11-year old shoots Father's girlfriend

[Alyeska]

Do we utilize such things for children before they shoot fireworks? No.

Twelve states ban firework sales entirely, a further six allow only small commercial fireworks to be sold.

The UK certainly has laws against the sale of fireworks to children.

So actually yes. Yes fireworks are restricted, more stringently than guns in some states, which are far more dangerous.

Does the UK ban children from launching fireworks? There is a difference between banning sales and banning usage.

[salm]

Does the UK ban children from launching fireworks? There is a difference between banning sales and banning usage.

Germany certainly does. You can only buy and use them if you´re 18 or older.

[Dahak]

Does the UK ban children from launching fireworks? There is a difference between banning sales and banning usage.

Germany certainly does. You can only buy and use them if you´re 18 or older.

And only on the 30th and 31st of December.

[Alyeska]

And the US does not. With similarly established precedent, no justification for outright bans on firearms.

[Mayabird]

Hate to look like I'm dogpiling, but there are a number of places in the U.S. that ban the use of fireworks on all but a few certain day (July 4th and maybe some others). It's just not any national law or consistent state law thing. I don't know if there are any specific restrictions for pre-adults in any of them but there might be in a city statute somewhere.

[Alyeska]

Hate to look like I'm dogpiling, but there are a number of places in the U.S. that ban the use of fireworks on all but a few certain day (July 4th and maybe some others). It's just not any national law or consistent state law thing. I don't know if there are any specific restrictions for pre-adults in any of them but there might be in a city statute somewhere.

There is a difference between banning them entirely and banning them on most days. And these bans do not differentiate age.

[Commander 598]

I believe fireworks are generally banned for most of the year because they make a lot of noise, I believe this is largely unenforced outside of cities. Fireworks bans also come up during heavy droughts because ten thousand sparks mixed with dry vegetation is generally bad for everyone.

[Darth Wong]

And the US does not. With similarly established precedent, no justification for outright bans on firearms.

So ... because the US doesn't do it, any and all possible justifications for it are instantly nullified? Do you have any idea how much that looks like stereotypically American arrogance?

[K. A. Pital]

It's based on precedental law, also. "If no precendent exists in my legal system, it's allright". Other nations actually often follow a different legal system from the Anglo-Saxon precedental right model; and it works decently for them - see Germany.

[Akkleptos]

And the US does not. With similarly established precedent, no justification for outright bans on firearms.

So ... because the US doesn't do it, any and all possible justifications for it are instantly nullified? Do you have any idea how much that looks like stereotypically American arrogance?

Beaten to the point. I would -however- like to add something:



Not a justification in itself, but certainly food for thought. No doubt private gun ownership is legal and firearms are relatively easy to get in the US, but what does that really entail? Are Americans safer because of it? (Mods, should I resize the image? I just wanted to keep the text in it readable) It's interesting to see which countries have higher rates than the US, and those which have lower ones, by the way?

It's based on precedental law, also. "If no precendent exists in my legal system, it's allright". Other nations actually often follow a different legal system from the Anglo-Saxon precedental right model; and it works decently for them - see Germany.

Precisely. Isn't it the fact that in many other countries a correlation -and in many cases also causation (however arguably)- between loose gun control laws and higher incidence of gun murders has been found worth another look?

[Alyeska]

Precisely. Isn't it the fact that in many other countries a correlation -and in many cases also causation (however arguably)- between loose gun control laws and higher incidence of gun murders has been found worth another look?

The states with the highest gun control rates are also the states with the worst gun crime. The states with the weakest gun control have some of the lowest rates. But that is more a measure of population density.

[Darth Wong]

Not a justification in itself, but certainly food for thought. No doubt private gun ownership is legal and firearms are relatively easy to get in the US, but what does that really entail? Are Americans safer because of it?

Self-defense via owning a gun is kind of like driving a bigger car. In theory, if you have a bigger car, then you will be safer than other drivers in the event of a collision. Just like a person with a gun will feel more secure than the same person without one. However, only a fool would conclude that a country with bigger cars must have safer roads.

[Darth Wong]

Precisely. Isn't it the fact that in many other countries a correlation -and in many cases also causation (however arguably)- between loose gun control laws and higher incidence of gun murders has been found worth another look?

The states with the highest gun control rates are also the states with the worst gun crime. The states with the weakest gun control have some of the lowest rates. But that is more a measure of population density.

Why doesn't someone correct those comparisons by accounting for differences in general crime rate between those states first, so that the comparison more accurately reflects relative levels of gun crime?

If state A has twice the crime rate of state B in general, then it's silly to compare the gun crime rate between state A and state B without correcting for the fact that state A has twice the general crime rate to begin with.

[K. A. Pital]

The states with the highest gun control rates are also the states with the worst gun crime. The states with the weakest gun control have some of the lowest rates

Wait, is Japan a state with the "weakest gun control", or low population density?

[ray245]

Precisely. Isn't it the fact that in many other countries a correlation -and in many cases also causation (however arguably)- between loose gun control laws and higher incidence of gun murders has been found worth another look?

The states with the highest gun control rates are also the states with the worst gun crime. The states with the weakest gun control have some of the lowest rates. But that is more a measure of population density.

You cannot measure them on a state level. Guns are circulating on a national level in the US, so even if states with high gun control rates, guns can still be obtained from other areas, legally or illegally.

Guns controls laws in the state level doesn't make a significant impact on the overall rate of gun circulation in the whole of USA.

You either have gun control on the national level or you don't have gun controls at all.

[Alyeska]

And the US does not. With similarly established precedent, no justification for outright bans on firearms.

So ... because the US doesn't do it, any and all possible justifications for it are instantly nullified? Do you have any idea how much that looks like stereotypically American arrogance?

Restrict is one thing. Ban is another all together. My reasons for disagreeing with outright bans of any sort (adult or child) are of record. I am not saying that valid reasons don't exist. I would just not support them with a ban. Restrictions that try to balance between safety and freedom, I can live with. I don't know about other countries, but in the US most gun legislation is poorly designed and written and even harder to enforce. So for those reasons I rarely support gun control legislation. Since an outright ban is extremely unlikely, state level bans are feel good laws that don't do anything. And some justifications for restrictions or bans require uniformity. Problem is most gun laws are on the state level and uniformity won't work. So in the end you get a handful of states that heavily restrict or ban some weapons. These laws in effect punish the innocent while the criminals are still left with an easy system to acquire guns.

Uniformity of gun laws would greatly increase the usefulness of restrictions and the justifications become much stronger. California banning guns won't stop the criminals from getting them. A Federal constitutional amendment banning all hand guns on the other hand would have significantly greater affect and be a less overall restrictive law. But with the current system broken such that it is, I cannot support the heavy gun bans or restrictions because they won't work and they will ultimately just punish law abiding citizens.

I guess the best way to put it is several of the ideas do have merit and can be justifiable, but not within the American political and government system. Its just not likely to happen. As evidence by the Democratic leadership bluntly saying that they have no desire to work on gun legislation.

[Alyeska]

The states with the highest gun control rates are also the states with the worst gun crime. The states with the weakest gun control have some of the lowest rates

Wait, is Japan a state with the "weakest gun control", or low population density?

Japan is the 51st state of the United States? I was discussing gun violence in the US only.

[K. A. Pital]

I was discussing gun violence in the US only.

Sorry, the double-meaning of "state" with a comparison of nations in the preceding post confused me.

Oh, and I agree with you on what you said about US gun legislation. Local bans are really useless and do nothing to stop illegal circulation.

[Alyeska]

You cannot measure them on a state level. Guns are circulating on a national level in the US, so even if states with high gun control rates, guns can still be obtained from other areas, legally or illegally.

Guns controls laws in the state level doesn't make a significant impact on the overall rate of gun circulation in the whole of USA.

You either have gun control on the national level or you don't have gun controls at all.

I addressed part of this in a previous post. But you are incorrect on measuring on the state level. I did a comparison of the 6 most heavily populated states vs the 6 least populated states and there was a clear distinction in gun violence levels. Gun crimes per resident increased with the population of the state. The two major outliers were Alaska and Rhode Island. Those can be explained due to population density. Rhode Island is very small. Alaska has something like half of the states population in or very near the city of Anchorage.

You are correct that easy access in other states will certainly influence crime. But the crime migrates to the heavier population densities.

[Alyeska]

I was discussing gun violence in the US only.

Sorry, the double-meaning of "state" with a comparison of nations in the preceding post confused me.

Oh, and I agree with you on what you said about US gun legislation. Local bans are really useless and do nothing to stop illegal circulation.

Local bans are the text book definition of a Feel Good Law. It feels good, but it does jack and shit. Its why the bans in Chicago and DC haven't done anything.

[ray245]

And the US does not. With similarly established precedent, no justification for outright bans on firearms.

So ... because the US doesn't do it, any and all possible justifications for it are instantly nullified? Do you have any idea how much that looks like stereotypically American arrogance?

Restrict is one thing. Ban is another all together. My reasons for disagreeing with outright bans of any sort (adult or child) are of record. I am not saying that valid reasons don't exist. I would just not support them with a ban. Restrictions that try to balance between safety and freedom, I can live with. I don't know about other countries, but in the US most gun legislation is poorly designed and written and even harder to enforce. So for those reasons I rarely support gun control legislation. Since an outright ban is extremely unlikely, state level bans are feel good laws that don't do anything. And some justifications for restrictions or bans require uniformity. Problem is most gun laws are on the state level and uniformity won't work. So in the end you get a handful of states that heavily restrict or ban some weapons. These laws in effect punish the innocent while the criminals are still left with an easy system to acquire guns.

Uniformity of gun laws would greatly increase the usefulness of restrictions and the justifications become much stronger. California banning guns won't stop the criminals from getting them. A Federal constitutional amendment banning all hand guns on the other hand would have significantly greater affect and be a less overall restrictive law. But with the current system broken such that it is, I cannot support the heavy gun bans or restrictions because they won't work and they will ultimately just punish law abiding citizens.

I guess the best way to put it is several of the ideas do have merit and can be justifiable, but not within the American political and government system. Its just not likely to happen. As evidence by the Democratic leadership bluntly saying that they have no desire to work on gun legislation.

However, the general population in the US is not responsible enough with a gun to begin with. Look at Car accidents which guns supporters like to point out. To keep the number of irresponsible drivers to a minimum extend we require them to past a driving test at the very least. Like how a Car should not be viewed as a toy, a gun shouldn't be viewed as a toy as well.

Like I have said before, short of introducing those people who want to own a gun to some kind of police or military level training and test, the risk is too great.

I addressed part of this in a previous post. But you are incorrect on measuring on the state level. I did a comparison of the 6 most heavily populated states vs the 6 least populated states and there was a clear distinction in gun violence levels. Gun crimes per resident increased with the population of the state. The two major outliers were Alaska and Rhode Island. Those can be explained due to population density. Rhode Island is very small. Alaska has something like half of the states population in or very near the city of Anchorage.

You are correct that easy access in other states will certainly influence crime. But the crime migrates to the heavier population densities.

Isn't there a correlation between a small state or nation and police enforcement levels as well? A smaller state makes police enforcement easier.

Also, I talking about gun controls law only aimed at a local state as opposed to nation wide.

What I'm saying was, showing us figures about the gun crime rates in a state and argues that states with gun controls encounter higher gun crimes rates is a invalid example.

Some nations managed to keep gun crime rates low with is due to the fact that they have legal authority to stop people from bringing in guns legally and illegally to their nation.

Prohibiting people from selling guns or carrying guns in a certain state doesn't work if people, especially criminals are able to bring guns from other states to begin with.

Criminals in many cases are willingly to go the extra mile for something that can help them a lot in their crime.

[Coyote]

However, the general population in the US is not responsible enough with a gun to begin with.

Actually, the safety record is pretty good for gun owners. Remember the thread we had a few weeks ago; there are something like 57 million gun owners in the USA. When statistics about gun deaths are bandied about, it tends to include not just legal gun owners but criminals who were never in legal possession of their weapons in the first place. So that skews the perception of the statistics. If every gun owner was as irresponsible as you seem to point out, we'd have millions more deaths, injuries, and accidents than we have now.

Look at Car accidents which guns supporters like to point out. To keep the number of irresponsible drivers to a minimum extend we require them to past a driving test at the very least. Like how a Car should not be viewed as a toy, a gun shouldn't be viewed as a toy as well.

Ray, no one has ever said that a gun is a toy or is viewed as a toy. Every single gun sold legally in the US comes with an instruction booklet that says "this is not a toy" and not to aim it at people, even if you think it is unloaded, etc.

The comparison with cars is troublesome because they are alike only at a passing glance-- two potentially dangerous objects, one of which needs licensing and testing on, the other generally doesn't, so why not treat them the same way? But beneath the surface, guns and cars do not match up very well. No one would think of using a car to ram into a deer to get meat (although it happens by accident sometimes), and no one would use a car to ram into an attacker or home intruder. OTOH, you also don't use a gun to ride to the store to pick up bread.

The guns-cars comparison has a lot of flaws, and we have to be careful about what we're comparing. For example, if guns were treated like cars, then I could take my gun into any state in the USA without worry because my Idaho gun license would be honored in all 50 states, just like my driver's license would be. Equally, if cars were treated like guns, you'de be required to store the car and the gasoline is separate, locked containers when not in use. And so on.

Like I have said before, short of introducing those people who want to own a gun to some kind of police or military level training and test, the risk is too great.

I disagree. People do not need police or military training, because police and soldiers both have months of training so they can perform a lot of other functions besides just shooting. Everything a gun owner needs to know about responsible gun handling can easily be taught in a one-week, after work type class of just a couple hours at a time, or a weekend course. They need to know their legal rights and responsibilities, what sorts of penalties they face for misuse, safe storage and security, proper maintenance, loading & unloading safely, and finally a range test to make sure they know what they're doing. None of it is very complicated, in fact the most complex part would be the legality part, probably with its own separate test.

Isn't there a correlation between a small state or nation and police enforcement levels as well? A smaller state makes police enforcement easier.

There are a lot of differences on that graph that was presented about gun deaths. Japan has a high population density and strict gun controls, but they still have crime in Japan like anywhere else. Mexico has 5.11 deaths per 100,000 people on the chart; but they have low population density and nationwide gun control, IIRC. But Mexico also hosts (unwillingly) the major drug cartels. The graph shows gun deaths but not necessarily crime correlation, nor does it differentiate among suicides and accidental shootings, legal defensive gun use, and how many of the guns involved were legally or illegally owned and used, etc-- just "gun deaths". Theoretically, it could even include people killed by police in performance of their duties with police weapons.

Some nations managed to keep gun crime rates low with is due to the fact that they have legal authority to stop people from bringing in guns legally and illegally to their nation.

But they have other types of crimes. "Gun" does not automatically mean "Crime", and that's something to remember when looking at charts and stats about overall "gun deaths". There are crimes without guns, and some countries may have more of different types of crimes. Europe has lower criminal gun deaths, but at the same time Europe also, for a long time, had problems with major terrorist cells operating in their territory that the US didn't have to deal with, too. Different societies have different types of problems.

Criminals in many cases are willingly to go the extra mile for something that can help them a lot in their crime.

It depends. Small-time hoods, no. Organized criminals --not just the Mafia, I mean any small band of criminals working together that is not necessarily affiliated with a mafia-style organization-- might arrange for "straw man purchases" where someone with a relatively clean record buys guns top bring back and sell to felons. Or they import them from a smuggling operation to sell, etc.

But local gun laws are going to hamper law-abiding citizens who, even if they go the extra mile to cross state lines and buy a gun to protect themselves and have no criminal intent, will become criminals simply by having a gun in their home city or state. That was what was addressed in Heller vs. DC.

[Coyote]

Also, it is worth remembering that we discussed in numerous other threads about US crime (especially gun crime). A lot of crime in the USA is a consequence of drugs-- people knock over convenience stores with cheap guns to get a fairly meager amount of cash, frequently to support drug habits. So part of the overall problem is looking at why people use drugs and what should be available for them so they don't feel the urge to use drugs.

There's a lot of poverty in the US, which I am sure feeds a lot of hunger for drugs as an escape, and the US currently has no real safety nets to prevent much descent into poverty. Now I'm not saying "end poverty and crime will go away", first of all one does not merely "end poverty" by flicking a switch; plus there'll always be crime of some sort. But in gun control and crime threads we've had here in the past, we've noticed a lot of correlation between crime in general and economics.

Personally, I'd also add to it a prison system that doesn't do very well, and silly "zero tolerance" policy for minor drug laws that inflate the prison population.

Dealing with crime is a complex thing that requires engagement on many different levels.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Precisely. Isn't it the fact that in many other countries a correlation -and in many cases also causation (however arguably)- between loose gun control laws and higher incidence of gun murders has been found worth another look?

The states with the highest gun control rates are also the states with the worst gun crime. The states with the weakest gun control have some of the lowest rates. But that is more a measure of population density.

Why doesn't someone correct those comparisons by accounting for differences in general crime rate between those states first, so that the comparison more accurately reflects relative levels of gun crime?

If state A has twice the crime rate of state B in general, then it's silly to compare the gun crime rate between state A and state B without correcting for the fact that state A has twice the general crime rate to begin with.

The gun crowd thinks that guns reduce general crime in addition to not actually contributing to gun crime.