I'm in favor of making training a requirement to own a gun. But I might add to your previous comment the observation that most active duty police officers carry handguns. They've had training to use them, of course, but I don't think it would be very much different from what training one is able to procure as a private citizen.

If one is cornered in the street at night by a would-be thief or rapist or drug dealer, for example, which is statistically more likely than confronting some mass shooter who's meticulously planned his attack, there's no time to call the police, who will merely show up to the scene with the same handgun one could have used to ward off one's assailant and prevent the crime in the first place.

I understand your logic but the bad guy will always find a way to get a gun, legally or illegally. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That’s the sense in which this whole issue has become a vicious circle. A truly vicious circle.

I think a majority of them. — Thorongil

So neither you nor cicerone know and are just guessing. Let's make it 50-50 then, ok?

I'm not exactly guessing, because he was talking about the NRA, and the NRA offers and encourages training. And I think this is true of most vocal second amendment proponents. I dare you to find one who didn't know how to properly handle a gun safely or fire it with accuracy.

Based on the ratio of bullets fired in most gun violence incidents and bullets actually hitting someone, I believe the term "accuracy" is a bit of a misnomer where it concerns guns.

Based on the ratio of bullets fired in most gun violence incidents and bullets actually hitting someone — Benkei

Most gun violence incidents do not involve lawful gun owners, such as members of the NRA, so this has no bearing on my assertion.

I'm not exactly guessing, because he was talking about the NRA, and the NRA offers and encourages training. — Thorongil

Yes, but it also opposes state concealed carry permit laws. Thus the push for reciprocity or a single federal law. The NRA, like gun manufacturers, wants people to be able to buy guns as easily as possible. Once they've bought them, training is fine...as long as its not required.

So neither you nor cicerone know and are just guessing. Let's make it 50-50 then, ok? — Benkei

Certainly I'm guessing. Hell, we can't even know whether we're seeing a tree or a mental construct.

I don't doubt that, as I conceded earlier that getting people to buy more guns certainly seems to be part of the NRA's agenda. I'm only trying to point out that that's not all they do. By the way, I appreciate the tact and civility with which you have inserted yourself into this debate.

“Two years ago there was an American president stricken by the horror and his powerlessness to do the obvious to protect his people. Now there is an American president pledged to further the interests of the NRA.” ~ SMH.

The Las Vegas mass murderer achieved better results by using very high quality optics on his enhanced assault rifles, or so I read; he could aim the gun at victims who were a fair distance away. Better optics and a jump stock enabled him to fire a lot of shots in a short period of time, which contributed to the high victim count.

Highly trained sharp shooters are able to hit targets with few wasted bullets (think Lee Harvey Oswald) but most people are no where nearly that well trained or equipped. The acid test is: On very short notice (a minute or two at most) can you load, track, target and hit a moving subject under quite possibly adverse conditions (bad light, intervening obstacles, non-targets in the immediate area, adrenaline rush, fear, excitement, shots being fired at you...)?

If you can, then you may be able to achieve successful intervention. If not, you'll probably just add to the carnage inadvertently.

Assault rifles, which are the weapons of choice for these heinous acts, are specifically made to kill human beings as efficiently as possible. They're useless for target practice, or for hunting; they are made to kill humans. But any move to limit access to these weapons of mass murder is met with howls of 'violation of constitutional rights'. It is indeed deeply f****ed.

's something very wrong with American society. — Michael

There is probably nothing wrong with American society that is not also wrong with other societies. If we are different, it is that some of our problems are more extreme than most other G20 countries.

Neoliberalism has left hefty percentages of our population without access to social services when they need it most. There is no "nanny state" here, there is mostly a punitive system that takes a harsh approach towards people with problems. Our culture promotes quite unreasonable expectations for financial success. (Like people who are sure they are going to get rich; they just have an embarrassing lack of cash right now.) Under the pressures of lost jobs, falling wages, and higher costs of living, a lot of people have been driven into the ditches of permanent poverty, with the consequent dysfunctions in family life.

A huge difference is that lots of people already have guns, and those who don't do not have to look far to find one for sale. People get frustrated. In the ghettos guns are routine. In the mainstream society they are mostly used for suicide. Guns are a preferred vehicle for mayhem -- and they probably would be in any country, IF they were as easy to obtain as they are here.

In the mainstream society they are mostly used for suicide. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's terrible, at least for those who do not regret having lived past times of suicidal depression. I am certain that I would have killed myself years ago if I had had easy enough access to a gun, and I still wouldn't trust myself to own one. That's a very disturbing thought. I would not be here right now. I might never have interacted with any of you over the internet.

I am confident that, had things been different, I could have slipped through the system. So, if we wish to discourage suicide, at least in cases like mine, where I am now at a stage where I can look back and say that I am glad that my thoughts and plans did not come to fruition, then we should be looking to make the system as stringent as possible.

How many people have there been who were like I was, but tragically got hold of a gun? How many of them got hold of a gun owned by their parent or parents? How many are at risk now?

The New Yorker

Most gun violence incidents do not involve lawful gun owners, such as members of the NRA, so this has no bearing on my assertion. — Thorongil

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html

"In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance."

The most likely outcome of a police officer firing their gun is that they'll miss. Private individuals are not going to do better. More than half of shots by police miss at a distance I can throw a baseball in someone's face 75% of the time which would be an argument to arm police with balls.

Guns cannot be accurately handled in stress situations. That's reserved for only a very few, highly trained individuals.

There is probably nothing wrong with American society that is not also wrong with other societies. If we are different, it is that some of our problems are more extreme than most other G20 countries. — Bitter Crank

Did you read what I said in context? Thorongil said that if a ban on guns were to happen then it would lead to something of a civil war. It didn't happen in the UK or Australia. So if, in the face of a ban on guns, "armed citizens would defend themselves with their guns to prevent the latter from being confiscated, which would force the government to engage in mass murder of its citizens in order to confiscate their guns", then there's something very wrong with American society (that isn't wrong with other societies like the UK and Australia).

The problem of the American gun control debate is well,... there is no actual debate. It's more like an assorted selection of accusations and mud-slinging. It's not even meant to be a debate.

You have sides that look at each other at such hostility, that the "debate" is quite worthless. On one side you have basically a strategy of no-compromise ever: that every compromise, every limitation is just a way to ultimately to a total gun ban, hence fight every step. The NRA accepting that basically now the way to make semi-automatic guns automatic ones does actually go against the law is only the exception to the rule.

The other side has in my view a policy of taking up the issue (or the issue is taken up by the media) after mass shootings and hence try to milk the popular feeling. And this is quite universal, the EU started to make sweeping changes to the gun laws after the Paris terrorist attacks, which basically were written by the anti-gun lobby and was just waiting for the correct time to be made public.

In a way I find both sides and the debate nauseating. I am for gun control, yet also am against a ban on privately owned firearms, even if don't own myself guns. Now I truly think there actually is a reasonable middle road, which people (even gunowners) would find acceptable and workable, but that middle road cannot be found when the loudest lobby-groups are the extremists on both sides. In the US this is a bigger problem than here in Europe.

Basically I think that it's the lobbyists who want the public debate just to be a circus, so they can dominate the actual legislation.

Yes, I read it in context. Thorongil is a thoughtful, well informed, intelligent fellow, but

"armed citizens would defend themselves with their guns to prevent the latter from being confiscated, which would force the government to engage in mass murder of its citizens in order to confiscate their guns" — Thorongil

isn't a statement of fact. It's speculation about an extremely unlikely event.

Is the United States fundamentally different than the UK or Australia? No. Are there differences? Yes.

Had the United States limited private gun ownership in, say, 1935, with an exception for ordinary hunting rifles, antique gun collectors, clay pigeon-shooting aficionados, and the like -- such a law would probably have been possible. (This is speculation, too.)

If the UK and Australia had a history similar to the US with respect to gun manufacture, and with a post-1970s NRA devoted to torturing a relatively minor piece of your constitution into a blanket right for everyone to be armed with whatever gun they so chose, then in 2017 you would have problems like ours. (This is speculation, not fact.)

Why would you have problems like ours? Because our societies are not fundamentally different.

The most likely outcome of a police officer firing their gun is that they'll miss. — Benkei

Except that I was responding to CTW's claim that such misses will involve accidentally killing innocent bystanders. I don't know what kind of scenarios he's imagining take place, but I doubt most people, whether private citizens or policemen, would try to take down a perp who's fleeing in the midst of a crowd or some such situation.

Except that I was responding to CTW's claim that such misses will involve accidentally killing innocent bystanders. I don't know what kind of scenarios he's imagining take place, but I doubt most people, whether private citizens or policemen, would try to take down a perp who's fleeing in the midst of a crowd or some such situation. — Thorongil

Maybe you're thinking about CTW but the below was not a reply to CTW but to me.

I'm not exactly guessing, because he was talking about the NRA, and the NRA offers and encourages training. And I think this is true of most vocal second amendment proponents. I dare you to find one who didn't know how to properly handle a gun safely or fire it with accuracy. — Thorongil

emphasis mine

I take it though that we're in agreement guns are generally not used accurately even within a distance of 6 feet? So if a person misses that bullet is still going to travel far. Even the police regularly hits innocent bystanders as a result (google it). And that's people we expect to handle guns and protect us. If you look at innocent bystanders hurt due to gun violence in general the picture gets a lot worse.

And when we're talking about the police we're talking about handguns mostly, which I imagine are the most accurate after rifles. The accuracy of semi-automatics and automatics probably drops significantly in comparison. But I'm guessing since I'm not familiar with anything else than air-pressurised rifles.

So that said, why not limit gun ownership to handguns and rifles? The former for personal protection and the latter for hunting or protection against wild animals. I can see how a handgun can be a deterrent in a dark alley even if you can't aim properly if your life depended on it.

I take it though that we're in agreement guns are generally not used accurately even within a distance of 6 feet? — Benkei

Handguns are not, certainly.

Even the police regularly hits innocent bystanders as a result (google it) — Benkei

The key word here is "regularly." They obviously do hit bystanders occasionally, but to elevate that adverb to "regularly" would require citing some statistics.

we're talking about handguns mostly, which I imagine are the most accurate after rifles — Benkei

No, it's precisely the opposite.

So that said, why not limit gun ownership to handguns and rifles? — Benkei

It already is, lol.

I can see how a handgun can be a deterrent in a dark alley even if you can't aim properly if your life depended on it. — Benkei

Indeed. Often, one doesn't need to fire a single round, as the mere threat of using a gun is enough to prevent crime. This is what the CDC included in its estimates about cases of defensive gun use, for example, which, as I noted, runs into the hundreds of thousands each year.

It already is, lol. — Thorongil

Shotguns, assault rifles are allowed too right? By rifle I mean a typical hunting rifle. One shot, reload, sort of thing.

No, it's precisely the opposite. — Thorongil

What is?

EDIT:

The key word here is "regularly." They obviously do hit bystanders occasionally, but to elevate that adverb to "regularly" would require citing some statistics. — Thorongil

I'll remind you that I'm from the Netherlands and what you call "occassionally" is "regularly" from my perspective. :D

Based on the ratio of bullets fired in most gun violence incidents and bullets actually hitting someone, I believe the term "accuracy" is a bit of a misnomer where it concerns guns — Benkei

Small point: as they say in many gun training programs, "The bullet never misses." The entire gun experience is a succession of judgment calls. Anyone who thinks that everyone (everyone, that is, with the so-called right to own a gun) can make all of those judgments wisely and competently, is, well, you supply the term.

As to banning guns, think about driving cars. People who have not demonstrated basic skills in driving are banned from driving. Any outrage there?

Gun owners are portrayed as a group that is opposed to any regulation - I doubt it's true. But as it appears to be true, then gun owners and advocates of the absolute right to own guns imho earn the label "gun-nuts." Some earn it by advocacy, the rest by passivity.

But the entire discussion is a red herring. There is no right to own a gun, period. There is a constitutionally articulated right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia, a right grounded in an 18th century reality that has long since evaporated.

Recognizing that gun ownership is not a matter of right completely changes the argument, changes the ground of any argument. It transposes to questions and arguments based in reason and the demands of a modern society. In short, problems need to be well-defined, questions and arguments based in reason. The responsibility for making the transposition, it becomes clear, belongs to those capable of taking it up. Gun-nuts are not thus capable; they simply do not have the capacity: it falls on the rest of us.

No war-lord in even the most violent and lawless parts of the world would tolerate for a minute US-style gun violence. But ours and their methods of control must differ. Ours is through democratic process. We all know this through and through. We just have to do it(!). We're all the boss; we just have to act like it, or by passivity, consent.

(The moral of the story is to write your representatives and make it very clear there is no more free ride on gun control. If he or she can't do it, we get someone else who can.)

isn't a statement of fact. It's speculation about an extremely unlikely event. — Bitter Crank

Your describing it as "unlikely" is equally mere speculation. By the way, I never prefaced the pragmatic reasons I gave by saying that they were indubitable facts, since we're talking about possible future events.

Because our societies are not fundamentally different. — Bitter Crank

I never responded to Michael's post about there being something very wrong with American society, so your claim here is not in reaction to anything I said. As for the claim itself, I don't know what you've packed into the word "fundamentally," so I can't say whether I agree with it or not.

I didn't yesterday, but I had the thought of responding with a tu quoque to Michael's post. That is, if there's something wrong with American society on account of there being mass shootings, then there must likewise be something wrong with British society on account of the mass killings it has experienced recently.

Shotguns, assault rifles are allowed too right? By rifle I mean a typical hunting rifle. One shot, reload, sort of thing. — Benkei

Shotguns and semi-automatic assault rifles can be legally purchased, yes.

What is? — Benkei

That rifles are much more accurate than handguns. I suppose a handgun with a dot sight might be equally accurate at short range, though.

That rifles are much more accurate than handguns.I suppose a handgun with a dot sight might be equally accurate at short range, though. — Thorongil

We are in agreement then because I said that handguns are the most accurate after rifles. In any case, I'm not an expert. There's an article in this in the NYT today stating that the sheer amount of guns is the problem. If that's the case, 1 gun per person seems to make sense.

I didn't yesterday, but I had the thought of responding with a tu quoque to Michael's post. That is, if there's something wrong with American society on account of there being mass shootings, then there must likewise be something wrong with British society on account of the mass killings it has experienced recently. — Thorongil

I wasn't saying that there's something wrong with American society on account of there being mass shootings (although I will also say that); I was saying that there's something wrong with American society if you would engage in a civil war to retain ownership of your guns.

British and Australian citizens didn't go to war with the government when strict gun control and mandatory reclamation was introduced.

We are in agreement then because I said that handguns are the most accurate after rifles. — Benkei

Alright, I might have read that sentence wrongly.

There's an article in this in the NYT today stating that the sheer amount of guns is the problem. — Benkei

What is the problem, specifically?

I was saying that there's something wrong with American society if you would engage in a civil war to retain ownership of your guns. — Michael

http://www.academia.edu/10621580/How_the_British_Gun_Control_Program_Precipitated_the_American_Revolution