>I suspect that every person who carries a gun has thought through the financial and other consequences as it is part of the training required to have a permit."

Not where I live. Everyone except felons and those with certain mental illnesses are allowed to conceal carry without ever taking a class in Alaska. And, since they have reciprocal privileges in much of the mountain west, they could be coming to a town near you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Really? It sure doesn't feel like that to me.

Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured.

That and the fact that this report was created by the opposition party in an attemppt to discredit the government of the time.

At least I feel safe in the knowledge that whatever weapon may be used to assault me here, it won't be a gun.

"The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa."

Are you sure they weren't just talking about your food?

and you probably lock up your guns

but, when the population has guns, many aren't so careful

maybe anyone that owns a gun should be required to take gun safety course and get a refresher every 5 years or something. Like the NRA course. Do they include a bunch of stories about bad things that happened when people weren't safe?

"Really? It sure doesn't feel like that to me."

Me either, either the UK OR the US. That's what I mean by media influencing perception.

As I noted earlier, I was surprised to find out that the county I live in has 10% of the adults with concealed pistol
licenses. There just aren't problems related to that here. Everyone hunts too, much of it subsistance. And gardens and cans.
All the upset about firearms tend to mystify the locals. Crimes like Newtown were unthinkable. They still would be
if not for our electronic age.

>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured.

That and the fact that this report was created by the opposition party in an attempt to discredit the government of the time.

Here is link to an article about how the NRA and pro gun Americans abuse Australian-crime stats.

http://theconversation.edu.au/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678

Tony

" As I noted earlier, I was surprised to find out that the county I live in has 10% of the adults with concealed pistol
licenses. There just aren't problems related to that here. Everyone hunts too, much of it subsistance. "

I believe we all need to get a handle around the fact that, in general, citizens with permits to conceal carry a gun are not the people we are worried about controlling. It logically follows that putting more controls on conceal carry, while it may make you more comfortable will likely not make anyone safer. This is the big problem I have with most discussion of gun control today. I am not willing to put additional limitations on law abiding gun owners just so we can say we did something. Very little I have heard proposed convinces me that it would affect violent crime in any way.

"I am not willing to put additional limitations on law abiding gun owners just so we can say we did something. Very little I have heard proposed convinces me that it would affect violent crime in any way."

So what is the solution to reducing violent crime. Enforcing current gun laws might be a good start, but like most countries dealing with violence, reducing the reasons for violence is going to be the only long-term solution. This would no doubt entail huge changes in socio-economic climate which is particularly tough when economic times are bad. The disparities in soci-economic equality are the main drivers of violence throughout the world. The war on drugs certainly doesn't help either IMHO.

However, the homicide-by-gun statistics also point to guns, in and of themselves, being a driver of murder and injury in the US, both intentional and unintentional. What I hear in this thread is that those of you who argue for being able to carry weapons are extremely responsible gun owners. It would appear, again just judging by the stats, that this is not true of a significant portion of gun owners, even legal gun owners. You need only look at the child injury and death rate by accidental gun shot to recognise this. Do kids accidentally stab themselves or their friends and family to death with knives? Not often. To me, this is an issue I see as a big one. If you or a family your kids visit have guns in the house, you cannot be too careful with how these guns and ammo are accessible. That and of course I still can't see why ordinary citizens 'need' semi-automatic weapons for self-defense. Sure, you can commit a mass killing without a semi, and sometimes even without a gun. But it's a lot harder. However by far the vast majority of gun murders in the US are committed with hand guns. I don't know what the solution is, but I can't see how an escalating arms race with criminals is a good long term solution.

" It would appear, again just judging by the stats, that this is not true of a significant portion of gun owners, even legal gun owners. You need only look at the child injury and death rate by accidental gun shot to recognise this. Do kids accidentally stab themselves or their friends and family to death with knives? Not often. To me, this is an issue I see as a big one. If you or a family your kids visit have guns in the house, you cannot be too careful with how these guns and ammo are accessible. That and of course I still can't see why ordinary citizens 'need' semi-automatic weapons for self-defense. Sure, you can commit a mass killing without a semi, and sometimes even without a gun. But it's a lot harder. However by far the vast majority of gun murders in the US are committed with hand guns. I don't know what the solution is, but I can't see how an escalating arms race with criminals is a good long term solution."

+1 and by way of supporting your point with a potpourri of the little things that don't make the headlines: Just another week in the Land of the Brave and the Home of the Free

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/nocera-and-in-last-weeks-gun-news.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130129&_r=0

"It would appear, again just judging by the stats, that this is not true of a significant portion of gun owners, even legal gun owners. You need only look at the child injury and death rate by accidental gun shot to recognise this."


Here is from the pro-gun-control side

"That would be 180 children, 11 years of age or younger, who were killed by a firearm in 2010, according to the most recent report on violent deaths from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The CDC breakdown: 41 deaths were classified as unintentional, 127 as homicide, four as suicide, and eight from an undetermined intent."

So 41 under age 12 for 2010 were accidents.

What other hazards may deserve scrutiny?

"Though rare, such incidents are not unheard of. Anywhere from 10 to 40 children a year drown in buckets nationwide, according to reports from the Consumer Products Safety Commission."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1183710.ece

So 40 children dying in buckets is a rare incident, but 41 dying by firearm is what? Caused by "a significant portion of gun owners"?

"Enforcing current gun laws might be a good start"

According to whoever that was, the NRA has lobbyed to pass laws the prevent gun law enforcement. Because that would reduce the amount of guns sold.

Listening to NPR, someone said that it's difficult to treat mentally ill people. You need leverage. For example, if someone is homeless, and you provide them with an apartment, contingent on allowing some social worker to see them occasionally, you might prevent some violence. But we have reduced funding for homes for homeless people and social workers to see them. And there's a push to reduce funding further.

As far as inner city gun violence goes, if drugs and prostitution was legalized but controlled, that might be a large step in the right direction.

Good article you linked, Tom. I think that article makes a much stronger argument for gun control than any of the high profile shootings. The ones from the article are so commonplace that they are barely noticed. In none of those listed shooting does is sound like the senseless violence could have been stopped by a "good guy with a gun."

Some of them were stopped by a good guy with a gun. Some of the others one can only speculate. Did you see the list in the comments a short ways down about similar situations stopped by a good guy (or Dad) with a gun? His quote

"Mr. Nocera, it would help the discussion if you and folks like Art Kellerman reported all of the relevant data when addressing this issue. Waving the bloody shirt does not constitute a theoretically or scientifically convincing argument."

I'm sure I will be torched for source but I thought a good read. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-debate-lawmakers-eye-troubled-background-check-system/

One of my gripes the whole thread has been why create more laws when we don't or can't enforce what we have on the books. Reason: so politicians can say they did something, hold a press conference, give each other a pat on the back......

First step should be to get credible info into a database to perform background checks. Would be money well spent in my opinion and not cheap. Everybody is saying tougher background checks and my question is against what system?

It is hard to argue with a buy who cites Fox, Brad. Rest of your post makes sense anyway. Good luck getting that done though.

Brad - Fox? Really??? (just kidding)

the reason we don't enforce the existing laws is because the NRA lobbyed congress to pass laws to not enforce

the source was from a Jon Stewart piece which you could argue is as illegitimate as Fox

but then you have Jon Stewart on the left and Steven Colbert on the right so I guess they balance : )

Its bad when a comedy show has more credibility than your news show.

"The ones from the article are so commonplace that they are barely noticed."

True, unfortunately. You pretty much have to get up in the double digits to get any recognition these days. In the meantime, a steady stream of singles, stolen bases, and sacrifice bunts adds up to a box score of some 14,000 firearms deaths by the end of the year. :(

"Its bad when a comedy show has more credibility than your news show."

It's getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

Not to lessen the tragedy at hand, but murder rates in the USA have been steadily declining for the last 20 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mass-killings-up-homicide-rate-down/2012/12/19/3a87b058-4a11-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html