Major U.S. cities, gripped with crisis, now face spike in deadly shootings, including of children.....

Well, StarSong, let’s be fair. I know that you are, or at least come across, as someone that is reasonable. So, what are the positives that have come from Mr. Floyd’s murder? I wish that the House had passed Senator Tim Scott’s bill for police reform. He offered the House the opportunity to add to his amendments or vote on it as is, but they just flatly said no. We really needed to get reform started and to kick it all off, the police were supportive of it also.

So, what positive gains have we achieved? Awareness? Yes, I agree, but we need something that has teeth. It’s actually gone the other way with all the violence. And, I’m still upset with all the children that have been killed.
I was referring to positives from the aftermath, not from the loss of his life.

Those positives include a large awakening to the sometimes heavy-handed tactics by police officers. Also the widespread public outcry that those tactics need to stop. Now.

Many Black Americans (famous, highly regarded folks as well as everyday people) began relating personal stories of being stopped and aggressively questioned by police, often at gunpoint, for doing nothing more than driving their cars or walking down streets in their own neighborhoods. Frightening, deeply humiliating experiences.

They discussed carefully explaining to their very young children exactly how to behave near police lest they be beaten, arrested or killed for a false move. These shocking stories of commonplace harrassments are completely out of the experience of White Americans.

The protests were largely peaceful affairs comprised of Americans of all ages, gender identities, races and religions. The horror of watching Mr. Floyd's death with 3 other officers watching dispassionately while nearby citizens begging them to let him up brought many of us back to the videotaped horror of Rodney King being beaten.

Yes, some destructive opportunists showed up after dark, burning looting and wreaking havoc. A terrible thing. But those people were in the minority. The vast majority were peaceful.

I am not now nor have I ever been anti-police. Neither do I automatically assume law enforcement always behaves above reproach.

There are many reasons to love this country, but it's well past time for some serious changes. Systemic racism among them. We are at a "Woke" moment. Hopefully we will see some changes on local, state and national levels.

As for the shameful tragedy of our children being killed by gun violence,
America has much to answer to about that, but those deaths aren't related to the protests. Summertime always sees a spike in gun violence. With the Covid19 tensions this year is apt to be worse.

Thank you for asking. I have found your posts to be reasonable and well thought out, as well.
 
I have heard the stories. Just never experienced anything like what you mentioned. We always had a saying, “Don’t pick boogers.” Unless there was a sting or a BOLO out for a certain type of vehicle, I just made my rounds. No routine stops for me, unless the driver gave me reason, like can’t stay on their side of the road.
 

I'm glad you used Australia as an example. Like I posted apples to apples would convince me. Your example didn't.

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/

Part of the reason that the collection of homicide data in Australia is so recent a phenomenon is because it has tended to be so rare. Politically, it simply wasn't a national priority. Australia is a small country, with only a few more million people than Florida spread out over an entire continent. In the relatively high homicide days of the early 1990s, Australia's homicides totaled around 300. This means in a bad crime year, in which homicides increase by only 20 or 30 victims, it could swing overall rates noticeably.

This brings us to our other problem with using post-1996 homicide data as definitive proof of anything. The numbers are too small to allow us to extrapolate much. As data analyst Leah Libresco wrote in 2017 in The Washington Post:

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths...

This doesn't stop many reporters for mainstream outlets from claiming that any decline in homicides can with certainty be attributed to whatever the most recent gun control restrictions were.
 
I have heard the stories. Just never experienced anything like what you mentioned. We always had a saying, “Don’t pick boogers.” Unless there was a sting or a BOLO out for a certain type of vehicle, I just made my rounds. No routine stops for me, unless the driver gave me reason, like can’t stay on their side of the road.
I believe you.
 
Regarding the reduction in gun homicides and suicides in Australia since the gun law changes.
From: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362

Total Firearm and Nonfirearm Suicide and Homicide Deaths

Overall suicide and homicide deaths from firearm involvement for the period 1979 to 2013 are reported in the Figure, panels G, H, and I. An increasing trend in total deaths (total homicide and suicide deaths) in the years 1979-1996 was followed by a decreasing trend in 1997-2013 (Figure, panel G), resulting in a negative ratio of annual trends (RT = 0.975; 95% CI, 0.968-0.983) but not a negative step change (RL = 0.991; 95% CI, 0.918-1.071) (Table 3). Although total firearm deaths were already declining in 1979-1996, the trend accelerated in 1997-2013 (Figure, H), resulting in a negative ratio of trends (RT = 0.981; 95% CI, 0.968-0.993) as well as a negative step change (RL = 0.669; 95% CI, 0.589-0.760) (Table 3). The annual rate of total nonfirearm deaths was increasing in 1979-1996 but declined in the period 1997-2013 (Figure, I), although only after an initial positive step change. This resulted in a negative ratio of trends (RT = 0.966; 95% CI, 0.958-0.973) but a nonsignificant step change (RL = 1.054; 95% CI, 0.974-1.141) (Table 3).


Total Suicide Deaths

Total (firearm + nonfirearm) suicide annual death rates had been increasing by a mean of 1.0% per year before the introduction of the gun control laws, for an overall mean of 12.3 (95% CI, 11.9-12.7) per 100 000 population, but declined by a mean of 1.5% per year after the introduction of the 1996 gun laws (Table 3), for an overall mean of 11.7 (95% CI, 11.1-12.3) per 100 000 (Figure, A). The ratio of the prelaw-to-postlaw trends was statistically significant (RT = 0.975; 95% CI, 0.968-0.982), but the step change was not statistically significant (RL = 1.004; 95% CI, 0.931-1.083) (Table 3).


Total Homicide Deaths

Total (firearm + nonfirearm) homicide annual death rates had been decreasing by a mean of 0.3% per year before the introduction of the gun control laws for an overall mean of 1.93 (95% CI, 1.86-2.00) per 100 000 population, but this decline accelerated to a mean of 3.1% per year after the introduction of the 1996 gun laws (Table 3) for an overall mean of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.17-1.43) per 100 000 (Figure, D). The ratio of the prelaw-to-postlaw trends was statistically significant (RT = 0.972; 95% CI, 0.958-0.986), but there was no significant step change (RL = 0.908; 95% CI, 0.784-1.050) (Table 3).


Firearm Suicides

Firearm suicides represent the largest component cause of total intentional firearm deaths in Australia (83.9% between 1979-2013) (Table 2). In the 18 years 1979-1996, the mean annual rate of firearm suicide was 3.0 (95% CI, 2.8-3.3) per 100 000 population. In the 17 years following the announcement of the new gun laws, this declined to a mean of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.87-1.13) per 100 000. The rate of firearm suicide was declining by an average of 3% per year before gun law reforms, and this decline increased to 4.8% per year after the introduction of revised gun laws (Figure, B; Table 3). The ratio of trend estimates was 0.981 (95% CI, 0.970-0.993). There was evidence of a step change in the level of firearm-related suicide deaths (RL = 0.652; 95% CI, 0.582-0.731) (Table 3).


Firearm Homicides

In the 18 years 1979-1996, the mean annual rate of firearm homicide was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.51-0.63) per 100 000 population. In the 17 years following the announcement of the new gun laws, this rate declined to 0.20 (95% CI, 0.17-0.25) per 100 000 persons. The rate of firearm homicide was declining by a mean of 3% per year; this rate of decline accelerated to a mean of 5.5% per year after the introduction of new gun laws, although this change was not statistically significant (RT = 0.975; 95% CI, 0.949-1.001) (Figure, E; Table 3). The ratio of trends in annual death rate was slightly reduced when the mass homicides that occurred during 1979-1996 were removed (RT = 0.985; 95% CI, 0.962-1.009). In addition, there was a nonsignificant negative step change (RL = 0.769; 95% CI, 0.590-1.004) (Table 3).


Nonfirearm Suicides

The rate of total nonfirearm suicides increased by a mean of 2.3% per year before the introduction of the gun control laws, for an overall mean of 9.2 (95% CI, 8.7-9.8) per 100 000 population, but declined by a mean of 1.2% per year after the introduction of the 1996 gun laws, for an overall mean of 10.7 (95% CI, 10.3-11.2) per 100 000 (Figure, C; Table 3). The ratio of the prelaw-to-postlaw trends was statistically significant (RT = 0.965; 95% CI, 0.958-0.973), but there was no statistically significant step change (RL = 1.070; 95% CI, 0.988-1.159) (Table 3). The data do not support any suicide method substitution hypothesis.


Nonfirearm Homicides

The rate of total nonfirearm homicides increased by a mean of 0.9% per year before the introduction of gun control laws, for an overall mean of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.29-1.44) per 100 000 population, and decreased by a mean of 2.6% per year after the introduction of the new gun laws to an overall mean of 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00-1.19) per 100 000 (Figure, F; Table 3). The ratio of the prelaw-to-postlaw trends was statistically significantly different (RT = 0.965; 95% CI, 0.950-0.981), but there was no statistically significant step change (RL = 0.941; 95% CI, 0.803-1.103) (Table 3). The data do not support any homicide method substitution hypothesis.


Discussion

In the 20 years (May 1996-May 2016) since the gun law reforms and buyback programs, no mass shootings (ie, ≥5 victims) have occurred in Australia. In addition, there was a more rapid decline in total firearm deaths after gun law reforms (1997-2013) compared with before gun law reforms (1979-1996). The prelaw reform decline in firearm suicides increased significantly after the reforms, and the decline in firearm homicides also increased, although this did not reach statistical significance. Total suicides (all methods including firearms) increased by a mean of 1% per year before the introduction of the 1996 gun laws and decreased by a mean of 1.5% per year after the introduction of the new gun laws. Although the annual trend in total homicide was slightly declining in 1979-1996 by less than 1%, this trend accelerated to a 3.1% decline after the introduction of gun control laws (1997-2013). The ratio of the prelaw-to-postlaw trends was statistically significant for both total suicide (P < .001) and total homicide (P < .001) (Table 3).
 
Funny thing about this. Many other nations have managed to stop the flow of guns onto their streets and reduce gun violence dramatically.

The US continues to bemoan that it can't be done while other nations prove it can.

Sorta puts me in mind of how we're doing with containing this virus...
Well said, Star!
 
At one time, a person needed a legitimate reason to get a carry permit. For example; they carry large sums of money for their job. Then, in about 1975, someone filed a suit that the SCOTUS ruled on and they stated that the 2nd amendment rights weren't being interpreted properly. So, today any fool that isn't a convicted felon, been in a nuthouse, has a PFA against them or has been found to be a user of illegal substances can get a carry permit. WELL, GLORY HALLELUJAH!!! Anyone can now get a carry permit, but even with this in mind, most gang-bangers do not have a permit.

Just to be clear, if you read the 2nd Amendment, it mentions that a militia may carry a weapon. Well, our great SCOTUS, determined that one (1) person can be a militia.
Thanks for weighing-in on this, 911.

I hear a lot about Canada all the time... Canada is this, and Canada is that, and people who live in Canada can't have or own guns. ROFLMAO!

Well, surprise, surprise, we have guns, as I say "we" (as in dear husband and I). We own both long guns and pistols, as dear husband not only hunts, he shoots sport and competition, but when his shooting is done, guns are put away and stored according to Canadian laws, and our country is better off for it.

Allowing everyone to walk around with a sidearm strapped to their sides doesn't IMO equate to a sane or well-balanced society.
 
Probably the problem in the U.S. is not our worship of guns, per se. It's the worship of gun culture that too many people seem to have. Aunt Marg describes responsible gun ownership. Too many people in this country are not responsible, apparently about anything.

Wonderful as it is in many respects (and I do love this country), it has been deeply flawed from the beginning. One problem is the thing with guns. Another problem is race. We are still living with the fallout from slavery.

There's a wonderful line in the show "Hamilton," where Jefferson and Madison are boasting about how Virginia has a healthy economy, free of debt, and Hamilton replies that that is largely because they don't pay their plantation workers anything! Er, yeah.
 
Probably the problem in the U.S. is not our worship of guns, per se. It's the worship of gun culture that too many people seem to have. Aunt Marg describes responsible gun ownership. Too many people in this country are not responsible, apparently about anything.

Wonderful as it is in many respects (and I do love this country), it has been deeply flawed from the beginning. One problem is the thing with guns. Another problem is race. We are still living with the fallout from slavery.

There's a wonderful line in the show "Hamilton," where Jefferson and Madison are boasting about how Virginia has a healthy economy, free of debt, and Hamilton replies that that is largely because they don't pay their plantation workers anything! Er, yeah.
You and Star, sure know how to knock it out of the park, Sunny. Well said!
 
At one time, a person needed a legitimate reason to get a carry permit. For example; they carry large sums of money for their job. Then, in about 1975, someone filed a suit that the SCOTUS ruled on and they stated that the 2nd amendment rights weren't being interpreted properly. So, today any fool that isn't a convicted felon, been in a nuthouse, has a PFA against them or has been found to be a user of illegal substances can get a carry permit. WELL, GLORY HALLELUJAH!!! Anyone can now get a carry permit, but even with this in mind, most gang-bangers do not have a permit.

Just to be clear, if you read the 2nd Amendment, it mentions that a militia may carry a weapon. Well, our great SCOTUS, determined that one (1) person can be a militia.
Here's a thought to cover this topic and many others: start eliminating the soft-on-crime get-out-of-jail-free excuses, and start giving these individuals long-term 'hots and cots' courtesy of our tax dollars. I don't know how widespread it is, but the trend I've seen of giving individuals 'probation' for virtually everything keeps them on the streets where they continue what they're doing or worse. :mad:
 


Back
Top