few terrorists
You're the one who started the "if you know so much about him then you must have met him" nonsense. I only mentioned it t point out your hypocrisy.
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
Anybody's guess what this has to do with Gun Free Zones..............anyway
Each time a mass shooting takes place, going straight to the podium to blame an object? You
expect success with this? Does it surprise you he's a failure?All his anti-gun rhetoric accomplishes is selling more guns. Obama abhors the fact that citizens are
allowed to own firearms.
Post the direct quote where Obama states that he abhors the fact that citizens are allowed to own firearms. Post the direct quote from Obama where he directly blamed a mass shooting on the gun itself. If you're really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
Looks like Bob knows a few terrorists
Married one.
Married one.
Hahahaha. 
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
Anybody's guess what this has to do with Gun Free Zones..............anyway
Each time a mass shooting takes place, going straight to the podium to blame an object? You
expect success with this? Does it surprise you he's a failure?All his anti-gun rhetoric accomplishes is selling more guns. Obama abhors the fact that citizens are
allowed to own firearms.Post the direct quote where Obama states that he abhors the fact that citizens are allowed to own firearms. Post the direct quote from Obama where he directly blamed a mass shooting on the gun itself. If you're really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...
After a mass shooting Obama addresses the nation and gives roughly the same speech,
saying that GUNS should be made less available. He's not blaming hammers or can openers
in these speeches....he's blaming GUNS. Every time.
Hello!
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
Anybody's guess what this has to do with Gun Free Zones..............anyway
Each time a mass shooting takes place, going straight to the podium to blame an object? You
expect success with this? Does it surprise you he's a failure?All his anti-gun rhetoric accomplishes is selling more guns. Obama abhors the fact that citizens are
allowed to own firearms.Post the direct quote where Obama states that he abhors the fact that citizens are allowed to own firearms. Post the direct quote from Obama where he directly blamed a mass shooting on the gun itself. If you're really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...
After a mass shooting Obama addresses the nation and gives roughly the same speech,
saying that GUNS should be made less available. He's not blaming hammers or can openers
in these speeches....he's blaming GUNS. Every time.Hello!
Who has used a can opener or a hammer to commit a mass shooting?
As to his first remarks...
Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder -- a horrific massacre -- of dozens of innocent people. We pray for their families, who are grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of Orlando, who have endured a terrible attack on their city. Although it’s still early in the investigation, we know enough to say that this was an act of terror and an act of hate. And as Americans, we are united in grief, in outrage, and in resolve to defend our people.
I just finished a meeting with FBI Director Comey and my homeland security and national security advisors. The FBI is on the scene and leading the investigation, in partnership with local law enforcement. I’ve directed that the full resources of the federal government be made available for this investigation.
We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation. We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism. And I’ve directed that we must spare no effort to determine what -- if any -- inspiration or association this killer may have had with terrorist groups. What is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred. Over the coming days, we’ll uncover why and how this happened, and we will go wherever the facts lead us.
This morning I spoke with my good friend, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, and I conveyed the condolences of the entire American people. This could have been any one of our communities. So I told Mayor Dyer that whatever help he and the people of Orlando need -- they are going to get it. As a country, we will be there for the people of Orlando today, tomorrow and for all the days to come.
We also express our profound gratitude to all the police and first responders who rushed into harm’s way. Their courage and professionalism saved lives, and kept the carnage from being even worse. It’s the kind of sacrifice that our law enforcement professionals make every single day for all of us, and we can never thank them enough.
This is an especially heartbreaking day for all our friends -- our fellow Americans -- who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing, and to live. The place where they were attacked is more than a nightclub -- it is a place of solidarity and empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds, and to advocate for their civil rights.
So this is a sobering reminder that attacks on any American -- regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation -- is an attack on all of us and on the fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country. And no act of hate or terror will ever change who we are or the values that make us Americans.
Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.
In the coming hours and days, we’ll learn about the victims of this tragedy. Their names. Their faces. Who they were. The joy that they brought to families and to friends, and the difference that they made in this world. Say a prayer for them and say a prayer for their families -- that God give them the strength to bear the unbearable. And that He give us all the strength to be there for them, and the strength and courage to change. We need to demonstrate that we are defined more -- as a country -- by the way they lived their lives than by the hate of the man who took them from us.
As we go together, we will draw inspiration from heroic and selfless acts -- friends who helped friends, took care of each other and saved lives. In the face of hate and violence, we will love one another. We will not give in to fear or turn against each other. Instead, we will stand united, as Americans, to protect our people, and defend our nation, and to take action against those who threaten us.
May God bless the Americans we lost this morning. May He comfort their families. May God continue to watch over this country that we love. Thank you.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/12/president-obama-tragic-shooting-orlando
Where in those remarks did he blame the guns? Where did he say that guns should be less available?
Post the direct quote where Obama states that he abhors the fact that citizens are allowed to own firearms. Post the direct quote from Obama where he directly blamed a mass shooting on the gun itself. If you're really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...
The closest Obama gets to the gun thing is the following quote, and he is saying it is up to the country to decide, and that not deciding is a decision as well. Sounds to me like he is not forcing the issue at all. He sounds personally distressed over people having easy access to guns, yet is leaving it to the American people to think about it, and do something about it. Even it means doing nothing, but we have to face the consequences of that as well.
Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.
After a mass shooting Obama addresses the nation and gives roughly the same speech,
saying that GUNS should be made less available. He's not blaming hammers or can openers
in these speeches....he's blaming GUNS. Every time.
You are obviously not listening to his speeches so you are hardly qualified to pontificate about their content. There is nothing in his rhetoric or policy actions that support the notion that he is blaming the guns themselves for all these mass shootings and nor that guns should be less available nor that law abiding citizens shouldn't have access to guns.
Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder -- a horrific massacre -- of dozens of innocent people. We pray for their families, who are grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of Orlando, who have endured a terrible attack on their city. Although it’s still early in the investigation, we know enough to say that this was an act of terror and an act of hate. And as Americans, we are united in grief, in outrage, and in resolve to defend our people.
I just finished a meeting with FBI Director Comey and my homeland security and national security advisors. The FBI is on the scene and leading the investigation, in partnership with local law enforcement. I’ve directed that the full resources of the federal government be made available for this investigation.
We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation. We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism. And I’ve directed that we must spare no effort to determine what -- if any -- inspiration or association this killer may have had with terrorist groups. What is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred. Over the coming days, we’ll uncover why and how this happened, and we will go wherever the facts lead us.
This morning I spoke with my good friend, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, and I conveyed the condolences of the entire American people. This could have been any one of our communities. So I told Mayor Dyer that whatever help he and the people of Orlando need -- they are going to get it. As a country, we will be there for the people of Orlando today, tomorrow and for all the days to come.
We also express our profound gratitude to all the police and first responders who rushed into harm’s way. Their courage and professionalism saved lives, and kept the carnage from being even worse. It’s the kind of sacrifice that our law enforcement professionals make every single day for all of us, and we can never thank them enough.
This is an especially heartbreaking day for all our friends -- our fellow Americans -- who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing, and to live. The place where they were attacked is more than a nightclub -- it is a place of solidarity and empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds, and to advocate for their civil rights.
So this is a sobering reminder that attacks on any American -- regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation -- is an attack on all of us and on the fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country. And no act of hate or terror will ever change who we are or the values that make us Americans.
Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.
In the coming hours and days, we’ll learn about the victims of this tragedy. Their names. Their faces. Who they were. The joy that they brought to families and to friends, and the difference that they made in this world. Say a prayer for them and say a prayer for their families -- that God give them the strength to bear the unbearable. And that He give us all the strength to be there for them, and the strength and courage to change. We need to demonstrate that we are defined more -- as a country -- by the way they lived their lives than by the hate of the man who took them from us.
As we go together, we will draw inspiration from heroic and selfless acts -- friends who helped friends, took care of each other and saved lives. In the face of hate and violence, we will love one another. We will not give in to fear or turn against each other. Instead, we will stand united, as Americans, to protect our people, and defend our nation, and to take action against those who threaten us.
May God bless the Americans we lost this morning. May He comfort their families. May God continue to watch over this country that we love. Thank you.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/12/president-obama-tragic-shooting-orlando
Thanks for posting that transcript...I wonder if alloak will read it since he would have us believe that "after a mass shooting Obama addresses the nation and gives roughly the same speech" in which he's blaming guns "every time." Hey alloak, was that speech the same as all the others you say you have heard? Can you point out where you think he is blaming the guns?
[Edited on 6/22/2016 by gondicar]
The closest Obama gets to the gun thing is the following quote, and he is saying it is up to the country to decide, and that not deciding is a decision as well. Sounds to me like he is not forcing the issue at all. He sounds personally distressed over people having easy access to guns, yet is leaving it to the American people to think about it, and do something about it. Even it means doing nothing, but we have to face the consequences of that as well.
Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.
Criminals will not use regular means to get guns. Law abiding citizens already go thru background checks. The only thing that could have stopped this shooting is if Muslims had to declare their religion and then THEY were not allowed to buy any guns because of their religion. It would have to be an across the board policy, NO MUSLIMS can buy any guns.
Some politicians think they can create a watch list of suspicious Muslims and just deny THEM guns. As a nation that says religious freedom exists here, that would be a contradiction. So what do you do about Muslims who want to kill people here?
The easiest solution is to identify them (if possible) and then deport them and not let them back in the country. Is this do-able? Not if they are already legally here and are US citizens.
So you see, it is rather complicated.
The closest Obama gets to the gun thing is the following quote, and he is saying it is up to the country to decide, and that not deciding is a decision as well. Sounds to me like he is not forcing the issue at all. He sounds personally distressed over people having easy access to guns, yet is leaving it to the American people to think about it, and do something about it. Even it means doing nothing, but we have to face the consequences of that as well.
Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.
That's an easy decision for me. I'd much rather live in a country with many freedoms and the
ease of obtaining a weapon over a "safer" country where firearms are scarce among the public
.....but so are the freedoms. I realize there is a possibility of getting gunned down by a crazed
gunman but I'll opt for this choice 100%. Thanks for asking though, Barack.
The closest Obama gets to the gun thing is the following quote, and he is saying it is up to the country to decide, and that not deciding is a decision as well. Sounds to me like he is not forcing the issue at all. He sounds personally distressed over people having easy access to guns, yet is leaving it to the American people to think about it, and do something about it. Even it means doing nothing, but we have to face the consequences of that as well.
Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.
That's an easy decision for me. I'd much rather live in a country with many freedoms and the
ease of obtaining a weapon over a "safer" country where firearms are scarce among the public
.....but so are the freedoms. I realize there is a possibility of getting gunned down by a crazed
gunman but I'll opt for this choice 100%. Thanks for asking though, Barack.
Hey alloak, we are still waiting for you to show us where Obama "blamed the object".
The closest Obama gets to the gun thing is the following quote, and he is saying it is up to the country to decide, and that not deciding is a decision as well. Sounds to me like he is not forcing the issue at all. He sounds personally distressed over people having easy access to guns, yet is leaving it to the American people to think about it, and do something about it. Even it means doing nothing, but we have to face the consequences of that as well.
Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.
That's an easy decision for me. I'd much rather live in a country with many freedoms and the
ease of obtaining a weapon over a "safer" country where firearms are scarce among the public
.....but so are the freedoms. I realize there is a possibility of getting gunned down by a crazed
gunman but I'll opt for this choice 100%. Thanks for asking though, Barack.
Post the direct quote where Obama states that he abhors the fact that citizens are allowed to own firearms. Post the direct quote from Obama where he directly blamed a mass shooting on the gun itself. If you're really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...
That's an easy decision for me. I'd much rather live in a country with many freedoms and the
ease of obtaining a weapon over a "safer" country where firearms are scarce among the public
.....but so are the freedoms. I realize there is a possibility of getting gunned down by a crazed
gunman but I'll opt for this choice 100%. Thanks for asking though, Barack.
One country with many freedoms just like we enjoy here is Australia...
Australia's mass shootings dropped to zero after gun reforms
(CNN) After any mass shooting, whether it's the recent Orlando massacre or the terror at a Charleston church or the killings in Newtown, Connecticut, one statistic is often cited: Australia has had zero mass shootings in two decades, while America faces frequent bloodshed.
Indeed, Australia has long been referenced in the ongoing debate over how to stop mass shootings in the United States.
After a shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon in October, President Barack Obama said, "We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours -- Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it."
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Wednesday not only offers a detailed timeline of Australia's reduction in mass violence, it confirms that the country experienced a rapid decline in firearm homicides and suicides after enacting gun law reforms in 1996.
"The results are clear," said Simon Chapman, a professor at the University of Sydney's School of Public Health and lead author of the study.
"Gun deaths are a problem amenable to reduction like any other public health problem," he said. "International differences in rates between countries show this. The United States has the worst record of gun deaths of any [Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development] nation, exceeded only by that in chaotic nations with massive law and order problems."
For the study, researchers in Sydney examined gun-related incidents and death reports from the Australian Bureau of Statics and news articles, dated from 1979 to 2013. They determined how many fatal mass shootings, gun-related suicides and homicides occurred during that time period and analyzed the data.
The researchers noticed that after the enactment of nationwide gun law reform in May 1996, there were no mass shootings in Australia. The researchers defined mass fatal shootings as those with five or more victims killed, not including the perpetrator. (U.S. statutes define a "mass killing" as an incident resulting in three or more deaths. The commonly accepted definition -- the one the FBI used up to 2013 -- is a shooting that killed four or more people.)
Also in the years that followed, gun suicides declined by an average of 4.8% per year, and gun-related homicides declined by an average of 5.5% per year.
The data show a correlation between the gun law reforms and gun violence. But the researchers noted in their study that non-gun-related suicides and homicides also went down. So overall, the data alone weren't enough to provide a direct causation.
But if gun laws were reformed in the United States, where nearly a third of the world's mass shootings took place from 1966 to 2012, could we see a decline in violence?
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health professor Daniel Webster wrote an editorial accompanying the study, also published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Political, cultural, and legal challenges make it highly unlikely that the United States would implement comparable policies," he wrote. "Yet the experience in Australia over the past two decades ... provides a useful example of how a nation can come together to forge life-saving policies despite political and cultural divides."
So, it's difficult to predict what would happen, especially since gun ownership and gun violence are at a much larger scale in the United States than Down Under. However, there's no question that we would see a drop in the frequency of mass homicides, according to David Hemenway, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, who was not involved in the study.
"If we had stronger laws, we'd have fewer gun problems," Hemenway said.
"But the key thing in Australia is that this was done by a conservative leader," he added. "One would have hoped that after the Newtown or Orlando killings that a conservative legislator would have stepped up and said 'we have to do something,' but they really haven't."
Australia implemented gun law reforms after a lone gunman killed 35 people at Port Arthur, a historic tourist site in Tasmania, on April 28, 1996. Under the leadership of conservative Prime Minister John Howard, rapid-fire rifles and shotguns were banned across the country, gun owner licensing was tightened, and a national buyback program was implemented to encourage firearms owners and dealers to surrender their weapons.
"It's rare to see such a strong effect from an intervention in any field of public health, let alone firearm violence," said Garen Wintemute, an emergency medicine physician at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the study. "This intervention targeted mass shootings. In the pre-intervention period, there were 13 mass shootings, and in the post-intervention period, there were none."
Previous studies also have analyzed how these gun law reforms affected violence in Australia, but the new research seems to be the most comprehensive yet, said Wintemute, a gun violence expert.
"This is arguably the strongest study in the literature on the effect that policies addressing specific types of firearms might have on firearm violence," he said. "Mass shootings account for less than 1% of fatal firearm violence in the United States. Policies here should address firearm violence generally, with mass shootings as a subset of that violence."
The National Rifle Association, however, disagrees.
In a statement to CNN, NRA spokesperson Jennifer Baker said, in part, "The study did not find a statistically valid relationship between the gun 'reforms' and the homicide rate and concludes that the impact of the gun 'reforms' cannot be estimated because suicides and homicides from all causes began decreasing before the gun ban and confiscation program was in place."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/australia-gun-law-reform-study/index.html
That's an easy decision for me. I'd much rather live in a country with many freedoms and the
ease of obtaining a weapon over a "safer" country where firearms are scarce among the public
.....but so are the freedoms. I realize there is a possibility of getting gunned down by a crazed
gunman but I'll opt for this choice 100%.
Agreed. Long live the Constitution.
That's an easy decision for me. I'd much rather live in a country with many freedoms and the
ease of obtaining a weapon over a "safer" country where firearms are scarce among the public
.....but so are the freedoms. I realize there is a possibility of getting gunned down by a crazed
gunman but I'll opt for this choice 100%.Agreed. Long live the Constitution.
Disagree. Long live the Constitution.
That's an easy decision for me. I'd much rather live in a country with many freedoms and the
ease of obtaining a weapon over a "safer" country where firearms are scarce among the public
.....but so are the freedoms. I realize there is a possibility of getting gunned down by a crazed
gunman but I'll opt for this choice 100%.Agreed. Long live the Constitution.
Disagree. Long live the Constitution.
Including the 2nd amendment?
Susan Collins builds Senate coalition for ‘no fly, no buy’ gun control
The Maine Republican finds bipartisan support for a proposal that's assured a vote but may not draw enough votes from her own party.
Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins rolled out a bipartisan group of Senate supporters Tuesday for a compromise gun control measure that would prohibit any person on either of two federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms.
The group called the bill a viable alternative to the four gun control measures that failed to win the 60 votes needed for approval in the Senate on Monday. It comes a little more than a week after 49 people were shot to death at a Florida nightclub by a gunman who vowed allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group before being killed by police. The shooter had been previously identified and interviewed by the FBI, and had been on terrorism watch lists, but was not under investigation at the time of the attack.
“Essentially, we believe that if you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun,” said Collins, a Republican. Collins said she and those who worked on the proposal and joined her Tuesday – three Republicans, four Democrats and Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent – support different versions of gun control legislation, but “all of us are united in our desire to getting something significant done on this vital issue.”
Collins’ proposal would prohibit those on the federal “no-fly” and “selectee” lists from purchasing a firearm. Those on the selectee list are allowed to fly after intensive screening. The bill includes a five-year look-back provision to alert the FBI to gun purchases by someone who had been on the broader Terrorism Screening Database, and would allow anyone on the lists who is prohibited from buying a gun to appeal.
The proposal would affect about 2,700 Americans currently on the two lists.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would allow a vote on the proposal, but he has not endorsed it. Collins said her proposal would likely come up for a vote this week or next.
The package seemed to face an uphill climb for the 60 votes it would need in the Senate, and likely faces stronger opposition in the House. Opponents include the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.
Democrats have said about 20 Republican votes are needed for Collins’ proposal to have a chance of passing, and that is a bar that no one is sure they can clear, The Washington Post reported.
Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chair Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday that Collins’ proposal is “a step in the right direction” but that it also has “some serious problems.”
He argued that by focusing on the two smaller lists, hundreds of thousands of other suspected terrorists could slip through the cracks. He also said that the expedited appeals process for anyone believing they were mistakenly denied a gun is too fast, according to the Post.
GRAHAM: ‘THIS SIMPLY MAKES SENSE’
On Monday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who authored one of four bills that failed in the Senate this week, said Collins’ proposal is “not enough to close the loophole that creates this terror gap.”
But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina – one of the Senate’s most conservative lawmakers, a staunch defender of 2nd Amendment rights and the owner of an AR-15, a military-style, semi-automatic rifle similar to the weapon used in the Florida massacre – said he had no objection to Collins’ proposal.
“This simply makes sense to me,” said Graham. “If we can’t pass this, it truly is a broken system up here.”
If somebody was mistakenly put on either list and prevented from buying a gun, that can be corrected. But if a person on either list purchases a gun and uses it to kill people, that can’t be fixed after the fact, Graham said. He said he understands that Americans’ constitutional rights to own firearms must be protected.
“But every right has boundaries on it,” Graham said.
King, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee with Collins, said security and intelligence officials have warned that the next round of terrorism is likely to be staged by “lone wolf” operatives already in the U.S. and other Western nations. He said the bill makes sense given how hard the U.S. military is working to subdue terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria and other parts of the globe.
“What sense does it make that ISIS can mobilize people in this country and they can walk into a store and buy a gun?” King asked. He called the issue a “major gap” in the nation’s security system.
Even if Collins’ bill passes, a terrorist could still purchase a firearm in many states, including Maine, where background checks are not required for some gun sales, King said. He called Collins’ bill “good old Maine common sense,” and that “the fundamental purpose of any government is to provide for the common defense.”
Collins said she was taking her cues from the American people, who she says overwhelmingly support prohibiting those on no-fly lists from purchasing a firearm. Collins said she did not consult the National Rifle Association.
BACKGROUND CHECK MEASURE IN MAINE
With Collins on Tuesday were King, Graham and Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-North Dakota, Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
Nelson called an AR-15 a “killing machine” and said not denying weapons to suspected terrorists “defies common sense.” He also said he owed it to the people of Orlando to pass legislation to help keep guns from terrorists.
A ballot question on whether to require background checks for private gun sales will appear on the November ballot in Maine. Currently only licensed firearms dealers are required to perform background checks on their customers.
David Trahan, a former state lawmaker and the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, which is opposing the background check ballot measure, said he wouldn’t criticize Collins’ efforts, but urged federal lawmakers to proceed with caution.
“I think we all would be sympathetic to an initiative that would keep guns out of the hands of terrorists,” Trahan said. But he also said that in the case of the Orlando nightclub killings, the FBI had multiple interactions with the man suspected of the shootings. He said a gun shop owner also called authorities about Omar Mateen, the man police have identified as the shooter, before the killing spree.
“All of the right things were done to identify this man,” Trahan said. “But what was missing was the mechanism from the report to the investigation that might have stopped him, not what type of firearm was used in the crime. Right now the failures in the system seem to be sitting on the door of the FBI. Flags went up all over the place that said this guy was dangerous.”
That's an easy decision for me. I'd much rather live in a country with many freedoms and the
ease of obtaining a weapon over a "safer" country where firearms are scarce among the public
.....but so are the freedoms. I realize there is a possibility of getting gunned down by a crazed
gunman but I'll opt for this choice 100%.Agreed. Long live the Constitution.
Disagree. Long live the Constitution.
Including the 2nd amendment?
Of course. And also the 1st amendment, which would be severely tested/threatened under a Trump administration.
Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins rolled out a bipartisan group of Senate supporters Tuesday for a compromise gun control measure that would prohibit any person on either of two federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms.
"From buying firearms"....All guns?...or just "Assault" weapons?...And what keeps the Feds from placing Joe Citizen on this list?
Do YOU believe in the 2nd amendment?
That's an easy decision for me. I'd much rather live in a country with many freedoms and the
ease of obtaining a weapon over a "safer" country where firearms are scarce among the public
.....but so are the freedoms. I realize there is a possibility of getting gunned down by a crazed
gunman but I'll opt for this choice 100%.Agreed. Long live the Constitution.
Disagree. Long live the Constitution.
Including the 2nd amendment?
Of course. And also the 1st amendment
Fair enough, thanks
which would be severely tested/threatened under a Trump administration.
Duly noted
Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins rolled out a bipartisan group of Senate supporters Tuesday for a compromise gun control measure that would prohibit any person on either of two federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms.
And what keeps the Feds from placing Joe Citizen on this list?
That concern seems to be conditional on the party affiliation of whoever is the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins rolled out a bipartisan group of Senate supporters Tuesday for a compromise gun control measure that would prohibit any person on either of two federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms.
"From buying firearms"....All guns?...or just "Assault" weapons?...And what keeps the Feds from placing Joe Citizen on this list?
Do YOU believe in the 2nd amendment?
I believe in the entirety of the US Constitution. I also believe that too many people cherry pick the constitution's various provisions and act as if the 2nd amendment as the only part of the constitution that matters.
As for Joe Citizens that end up on the list, we already know it happens, along with false positives, which is unfortunate especially since the courts have recently ruled that air travel is a "sacred" liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution and the government has to make changes to its no fly list program (of course we don't hear much from the conservatives here about this, probably because it isn't a 2nd amendment issue). But worth noting that most whom have had their rights wrongly abridged by the no fly list have an opportunity to remedy the situation via administrative and/or legal channels. When I weigh that against the 271 Americans killed (there's no remedy for dead, and isn't the right to not be killed the most important right of all?) and 721 Americans wounded just in mass shootings and just in 2016, it is hard for me to say that "no fly, no buy" is a bad idea.
I find it interesting that some people are willing to accept mass shooting deaths and shooting deaths in general, as well as the possibility of being shot and killed themselves, as an acceptable side effect of the 2nd amendment, but regulating access to guns (even access to guns for people who have been determined dangerous enough that other constitutional rights are being regulated) is not acceptable. As of yet, no one has been able to reconcile that in a way that makes sense to me.
I find it interesting that some people are willing to accept mass shooting deaths and shooting deaths in general, as well as the possibility of being shot and killed themselves, as an acceptable side effect of the 2nd amendment, but regulating access to guns (even access to guns for people who have been determined dangerous enough that other constitutional rights are being regulated) is not acceptable. As of yet, no one has been able to reconcile that in a way that makes sense to me.
Agree 100%. I've never been able to wrap my mind around that either. God forbid one of their family members experiences the impacts of mass shootings. Not sure whether they would sing a different tune or play the martyr card for the 2nd ammendment.
"From buying firearms"....All guns?...or just "Assault" weapons?...And what keeps the Feds from placing Joe Citizen on this list?
Do YOU believe in the 2nd amendment?
I believe in banning assault rifles. And I know criminals will have them, but criminals have a lot of illegal dangerous things - doesn't mean we all should. If you take an experienced shooter at a gun range, and tested them on aim with a 14-round pistol and an AR-15 w/ 14 rounds in it, which would have the greater speed and accuracy results? I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Any law-abiding citizen should have the right to own a pistol, shotgun, or rifle to protect their homes and for sport. But in no way should civilians own military style assault weapons such as an AK-47, which my father in law owns, or an AR-15. That's not what the 2nd Amendment is about.
As for the Feds, what is their incentive to unfairly place someone on a no-buy list, and what is the profile of someone they would want to subject this to?
