XPost: alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now, sac.general, a   
   t.politics.democrats   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: hannity_is_gay@fox.net   
      
   The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only   
   part of the problem, though. The gun culture's worship of the   
   magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be   
   wielded against perceived enemies -- including the federal   
   government -- is a message that resonates with troubled   
   individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking   
   vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to   
   the Charleston killer who echoed the Tea Party mantra of taking   
   back our country. I've been researching gun violence -- and   
   what can be done to prevent it -- in the U.S. for 25 years. The   
   fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in   
   reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest   
   homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the   
   highest homicide rate (by a wide margin). The U.S. is by far   
   the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The   
   stricter gun laws of other "advanced countries" have restrained   
   homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents -- even when, in   
   some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from   
   their armed citizens. The state of gun control in the U.S.   
   Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including   
   Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the   
   unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws   
   to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe   
   storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with   
   stricter gun regulations.   
      
      
   The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort   
   was dealt a blow earlier this month when the U.S. Supreme Court   
   -- over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia --   
   refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns   
   not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive   
   step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every   
   year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the   
   hands of criminals and children. The dissenters, however, were   
   alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be   
   immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how   
   unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under   
   attack. For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of   
   violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the   
   period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal   
   violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime   
   Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a   
   gun in 99.2% of these incidents -- this in a country with 300   
   million guns in civilian hands. In fact, a study of 198 cases   
   of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in   
   Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping)   
   found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the   
   victim's gun than to have the victim use a firearm in   
   self-defense. The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman,   
   concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well   
   heed: On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat   
   is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a   
   bedside drawer. A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an   
   insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time   
   you need it, but has the constant potential -- particularly in   
   the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by   
   children and more attractive for use in crime -- to harm   
   someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large. More   
   guns won't stop gun violence For years, the NRA mantra has been   
   that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns would reduce   
   crime as they fought off or scared off the criminals. Some   
   early studies even purported to show that so-called right to   
   carry laws (RTC) did just that, but a 2004 report from the   
   National Research Council refuted that claim (saying it was not   
   supported by "the scientific evidence"), while remaining   
   uncertain about what the true impact of RTC laws was. Ten years   
   of additional data have allowed new research to get a better   
   fix on this question, which is important since the NRA is   
   pushing for a Supreme Court decision that would allow RTC as a   
   matter of constitutional law. The new research on this issue   
   from my research team at Stanford University has given the most   
   compelling evidence to date that RTC laws are associated with   
   significant increases in violent crime -- particularly for   
   aggravated assault. Looking at Uniform Crime Reports data from   
   1979-2012, we find that, on average, the 33 states that adopted   
   RTC laws over this period experienced violent crime rates that   
   are 4%-19% higher after 10 years than if they had not adopted   
   these laws. This hardly makes a strong case for RTC as a   
   constitutional right. At the very least more research is needed   
   to estimate more precisely exactly how much violent crime such   
   a decision would unleash in the states that have so far   
   resisted the NRA-backed RTC laws. In the meantime, can anything   
   make American politicians listen to the preferences of the 90%   
   on the wisdom of adopting universal background checks for gun   
   purchases?   
      
      
   Gun control around the world   
      
      
   As an academic exercise, one might speculate whether law could   
   play a constructive role in reducing the number or deadliness   
   of mass shootings. Most other advanced nations apparently think   
   so, since they make it far harder for someone like the   
   Charleston killer to get his hands on a Glock semiautomatic   
   handgun or any other kind of firearm (universal background   
   checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed   
   countries). • Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25   
   has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old   
   Dylann Roof would have failed). • Finland: Handgun license   
   applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can   
   prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs.   
   Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude   
   test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper   
   gun storage unit. • Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must   
   establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a   
   background check considering both criminal and mental health   
   records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed). •   
   France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and   
   pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)