Yahoo/AP: NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre

[MisterPinstripe]

We have similar stats on break ins (as we call them rather than home invasions) in the UK. Hardly any home holders have or feel the need to own a gun and there are very very few criminals who break into peoples homes in the UK who do so carrying a gun. Armed robbery in the UK on domestic premises is very rare. No arms race between home owners and criminals?

Criminals do have and use guns in the UK of course but they almost exclusively use them to shoot each other. I have used the following stat in a few of these threads - last full years data I could find was 2010 and there were 8,775 murders (not deaths murders) by firearm in the US - there were 58 murders by firearm in the UK in the same year which adjusting for population size would be 290. 8775 versus 290 - thats a stark difference.

The overall murder rates are also interesting. In 2010 in the US there were 12,996 murders by any means and in the UK 638 which adjusted for population equals 3,095. Still a stark difference in two societies which are very very similar in terms of education, advanced democracy, economies, access to and use of the same popular culture etc etc. I find it hard to explain the difference in anyway apart from our differing attitudes to and access to guns.

Home invasions in the US are times where someone breaks into a house and there is someone at home. Otherwise it is just a break in. I think its simplistic to put the difference being guns and guns being allowed.

I am not willing to risk my family if someone decides to break in and not be able to protect them.

Washington DC banned guns thinking banning people from legally able to own one would curb gun murders. The issue with that is the only people that follow that ban are law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Thats why they are criminals. Washington DC saw the number of killings rise by 156 percent. The criminals knew that they had more power and didnt have to worry as much about someone fighting back.

Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. Murders proceeded to jump by 41 percent.

[Larry]

It will probably get brought up again. And people will probably realize again that the "assault weapon ban" really doesn't address what leads to these tragedies or the magnitude of them. I hope the bill they do propose actually addresses some of those.

Oh, we all know that it's going to happen again. And, when it does, the same proposals will be made.

And, when they are made, there will be a rush on the gun stores in anticipation of the coming mass confiscations.

And the traditional arguments, like "murder is already illegal, therefore no new laws can possibly be considered", or "criminals break laws, therefore passing laws will not affect criminals", or "this law will not completely eliminate all crime overnight, therefore it cannot be considered." will once again be trotted out by earnest people will act like this argument actually makes sense, to them.

The fact that there are existing laws will be loudly pointed at. By the same people who have spent decades gutting those same laws, and actively campaigning to prevent them being enforced.

We will once again hear people explain to us how the rights of people who want to use assault weapons to shoot paper targets outweigh the rights of people who don't want to get shot. How having to reload is meaningless to mass murderers, but an insurmountable difficulty to people shooting paper targets.

We will once again hear people assert that, when the Framers wrote the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", that what they really meant was "In case the people ever decide to overthrow the government, every citizen should possess weaponry which is equal (if not better) to those possessed, not only by law enforcement agencies, but by the US military."

And people will once again act like these claims and arguments are not only true, but that they are valid arguments.

And, after a few months, we will do nothing.

---------- Post added March-20th-2013 at 10:05 AM ----------

How many tragic accidents (not to mention willful acts of murder) do there have to be before people start to think if the cure is worse than the disease?

Sounds like a judgment question, to me.

Let's let the people decide.

Oh, wait. They already did. In fact, long, long, ago.

And they decided that, when a citizen has a reasonable fear that he is in danger, he has the right to defend himself. With lethal force.

(And they, over the years, created a method of deciding what "reasonable fear" was: If 12 out of 12 randomly-selected people think that there was no reasonable fear, then the shooter gets convicted of murder. If, on the other hand, a majority of the people decide that "if somebody broke into MY house at 2AM, tripped my burglar alarm, and kept coming, anyway, then I'D be scared, too", then he doesn't.)

----------

Frankly, I think this system seems to do a pretty good job of balancing conflicting societal interests.

---------- Post added March-20th-2013 at 10:07 AM ----------

Oh, and BTW, in the category of "unimportant irony":

The home where the shooting occurred belongs to Donald West Wilder II . . .

[MartinC]

Sounds like a judgment question, to me.

Let's let the people decide.

Oh, wait. They already did. In fact, long, long, ago.

They certainly did. Maybe its time to think again if what was decided "long, long, ago" is still appropriate. The US - and the World - is a very different place now compared to 1791.

---------- Post added March-20th-2013 at 09:26 AM ----------

I think its simplistic to put the difference being guns and guns being allowed.

So if the difference between the rate of murder using guns in the US and UK (8775 in the US compared to an adjusted 290 in the UK) is not access to and attitudes to guns what do you attribute it to? I honestly can't think of much else. I already explained in the post you replied to that criminals in the UK DO have access to and use guns - in the UK though the clear evidence is they use those guns to kill other people with guns which is mostly other criminals.

By the way I dont think the US is a more violent society than the UK - we have plenty of issues with violence. Its just that when people get into arguments and fights they use their fists or less lethal weapons because they dont have access to guns to settle these disputes. Thats probably why the assault rate in the UK is about twice what it is in the US while as I have shown you our murder rate is much much lower than yours.

[Larry]

So if the difference between the rate of murder using guns in the US and UK (8775 in the US compared to an adjusted 290 in the UK) is not access to and attitudes to guns what do you attribute it to?

Just pointing out that your statement was "access to and attitudes to". (And, shouldn't that be "attitudes towards"? )

Yes, there are differences between US and English culture.

This difference in culture

1. Is difficult to change through legislation.
   
2. And tends to render the attempt to perform statistical comparisons, and then attribute any difference to the gun, [fake snooty British accent] rather scientifically questionable, as it were.

[Corcaigh]

And here's a good example of what's wrong with your position.

We have a failure to communicate here. My point is that when people have an elevated fear of being murdered in their home they can make poor security choices, either for themselves, their loved ones or their community.

While we focus on shooting rampages when it represents around 1% of the problem, it's not the reason the USA has extreme levels of gun violence relative to comparable countries. Two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. A third of firearm injuries (close to 25,000 per year) are accidental. Homeowners over-estimating the risk of being attacked in their home and arming themselves as a consequence frequently has bad consequences. If you are a poor urban minority your risk of violent assault is radically different from the wealthy suburbs. That's my point. The data supports it. The issue in Sterling is interesting because of the general reaction that (in advance of the facts all coming out, and not specifically to the details of this case) that homeowners should not give up any advantage such as turning on a light and trying to identify who is there before shooting.

It's about our biases. If someone is in your house in the middle of the night a significant number of people believe that they should be shot without determining their identity. And many do not.

[Popeman38]

You miss the point. What i'm questioning is the common attitude that for someone living in a crime-free area the MOST PRUDENT thing to do is shoot someone in the dark.

My kids are now out of the teenage years and have moved out. We live on a street of large family homes with many teens coming and going. On four separate occasions neighborhood kids have wandered into our house by mistake. Each time it scared the bajeesus out of me. None of them were shot.

What is not mentioned in your post is that the teenager broke in to the house at 2:30 AM, the owner called 911 before confronting the intruder, was confronted on the stairs (neighbor did not know kid), a warning shot was fired (kid was obviously drunk), and the kid continued to climb the stairs. The owner then fired the shot that killed the intruder. Te owner then reported to 911 that he had shot the intruder.

It is a horrible story. But the owner literally has the right to defend his life and/or property. You are not required to interview an intruder at 2:30 AM to decide what their intent is. A warning shot was fired. No response from the kid. I have been hammered a few times in my life, but I am pretty sure a gun shot 10 feet in front of me would have elicited and immediate reaction of my ass hauling in the opposite direction.

[MartinC]

Just pointing out that your statement was "access to and attitudes to". (And, shouldn't that be "attitudes towards"? )

Yes, there are differences between US and English culture.

This difference in culture

1. Is difficult to change through legislation.
   
2. And tends to render the attempt to perform statistical comparisons, and then attribute any difference to the gun, [fake snooty British accent] rather scientifically questionable, as it were.

Thats the rub - although I'm British I work for a US business and spend a lot of time in the US, have lived there for a period and am probably moving back out to the US at some point late this year on a long term and probably permanent basis. I'm in a good position to judge the relative cultures of the two nations at least as I experience them as a white middle aged (now) and reasonably affluent person.

There are some differences in British and US culture (to the extent there is such a thing as a US culture given the size of the US and the differences State to State) but there are a LOT more similarities. We watch pretty much the same TV programmes, have access to the same media and consume the same video games and music have similar (though not identical) education systems and form of Government. The big differences are attitudes to religion and guns - and the US is probably a more overtly patriotic and militaristic society as well (which might be a factor in this debate but I'm not sure).

Culture is a key here though in my mind. Assuming you accept there is a problem with the US attitude to and culture around use of and ownership of guns (do you?) then changing it will take a long time and is a generational project which typically politicians are very bad at given their short term focus around election cycles. Legislation can play a part though as a catalyst to a change but first - as in all good self help books - you have to recognise the problem and want to change.

Judging by a number of these threads I'm not sure that you are at the point where the problem is recognised and accepted yet at least as a consensus.

[MisterPinstripe]

So if the difference between the rate of murder using guns in the US and UK (8775 in the US compared to an adjusted 290 in the UK) is not access to and attitudes to guns what do you attribute it to? I honestly can't think of much else. I already explained in the post you replied to that criminals in the UK DO have access to and use guns - in the UK though the clear evidence is they use those guns to kill other people with guns which is mostly other criminals.

By the way I dont think the US is a more violent society than the UK - we have plenty of issues with violence. Its just that when people get into arguments and fights they use their fists or less lethal weapons because they dont have access to guns to settle these disputes. Thats probably why the assault rate in the UK is about twice what it is in the US while as I have shown you our murder rate is much much lower than yours.

The UK and the US are different. Its not as simplistic as you try to make it. You also ignored my post that showed the statistic for Washington DC and Chicago after a gun ban.

[MartinC]

The UK and the US are different. Its not as simplistic as you try to make it. You also ignored my post that showed the statistic for Washington DC and Chicago after a gun ban.

See my post 381 - my contention is that they are not THAT different and I make that contention from a position of having spent a lot of time in the US including having lived there. As for the Washington and Chicago examples I dont know enough about what they did there and the stats you quoted to have a view good or bad - except to say that any real changes have to be at Federal level not State level or you just pushing a problem next door.

Again I ask if its not that simplistic (and I fully accept by the way that it IS more complex than just guns) what is the difference? My view is that guns are a big part of the answer to that question.

[Bang]

The UK and the US are different. Its not as simplistic as you try to make it. You also ignored my post that showed the statistic for Washington DC and Chicago after a gun ban.

I can't believe it didn't work in DC, what with Virginia right next door.

Completely pointless argument to make. Like I said to someone else.. you ever live in an apartment and try to kill the bugs?

they just go next door and sneak right back in.

How people who make the "stats in cities with gun bans" arguments without considering that VERY OBVIOUS elephant in the room really make me wonder if they're even thinking about their position at all.

~Bang

[DjTj]

What is not mentioned in your post is that the teenager broke in to the house at 2:30 AM, the owner called 911 before confronting the intruder, was confronted on the stairs (neighbor did not know kid), a warning shot was fired (kid was obviously drunk), and the kid continued to climb the stairs. The owner then fired the shot that killed the intruder. Te owner then reported to 911 that he had shot the intruder.

It is a horrible story. But the owner literally has the right to defend his life and/or property. You are not required to interview an intruder at 2:30 AM to decide what their intent is. A warning shot was fired. No response from the kid. I have been hammered a few times in my life, but I am pretty sure a gun shot 10 feet in front of me would have elicited and immediate reaction of my ass hauling in the opposite direction.

What are you implying here? That the drunk kid ignored the warning shot because he really was breaking in and trying to hurt someone?

Or maybe a warning shot wasn't really fired? There are no witnesses so we'll never really know...

I think that Virginia law will find this to be a terrible mistake and no charges will be filed, but having a right to defend your home and kill an intruder doesn't mean that exercising that right is always the best idea. It clearly wasn't here.

[MisterPinstripe]

I can't believe it didn't work in DC, what with Virginia right next door.

Completely pointless argument to make. Like I said to someone else.. you ever live in an apartment and try to kill the bugs?

they just go next door and sneak right back in.

How people who make the "stats in cities with gun bans" arguments without considering that VERY OBVIOUS elephant in the room really make me wonder if they're even thinking about their position at all.

~Bang

So what you are saying is, the only people who followed the ban were law abiding citizens? And criminals didnt care, and instead took advantage because they knew the populace was unarmed?

---------- Post added March-20th-2013 at 11:48 AM ----------

What are you implying here? That the drunk kid ignored the warning shot because he really was breaking in and trying to hurt someone?

Or maybe a warning shot wasn't really fired? There are no witnesses so we'll never really know...

I think that Virginia law will find this to be a terrible mistake and no charges will be filed, but having a right to defend your home and kill an intruder doesn't mean that exercising that right is always the best idea. It clearly wasn't here.

How is it clear? He sees someone he doesnt know come into his house at 2:30 AM. He calls the police, fires a warning shot, and the person keeps coming. That most certainly wasnt "clear".

[Bang]

So what you are saying is, the only people who followed the ban were law abiding citizens? And criminals didnt care, and instead took advantage because they knew the populace was unarmed?

.

No, what I'm saying is if you have an island of restrictions with states all around that do not, it's not hard to drive into said states, buy a gun and bring it back to the restricted place.

Unless you want to pretend these criminals conjure guns out of thin air, you must account for where they're coming from.

~Bang

[DjTj]

How is it clear? He sees someone he doesnt know come into his house at 2:30 AM. He calls the police, fires a warning shot, and the person keeps coming. That most certainly wasnt "clear".

It's clear that everyone would be better off if the shot wasn't fired. I'm sure the homeowner regrets shooting the kid.

[Larry]

The UK and the US are different. Its not as simplistic as you try to make it. You also ignored my post that showed the statistic for Washington DC and Chicago after a gun ban.

Perhaps because all your statistic applies to, is the effect of gun bans on areas which are heavily populated areas which are within walking distance of places that don't have such bans?

Just a theory.

[Popeman38]

What are you implying here? That the drunk kid ignored the warning shot because he really was breaking in and trying to hurt someone?

Or maybe a warning shot wasn't really fired? There are no witnesses so we'll never really know...

I think that Virginia law will find this to be a terrible mistake and no charges will be filed, but having a right to defend your home and kill an intruder doesn't mean that exercising that right is always the best idea. It clearly wasn't here.

I didn't imply anything. What the kids intent was is irrelevant. What the homeowner felt is what is relevant. A man enters your home at 2:30 AM. He ignores a warning shot. What is the next logical step? You don't have the luxury of hindsight and backstory in the moment. You don't know your neighbors kid snuck out, got ****faced, and snuck back in to the wrong house. You just know a strange man is climbing your stairs at 2:30 AM and ignored a warning shot. When examining incidents, you have to remove emotion and analyze based on solely what is presented, from both sides. This was a horrible situation. The homeowner did nothing wrong. The kid was drunk underage (a crime), and had unintentially committed another crime by entering the house. I know the kids family wishes it had turned out differently. I am sure the homeowner wishes the same. But based on what happened that night, there is no basis for this incident to be touted by either pro or anti gun groups.

[Bang]

It's clear that everyone would be better off if the shot wasn't fired. I'm sure the homeowner regrets shooting the kid.

Man, i saw his parents on TV last night.

Heartbreaking.

No matter what, no amount of restriction will prevent all accidents or tragic mistakes.

~Bang

[Jumbo]

I know exactly what Corcaigh is saying, and it doesn't need to be tied to any particular stance on guns to understand. But then given my job, I'd have to fire myself if I didn't get it.

Hint: it's somewhat different yet related to the theme of people fearing dangerous things that are far less likely to happen than things that are just as dangerous but much more likely.

To put a gun spin on it in a different way---think of some arm-up-to-the-teeth guys who figure under some dumbass scenario that "the Feds" are going use FEMA "shock troops" (more on this later in another thread, with a great anecdotal example) to control the civilian population. They talk about it a lot, think about it a lot, and spend a ton of money preparing for it. But they don't worry (or wear helmets) when doing drunken high-speed four-wheeling on the beach dunes for fun. Their regular weekly routine is far more likely to bring them harm than their paranoid idiocy, but they don't even think about it.

I am also sure none of that helped those I'd addressing at all.

We simple make up all kinds of **** in our heads out of worry/fear and then hammer into our consciousness by repetition and parroting until we're sure it's reasonable, but it's not.

There's more than one reason people appear where they're not supposed to and not all those reason should be met with a quick decision to shoot the person. Now this article says he fired a warning shot first and then yelled and the kid kept coming and the assumption is he couldn't tell it was some drunk kid who might not mean harm. IF all that is true, I don't blame the guy since he did fire a warning shot and did give verbal warning (according to the reports). If he's not telling the truth and just shot the kid and then tried a pad his story, that's another matter and would need to be proved.

I note that I am in a bit of a "babble" mood today at work, too.

[Popeman38]

No, what I'm saying is if you have an island of restrictions with states all around that do not, it's not hard to drive into said states, buy a gun and bring it back to the restricted place.

Unless you want to pretend these criminals conjure guns out of thin air, you must account for where they're coming from.

~Bang

Very true. But gun laws in the US do not apply to all the foreign countries that would be more than happy to step in as a supplier. People argue that the war on drugs is a waste of money. And now they want a war on guns. Flawed logic.

[Jumbo]

Very true. But gun laws in the US do not apply to all the foreign countries that would be more than happy to step in as a supplier. People argue that the war on drugs is a waste of money. And now they want a war on guns. Flawed logic.

Bad comparison in most ways (though I agree with the argument of a "futility" link). Illegal drugs are already illegal. Gun ownership is not.

In all these issues, where the change proposed seems insurmountable (like gays being able to marry), people who desire a change often can only achieve by a slow and steady chipping away at the status quo, rather than just resign because "it's impossible--can't change it."

Now that chipping away to reach a desired change in some social attitude doesn't mean it automatically needs to go to the opposite extreme.

A growing proportion of society may be leaning towards the desire to not have the U.S be such a heavily armed camp to such (as they might see it) an excessive degree and wish (believe it could be achieved) for far less death by firearms and thus begin to work to where attitudes and views change to where citizens still have guns, just not so many for so many and with such a Fort Apache (or just stupid-crazy) mentality showing in so many (especially well-armed) citizens.

So that would be one vantage point from which such people may choose to continue to beat their head against that brick wall like people did on integration, women's suffrage, gay marriage, or eating fish on Fridays. :pfft:

[Bang]

Very true. But gun laws in the US do not apply to all the foreign countries that would be more than happy to step in as a supplier. People argue that the war on drugs is a waste of money. And now they want a war on guns. Flawed logic.

i can't help but think that it would be much more difficult to smuggle arms in from other countries, than to allow someone to go buy bags of them from domestic dealers who are willing partners in the criminal's access to guns.

if you want to use the "war on drugs" analogy, what if once a month a Meth and cocaine show came to town and sold as much of that stuff as they wanted under the guise of "private ownership sales' that cannot be prevented?

And as much as they may try,i don't think it will be easy to swallow condoms filled with guns to smuggle over the border.

Guns and weapons are much easier to detect than powders and pills.

There are things we can do that will make it much harder for crooks to get guns.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

What is not mentioned in your post is that the teenager broke in to the house at 2:30 AM, the owner called 911 before confronting the intruder, was confronted on the stairs (neighbor did not know kid), a warning shot was fired (kid was obviously drunk), and the kid continued to climb the stairs. The owner then fired the shot that killed the intruder. Te owner then reported to 911 that he had shot the intruder.

It is a horrible story. But the owner literally has the right to defend his life and/or property. You are not required to interview an intruder at 2:30 AM to decide what their intent is. A warning shot was fired. No response from the kid. I have been hammered a few times in my life, but I am pretty sure a gun shot 10 feet in front of me would have elicited and immediate reaction of my ass hauling in the opposite direction.

I understand. The circumstances (time of night, forced entry, unresponsive), and the belief of there being a real risk of being attacked in your home, suggests to you and many others that killing the intruder was unequivocally the right decision. Except it was a drunk teenager in this case.

By way of a comparison ... if I decide my home is at risk from intruders and acquire aggressive guard dogs to protect it, I am increasing the risk that the dogs will attack a neighbor, family member or someone who is not a threat. I am making a choice, a security trade off. Maybe the presence of dogs will keep me safe against actual threats and be worth the chance of loved ones coming to harm by the dogs, and the expense of owning the guard dogs.

Choosing to have a gun in the home is a trade-off too.

As is whether to get vaccinated.

And to be clear ... I'm not assigning blame to the gun owner. It's a horrible situation. But it merits reflection on whether his risk assessment served him well.

[Larry]

What are you implying here? That the drunk kid ignored the warning shot because he really was breaking in and trying to hurt someone?

Perhaps that the kid's behavior was such that a reasonable person had a reasonable basis for fearing that he was about to be harmed?

Just a theory.

[Jumbo]

Look, it may not be a smooth thought to include, but in all these arguments about gun possession, you can't underestimate all the reasons used to augment that basic fact that most of us males (and many women who like/desire firearms) feel very potent (along with feeling more safe/secure) when we have firearms at our disposal (especially when we know others have them and we want to be equally capable) and experience that feeling (potency/formidability) when we play with them. It is a very powerful psychological element underpinning all these things. I have it, I heart my guns, but I do avoid falling into the idiot pit so many seem as comfy in as their play room.

[Bang]

Look, it may not be a smooth thought to include, but in all these arguments about gun possession, you can't underestimate all the reasons used to augment that basic fact that most of us males (and many women who like/desire firearms) feel very potent (along with feeling more safe/secure) when we have firearms at our disposal (especially when we know others have them and we want to be equally capable) and experience that feeling (potency/formidability) when we play with them. It is a very powerful psychological element underpinning all these things. I have it, I heart my guns, but I do avoid falling into the idiot pit so many seem as comfy in as their play room.

it CAN be done reasonably.

All that needs to happen is reason.

~Bang