An Apology for Trying to Start a Discussion

[AViking]

I am trying to explain one single factor that leads me to believe that a gun ban that worked for Australia might not work for the US. That one single factor being that Australia wasn't founded with a violent overthrow of their govenrment in which guns were instrumental. So instrumental that the founding fathers specifically coded protection for the right to own firearms into our founding documents.

I believe there are many other factors as well, but I am focusing on one specific factor until it is refuted with some actual logic.

This is ridiculous. I'm American. My family came over in the 20th century. How many families are still around from the 1700's and have that kind of local family memory? As an American the revolution has zero bearing on my opinion on gun control. I respect the 2nd amendment because as an American I believe in our culture of having as much freedom as possible. I believe we have a hunting culture and guns are part of it. I don't believe in every jackass out there having any weapon though and being able to do whatever they want with it though.

Now if I'm not mistaken the 2nd amendment was put in place because the British crown demanded in 1775 that all guns be deposited with the local magistrate. Newsflash though. The US government is not trying to ban all guns. They are not demanding all guns be turned in. We can go down that slippery slope but it's a waste of time and best left to the conspiracy theory nuts. We're not going to be overthrowing the US crown with our AR-15s.

In the 1700's the founding fathers could hardly have imagined the weapons we have today. I think we can, as reasonable people, limit access to nuclear weapons, grenades, and so on. Fully automatic weapons for home defense are not necessary either. Neither is having mentally ill people bear arms.

The population of the 13 colonies at the time of the revolution was about 2.5 million. Hardly comparable to today's massive population with urban centers and inner city crime. They didn't have mentally ill people shooting up the local market with their musket. They didn't have a lot of things that we have to deal with today.

What we can compare to though are places that have lots of guns and have no guns. We can compare to places that have laws in place requiring licensing, mental health checks, etc. It becomes pretty clear, in my opinion, that doing what we're doing is not good but having some common sense laws in place would be a good idea.

 

[dank69]

You asked a question: Did Australia break free from the UK and did they have a right to bear arms at one point.

I answered those questions, in a way you felt was not relevant. Which it turned out was correct as you were arguing the other side of the argument but that wasn't clear from the post I responded to.

The fact that you had a followup post claiming that Australia "broke free" in the 30s certainly reinforced my view that you were trying to draw a parallel between US and AUS with the difference being that the AUS freed themselves without a second amendment.

The bolded is a very poor paraphrasing of my original question. I was asking specifically if a right to bear arms was codified in their founding documents. If you had read it exactly as it was written instead of translating it to your version it would have been clearer that I was drawing distinctions between the two countries rather than drawing parallels.

When I realized what you were actually driving towards, I said it was a misunderstanding and left it at that.

You were the one concerned with laying blame. I just wanted to make sure you kept your fair share of it. :beer:

Yes, at least some of this has to be my fault. I made you ignore some of my posts and misinterpret others.

I will try to find a way to force you to read all of my posts in a thread before you respond to me, because if you had just read posts 15 and especially 33 your preconceived notions about me would have likely been shattered and you would probably never had incorrectly diagnosed my intentions.

Once I solve that problem I will move on to figuring out a way to stop all people from developing preconceived notions about other people and then finally figure out a way to prevent people from misinterpeting things they read.

This might take me awhile, though.

 

[irishScott]

Although the USA is unique I think the same thing could be said of EVERY country. I struggle to believe that the USA could never have universal healthcare because it didn't have Vikings, Norse Mythology, and ABBA.

If anything the problem we have is that we are unable to see a solution because we think we're a special snowflake. We also think the USA is indestructible because we're a special snowflake. We're not though.

The USA needs to be able to adapt to the changing world. In 1776 we didn't have inner city ghettos, a drug war, or a diverse population. Today we do. We need to adapt to these changes and be able to deal with our gun and healthcare problems without all these excuses.

Invalid analogy. Vikings, Norse Mythology and ABBA have nothing to do with universal healthcare. American attitudes towards and treatment of guns, as well as simple geography, have everything to do with the efficacy of gun control systems designed for people who lack said attitudes and geography.

And we should adapt and deal with our issues, but in the case of guns our available solutions are unique in that they are far more limited. We need to focus on the deeper issues, the fundamental causes of crime. Nothing else will work, or at least I've yet to see evidence of such.

Like it or not, with respect to guns the US is a special snowflake. It's a literal first in history. Sorry the rest of the Western World doesn't qualify, but it's not an excuse, merely a fact. You might as well compare our respective militaries and say what works for Sweden would work for us. (it wouldn't)

 

[TerryMathews]

The bolded is a very poor paraphrasing of my original question. I was asking specifically if a right to bear arms was codified in their founding documents. If you had read it exactly as it was written instead of translating it to your version it would have been clearer that I was drawing distinctions between the two countries rather than drawing parallels.



Yes, at least some of this has to be my fault. I made you ignore some of my posts and misinterpret others.

I will try to find a way to force you to read all of my posts in a thread before you respond to me, because if you had just read posts 15 and especially 33 your preconceived notions about me would have likely been shattered and you would probably never had incorrectly diagnosed my intentions.

Once I solve that problem I will move on to figuring out a way to stop all people from developing preconceived notions about other people and then finally figure out a way to prevent people from misinterpeting things they read.

This might take me awhile, though.

There's no way in hell I'm going to read every one of your posts before I respond. Get over yourself.

You asked a question, I answered it. If you wanted more nuance considered, the onus was on you to provide that nuance. To quote, "I am not a mind reader."

You seem to be lashing out in some sort of rage. Let me say it for you again: I misinterpreted the intention of your post. That was my mistake.

Anything beyond that is not solely my fault. If you are not able to accept that, some personal growth might be in order.

Continue to flail away though, its entertaining...

 

[irishScott]

This is ridiculous. I'm American. My family came over in the 20th century. How many families are still around from the 1700's and have that kind of local family memory? As an American the revolution has zero bearing on my opinion on gun control. I respect the 2nd amendment because as an American I believe in our culture of having as much freedom as possible. I believe we have a hunting culture and guns are part of it. I don't believe in every jackass out there having any weapon though and being able to do whatever they want with it though.

Now if I'm not mistaken the 2nd amendment was put in place because the British crown demanded in 1775 that all guns be deposited with the local magistrate. Newsflash though. The US government is not trying to ban all guns. They are not demanding all guns be turned in. We can go down that slippery slope but it's a waste of time and best left to the conspiracy theory nuts. We're not going to be overthrowing the US crown with our AR-15s.

In the 1700's the founding fathers could hardly have imagined the weapons we have today. I think we can, as reasonable people, limit access to nuclear weapons, grenades, and so on. Fully automatic weapons for home defense are not necessary either. Neither is having mentally ill people bear arms.

The population of the 13 colonies at the time of the revolution was about 2.5 million. Hardly comparable to today's massive population with urban centers and inner city crime. They didn't have mentally ill people shooting up the local market with their musket. They didn't have a lot of things that we have to deal with today.

What we can compare to though are places that have lots of guns and have no guns. We can compare to places that have laws in place requiring licensing, mental health checks, etc. It becomes pretty clear, in my opinion, that doing what we're doing is not good but having some common sense laws in place would be a good idea.

Last I checked the founding fathers lived in an era where the average Joe could own the same weapons as a professional soldier was issued. In fact some towns, of no more than a few hundred people or less, even had their own cannons.

And no, we can't compare ourselves to other places when there are offsetting factors that include geography, culture, and history. Or did you also think that nation-building Afghanistan was a workable idea? After all, it worked for Japan and Germany.

Edit: And yes, if enough people rebel we could conceivably overthrow the government. And AR-15s would be a big help in that regard. That is undeniable once you get past the asinine "durrrr, weeeell u won't be takin owt duh tankss or duh jets wit duh rifles" point. I always hear that argument when this topic comes up, and it's always a sign that the person saying it hasn't thought anything through.

 

[AViking]

My analogy was meant to be funny not a well thought out analogy. lol

I'm saying that things change and we need to adapt to these changes. Given what we know and have now we should be able to look outside the 1776 box. Imagine telling the founding fathers that we have gone from being able to shoot 3 musket rounds a minute to 1,500 a minute. An AR 15 does about 800 right. It's just out of the realm of possibility back then.

I mean shit if we truly want to have all these weapons to protect from a tyrannical government that's not serving our best interests then why are people not rebelling as we speak? What will it take? There are tens of millions of Americans that should be in the streets as we speak. More probably.

Despite all that how about we keep guns away from unhealthy people? I'd be pretty interested to read something about how they dealt with the town drunk or the local looney with respect to firearms back then.

 

[dank69]

This is ridiculous.

Relax and just focus on the discussion. Every American raised in the public school system has had it beaten into their heads their entire lives that our ancestors used guns to overthrow a tyrannical government and that our ancestors demanded that every American citizen be ready to do it again should the need ever rise. This is our culture we are talking about here and you don't get to dismiss it by just labeling it ridiculous. A valid argument could be made that not only is it not ridiculous but that it is actually noble.

I'm American. My family came over in the 20th century. How many families are still around from the 1700's and have that kind of local family memory? As an American the revolution has zero bearing on my opinion on gun control. I respect the 2nd amendment because as an American I believe in our culture of having as much freedom as possible. I believe we have a hunting culture and guns are part of it. I don't believe in every jackass out there having any weapon though and being able to do whatever they want with it though.

The bolded is a straw man since that is not my position either. You are using it because you haven't been able to attack my actual position and/or you sense that your actual position supporting full gun bans might be indefensible. If that is not your actual position then please clarify for me because it seems that way since you are attacking my position which is attacking gun bans.

Now if I'm not mistaken the 2nd amendment was put in place because the British crown demanded in 1775 that all guns be deposited with the local magistrate. Newsflash though. The US government is not trying to ban all guns. They are not demanding all guns be turned in. We can go down that slippery slope but it's a waste of time and best left to the conspiracy theory nuts. We're not going to be overthrowing the US crown with our AR-15s.

That's all great but I am specifically attacking the position that gun bans will work in America because it worked for Australia.

In the 1700's the founding fathers could hardly have imagined the weapons we have today. I think we can, as reasonable people, limit access to nuclear weapons, grenades, and so on. Fully automatic weapons for home defense are not necessary either. Neither is having mentally ill people bear arms.

Continuation of the above straw man.

The population of the 13 colonies at the time of the revolution was about 2.5 million. Hardly comparable to today's massive population with urban centers and inner city crime. They didn't have mentally ill people shooting up the local market with their musket. They didn't have a lot of things that we have to deal with today.

First of all, you don't know what they had to deal with. You don't know that they didn't have a mentally insane person shoot up the local market. I don't think insanity just popped into existence in the 20th or 21st century. Secondly, the best defense against such a person, or any violent crime for that matter, is in reality, a gun. Attempting to take guns away from the population not only violates their rights, it leaves them at a disadvantage unless you can successfully take away all guns, which you can't.

What we can compare to though are places that have lots of guns and have no guns.

Good idea, let's compare places that have the same amount of guns as the US to the US. Comparing one place that has a lot of guns with another place that has "no" guns is pretty hard to do if you want to correct for every other factor.

We can compare to places that have laws in place requiring licensing, mental health checks, etc. It becomes pretty clear, in my opinion, that doing what we're doing is not good but having some common sense laws in place would be a good idea.

We have lots of regulations in place. The effectiveness of each is still up for debate. I would argue that some are effective and some are not. Some can be enforced practically and some cannot.

 

[dank69]

There's no way in hell I'm going to read every one of your posts before I respond. Get over yourself.

You asked a question, I answered it. If you wanted more nuance considered, the onus was on you to provide that nuance. To quote, "I am not a mind reader."

You seem to be lashing out in some sort of rage. Let me say it for you again: I misinterpreted the intention of your post. That was my mistake.

Anything beyond that is not solely my fault. If you are not able to accept that, some personal growth might be in order.

Continue to flail away though, its entertaining...

If you want to continue commenting as if you have no idea where you are or what is being discussed, be my guest. I only highlighted this incident in an attempt to help you avoid repeating your mistake in the future. I can only lead you to the water, I can't make you drink.

I am in no way, shape or form responsible for your laziness.

 

[dank69]

My analogy was meant to be funny not a well thought out analogy. lol

I'm saying that things change and we need to adapt to these changes. Given what we know and have now we should be able to look outside the 1776 box. Imagine telling the founding fathers that we have gone from being able to shoot 3 musket rounds a minute to 1,500 a minute. An AR 15 does about 800 right. It's just out of the realm of possibility back then.

I mean shit if we truly want to have all these weapons to protect from a tyrannical government that's not serving our best interests then why are people not rebelling as we speak? What will it take? There are tens of millions of Americans that should be in the streets as we speak. More probably.

Despite all that how about we keep guns away from unhealthy people? I'd be pretty interested to read something about how they dealt with the town drunk or the local looney with respect to firearms back then.

A tyrannical government is not defined as one that does not serve our best interests. There is a LOT more to tyranny than just that.

 

[irishScott]

My analogy was meant to be funny not a well thought out analogy. lol

I'm saying that things change and we need to adapt to these changes. Given what we know and have now we should be able to look outside the 1776 box. Imagine telling the founding fathers that we have gone from being able to shoot 3 musket rounds a minute to 1,500 a minute. An AR 15 does about 800 right. It's just out of the realm of possibility back then.

I mean shit if we truly want to have all these weapons to protect from a tyrannical government that's not serving our best interests then why are people not rebelling as we speak? What will it take? There are tens of millions of Americans that should be in the streets as we speak. More probably.

Despite all that how about we keep guns away from unhealthy people? I'd be pretty interested to read something about how they dealt with the town drunk or the local looney with respect to firearms back then.

Granted, but they also couldn't foresee things like the internet. Last I checked that's still covered under the 1st amendment.

As for what it'll take, I'd say enough people not being able to make ends meet/massive government intrusion in some fashion. The original revolution was sparked by extreme taxes and forced quartering of soldiers, and only about 1/3 of the colonial population was actively involved in the rebellion. So something that can whip 100 million Americans into active rebellion is what it'll take.

Besides, nowadays we don't really need violent revolution for most major issues. Our system is adaptable enough that a big enough groundswell can completely alter our government without bloodshed. The issue will be when the government stops responding to said groundswells, then the weapons come in. As it is, most people are too fat and happy to worry about keeping the government in line, but that's changing as years go by.

In fact, the 2nd amendment issue is a prime example of this. 20 years ago when the Clinton AWB was forming, it was all the NRA could do to put a sunset clause into the bill so that it would eventually expire. After that defeat and other subsequent attempts at gun control, enough gun owners got involved that even after one of the worst mass shootings in American history, the NRA blocked a similar bill from passing in a Democrat-held senate.


I don't think there will ever be a violent revolution in my lifetime, but it's a possibility. The NSA revelations themselves are a particularly dangerous sign if the program is allowed to continue with its current paper-thin oversight.

And yeah, I'm all for keeping guns away from unhealthy people, and we have some laws on the books to that effect. If a court deems you mentally unstable, you fail the NICS check (assuming the records get properly reported). The issue is setting the standard of mental health necessary to own a gun, which gets somewhat philosophical. Do you want a high standard of required mental health that excludes some people with minor conditions who likely aren't a threat, or do you want low standards to ensure that every capable individual can get a gun, but a few crazies slip through?

Pros and cons to each. Given that the rest of our justice system is based around a high standard of evidence to prove wrongdoing, I'm inclined to let the occasional questionable individual slip through, but I agree regulations in that regard should be stricter and better enforced than they are now.

 

[AViking]

I'm for a few crazies getting through. The most obvious ones need to be outright banned though. If you have mental problems , are suicidal, have rage problems, etc.

Where I think the thin line is on depression and social anxiety. If you look at the Aurora shooter the guy obviously had problems (and had attempted suicide after the fact) but how do you properly identify someone like him ahead of time? Dropping out of school is not a good enough excuse.

Virginia Tech though could have been avoided by not selling him guns though. That's a very obvious case.

 

[AViking]

Relax and just focus on the discussion. Every American raised in the public school system has had it beaten into their heads their entire lives that our ancestors used guns to overthrow a tyrannical government and that our ancestors demanded that every American citizen be ready to do it again should the need ever rise. This is our culture we are talking about here and you don't get to dismiss it by just labeling it ridiculous. A valid argument could be made that not only is it not ridiculous but that it is actually noble.

My schools never ever told me I needed to be armed and prepared to overthrow my government if the need should arise. I was taught that we have a right to own a gun for hunting and self defense. I'm not advocating the removal of all guns. I think we can protect ourselves though by simply having some laws in place that keep them out of the hands of crazies. Wait lists and background checks do not violate our 2nd amendment rights do they? Gun registration? Where we might disagree is on things like stand your ground laws and which types of weapons should be banned but I am not advocating a full ban and never would.

You stated that the one single factor that makes a gun ban not work in the USA is that we overthrew our previous government. I'm saying that this was 237 years ago and things have changed. A lot. I'm American and do not feel like I need a gun to protect my family from the crown.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm for a few crazies getting through. The most obvious ones need to be outright banned though. If you have mental problems though, are suicidal, have rage problems, etc.

Where I think the thin line though is on depression and social anxiety. If you look at the Aurora shooter the guy obviously had problems (and had attempted suicide after the fact) but how do you properly identify someone like him ahead of time? Dropping out of school is not a good enough excuse.

Virginia Tech though could have been avoided by not selling him guns though. That's a very obvious case.

The Texas Tower shooting is the prototypical example of the gaping hole in the system: doctors aren't legally obligated to do anything about the crazies, even if they are aware of them. At best its malpractice, and only the patient has standing to claim that. Maybe the estate, depending on jurisdiction.

Its also a good example of what happens if you let concerned citizens carry firearms.

Controlling the ownership and carry of all types of firearms is a relatively new concept (~50 years). I would say empirically the experiment has failed.

 

[jackstar7]

Controlling the ownership and carry of all types of firearms is a relatively new concept (~50 years). I would say empirically the experiment has failed.

As you say it is empirical, please show the data that leads you to that assessment. I'm not sure the data bares out your conclusion, but I'm comfortable being wrong.

 

[TerryMathews]

As you say it is empirical, please show the data that leads you to that assessment. I'm not sure the data bares out your conclusion, but I'm comfortable being wrong.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas

Some major gun control laws to keep in mind, with years:

GCA (1968)
FOPA (1986)
Brady (1993)
AWB (1994-2004)

You would think that there would be many more of these spree shootings prior to these restrictive gun control laws, yet the evidence doesn't yield proof of that conclusion.

 

[jackstar7]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas

Some major gun control laws to keep in mind, with years:

GCA (1968)
FOPA (1986)
Brady (1993)
AWB (1994-2004)

You would think that there would be many more of these spree shootings prior to these restrictive gun control laws, yet the evidence doesn't yield proof of that conclusion.

So spree shootings are the reason those laws were passed? I wasn't aware of that. I also do not think it is correct.

Check out this graph: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27

Looks like handgun murders spiked right around the passage of Brady and the AWB and then sharply decline.

Looks to me like regulation worked to the tune of a 40% drop over the following years.


Also, from here: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

"Nonfatal firearm-related crime has fallen significantly in recent years, from almost 1.3 million incidents in 1994 to a low of 331,618 incidents in 2008." And that number has started to rise again since 2008.

 

[jackstar7]

And still, this is not at all what I wanted this discussion to be about.

It's a shame as the internet has bred more and more of these insular cultures that can minimize the reach of contrary thoughts and ideas into a given culture and this kind of reaction will sadly become more common.

 

[TerryMathews]

So spree shootings are the reason those laws were passed? I wasn't aware of that. I also do not think it is correct.

Check out this graph: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27

Looks like handgun murders spiked right around the passage of Brady and the AWB and then sharply decline.

Looks to me like regulation worked to the tune of a 40% drop over the following years.


Also, from here: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

"Nonfatal firearm-related crime has fallen significantly in recent years, from almost 1.3 million incidents in 1994 to a low of 331,618 incidents in 2008." And that number has started to rise again since 2008.

I never said that spree shooting were the impetus for the laws. GCA68 was prompted by the assassinations of King and Kennedy, for example.

I stand behind my position. I posted a comprehensive list of rampage shootings, and they are clearly concentrated in the post-68 world, both in number of events and number of victims.

I wonder if in the years that handgun murders were down, non-handgun murders were up?

 

[jackstar7]

I never said that spree shooting were the impetus for the laws. GCA68 was prompted by the assassinations of King and Kennedy, for example.

I stand behind my position. I posted a comprehensive list of rampage shootings, and they are clearly concentrated in the post-68 world, both in number of events and number of victims.

I wonder if in the years that handgun murders were down, non-handgun murders were up?

I'm confused. Did you look at the graph?

Also, if data that effectively contradicts your position doesn't at least make you question said position... then you're clearly not interested in a discussion.

I'm absolutely prepared for you to show me data that supports your position. You cited laws that were not the result of spree shootings, but because those continue to happen at the same infrequent rate (as they are outlier incidents, and generally statistically insignificant) that your position is supported?

I do not understand how you reach your position, nor what actually supports it. Feel free to elaborate. I have no anxiety about being wrong.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm confused. Did you look at the graph?

Also, if data that effectively contradicts your position doesn't at least make you question said position... then you're clearly not interested in a discussion.

I'm absolutely prepared for you to show me data that supports your position. You cited laws that were not the result of spree shootings, but because those continue to happen at the same infrequent rate (as they are outlier incidents, and generally statistically insignificant) that your position is supported?

I do not understand how you reach your position, nor what actually supports it. Feel free to elaborate. I have no anxiety about being wrong.

I did, however my phone must not have loaded all 36 (!) Pages the first time around, as when I looked this morning on my PC I did see relevant charts on p. 28. That is interesting, and not the trend I would've expected seeing.

The author did note in the intimate homicide section that as gun usage went down other weapons were used more frequently. So it is true for at least some types of homicide that we have only shifted the type of weapon used.

Can I take it from your comments (outlier incidents...) that youre not interested in the frequency of rampages as related to these gun control laws since they are "statistically insignificant"?

 

[jackstar7]

Can I take it from your comments (outlier incidents...) that youre not interested in the frequency of rampages as related to these gun control laws since they are "statistically insignificant"?

I'm not interested in them shaping regulations or laws, no. I think they can spark a reactionary emotional response, but because they have been consistent over decades and never reach anywhere near the numbers of anything that actually kills people consistently, I do not think they should matter.

Do you contend that I ought to be interested?

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm not interested in them shaping regulations or laws, no. I think they can spark a reactionary emotional response, but because they have been consistent over decades and never reach anywhere near the numbers of anything that actually kills people consistently, I do not think they should matter.

Do you contend that I ought to be interested?

No, I think your approach is correct. Can you accept that your view is the minority and that a segment of our government and population believe that these rampages are a problem that needs solved via gun control?

 

[jackstar7]

No, I think your approach is correct. Can you accept that your view is the minority and that a segment of our government and population believe that these rampages are a problem that needs solved via gun control?

I have no idea if it is the minority view among the population or the government representatives.

I know that sensationalism and fear certainly spike in the wake of spree shootings though, and all the calls for some kind of mental health awareness that spring up from the gun lobby and gun lovers is so disingenuous given that they'd never tolerate mental health testing as a pre-req for ownership. But it's a non-starter anyway because I cannot imagine how those standards would be arrived at, nor how testing would be both uniform and still effective without being incredibly restrictive, which would also make those groups bristle.

So what is a viable solution to the health problem that is gun violence?

 

[irishScott]

So spree shootings are the reason those laws were passed? I wasn't aware of that. I also do not think it is correct.

Check out this graph: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27

Looks like handgun murders spiked right around the passage of Brady and the AWB and then sharply decline.

Looks to me like regulation worked to the tune of a 40% drop over the following years.


Also, from here: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

"Nonfatal firearm-related crime has fallen significantly in recent years, from almost 1.3 million incidents in 1994 to a low of 331,618 incidents in 2008." And that number has started to rise again since 2008.

Uh, it's started to rise? Technically true, but we're still below 2007 numbers. I'd also like to point out similar "rising" behavior while the assault weapons ban was active (2000-2001, 2003-2004). So there wouldn't even seem to be a correlation there.

Meanwhile from that same link:

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.

And using FBI statistics for the years since 2008, the number has fallen to about 8500. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

So overall fewer people are getting killed despite unprecedented gun proliferation, and non-lethal gun crime seems to be fluctuating within a normal range, given that data. I think it's safe to say the impact of gun control is minimal at best.

 

[irishScott]

I have no idea if it is the minority view among the population or the government representatives.

I know that sensationalism and fear certainly spike in the wake of spree shootings though, and all the calls for some kind of mental health awareness that spring up from the gun lobby and gun lovers is so disingenuous given that they'd never tolerate mental health testing as a pre-req for ownership. But it's a non-starter anyway because I cannot imagine how those standards would be arrived at, nor how testing would be both uniform and still effective without being incredibly restrictive, which would also make those groups bristle.

So what is a viable solution to the health problem that is gun violence?

The best way is focusing on the causes of gun crime itself, which is the cause of any violent crime. End the war on drugs, increase availability of healthcare, get the economy back on track so people can actually have livelihoods and have no need to turn to crime; and IMO bring back public flogging for misdemeanors.

Edit: Also welfare reform. Make welfare less pleasant. It should be a safety net, not a safety cushion.