If people think anyone who disagrees with the use of definitions, data, statistics, and scientific evidence is being "condescending" then I don't know how anyone could possibly have a logically-based debate. How do those scientists, physicians, researchers, mathematicians, statisticians, and academia possibly converse with each other to make vital decisions if without the use of evidence to back those positions? If you won't listen to me, then listen to Harvard.
"Mass shootings are not a trend unique to the summer of 2012. According to Craig R. Whitney, writing in the New York Times, 30,000 Americans die
each year from gun violence, and an additional 200,000 are injured by weapons.
...The ready availability of an AR-15—the civilian equivalent of the standard military assault rifle and the weapon used in the Aurora shootings—goes beyond our Founders’ intent. Claiming weapons like these are needed for hunting is intellectually dishonest, and claiming that they are needed for protection is even less believable.
What we need is not a complete ban on weaponry but a discussion on the merits of gun control in a country where nobody will talk about it.
Pro-gun rights activists argue that increased carrying of weapons would have stopped killings like Aurora. They suppose that people in the theater could have shot the attacker before so many were killed. However, in a dark space with minimal visibility, who is to say a second attacker would not have caused more carnage? How many more would have been caught in the crossfire? How would people distinguish between a man trying to save them and an accomplice of the killer? The idea that Americans should carry their weapons everywhere for protection—even to watch a midnight premiere of a movie—instead of discussing the merits of gun control is irrational. The Associated Press reported
that the weapons used in the Aurora shootings, the aforementioned assault rifle, a shotgun, a bulletproof vest, and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, required no licenses on the part of the buyer. Only the weapons required a background check, one that does not even require a waiting period for the purchase.
But the argument that pistols don’t offer enough stopping power for protection, and that those without licenses should be able to purchase assault rifles, goes beyond discussing self-protection and creates issues of civilian safety. That gun manufacturers don’t always check for... criminal records is a public safety risk. Sensationalist media reporting on some killings is not enough. The same day as the Empire State Building Massacre, 19 citizens were killed in Chicago, many of them youths. The time is now to discuss gun violence in this country.
It is a discussion with tremendous social implications; it is a discussion we cannot push off. To stay quiet here is, quite appropriately, silent but deadly."
By David Freed, The Harvard Crimson, "A Silent Killing," September 18, 2012 A Silent Killing | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson If you won't listen to me, listen to Harvard School of Public Health.
"Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide
Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk.
Twelve or more U.S. case control studies
have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns.
For example, Brent
and colleagues studied three groups of adolescents... Those who died by suicide were twice as likely to have a gun at home than either of the other two groups: Adolescent Suicides [lethal] Attempters Non-attemptersFirearm in home: 72% 37% 38%
) compared 140 adolescent suicide decedents with 131 demographically similar community controls. Informants (usually a parent) for both groups were interviewed to learn about the adolescents’ life circumstances, mental health, and treatment status. Firearm access was a risk factor for suicide for both older (>15 years) and younger adolescents and for both males and females.
How States Compare
- More studies (See “Firearm Availability and Suicide Prevalance: Case Control Studies” for studies covering male and female adults, blacks and whites, youths, elders, and other groups.)
Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states.
For example, one study (Miller 2007
) used survey-based measures of state household firearm ownership (from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) while controlling for.... other factors associated with suicide.
The study found that males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence. This is perhaps most concrete when looking not at rates or regression results but at raw numbers. The authors compared the 40 million people who live in the states with the lowest firearm prevalence (HI, MA, RI, NH, CT, NY) to about the same number living in the states with the highest firearm prevalence (WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, IO, ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN, UT). Overall suicides were almost twice as high in the high-gun states, even though non-firearm suicides were about equal. Suicides in the 15 U.S. States with the Highest vs. the 6 U.S. States with the Lowest Average Household Gun Ownership (2000-2002)
High-Gun States Low-Gun States
Population 39 million 40 million
Household Gun Ownership 47% 15%
Firearm Suicide 9,749 2,606
Non-Firearm Suicide 5,060 5,446
Total Suicide 14,809 8,052 What is it about Guns?
Guns are more lethal than other suicide means. They’re quick. And they’re irreversible.
About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm
Attempters who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have some time to reconsider mid-attempt and summon help or be rescued. The method itself often fails, even in the absence of a rescue. Even many of those who use hanging can stop mid-attempt as about half of hanging suicides are partial-suspension (meaning the person can release the pressure if they change their mind) (Bennewith 2005
).With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back.
From Harvard School of Public Health "Powerful Ideas for a Better World" Harvard School of Public Health ¬Ľ Means Matter ¬Ľ Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide If you won't listen to me (about AR-15's), then listen to E.M.U School of Public Staff and Command, Sergeant Craig Bauldry, Canton Police Department, Canton, MI "..the AR-15 is most accepted. Suarez (1999) believed, “The simplest answer, financially, logistically, educationally, socially and even ballistically, is a version of the U. S. military service rifle” (P. 9)
The current military service rifle is the AR-15/M-16, which was designed by Eugene Stoner for Armalite in the late 1950’s. Armalite sold the manufacturing rights to Colt and in 1962 the U.S. Army Rangers were the first to deploy the AR-15-M16 in Vietnam.
The AR-15/M-16 was designed to be the new, modern military rifle. It was to replace the heavy and big 308 and 30-06 caliber rifles. It is made of light aircraft alloy reducing weight substantially. The magazine well and magazines are designed to be ergonomically correct for rapid reloading. Additionally, it was designed in .223 caliber to allow soldiers to carry more ammo with larger capacity magazines. The AR-15/M-16 proved to be a tremendous military advancement.
The AR-15 is a production sporting model of the original M-16 rifle designed by Eugene Stoner. The current military model is basically the same, only it has a selector position for fully automatic or burst fire.
The .223 caliber round will also defeat most body armor and will reduce the probability of an assailant to continue a hostile threat after being hit... Furthermore, officers may not find it necessary to deploy within 25 yards of a hostile situation, as they would have normally with a handgun or shotgun. Suarez (P. 3)
The patrol rifle/carbine has increased accuracy over the handgun and shotgun at close and long range. The patrol rifle/carbine will be the most precise weapon available for first responders. With proper training patrol rifle/carbine officers should be able to engage targets from 100 yards in the prone position, 75 yards in the sitting position, 50 yards kneeling and from 25 yards and closer in the standing position.
The patrol rifle/carbine will penetrate most soft body armor where the shotgun and handgun will not. Shotgun and handgun rounds are larger bullets and the momentums of these bullets are slower than a rifle round. Layered kevlar dissipates the larger rounds energy (size, mass, momentum). Felts (P. 2-4)...
Handgun and shotguns using 00 buck are virtually ineffective beyond 25 yards.
Furthermore, the semi-automatic patrol rifle/carbine will allow an immediate follow-up shot from any shooting position. Unfortunately an immediate follow-up with the shotgun is delayed due to the pump action being necessary. Moreover, the weapon retention “danger close” corner clearing method is much easier with the patrol rifle/carbine due its smaller size, weight and semi-automatic capabilities. (P. 6)" http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads...e--Carbine.pdf
Clearly, according to this Police Sergeant, the AR-15 is military-style and can shoot farther than handguns or shotguns (more than 25 yards), is more precise, can shoot more bullets in a shorter time (semi-automatic), faster bullets, and can penetrate body armor, wheras the others cannot.
This is why it is the prime use in these mass shootings, which has to be stopped. Both Auroa and Newton used this type of gun. Australia banned these types as well as others for regular use (forbiddent to those who are not officers), and they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996.
What you PMFB-RN, were arguing earlier is that there is not as large of a penetration of AR-15 bullets as pistols and shotguns, however, the main reason for this is the manufacturing of the bullets
for these weapons. The bullets are fragile, hence, it cannot penetrate through brick and breaks off. It goes in 5 inches, not 12 inches like the others. A solution? Pass legislation requiring weaker bullets
to be used, and the stronger bullets to be forbidden.
The risks of ownership should be educated to the public, and a buy-back program put in place like Australia. If most of their laws were placed here, maybe we would see some improvement. (You did ask what you thought I could do to reduce them).