What "meaningful action" would suggest to prevent more mass shooting in the US?

[JeanG]

When one looks at the statistics, it's really quite remarkable that massive sweeping gun bans have no observed impact.

These are the Australia murder and gun murder rates, before and after the ban:

[JeanG]

Pro-gun control Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer:

...Violent crime In Washington [DC] has increased since the ban took effect in 1976. "Indeed," he continued, "a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district's homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place."

DC has one of the most restrictive - if not the most restrictive - firearm bans in the US.

[JeanG]

There are professional academics whom do nothing but study the impacts of firearm legislation on various forms of violence. They've been at it for over ten years, and no consensus has appeared.

On one side are those whom claim that increased legal handgun ownership lowers serious crime rates - including homicide and murder. On the other side are their opposites.

The fact that the evidence isn't considered conclusive amongst experts, and given the fact that academics generally bias towards restrictive firearm policies, gives credence to the position that higher legal handgun ownership rates do in fact lower serious crime rates.

An overview of the debate:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/21/more-handguns-less-crime-or-mo/

[upwinder]

When one looks at the statistics, it's really quite remarkable that massive sweeping gun bans have no observed impact.

These are the Australia murder and gun murder rates, before and after the ban:

The take-away from that graphic is that rates of gun murder in OZ have gone from very low to very low. The key difference since '96 ( as our Swedish colleague has pointed out) is that there hasn't been a mass gun murder (as defined by the FBI) since the ban, because the tools for committing these horrendous acts, weapons designed to kill lots of people very quickly, are almost impossible to obtain here and not at all possible to obtain legally. In truth, we still have our share of arseholes who want to do harm to each other (and do) but nearly all of our gun murder occurs within the criminal sector and is for the most part related to disputes about aspects of drug trade. That group of (mostly illegal) gun users generally keep it among themselves and leave us "civilians" alone.

There are also significant differences in gun politics and culture between us and you. Gun ownership, or the right to it, isn't enshrined in our constitution nor is it such a part of our national identity. Rates of gun ownership here have historically been low, and now only about 5% of Australians own guns of any type. The Port Arthur massacre of 1996 was a clarifying moment for us. The government of the day and the wider community made a decision about how we were going to deal with what we perceived as a problem. The gun amnesty and buyback of the late 90's succeeded in removing a huge proportion of the guns then in circulation, for all of these reasons.

Here's a link to a piece on "Gun Politics in Australia" that sums up where we are and how we got here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

What I am trying to say is that the Australian model probably doesn't offer more than a potentially informative case study for the people and policy makers of the U.S., because gun politics and culture have always been different here. Nor can I claim any special moral high-ground, Australia is definitely not some sort of violence-free Utopia. We have our own problems of crime and violence that we struggle to deal with, people still hurt and kill each other (albeit at relatively low rates), but again, we haven't had an incident like Port Arthur since '96, and we've never had one like Newtown.

[SUPerSwede]

When one looks at the statistics, it's really quite remarkable that massive sweeping gun bans have no observed impact.

These are the Australia murder and gun murder rates, before and after the ban:

Funny, the same data can apparently be interpreted another way, to have saved thousands of lives.
Regardless of interpretation, there have been no massacres since 1996. Seems relevant today, does it not?

http://guncontrol.org.au

[SUPerSwede]

And on the same subject, an excellent summary of the problem at hand and the different gun cultures and mentalities, by the former PM, no less:

http://guncontrol.org.au/2012/08/howard-on-guns/

[Celeste]

.....

The take-away from that graphic is that rates of gun murder in OZ have gone from very low to very low. The key difference since '96 ( as our Swedish colleague has pointed out) is that there hasn't been a mass gun murder (as defined by the FBI) since the ban, because the tools for committing these horrendous acts, weapons designed to kill lots of people very quickly, are almost impossible to obtain here and not at all possible to obtain legally. In truth, we still have our share of arseholes who want to do harm to each other (and do) but nearly all of our gun murder occurs within the criminal sector and is for the most part related to disputes about aspects of drug trade. That group of (mostly illegal) gun users generally .....

No they have not been taken away, what has been taken away are the tools that require little or no skill to use.   In the hands of a skilled marksman, a magazine fed bolt action rifle can fire 1 round per second, which is only marginally less then a skilled marksmen can fire accurately with a semi auto rifle, remember the Oswald controversy(well I guess I should not expect you to, but I am sure many of the Americans do) ?.  You are just lucky that you have not had someone skilled fall off the edge of sanity.

[PonoBill]

The key difference since '96 ( as our Swedish colleague has pointed out) is that there hasn't been a mass gun murder (as defined by the FBI) since the ban, because the tools for committing these horrendous acts, weapons designed to kill lots of people very quickly, are almost impossible to obtain here and not at all possible to obtain legally.

That's just not true. I can suggest twenty ways to commit mass murder much faster than anyone can with a gun, all with things you can get anywhere. I wouldn't even have to go to the store to give you five ways.

Focusing on guns doesn't make much sense to me. The issue is why does this happen and is there a way to prevent it.

[upwinder]

what has been taken away are the tools that require little or no skill to use. 

Thanks Celeste (ad PB), for refining my point. In essence is what I was clumsily trying to say.  It is also still true that there hasn't been a single instance of mass gun murder here since Port Arthur. You can infer or extrapolate from that what you will and as I said in my earlier post, all I think our situation offers for you is a case study.

[skibike]

.

[Celeste]

.

Well said

[SUPerSwede]

But PB - is gun possession really that important that it isn't worth trying harder regulations? Really?

As an ex military, I can't help but feel that you're forgetting there's a reason all armies have guns. They're really effective for killing people. Many are specifically made for that purpose.

[Weasels wake]

But PB - is gun possession really that important that it isn't worth trying harder regulations? Really?

As an ex military, I can't help but feel that you're forgetting there's a reason all armies have guns. They're really effective for killing people. Many are specifically made for that purpose.

Okay guns are now out of the equasion, but you want to kill as many as you can, in as short of time as possible.
You've got a backpack full of small molotov cocktails and a bic lighter, do I have to go on with this scenario?

[PonoBill]

But PB - is gun possession really that important that it isn't worth trying harder regulations? Really?

As an ex military, I can't help but feel that you're forgetting there's a reason all armies have guns. They're really effective for killing people. Many are specifically made for that purpose.

Not to me it isn't. I just consider it unlikely. A huge number of Americans like guns. The common notion that the NRA has power because of gun manufacturer funding is untrue. the NRA has power because it's a big organization.

[Bean]

But PB - is gun possession really that important that it isn't worth trying harder regulations? Really?

SUPerSwede, not many countries have "harder regulations" than your neighbor, Norway (my birth country).  And even with those strict gun regulations in place, not long ago, one of the world's most tragic mass murders took place.

For many Americans, "Gun possession" is not the larger issue here; preserving the freedoms granted by the Constitution is.  Through the Second Amendment, our founding fathers wanted to ensure that we would have the ability to arm ourselves against our own government, if needed, by providing for state militias and individuals rights to bear arms.