Guns don't kill people; posting 4-year-old YouTube videos as "news" kills people.

Lets not forget the ghost killed by the friends of Charles Mudedes Marxist father.

http://www.rhodesia.nl/mission.htm

I do like when she calls other people "naive". Apparently she didn't know her own husband (4 year old video or not).

Just so I understand the conservatives rules for gun violence...

1) We can't talk about gun violence after massacres of children in school and parishioners in church because that would be politicizing the issue.

2) We can't talk about women being murdered after the fact because it is old news.

Do I have that about right?

Terrible.

If only she didn't have a gun, I'm completely confident that she and her husband and family would be living happily ever after right now.

Completely confident.

It's simple logic that if you have more guns in circulation then you're going to have more shootings.
And yes gun trolls, she could have also been killed by any other number of means, but few of them are as easy or detached as pulling a trigger. You have to get your hands dirty and use some effort with most physical violence, and there's a good chance you wouldn't be successful in the attempt.

She think how much deader she would be if she hadn't had a gun to protect her.

@2: What you're saying is that Mudede's father was friends with real-life Ghost Busters? Is it your assertion that his father's friends have that ghost's blood (or, rather, ectoplasm) on their hands?

Either way, I don't see how that has anything to do with Mudede.

We can't talk about gun violence after 20 kids die in a hail of gunfire, because it's too soon, but we can have Gun Appreciation Day one month later. My failure to appreciate is abundant.

Remember, this old video is just Charles being all ironic and contemplative and stuff - "see, your gun didn't protect you from the evil in your own home" - but I doubt even Charles would argue that "gun control" would prevent this kind of tragedy absent a complete ban on all handguns and a campaign to root out and destroy those currently existing (not gonna happen).

Hain and her parole officer husband seem well qualified to handle their guns, and even trained users of registered guns with trigger locks and safes will kill each other. The point is to do what we can to minimize these, and other, tragedies involving handguns by implementing thoughtful and reasonable gun control, just like we control other potential hazards.

@6 makes a good point. Pulling a trigger is much more detached than say, plunging a knife into someone's chest. The cognitive processes involved are substantially different (this BigThink video describes it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCL…). The upshot is that it is much easier, cognitively, for most people to take a violent action that is detached than one that is intimate.

@10, re: all out ban and destroying existing guns.
It might not be possible to track down and destroy every single gun out there, nor should we, but it is possible to radically reduce the number of guns in circulation, and I think we could do it without impacting one's ability to go hunting or target shooting.
If you look at what Australia did after they had a mass shooting back in the 90's you'd see that it is possible to still have a country that can go hunting without having a rash of shootings on the news every two days.
There is simply no need for assault weapons (definition aside, you know what I'm talking about) or high capacity magazines or even semi automatics really. A pump action shotgun and a rifle with a six round magazine are perfectly adequate for hunting. Anything more than that is really designed for drive by shootings and penis compensation. Simply unnecessary in our society.

If you look at Australia's statistics, you'll find that post-1997, homicides, as a whole, have gone down from approximately 300 (total!) to approximately 260, or a drop of about 12%, and a savings of approximately 40 lives.

As an instrument, firearms were used in less than 30% of homicides in 1990 compared to approximately 15% in 2007. Knives/sharp instruments went from under 35% to almost 45%. Apparently, if people can't kill people with firearms, they're perfectly happy to use knives instead.

Now, all that is well and good and you can say that Gun Control is really working out - we've saved about 40 lives a year. (It could be argued that the number of homicides was already in decline and gun control didn't really change that, but let's just say that gun control was the reason for the decline.)

However, in the same time period, assaults went from approximately 100,000 (total) to approximately 175,000.

So, if we're going to give the reduction in homicides to gun control, we should probably consider that it is possible that criminals find preying on unarmed citizens more appetizing.

Additionally, if you look at the armed to unarmed statistics for robbery in the time period, you'll notice that while robbery as a whole is similar in 1997 and 2007, the numbers of armed robbery very closely track the number of unarmed robbery. Which says to me that criminals apparently still have guns.

Lastly, if you look at the number of sexual assaults in the time period, in 2007 there were approximately 20,000 sexual assaults, compared to approximately 15,000 in 1997, a disturbing upward trend.

Now, it is quite possible that the trend in sexual assault is due to more assaults being reported (there are similar figures in the United States), but it is also possible that, like with assaults, the lack of citizen owned defensive firearms has allowed the increase.

So, in theory, we saved 40 lives at the cost of 75,000 assaults and 5,000 sexual assaults. That isn't a very good return in my book.

@12, Are you calling for a ban on all semi-automatic rifles? 'cause if you aren't there is really no difference between an AR15 with an X-round magazine and any other semi-automatic (but not-scary-looking-to-people-who-don't-know-anything-about-rifles) rifle with an X-round magazine.

The problem with having this "gun-control" conversation is most people on the 'gun-control-nut' side, don't want to have a conversation about things that would be effective (although I understand that Biden's proposal will include items such as making it more difficult for those with mental health issues and giving more resources to cracking down on straw purchasers) they just want to talk about scary-LOOKING things. On the flip side, most 'gun nuts' just want to say, "You can take my gun from my cold dead fingers!" which is not productive either.

@14,

In order to legally own and use a firearm, you must be properly licensed and have a separate license for each weapon. No one who is not properly licensed is legally allowed to handle or use that weapon except at a firing range.

If one of those weapons is used in a crime or harms someone in an accident, no matter whether the legal owner was the one wielding it, the legal owner is on the hook for civil liability. If the criminal or accidental shooter was a minor child living in the home, then the legal owner, and perhaps all other adults in the home, is on the hook for criminal liability.

No one under the age of 18 is eligible to hold a legal firearm license and cannot legally handle or discharge a firearm anyplace other than at a firing range.

Guns can only be bought and sold through a licensed dealer, every purchase and sale must be recorded, and every purchase requires a background check.

How's that for starters?

@5: If she didn't and her husband weren't the sort who constantly have guns on the brain, they both might have survived that argument. Guns more than any other weapon can turn bad impulses into deadly ones.

@15 I like how you think. Just one suggestion:

"If one of those weapons is used in a crime or harms someone in an accident, no matter whether the legal owner was the one wielding it, the legal owner is on the hook for civil liability."

...unless the legal owner had reported it stolen.

@15, Sounds great except that I don't understand your 18 year old reasoning. Many many people learned how to hunt and learned how to safely use a firearm at much younger ages (and should be able to do so with proper supervision). I also don't understand your rational on a per-firearm license - a single license that gets updated with new purchase/sales seems reasonable.

Additionally, you clearly live in a city, or other urban area. In most rural areas target shooting, or hunting in your backyard (assuming it is large enough) is a perfectly acceptable and safe pursuit. You'll have to explain to me how allowing one's friend/spouse/whatever to use one's rifle at a range is different than when you're hunting or at some other safe arena. (Assuming you're still liable for damage/accident/etc.)

Liability sounds great. As far as I know, no one has ever tried to draft a law requiring that, but I personally don't see why any legitimate gun owner wouldn't find that reasonable. It would certainly cut down on on illegitimate sales and most likely cut down on straw purchasers, which would be great.

Every dealer purchase and sale is currently recorded and every dealer purchase currently requires a background check. The problem with making that a requirement for private-party sales is, at the moment, I suspect it would be very hard to regulate. However, if you were liable for anything that happened with a firearm that you sold that didn't go through a dealer..etc., I think that would be great also.

All that said, the majority of illegal firearms come from crooked licensed dealers, no from individuals. Do you have any proposals for that?

@18,

The per firearm license is to ensure, to the best of the state's ability, that any time ownership of a gun changes hands, there's a paper trail. The same reasoning why you need a driver's license and a license for each motor vehicle you own and operate.

Many many people learned how to hunt and learned how to safely use a firearm at much younger ages (and should be able to do so with proper supervision)

Yes, and that's the problem. *Proper* supervision. Without regulation, how are we to determine whether minors are being supervised properly when they're handling firearms? That's why I added the caveat of using them at a range, or some other highly regulated location.

And I challenge the idea that hunting in one's "backyard" ought to be considered acceptable or safe behavior. Obviously it is not for many people. Many people are injured accidentally in hunting and shooting accidents. Many people are injured accidentally by minors handling firearms they ought not to be let near. Minors have no business being around firearms without highly regulated supervision, just like they don't have any business driving under the age of 16 or without a license.

Minors don't have the right to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, operate a motor vehicle under the age of 16, join the military, or vote. They also shouldn't have the "right" to own and shoot deadly weapons without strict government regulation. If it's found that their parents are letting them shoot without proper supervision, their parents should go to jail and/or lose custody.

@16,
Is it a terrible thing that they're dead?

Seriously. Take the whole 'abortions-are-the-reason-there's-less-crime argument.' Perhaps their family & friends are actually better off with them out of their lives? Perhaps the community has been improved with their deaths? If the presence of guns is a terrible thing... well, that community is now minus two people with guns.

who gives a fuck how old this "story" is white people fucking rock!

@13

Nice try. Nice statistics.

Of course, like all anti-gun control folks, you like to cherry pick statistics.

One statistic you didn't mention is that the population of Australia has gone up by more than 20% from 1997 to 2013 (an increase of 4.5 million + people in a population of 22.8 mil).

That is a huge difference.

Australia, by the way, is one of the most urbanized countries in the world (89%). It also is one of the diverse and has one of the highest % of immigrants in the world (24% foreign born). It also has one of the longest life expectancies on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic…

@15 Yeah.

@23, Nice try yourself - whether or not Australia is one of the most urbanized, diverse or friendliest to immigrants has nothing at all to do with the fact that in the time since draconian gun control was established, and most firearms were "bought back", assaults have gone up at a far greater rate than increases in population:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent…

So have sexual assaults:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent…

Just for comparison, per capita assaults in the USA are approximately 250 per 100,000, Australia is around 840 per 100,000.

So, sure you can blame some of the rise on the increase in population, but if you look at the per capita figures, assaults and sexual assaults have still gone up. Also, regardless of whether or not Australia is the land of milk and honey, the ratio of armed robbery to unarmed robbery is virtually unchanged post-massive gun control, so somehow, criminals still have the same percentage of firearms.

For comparison, while gun ownership in the United States has increased, assaults have decreased almost 40% between 1997 and 2011. You can choose your own timeframe, but overall, the trend is definitely downward, Australia's is definitely upward.

During that same period, while homicides by firearms has remained relatively steady, overall homicides have gone down nearly 35% between 1997 and 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…

@ 19, when it comes to youths and guns, it will be impossible to impose those kinds of restrictions. We don't require people to learn driving from licensed schools; many people learn from their parents. And while you can certainly make the case that all that OUGHT to be done by professional trainers, proposals should only be pursued if they're practical.

Maybe there ought to be permits for younger minors (maybe minimum age 10, which is the age lots of kids first learn this stuff) and licenses at 15 (the same age you have to be to get a fishing license, IIRC).

@ 21, yes. It's a terrible thing these people are dead. They had kids. Jesus christ....

@21: But for their kids, no, I don't think it's a terrible thing, I think it's poetically just. Too bad we can't magically make it so that whenever a gun freak becomes consumed with rage, his/her impulse is to shoot only other gun freaks.

@23, The stats can always be cherry picked to go either way, but you're making some wild ass leaps of logic with your assumptions about criminal motivation. Just as someone in a heated rage doesn't pause to consider whether the state that they reside in has a death penalty before acting, I highly doubt that crimes committed has anything at all to do with private gun ownership. Even more so, if it was a factor at all, I'd wager that it was a much smaller influencer than any other factor that I could pull out of thin air like economics, urbanization, police budgets, weather, alcohol and drug availability, or even the price of cell phones.
You seem to live in a gun centric state of mind where all crime and freedom is based on the gun.
The other issue here is that the changes in gun prevalence in Australia are really just getting going. The stockpile of guns had built up over many decades and it will take many decades to reverse it. The same thing here. We're swimming in guns because the NRA went nuts and changed from a hunting and safety association to a very powerful lobby for gun manufacturers while stoking fears and insecurities in people so they'd buy more and more guns.

@29, I don't think you meant to respond to @23.. I've provided links to the data from violent crimes for both Australia and the United States, you say that the "stats" can be "cherry picked" to go either way. So, given a time frame of at least 5-10 years (anything shorter is likely a statistical anomaly), please show how the figures support your point of view. You can also look at the UK - while homicide by firearm is way down, overall homicides is not - homicide by knives and edged weapons is way up.

Additionally, Australia never had the "stockpile of guns" that the United States has. And regardless, the two Australian gun buyback programs reduced the "available stockpile" by nearly 50%, yet had a small (and it could be argued that homicides in Australia have been in decline for decades and the post-gun-ban decline merely continued that trend) effect on homicides, and little, to no, effect on armed robbery.

@30, Australia also doesn't have a mass shooting rampage every few days like we do.