Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:11 AM Oct 2015

Questions the left won't discuss about gun control, but should - and soon.

I have been having the gun control debate with people on the left for decades now and there's a few questions no one will discuss rationally... by that I mean any attempt to have a discussion turns into an argument ... or worse...

I'd like to try again here, and see if we can have a reasonable discussion, with the aim of better understanding the issues at hand and potentially demand more meaningful things from our politicians - and ourselves.

Who's game?

Question 1: Bearing in mind that no one ACTUALLY believes we can reduce gun violence to zero, and bearing in mind the sacrifices that would be needed to reduce violence past a certain point, what is the percentage of current gun violence you could "live with" as an American?

A few examples of how you might think of this question:

- We have lost more people to guns than we lost in WW2, in the last 15 years. That's a lot of people. Would you be willing to accept a 20% reduction in that, if it meant that the fundamental "right" to guns is basically left intact.

- Handguns account for between 65-75% of gun violence in America. Would you be willing to remove them - by force if need be - to get the gun violence rate down by 40-50%?

So - what percentage can you live with, or if you like, what percentage can America sustain long-term?

I ask THIS question, partially, because no politician will dare predict the lives their policies would save, if they were passed, largely because - IMO - the numbers would be so insignificant that they dare not admit it publicly. For example, Hillary's suggestions - at best - would only reduce gun violence by 10%, and probably more like 2-3%... which means she'd have to admit that her plan would at best mean that 2700 children would still be shot every year in America. Hardly a vote getter.

160 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Questions the left won't discuss about gun control, but should - and soon. (Original Post) EdwardBernays Oct 2015 OP
I think registration of all handguns would be safeinOhio Oct 2015 #1
Thanks EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #2
New York has had that ... Straw Man Oct 2015 #43
In that case safeinOhio Oct 2015 #47
It's the only way EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #50
It will never happen. Straw Man Oct 2015 #56
well.. EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #60
Are you sure ... Straw Man Oct 2015 #61
See here's the thing EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #65
The thing(s). Straw Man Oct 2015 #68
It's been done EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #70
No, it hasn't. Straw Man Oct 2015 #77
A push was made to ban handguns in the early-mid 70s... Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #82
No attempt has ever been made EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #87
Google "National Coalition to Ban Hanguns..." Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #94
forming a coalition EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #111
Well, even I wouldn't equate the anti-gunners with flying pig advocacy.... Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #131
You forget we aren't searched when entering NY state. jeff47 Oct 2015 #53
Prohibition banned alcohol from sea to shining sea. Straw Man Oct 2015 #57
Somehow, it works for every other industrialized nation. jeff47 Oct 2015 #62
The picture is far more complex ... Straw Man Oct 2015 #63
I've heard that exact argument used about MJ, against CO. beevul Oct 2015 #135
Fact check dot org safeinOhio Oct 2015 #69
welcome to DU discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #3
thanks... and... EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #4
other than a media campaign about... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #7
wellll.... EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #9
politics is about barter discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #10
the problem there EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #11
and what is it that pro-control is bringing to the table? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #12
welll... EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #14
sure but you would need to PROVE that your law would absolutely improve... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #16
ehhh EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #20
one of the issues is the lack of common ground discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #23
Our present laws have cut the murder rate in half hack89 Oct 2015 #35
no EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #51
So isn't the solution to a suicide "epidemic " hack89 Oct 2015 #59
one problem discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #64
absolutely not EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #66
But there are no gun control measures short of confiscation hack89 Oct 2015 #67
lol EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #71
You at least admit you have no realistic solution hack89 Oct 2015 #74
Yup, Ireland's always been such a peacful, safe place with no violence to speak of DonP Oct 2015 #75
Theres that ugly word again. beevul Oct 2015 #13
decades of gun control is a stretch EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #15
See the national firearms act of 1934, do the math, and get back to me. beevul Oct 2015 #18
no EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #72
I hate to point out the obvious... beevul Oct 2015 #83
Well... EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #86
You recognize some of the obvious politics, branford Oct 2015 #95
of course not EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #108
You've proven my point. branford Oct 2015 #118
as you say EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #121
Do you wonder why gun rights are expanding? branford Oct 2015 #139
there's the catch 22 EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #142
Define "and it wil be painful" sarisataka Oct 2015 #146
except your predictions on demographic shifts are assumptions gejohnston Oct 2015 #147
So, at least we've implicitly established that you really have no intention branford Oct 2015 #148
except EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #149
except not gejohnston Oct 2015 #152
Excuse me? branford Oct 2015 #153
So your examples are EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #154
Ah, nothing is as heart warming as a child's simple faith. DonP Oct 2015 #155
Another echo discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #126
Interesting. beevul Oct 2015 #97
10K kids injured and 3000 dead by guns a year EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #123
Yeah, like I said. Brady sycophant. beevul Oct 2015 #134
you need to read more carefully EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #143
but they are not children gejohnston Oct 2015 #144
The operative word, I believe, was 'children'. beevul Oct 2015 #145
riiiiight EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #150
So far, you're following the typical brady bunch script. beevul Oct 2015 #151
Most Americans don't like bartering with our rights yeoman6987 Oct 2015 #26
How about life liberty and the persuit of happyness are those rights? upaloopa Oct 2015 #129
All these good things are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #140
there is a meme for that gejohnston Oct 2015 #17
the thing is EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #21
no they haven't gejohnston Oct 2015 #24
Excellent post..n/t Kang Colby Oct 2015 #30
sigh EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #44
Crickets..... safeinOhio Oct 2015 #48
Crickets? No. gejohnston Oct 2015 #90
Your WaPo articles speaks to gun violence, not violence as a whole as GE was speaking. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #54
Ive never said anything about house to house searches. safeinOhio Oct 2015 #92
Coincidentally, my post was not in response to any of your posts. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #96
the memes were a valid point gejohnston Oct 2015 #89
Would registration of handguns safeinOhio Oct 2015 #5
I suppose registration might be okay but... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #6
good to see you discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #8
Welcome. I will respond when I have time to consider your questions thoroughly... Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #19
ha! EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #22
Maybe and no. ileus Oct 2015 #25
I would restrict concealed carry permits to trained professionals with a demonstrated need. Maedhros Oct 2015 #27
Like it does in Vermont or Maine? n/t Kang Colby Oct 2015 #28
I'm not familiar with those states' concealed weapon laws. Maedhros Oct 2015 #31
In Maine and Vermont... Kang Colby Oct 2015 #32
Correlation is not causation. Maedhros Oct 2015 #33
I wasn't suggesting that it was. I was simply pointing out that a carrying populace does not Kang Colby Oct 2015 #34
It's not a phobia - it's a reasonable preference. Maedhros Oct 2015 #37
welll.... EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #41
No, it isn't, is it. Straw Man Oct 2015 #40
no need for utopia EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #42
Oh, the irony ... Straw Man Oct 2015 #45
Compare it however you want EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #49
Why not -- it works for you. Straw Man Oct 2015 #55
birds like warm weather jimmy the one Oct 2015 #52
Jimmy painfully elaborates the obvious. Straw Man Oct 2015 #58
is he or isn't he? jimmy the one Oct 2015 #73
Once more, Jimmy. Straw Man Oct 2015 #76
hypothesis defined for ray bolger's buddy jimmy the one Oct 2015 #78
Double duh. Straw Man Oct 2015 #79
I think, therefore I believe jimmy the one Oct 2015 #81
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy ... Straw Man Oct 2015 #84
think again, my irrefutable rebuttal jimmy the one Oct 2015 #124
Stop letting dictionaries do your thinking for you. Straw Man Oct 2015 #137
arguing the absurd again he is jimmy the one Oct 2015 #156
So ... Straw Man Oct 2015 #157
absurdum ad infinitum jimmy the one Oct 2015 #158
Belief. Straw Man Oct 2015 #159
"Too bad no one but the two of us is reading it." Incorrect, unfortunately for the Stuart heir friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #160
A favor, if you would... sarisataka Oct 2015 #85
Why do controllers only care about "gun violence"? Kang Colby Oct 2015 #29
How do you figure EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #38
Yes. And ... Straw Man Oct 2015 #46
There are many ingredients. deathrind Oct 2015 #36
Very true EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #39
I currently "live with" tens of thousands of alcohol-related deaths a year... Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #80
in fact EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #88
This kind of data we have all heard and argued many times... Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #91
there is no evidence to support gejohnston Oct 2015 #93
3 polls say gun ownership rates have fallen since '93 jimmy the one Oct 2015 #125
actually, only GSS actually says that gejohnston Oct 2015 #128
abracadabra, and he thinks he wins jimmy the one Oct 2015 #136
Allow me to reframe your question: guillaumeb Oct 2015 #98
Their restrictions were not common sense gejohnston Oct 2015 #99
Define "common sense" in a way that does not posit certain guillaumeb Oct 2015 #100
fact is, there have been mass shootings, as my link documented gejohnston Oct 2015 #101
I should have said that there are no mass killings in other countries like in the US. guillaumeb Oct 2015 #104
entirely different cultures gejohnston Oct 2015 #106
I cannot speak for Australians, but in my view, the difference guillaumeb Oct 2015 #107
the firearms death includes suicides gejohnston Oct 2015 #110
Can we agree to disagree without being disagreeable? guillaumeb Oct 2015 #112
This message was self-deleted by its author gejohnston Oct 2015 #113
well EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #109
Agreed. Killing will continue no matter the weapon employed. guillaumeb Oct 2015 #114
21K are suicides gejohnston Oct 2015 #115
FBI says that 20k are suicide. guillaumeb Oct 2015 #116
Suicide in general gejohnston Oct 2015 #117
When I do suicide assessments gwheezie Oct 2015 #132
Gun control will not do much to save lives, that being said... Kalidurga Oct 2015 #102
I agree with some of what you are talking about gejohnston Oct 2015 #103
I don't know about the percent of stolen guns either. Kalidurga Oct 2015 #105
The only questions that I'm interested in addressing are: pablo_marmol Oct 2015 #119
and what would you propose EdwardBernays Oct 2015 #120
they don't increase gejohnston Oct 2015 #122
I would propose that a good start would be for folks like you pablo_marmol Oct 2015 #138
Let's see two threads today about people getting shot by reckless concealed carry upaloopa Oct 2015 #127
define vigilante shooter gejohnston Oct 2015 #130
you know what I mean upaloopa Oct 2015 #133
Not really, as you've been rather vague friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #141

safeinOhio

(32,532 posts)
1. I think registration of all handguns would be
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:45 AM
Oct 2015

low cost for a 20% reduction in gun crimes.

I'm a gun owner and can find no reason registration would in any way limit my right to own a handgun, as I could legally do so.

Handguns are easy to hide. I fear someone with a handgun that should not have one more than mass shootings, they are really not all that common. On the other hand being stuck up on the street IS very common.

Registration will not stop all criminals, but will make it harder and more dangerous for convicted criminals to own or carry one.

Also it would give us a better handle on where the handguns are and make easier to trace and return stolen and illegal transfers.

It would in no way hinder my owning my 22 pistol that I use for target shooting and hunting small game.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
2. Thanks
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:51 AM
Oct 2015

For your response!

I know it's hard to say you're ok with 80% of the total gun violence remaining - and that's not snark! -but I appreciate you saying it and being honest!

I've had no many people say that the only real answer is ZERO, and because ZERO is impossible there's no point in having a discussion about our goals as a society, which I think is wrongheaded.

So thanks

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
43. New York has had that ...
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:23 AM
Oct 2015
I think registration of all handguns would be

low cost for a 20% reduction in gun crimes.

... since 1911. It doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on gun crime stats, which have swung back and forth from truly dire to relatively benign in response to various other stimuli.

Registration will not stop all criminals, but will make it harder and more dangerous for convicted criminals to own or carry one.

It doesn't seem to have posed much of an obstacle to criminals in New York. It is certainly not a deterrent, and doesn't even have much impact after the fact, since the gun charges are often plea-bargained away.

Also it would give us a better handle on where the handguns are and make easier to trace and return stolen and illegal transfers.

Again, this doesn't seem to be the case in New York, where the police aren't particularly motivated to restore stolen guns to their original owners or aggressively pursue the chain of ownership in cases of illegal possession. "Getting the gun off the street" seems to be sufficient for them.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
50. It's the only way
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:24 AM
Oct 2015

to meaningly reduce gun violence, yes... and that's a large part of why the left needs to set goals... at this point politicians just say, "try to reduce violence" which could mean absolutely anything... how many lives do Hillary proposals potentially save? Someone needs to ask her specifically.. and all politicians... because some people seem to be supporting proposals that will do almost nothing, while at the same time acting like they're legitimately doing something... It's just grandstanding and it's pretty offensive...

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
56. It will never happen.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 03:26 PM
Oct 2015

Calling for a complete ban on handguns would be political suicide for the Democratic Party. Surely you must realize that political expediency requires an incremental approach. That is why I have to laugh every time I hear a politician or propagandist call for "reasonable" gun control measures and deny the existence of the slippery slope. It's one of the most transparent lies in contemporary politics.

If a ban could be achieved politically, there would still be a huge logistical problem, and the concomitant massive police action would make Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the Patriot Act look like picnics in the park.

Effectively ban handguns and you will see a surge in the criminal use of sawed-off shotguns. Human nature abhors a vacuum. Thinking that you can solve the social ills of contemporary American society by disarming the public is both naive and potentially dangerous.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
60. well..
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 03:43 PM
Oct 2015

I agree it's suicidal NOW... I actually think that in a few years demographics will shift enough to put liberals in firm control of all three branches of government, making it possible, and NOT suicidal.. now it is... all meaningful reform is...

I actually don't think there is a slippery slope... currently, because nothing is going to happen... and all the suggestions are so meaningless... well... if that's all gun control people want it's pretty laughable...

As for the logistics issues... we manage to bury 30K gun victims a year and deal with hundreds of mass shootings... if we put all that energy into banning hand guns we'd be fine...

As for people switching to shotguns... to some degree yes, but nowhere near the number of handguns that exist currently... 70% of gun murders are committed with handguns... we just won't see 10s of millions of new sawed off shotguns... I wager anything on that...

Personally, I think a law that replaces all guns with single shot then reload long gun... anything else would be illegal... and the same for the cops... if that happened we'd see the murder rate and the suicide rate plummet precipitously...

but of course it never will... gun lovers have nothing to fear... no one is brave enough to actually come for any guns... we just have to live with the flood of dead Americans... that's our tradeoff..

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
61. Are you sure ...
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 03:51 PM
Oct 2015

... that you understand what "slippery slope" means?

I actually don't think there is a slippery slope... currently, because nothing is going to happen... and all the suggestions are so meaningless... well... if that's all gun control people want it's pretty laughable...

Any step, no matter how meaningless and ineffectual, is the precursor of the next step, and the next, and the next. The strategy is to decide what can be sold as "reasonable," which then advances the ball that much further down the field and redefines "reasonable" for the next go-round.

As for people switching to shotguns... to some degree yes, but nowhere near the number of handguns that exist currently... 70% of gun murders are committed with handguns... we just won't see 10s of millions of new sawed off shotguns... I wager anything on that...

There are a lot of shotguns out there. For many rural people, it's what you have if you only have one gun. Now they don't figure predominantly in crime, but take handguns off the table and see what happens.

Personally, I think a law that replaces all guns with single shot then reload long gun... anything else would be illegal... and the same for the cops... if that happened we'd see the murder rate and the suicide rate plummet precipitously...

I think you're wrong there. Spree killings are a drop in the bucket in the overall homicide rate. Shotguns loaded with buckshot are extremely effective one-shot killers. Suicides are 2/3 of gun deaths, and suicide is overwhelmingly a one-shot affair.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
65. See here's the thing
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:36 PM
Oct 2015

Any step taken will be so ineffectual and so contentious that it will probably be reversed and mocked for years as a total failure... that's the most likely outcome until the power to change it is actually taken completely out of the hands of pro-gun people.

As for shotguns, there ARE a lot, but there's between 15-20 million MORE handguns... and they don't dominate crime stats because there's a LOT of crime that requires a concealed gun... shotguns won't replace hang guns in a huge chunk of those crimes...

Suicides are one shot affairs, but they're almost all done with handguns... something like 60%... as for spree killing, there's been 994 mass shooting in America in the last 1,004 days... well that was up to the 2nd of October, so there's been a few more... MAking them less deadly would be great! And realistically, people don't TYPICALLY commit crimes with guns that have to be reloaded after every shot, for all the obvious reasons... it does happen, but not nearly s much as with hand guns...

"Of all firearm-related crime, 86 percent involved handguns."

vs

"Only one in six Americans own handguns."

Some data from 2011:

8,583 were murdered with guns
6,220 were with hand guns
356 were with shotguns
323 with rifles

The idea that suddenly another 5000 people would be murdered with rifles and shotguns seems a bit far fetched to me...

For firearm suicides, it is estimated that handguns are used twice as often (69 percent) as rifles and shotguns.

More info:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
68. The thing(s).
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:46 AM
Oct 2015
As for shotguns, there ARE a lot, but there's between 15-20 million MORE handguns... and they don't dominate crime stats because there's a LOT of crime that requires a concealed gun... shotguns won't replace hang guns in a huge chunk of those crimes...

There are plenty enough shotguns to fill the gap, and they can be made very concealable, especially if the criminal is willing to "dress around the gun."



Rifles can also be cut down.



Suicides are one shot affairs, but they're almost all done with handguns... something like 60%...

Take away the handguns and watch that change. Suicide by shotgun is easily done: Ernest Hemingway and Kurt Cobain come to mind.

... as for spree killing, there's been 994 mass shooting in America in the last 1,004 days...

The current definition of "mass shooting" is four or more victims. The vast majority of these killings are in the lower ranges, with only the most heinous and high-casualty cases making the national media. It doesn't take "assault weapons" with high-capacity magazines to make that grade. The Washington Navy Yard shooting in 2013 demonstrated what a determined individual armed with a manual-action shotgun can do.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
70. It's been done
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:26 PM
Oct 2015

Last edited Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Most of Europe has access to rifles and almost no access to handguns..

Guess what, people aren't getting huge numbers of shotguns and rifles and killing themselves or committing crimes...

You list two examples of murder by shotgun, but the statistics don't back up the idea that people kill themselves as frequently with shotguns as they do with handguns... not even close really...

I would also, again, reiterate, that what I would think is reasonable is a single shot and reload type of gun, for hunting. That's it.

If America had all of it's handguns removed and still managed to gun down 10K citizens a year with single shot rifles, then yes, I would think we'd have to look at restricting those as well...

BECAUSE

The rest of the world manages to live with out an epidemic of gun violence. It's possible. All you have to do is hop on a plane and visit any industrialised nation and check for yourself. Where I live, the police don't even carry guns, and people are NOT cowering in their homes at night afraid of armed intruders. Kids don't have to go through metal detectors at schools or have school shooting drills. You may THINK that the "freedom" you have is worth all the death and fear and misery, and worth raising kids to be aware that they could be mowed down at any moment, but no one I know here thinks it is... and neither do many Americans.

Hand guns are owned by 25% of the population, but are used in 8/10 gun crimes. Take them away and you'll only impact 1 of 4 american's right to carry a specific type of gun, and you'll take the main weapon in violent crime off the street.

I'm not anti-hunting, and not anti-gun per se, but I am completely unconvinced that the Founding Fathers would see 30K dead Americans a year and just shrug it off as the cost of freedom..

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
77. No, it hasn't.
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:40 PM
Oct 2015
It's been done

Most of Europe has access to rifles and almost no access to handguns..

Guess what, people aren't getting huge numbers of shotguns and rifles and killing themselves or committing crimes...

If you are suggesting that Europe has drastically reduced suicide and violent crime by banning handguns, then you're whistling in the wind. Show me that correlation independent of any other factors and you might have something to discuss. Europe didn't always ban handguns. You would have to show rate changes that coincide with bans to even begin the discussion.

You list two examples of murder by shotgun, but the statistics don't back up the idea that people kill themselves as frequently with shotguns as they do with handguns... not even close really...

Please read carefully. First, those were examples of suicide, not murder. Second, my contention is that it is quite possible to kill oneself with a shotgun in the absence of a handgun, not that it is currently done in equivalent numbers. And let me emphasize once more that suicide is almost always a one-shot process; a single-shot long gun is more than adequate for the task and will be used if that is all that is available.

BECAUSE

The rest of the world manages to live with out an epidemic of gun violence. It's possible. All you have to do is hop on a plane and visit any industrialised nation and check for yourself. Where I live, the police don't even carry guns, and people are cowering in their homes at night afraid of armed intruders. Kids don't have to go through metal detectors at schools or have school shooting drills. You may THINK that the "freedom" you have is worth all the death and fear and misery, and worth raising kids to be aware that they could be mowed down at any moment, but no one I know here thinks it is... and neither do many Americans.

I have traveled to many industrialised nations, and lived in one -- Japan -- for almost a decade. I currently do not live in fear of being "mowed down," and I do enjoy many freedoms that the residents of that fine nation never have and never will enjoy, including the right not to be detained for several days by police without charge or counsel, the right to marry a person of my own gender if I should choose to do so, and yes, the right to keep and bear arms.

Hand guns are owned by 25% of the population, but are used in 8/10 gun crimes. Take them away and you'll only impact 1 of 4 american's right to carry a specific type of gun, and you'll take the main weapon in violent crime off the street.

Only to be replaced by whatever else is available, which you can then proceed to try to ban. Pointy knives, anyone?

I'm not anti-hunting, and not anti-gun per se, but I am completely unconvinced that the Founding Fathers would see 30K dead Americans a year and just shrug it off as the cost of freedom..

Considering that they lived with homicide rates that equaled or exceeded those of present-day America, I think you are very wrong.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
82. A push was made to ban handguns in the early-mid 70s...
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:24 PM
Oct 2015

We had an anti-gun president, Richard Nixon. We had a Democratically-controlled Congress, a rather liberal federal judiciary, and a time when MSM cock-strutted the culture and the NRA was essentially a Fudd Organization.

It didn't happen.

Even these banners knew they would never be able to effectively run a prohibition on the most popular self-defense firearm -- by far -- in our country. They moved on to other bans, like the infamous "assault weapons ban," which was like "putting out the fire with gasoline (D. Bowie)," and pushed that family of weapons into the most popular center-fire weapon in the country.

Your assumption that a ban can be effected (legally and in fact) is grossly in error. Again, define the problem, see what has worked, then propose plausible solutions.

BTW, you can ask Hillary all day, but the instrumentality which she will respond to is the remnants of MSM. And MSM is always in for gun-control of ANY sort (another way of saying bans), and it manifestly does NOT WANT Sanders for more reasons than guns.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
87. No attempt has ever been made
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 08:27 AM
Oct 2015

to remove handguns... there was a failed attempt to try to find a way, but because that failed there was never an attempt to actually do it.

I agree it won't happen.. the rivers of blood will flow unabated...

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
94. Google "National Coalition to Ban Hanguns..."
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 04:22 PM
Oct 2015

(Formed in 1974)


It formed a coalition for "no attempt?" Forgive me, but your argument is specious. I would also point out this earlier group morphed into the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Seems it wanted to ban so-called "assault weapons," too. (The usual metaphor here is the "streets will run with blood.&quot

Again, you need to be clear on what your ultimate objectives are. Stopping or reducing "violence," or reducing "gun violence," or reducing "mass murders (by gun, of course)," banning of only handguns. (As a theoretical compromise would you oppose banning of "assault weapons," shotguns, and rifles?)

Again, I favor finding out what works to reduce gun violence AND violence in general (this HAS HAPPENED) even as gun laws have been liberalized and the number of guns has increased. If CelebroPunk mass murders concern you more, then there needs to be more attention to hardening sites and increasing security. I then propose in the old-time liberal/progressive manner looking at the societal conditions which contribute to the bulk of murders (which receive short shrift in DU, in favor of that most addictive of social policies, Prohibition).

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
111. forming a coalition
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 08:48 PM
Oct 2015

isn't an attempt...

here's let's you and I form a coalition to make a flying pig...

chances of us having a flying pig anytime soon?

People have blathered about it in public, but no one has ever actually tried to enforce a policy of removing handguns, which you know, and no policy of removing handguns has never passed either the congress or the senate...

Talk about specious arguments...

Oh and btw:

Gun ownership has gone DOWN. And crimes has gone DOWN.

Australia cut gun violence by 2/3rds by taking guns off the streets, and countries with few guns have... you'll never guess.. few gun crimes.

You can't actually commit a gun crime if you don't have a gun. Funny huh?

As for crime, considering that almost all violent crime in America involves a gun, and most of it a handgun, well... there's a nice place to start your investigation.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
131. Well, even I wouldn't equate the anti-gunners with flying pig advocacy....
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:25 PM
Oct 2015

but that was an attempt, as successor organizations have been attempts.

Keep in mind that most European countries had low crime rates Before their Red Scare bans, England most notable. Australia? They (along with Western nations and the U.S.) have enjoyed a general drop in crime since the early 90s, so it's not surprising that everyone wants to get their favorite "propter hoc" in for the win.

Again, keep your control buddies' memes in order: It is They who have pushed -- and continue to push -- "more guns = more crime." No moving goal posts allowed.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
53. You forget we aren't searched when entering NY state.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:28 AM
Oct 2015

One of the problems with our current patchwork of laws is they can be easily bypassed by going to the next state over.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
62. Somehow, it works for every other industrialized nation.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 03:52 PM
Oct 2015

since they have far fewer gun deaths.

But hey, that's inconvenient. So it's just like banning something you can literally make in a bucket in your garage.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
63. The picture is far more complex ...
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:17 PM
Oct 2015

... than you seem to recognize. But hey, whatever makes you feel good, right?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
135. I've heard that exact argument used about MJ, against CO.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:03 PM
Oct 2015
One of the problems with our current patchwork of laws is they can be easily bypassed by going to the next state over.


It was BS then, and its BS now, but I bet OK and NE appreciate the support for that talking point.

safeinOhio

(32,532 posts)
69. Fact check dot org
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 07:00 AM
Oct 2015
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/
The 10 states with the lowest homicide rates are: North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Utah, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Oregon.

The number of homicides that occurred in the first three states were so low that their death rates were zero. Wyoming is an interesting case, because it has one of the highest firearm death rates but a homicide rate of zero.
What role do gun control laws play in these statistics? It’s difficult to say. One news report that compiled these same CDC numbers on firearm death rates, by 24/7 Wall Street and published by USA Today, listed several reasons besides gun laws that these states might have high rates of gun deaths (suicides included). Many of the states also have higher rates of poverty, lower educational attainment and perhaps more rural areas that make getting to a hospital in time to save someone’s life difficult.
But that report also noted weaker gun laws were common among the states with higher gun death rates: “In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun,” reporter Thomas C. Frohlich .

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
4. thanks... and...
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:56 AM
Oct 2015

I think a LOT of people would dispute it's a natural right... I'm probably one of those people, but I'd rather not go into my personal beliefs in this specific thread... I DO think - one thing I would say - there seems to be a mass delusion on the left about how much the currently discussed gun control measures could do... people want to be optimistic, but I personally think that's just either ignorance or dishonesty...

Thanks again!

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
7. other than a media campaign about...
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 08:28 AM
Oct 2015

...safety and storage, most ideas for new laws would make nearly no difference. (other than wasting money and ensuring Democratic irrelevance.)

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
9. wellll....
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 08:52 AM
Oct 2015

I'm not sure if that's true, but I'd meet you half way and say that most laws Americans would consider would make fairly meaningless changes to the violent crime rates...

And as you say, trading a pretty meaningless reduction for losing control of the Presidency or Congress or the Senate is a hard pill to swallow, especially if you do it with executive action which can EASILY be reversed, and which the right will us for decades to "prove" that gun control doesn't work.

I DO believe RADICAL changes to US gun control could and even would work, but that would demand a HUGE sacrifice from millions of Americans - and from politicians - and so won't happen any time soon...

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
10. politics is about barter
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 09:02 AM
Oct 2015

I can't understand why so many Democratic politicians put these bills forward and bring nothing to the table. It’s not just counterproductive, it's generally bad for the party.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
11. the problem there
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 11:36 AM
Oct 2015

is that barter only works if you have a negotiating partner, which the gun control camp dos not have in the pro-gun camp, which are monolithic as far as refusing to compromise is concerned...

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
14. welll...
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 03:18 PM
Oct 2015

Shouldn't a safer country with fewer dead kids be enough?

Not sure why you'd need anything in return... ?

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
16. sure but you would need to PROVE that your law would absolutely improve...
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 03:36 PM
Oct 2015

...the overall death rate

Your words: "...barter only works if you have a negotiating partner..."

Right now I see pro-gun saying "we're fine with the law as is"
...and I see pro-control answering "we're not"

Since the proverbial ball is in the pro-control court, they need to bring something to the table.
Should they invest in that kind of dialog, they may come away with something rather than nothing.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
20. ehhh
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 06:23 PM
Oct 2015

I think the notion that pro-gun folks are fine with an extreme murder rate and an epidemic of gun violence is exactly why there's no room for negotiation...

And of course that was the point of this post in a way, trying to see what people are willing to exchange for whatever their idea of success is, in relation to gun violence...

I really appreciate your perspective and civility even though I'm sure we disagree about this issue fundamentally... there's literally no point in arguing when a discuss will help us understand each other, even if we never come to terms with our specific differences of opinion.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
23. one of the issues is the lack of common ground
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 06:42 PM
Oct 2015

I can see the genuine concerns of those who want more control based on comparing the US with maybe France or the UK.

I can also relate to the frustrations of gun owners having to talk about things like "assault weapon bans" when the qualities that differentiate a fudd gun from an "assault weapon" are mostly either cosmetic or irrelevant.

Points that some pro-gun folks might give on: UBCs, more training, improving the NICS...
Items that might sway them on some things: open the registry of NFA weapons, loosen the laws on suppressors, CC reciprocity...

hack89

(39,171 posts)
35. Our present laws have cut the murder rate in half
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 08:39 PM
Oct 2015

Gun deaths have been declining for 20 years - don't epidemics imply an increase in mortality?

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
51. no
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:26 AM
Oct 2015

they don't at all...?

Epidemics are basically just widespread...

As for "declining" yes, but they've declined to a point where they're still absurdly high... as is our murder rate.. and our suicide rate is twice that of the UK...

hack89

(39,171 posts)
59. So isn't the solution to a suicide "epidemic "
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 03:41 PM
Oct 2015

a national antisuicide campaign? It would save more lives than any gun control measure.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
66. absolutely not
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:51 PM
Oct 2015

I could beak it all down for you, but instead you should go read this stuff:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

In a nutshell though, multiple studies have found this:

'"You can reduce the rate of suicide in the United States substantially, without attending to underlying mental health problems, if fewer people had guns in their homes and fewer people who are at risk for suicide had access to guns in their home,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, a director of Harvard Injury Control Research Center and a professor of health sciences and epidemiology at Northeastern University.'

And:

"About 90 percent of the people who try suicide and live ultimately never die by suicide. If the people who died had not had easy access to lethal means, researchers like Dr. Miller reason, most would still be alive."

And, a study asked this question:

"How much time passed between the time you decided to complete suicide and when you actually attempted suicide?” (Simon 2001)"

And this is what they discovered:

"24% said less than five minutes
Another 47% said an hour or less"

In other words 71% of people try to kill themselves within an hour of deciding. IF they have a gun they have 86% chance of success... If they try and poison themselves - the third most common method - only 2% succeed. And 90% of people that fail don't go on to kill themselves in the future.

A summary of the data:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/health/blocking-the-paths-to-suicide.html?_r=0


A real world example:

"In 2006, after years of suicides among young men in the Israel Defense Forces, authorities forbade the troops from bringing their rifles home on weekends. Suicides dropped by 40 percent, according to a 2010 study by psychiatrists with the IDF and the Sheba Medical Center.

Those attempting suicide for the most part act on impulse, often after surprisingly brief periods of deliberation. But the impulse also passes."

http://www.stripes.com/news/experts-restricting-troops-access-to-firearms-is-necessary-to-reduce-rate-of-suicides-1.199216

And that's from Stripes - hardly a liberal anti-gun rag.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
67. But there are no gun control measures short of confiscation
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 05:59 PM
Oct 2015

That will significantly impact suicide. The demographic of gun suicides is well known - they are the ones most likely to pass any background check.

Perhaps we should track mental health patients - put them in a database and restrict their civil rights based on doctor warnings and government monitoring.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
71. lol
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:32 PM
Oct 2015

I can't believe that's a serious comment.. so I'll assume it was just a joke.

The reality is that you're right, though; the only way to radically reduce our suicide rate is to confiscate guns. And if we DID do that we WOULD lower our crime rate, our murder rate AND our suicide rate. Sure even if we just took handguns.. which are owned by a small minority of Americans (25%), but are used in the majority of violent crime and almost all of gun crime (80%), we'd make such a huge impact that our heads would spin.

But we both know that Americans won't stand for that... at least not any time soon. Americans have convinced themselves that their very "freedom" is connected to guns, and ergo very few other nations are free... Of course if they went and visited these nations they'd find that not to be the case

My kids - I live in Ireland now - have never even thought about gun crime... they don't see shootings on TV - they rarely happen here and NEVER in schools - and frankly that feeling of safety is a TRUE freedom. They are free from fear and free from suspicion of their fellow citizens. They like the police - who don't have guns and don't endless shoot unarmed civilians - and are proud of their country.

Say what you will about the 2nd Amendment, but every single day I wake up happy my kids don't have to be surrounded by the gun violence i was surround by as a kid.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
74. You at least admit you have no realistic solution
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:02 PM
Oct 2015

So perhaps the answer is for you to switch gears and focus on things that will save lives.

Actually it was not a joke - that us what NY did in response to Sandy Hook

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
75. Yup, Ireland's always been such a peacful, safe place with no violence to speak of
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:04 PM
Oct 2015

Funny how some people can carefully choose to ignore fairly recent history and assume that those type of troubles will never happen again, well, just because.

No children have been blown up this decade so far, so I guess it's OK to lecture others on their national flaws.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
13. Theres that ugly word again.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:08 PM
Oct 2015
compromise


barter only works if you have a negotiating partner, which the gun control camp dos not have in the pro-gun camp, which are monolithic as far as refusing to compromise is concerned...


That's guaranteed to be the case after decades of gun control by the gun control camp, 82+ years worth in fact, for which essentially nothing was given in return, to the pro-gun camp.

I'm fairly sure that many many pro-gun folks feel like the books are due to be balanced, before any new 'compromise' is made.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
15. decades of gun control is a stretch
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 03:19 PM
Oct 2015

unless you're comparing America to some lawless African nations... American guns laws are shockingly lax, and the fact that lax laws have existed a long time doesn't mean you're owed anything for doing the right thing...

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
18. See the national firearms act of 1934, do the math, and get back to me.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 04:42 PM
Oct 2015

In other words, you don't want compromise, you want capitulation.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
72. no
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:38 PM
Oct 2015

right now the US has the MOST lax gun regulations of any industrialised nation... there's VERY little the gun folks could have that they don't already have, and frankly those things wouldn't benefit society, just gun owners, which shouldn't be the goal.

I have yet to see a single suggestion by pro-gun people (aside from arm everyone - lol) to reduce violence, and every suggestion from the gun control side is immediately attacked by the monolithic pro-gun side.

So no. The pro-gun side shouldn't need to be bribed to save American lives... and the fact that they think they need to get something in return for saving lives is... well.. I find it distasteful.

Put it another way, what has the pro-gun side done for all the people killed by guns? Hmmm...? Anything? Those people gave their lives and in return they're and their families got what?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
83. I hate to point out the obvious...
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:53 PM
Oct 2015
right now the US has the MOST lax gun regulations of any industrialised nation... there's VERY little the gun folks could have that they don't already have, and frankly those things wouldn't benefit society, just gun owners, which shouldn't be the goal.


I hate to point out the obvious, but the rights of the individual do not exist strictly to "benefit society", nor should they.

I have yet to see a single suggestion by pro-gun people (aside from arm everyone - lol) to reduce violence, and every suggestion from the gun control side is immediately attacked by the monolithic pro-gun side.


First, nobody on the pro-gun side says "arm everyone". That's a straw man, and an old one at that. A fire hazard even, because its so old and dry.

Second, you may see less of the things proposed get attacked by gun rights supporters, once less of the things proposed are retread gun control proposals that the 90s called and wants back.

The gun control crowd may have some luck trying things that aren't 'gun centric' too, but then, that's not good enough is it.

You guys just have to go after the guns, because you can't resist.

So no. The pro-gun side shouldn't need to be bribed to save American lives... and the fact that they think they need to get something in return for saving lives is... well.. I find it distasteful.


In other words, when you said compromise, you really meant capitulation.

Put it another way, what has the pro-gun side done for all the people killed by guns? Hmmm...? Anything? Those people gave their lives and in return they're and their families got what?


NOBODY gave their lives. Those murdered had their lived taken from them by another individual.

The pro-gun side regularly says enforce the law. So enforce it.

Those who committed suicide took their own lives. I support people being able to take their own lives. Since an individuals life belongs to that individual and nobody else, its nobody elses business.

The pro-gun side is not responsible for any of that, except for in the eyes of those who practice the strange logic of holding Miller or Coors responsible for DUIs.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
86. Well...
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 05:50 AM
Oct 2015

Rights do exist to benefit society, after all the point of the constitution was to make a nation, not create personal freedom that could destroy a nation... the FFs weren't anarchists...

As for no one saying "arm everyone" - after every popular shooting the pro-gun side trots out the same argument, "if there'd been more guns someone would've shot the gunman, but the left is against guns, so more people had to die". You can say that, "arm everyone" is a straw man, but it's just hyperbole to make a point; the only solution put forward by the pro-gun side is more guns. Which is laughable, and which is shown to cause more gun violence, not less.

I would point out that, when given the chance, you also offer no solutions, just attack gun control proponents. And that's typical.

As for coming after guns, yes, that's pretty much the only logical solution, but don't worry Americans are way to brainwashed to ever actually come after any guns... your arsenal is safe. At least until the US actually shifts so far left through demographics that the majority changes it's opinion on what "freedom" means... that's gonna happen, but not for years and years.

When I said compromise I meant working with gun control people to craft a solution that you can both live with. Right now you give up nothing, and the country pays with it's blood. We give up a LOT for you to have guns... 10K people's lives a year for starters, and having to deal with endless extra layers of security, and having our kids live through the bloodbath in the news and on tv...

So pretending the majority that DON'T own guns haven't been compromising for years is a joke.

Now it's your turn to give up something... not your life, like the 3000 kids a year murdered with guns, but a little bit of your freedom to play with your toys...

That's compromise.

The existing laws are NOWHERE near strong enough. And the right has repeatedly gutted any attempt to make them meaningful. REAL gun control would have to be national, and would have to actually do something about the hundreds of millions of guns on the street, and the 10s of millions more headed there.

But like I said, don't worry, the pro-gun side is winning... the bloodbath will continue unabated.. if anything now is the perfect time to invest in Hilenbrand Inc. They are the nations largest coffin manufacturer and business is booming...

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
95. You recognize some of the obvious politics,
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 04:30 PM
Oct 2015

but clearly don't understand the meaning of compromise and negotiation.

Our current status quo includes numerous firearm restrictions in the country, on the federal, state, and local levels, including legislation like the NFA, background checks with prohibitions on felons and the dangerous mentally ill, training and registration requirements, permits and licensing, and even assault weapon bans, magazine limits, waiting periods, and other feel good measures in many states that, according to the NIJ, are effectively useless. Whether you believe these law are insufficient is immaterial to fact that these numerous restrictions do indeed exist.

Given current polling and electoral and judicial realities, there will be no more gun control in Congress or most of the states (and in many jurisdictions, there's actual firearm liberalization) unless and until gun control proponents are willing to offer something more to gun rights advocates in order to improve firearm safety.

You admittedly want draconian gun control, but know it's currently an impossibility. Willingness to accept slightly less gun control, without offering anything to your opponents, is not compromise, it's a demand for surrender. You can proclaim how your policies are purportedly an improvement, gun control laws are already too weak, and you only want to save the children, and therefore your opponents should capitulate, but you've still demonstrated no real willingness to actually compromise, i.e., give up something you already have in return for something that might be better.

For instance, many gun rights advocates want national concealed carry reciprocity that would preempt state laws, similar to a driver's licenses. It's quite possible that gun rights proponents would trade universal background checks, national standardized training requirements, improvements in the NICS system, and other matters for this reciprocity.

Are you willing to deal? If not, or if your only idea of "compromise" is some control control now, and just more later, then expect to receive nothing when you offer nothing.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
108. of course not
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 08:32 PM
Oct 2015

here's why:

What would you want to let gun control advocates put in policies that would reduce gun violence by 80%, making it comparable to many European nations (and still higher than many)?

Tell me what you want for that and we'll see if we can compromise, but offering me something that wouldn't even reduce gun violence by 10%, that's what you're willing to give America?

We as a country don't have enough to give you to get what we need, and in fact the thing you want would most likely increase gun violence, not decrease it. So, we give you more freedom for your guns and you give us more gun violence... hardly seems like a smart path to go down for people interested in ebbing the flow of kids shot dead.

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
118. You've proven my point.
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:16 PM
Oct 2015

Your idea of compromise is some gun control now, and yet more later. You want gun rights proponents to concede issues, without gun control advocates doing likewise. A belief that firearm laws are already too lenient is totally irrelevant. Compromise requires both sides to offer something. The inability to actually seek compromise is all the more astonishing in light of the fact that, as you clearly acknowledge, gun rights proponents are undoubtedly winning, electorally, legislatively, and judicially, and your side has virtually no leverage.

Forget about national concealed carry reciprocity (although that's one of the few items that the gun rights side has currently been unable to achieve). What are you willing to give up that the other side wants, and what would you reasonably expect in return that might actually improve gun safety (and pass constitutional muster).

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
121. as you say
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:57 AM
Oct 2015

"although that's one of the few items that the gun rights side has currently been unable to achieve"

You have pretty much everything you want, and you want more to agree to have a discussion on how to save 10s of thousands of lives...

I'm sure you think you're being rational, but considering you've been unwilling to budge while your group - gun owners - is literally killing 100K americans in a decades, well... it's hard to think you deserve to get what you want - something that would make the problem worse - in exchange for tiny meaningless changes on your end.

Like I said, what would your side suggest to reduce gun violence by 80%?

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
139. Do you wonder why gun rights are expanding?
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 03:58 PM
Oct 2015

Gun rights legislation and policy are successful because they have popular, and hence electoral, support, despite the disagreement by you or others.

Simply, many gun control advocates have made the perfect the enemy of the good, and refuse to engage in any comprise. The only result is that they get nothing, all while their opposition succeeds beyond their expectations. (BTW, I've never owned any firearms).

I would suggest you and like-minded individuals choose a straightforward gun safety policy or two, ensure that it passes constitutional muster, demonstrate that it will actually save a significant number of lives and is not directed at the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners, and then prepare to give-up something to get it passed. Attempts at moral blackmail or belief that concessions shouldn't be necessary might be satisfying, but wholly ineffective. Demands for surrender are not compromise, particularly when you have no political or legal leverage.

Moreover, there are many items that could be subject to negotiation besides national concealed carry reciprocity. For instance, there are many areas of the NFA that prevent few, if any, crimes or injuries, yet are meaningful to gun owners, including matters like silencers (which unlike the movies, are not silent) that are actually legal in strong gun control jurisdictions outside the USA because they protect the hearing of shooters and reduce the noise pollution from outdoor gun ranges and hunting. Similarly, national "shall issue" mandates to those to pass background checks, instead of the often racist, classist and politically expedient "may issue" policies in jurisdictions like NYC, would likely be worth significant concession by many gun rights proponents.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
142. there's the catch 22
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:20 PM
Oct 2015

there's literally nothing that pro-groups would support that would save a significant number of lives...

so... there's no room for meaningful negotiation.

What will EVENTUALLY happen, do to demographic shift, generational shifts and shrinking gun ownership numbers, against a backdrop of an endless flood of dead innocents and children, is popular and draconian confiscation of guns, probably handguns... and it wil be painful.

But when that happens it will make a huge difference to the crime rate, the murder rate, the gun violence rate and I'd wager the suicide rate.

And that will make it permanent and popular.

And the the gun rights groups will look back and regret not finding a way to make themselves the enemy of the common good. Which is all they are now.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
147. except your predictions on demographic shifts are assumptions
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:58 PM
Oct 2015

based on stereotypes and groupthink. I know a lot of people in those "demographics" who own guns, unless you are talking about New Yorkers moving to Florida and Texas. And even then, maybe. Of course, I live in a rural area. Hispanics are the largest gun owning demographic, you are also forgetting about gun culture 2.0
I did some work for a Hispanic family awhile back. Given the adults' grasp of English, probably recent immigrants. While repairing kid's computer, I noticed a 1970s era Colt model P in a beautiful handtooled leather holster. Kid got a dual boot Windows and Ubuntu machine and I got a couple of bucks and a card of a guy that still does old school craftsmanship.

But when that happens it will make a huge difference to the crime rate, the murder rate, the gun violence rate and I'd wager the suicide rate.
And that will make it permanent and popular.
Or not.

And the the gun rights groups will look back and regret not finding a way to make themselves the enemy of the common good. Which is all they are now.
It isn't about public safety or common good. It is about should the State have a monopoly on violence, ideological dominance, and political power. It is a culture war. That is why people like the former DC public safety director said that it is better to be a victim "to be afraid and injured" than to defend yourself, even though you know he as a gun and his family is surrounded by people with guns. Same with Bloomberg and is sock puppet Shannon Watts. You care about saving lives, Bloomberg does not.
 

branford

(4,462 posts)
148. So, at least we've implicitly established that you really have no intention
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 06:06 PM
Oct 2015

of actually engaging in real negotiation or compromise. You want and expect "draconian confiscation of guns," and believe we'll somehow soon reach a point where it will be politically acceptable (and presumably constitutional, because currently it would be patently illegal). We've heard this refrain from the gun control movement for decades, and by now it's more an article of faith than anything demonstrated by fact.

You are free, of course, to wait as long as you choose, but the trend lines are not in your favor, despite what you may hope. In fact, while support for gun rights increase, many millions of more firearms enter circulation, and laws become less restrictive, our violent crime rates, including gun crime, have been cut nearly in half in just a few decades. Your "endless flood" is rapidly receding...





http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-have-no-impact-on-support-for-gun-rights-in-the-us

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
149. except
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:43 PM
Oct 2015

That for years the actual push to do something about guns has only REALLY come from one side - the pro-gun side... that will change... politicians, pushed by demographic and generation changes will be emboldened to push back...

...and when that happens, and it will, because no nation can lose as many people as we do and not eventually change, pro-gun people will wish they had compromised instead of losing it all for a temporary gain.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
152. except not
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:12 PM
Oct 2015

the push from your side is only because of a certain authoritarian, narcissistic, and racist billionaire. If Bloomberg were to go broke tomorrow, your movement will cease to exist unless another billionaire shows up.

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
153. Excuse me?
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 01:33 AM
Oct 2015
That for years the actual push to do something about guns has only REALLY come from one side


Respectfully, I want some of what you're smoking!

Unless you have very selective amnesia, have you forgotten all the gun control advocacy that resulted in the National Firearms Act (1934), Gun Control Act of 1968, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993), Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994), etc., to say nothing of the innumerable state and local firearm restrictions passed during the last century.

Gun rights advocates have only really just begun to start pushing back against the gun control mania that started in the early-mid 20th Century. The dreaded NRA didn't even begin to seriously enter the political arena until the 1970's. It is your side that finally pushed too far, and the equilibrium has not even begun to equalize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

As my earlier citations amply demonstrated, those "demographic and generation changes" you reference are actually supporting the rights of gun ownership, including ever increasing numbers of women and minorities.

Your claims are based on little more than faith, not facts. You are free to believe and advocate as you wish, but unless your side begins to seriously compromise and respect the wishes and culture of many millions law-abiding Americans, be prepared to for even more firearm liberalization in the country, all while crime rates generally continue to decline.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
154. So your examples are
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 12:14 PM
Oct 2015

something from 1934, something from 1968, the Brady handgun violence act - passed by Democrats and opposed by the NRA - which was pathetically weak, and the ASB, passed by Clinton - which wasn't renewed and was incredibly weak.

That's what you've got?

And yet you want more, if you're going to be willing to do something about the epidemic of gun violence?

This is why no one thinks gun owners are living in reality or serious about ending gun violence... trying to hold America hostage unless they get what they want...

It's just sad.

As for changes in the nature of America, all you have to do is look around you:

national gay marriage, national support for reforming the CJS, national support for legalising marijuana... these are all things brought on by the collapse of the rich white male stranglehold on America.

The same will happen with gun control... and the intransigence of pro-gun activists will force the population to choose between all or nothing. And in another 10 years, when yet another 100,000 Americans are killed with guns, the choice will be made for the pro-gun folks, and they'll regret their monolithic approach when they end up with nothing.

Speaking of nothing - nothing stays the same forever, guns will go away in America; it's not if, but when. Normal folks - non-gun-activists - have NO SAY in this situation as it stands - we're at the mercy of gun activists, but that can't stay the same forever, and won't.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
126. Another echo
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:56 AM
Oct 2015

me/post#10: politics is about barter
I can't understand why so many Democratic politicians put these bills forward and bring nothing to the table. It’s not just counterproductive, it's generally bad for the party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178571

EB/post#11: the problem there
is that barter only works if you have a negotiating partner, which the gun control camp dos not have in the pro-gun camp, which are monolithic as far as refusing to compromise is concerned...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178571#post11

me/post#12: and what is it that pro-control is bringing to the table? n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178571#post12

EB/post#14: welll...
Shouldn't a safer country with fewer dead kids be enough?

Not sure why you'd need anything in return... ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178571#post14


Welcome to the party.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
97. Interesting.
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 05:30 PM
Oct 2015
Rights do exist to benefit society, after all the point of the constitution was to make a nation, not create personal freedom that could destroy a nation... the FFs weren't anarchists...


Actually, some of them were pretty close to being anarchists in principle. But that's neither here nor there.

If you want to argue that protected individual rights exist to benefit society through the betterment and empowerment of the individual, make your case.

I would point out that, when given the chance, you also offer no solutions, just attack gun control proponents. And that's typical.


I never claimed to actually know what the solution is. I do however, know what the solution isn't :

Taking guns away from/over regulating the guns of - the people that aren't committing gun violence.

I attack gun control proponents ideas when those idea they focus on the people who aren't committing gun violence, and the guns they own. I see such things as a tell, that those making such proposals care little to nothing about gun violence, and care only about getting rid of guns.

As for coming after guns, yes, that's pretty much the only logical solution, but don't worry Americans are way to brainwashed to ever actually come after any guns... your arsenal is safe. At least until the US actually shifts so far left through demographics that the majority changes it's opinion on what "freedom" means... that's gonna happen, but not for years and years.


Ahh, another with preconceived notions, superiority and arrogance. You just know that its Americans at large that are brainwashed, rather than yourself, don't you.

Oh, and about one of those preconceived notions you have rolling around in that head of yours:

I haven't bought a gun in over ten years, haven't touched a gun in months, and don't own any so called "military style/military grade" weapons. In fact I don't own enough guns to have them be considered an arsenal, at least by people with a sense of reason.

When I said compromise I meant working with gun control people to craft a solution that you can both live with. Right now you give up nothing, and the country pays with it's blood.


Of course that's what you meant. The country pays in blood due entirely to the actions of of people that misuse firearms resulting in gun violence.

Theres your area of focus, assuming its the gun violence rather than the guns, which bother you. I am however, unconvinced that that is the case.

We give up a LOT for you to have guns... 10K people's lives a year for starters, and having to deal with endless extra layers of security, and having our kids live through the bloodbath in the news and on tv...


No, "we" give up nothing for me to own the guns I do.

So pretending the majority that DON'T own guns haven't been compromising for years is a joke.


Pretending I was referring to those people when I wasn't, is an even bigger joke.

Now it's your turn to give up something... not your life, like the 3000 kids a year murdered with guns, but a little bit of your freedom to play with your toys...


Thank you for letting me know I can safely ignore anything you might ever again say about the subject, since you're either a brady sycophant, or may as well be one. There are no 3000 kids murdered every year with guns in America by any reasonable definition, in fact, last time I saw the number, it was 56.

And "our turn" a little bit of your freedom?

Listen buddy, We've been "giving up little bits of our freedom" since 1934. We've given up more than our fair share of freedom on this issue, so quit insulting us by pretending that isn't the case .

That's compromise.


No. That's pissing down our backs and telling us its raining. You've already made clear that compromise as you define it, is capitulation. You (the gun control side) get more gun control, and we (the pro-rights side) give up a little bit more freedom, while you assure us all with smiles and talk of compromise stating how important and necessary it is... and everyone on both sides knowing full well you and your gun hating buddies will be back next session asking to 'compromise' again.

The days of that being standard operating procedure, are over, and I would suggest you become aware of it.

The existing laws are NOWHERE near strong enough. And the right has repeatedly gutted any attempt to make them meaningful. REAL gun control would have to be national, and would have to actually do something about the hundreds of millions of guns on the street, and the 10s of millions more headed there.


ROFL. Look, you already gave yourself away the '3000 kids' talking point. I guess when you used the "hundreds of millions of guns on the street" talking point it was sort of an exclamation point? Everyone knows there are not "hundreds of millions of guns on the street" in America, and that you're referring to the guns in peoples homes, which is consistent with anti-gun dogma.

But like I said, don't worry, the pro-gun side is winning... the bloodbath will continue unabated...


If you're only interested in gun centric solutions, that's on YOU, not on the pro-rights folks. It reflects accordingly on you and not the pro-rights folks.


if anything now is the perfect time to invest in Hilenbrand Inc. They are the nations largest coffin manufacturer and business is booming...


I see you:


EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
123. 10K kids injured and 3000 dead by guns a year
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 10:07 AM
Oct 2015

"School shootings unnerve Americans, but the number of children injured or killed in those tragic events is just a fraction of the young people harmed by firearms each year in the United States, a new study finds.

Injuries from firearms send over 7,000 kids to the hospital annually, an average of 20 per day. Among those admitted to the hospital, 6 percent die from their injuries, according to the study published in Pediatrics Monday.

“That’s more than 7,000 children injured badly enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. John Leventhal, the study’s lead author and pediatrics professor at the Yale School of Medicine. “All are unnecessary hospitalizations because preventing gun violence is something that can actually be done.”

In addition to children hospitalized for gun injuries, another 3,000 die before they can make it to the emergency room, meaning guns hurt or kill about 10,000 American children each year, Leventhal said."

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/guns-hurt-or-kill-10-000-kids-us-each-year-n16896

Oh and:

"Most of the injuries, 4,559, resulted from assaults"

Your guess was 56.

Why bother talking to you when you seem to not be living in reality?

This, 10,000 shot a year, is a huge problem that doesn't exist in any other country. And the best response gun guys have is to pretend it's not real... 56... really... that says it all.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
134. Yeah, like I said. Brady sycophant.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:00 PM
Oct 2015
Why bother talking to you when you seem to not be living in reality?


From your own link:


Studying the 2009 Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID), which tracks pediatric hospital stays, the Yale researchers discovered 7,391 children under age 20 had been hospitalized for firearm related injuries, with 453 of those patients dying.


Your guess was 56.


Which is closer to 453, 56 or 3000? If you have any troubles, theres a calculuz teacher around here somewhere you can ask, they're supposedly capable of basic math.

Tell me again how I'm the one who seems to not be living in reality.

Other coincidental (I'm sure ) omissions:

Studying the 2009 Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID), which tracks pediatric hospital stays, the Yale researchers discovered 7,391 children under age 20 had been hospitalized for firearm related injuries, with 453 of those patients dying.


I guess you thought nobody was going to see the bold part. Now that its been highlighted, maybe you can change your talking points to 3000 babies instead of children, as others have attempted to in the past.

Do that, and your journey to the brady side will be complete.



EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
143. you need to read more carefully
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:25 PM
Oct 2015
In addition to children hospitalized for gun injuries, another 3,000 die before they can make it to the emergency room, meaning guns hurt or kill about 10,000 American children each year, Leventhal said.


another 3,000 die before they can make it to the emergency room

3,000 die

Wanna try that again? What's closer to the truth?

3000, when the number was actually 3,453, or ... what was your guess again? 56?

And then to try and play it off like 453 was the number, a number that was 9x higher than your guess btw. LOL...

Completely dishonest.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
144. but they are not children
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:32 PM
Oct 2015

they are gang members. Not that their lives are less valuable, just putting it in context. Gangs, like armies, get the young and dumb to do the dirty work while they are still, well, young and dumb.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
145. The operative word, I believe, was 'children'.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:37 PM
Oct 2015
3000, when the number was actually 3,453, or ... what was your guess again? 56?

And then to try and play it off like 453 was the number, a number that was 9x higher than your guess btw. LOL...

Completely dishonest.


Don't presume to lecture me about honesty, while you quote cites that count 18 and 19 year old adults as children...a tactic the brady bunch is known for using.

Or didn't you think anybody noticed?

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
150. riiiiight
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:47 PM
Oct 2015

lol

you selectively quote one paragraph, though that paragraph didn't delineate by age, and then - when busted - push the age thing HARD... because it's NOW - apparently - your belief that 98% of those kids killed are between the age of 18-20... and if they're 18-20 then fuck 'em, yes?

lol.. extremely transparent nonsense.

10,000 people between the ages of 0-20 are shot, 3500 of which die, every year, and you think only 56 of the 3000 are below 18.

And as such they don't deserve to be cared about by gun owners.

Noted.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
151. So far, you're following the typical brady bunch script.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 10:38 PM
Oct 2015

Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

you selectively quote one paragraph, though that paragraph didn't delineate by age, and then - when busted - push the age thing HARD... because it's NOW - apparently - your belief that 98% of those kids killed are between the age of 18-20... and if they're 18-20 then fuck 'em, yes?


I think the point was, you have no leg to stand on where questioning my honesty is concerned, when you cite links about children that count adults as children. What was it you said? Oh yes:

Completely dishonest.

Saying they do not count as children is not saying they don't count. Its saying they aren't children and shouldn't be counted as such, but you knew that and chose to make the filthy insinuation that you did, anyway.

Completely dishonest.

10,000 people between the ages of 0-20 are shot, 3500 of which die, every year, and you think only 56 of the 3000 are below 18.


I think the great majority are not what anyone would reasonably conclude to be 'children'. I'll go find that screengrab...

Yup, exactly as I remembered. This isn't the first time this debate has been had hereabouts, you aren't the first one to try the moral blackmail with the 'children' argument, and your 'children' argument doesn't hold water:



Oh look, 84 percent are in the 15 through 19 range. Its not your '98 percent' but its not far off, is it. These are, the vast majority of them, individuals who can drive, run heavy equipment, have sex, be tried as adults in a court of law, be drafted in many many cases, and do a whole lot of other 'adult' things.

Hardly 'children', as your chosen connotation would otherwise denote.

Completely dishonest.


And as such they don't deserve to be cared about by gun owners.

Noted.


Careful of open flame near that strawman. Saying that adults and even adolescents should not be counted as children isn't saying that the deaths adults and adolescents don't count. Its saying that they shouldn't be counted as 'child gun deaths', since they really aren't 'children'.
 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
26. Most Americans don't like bartering with our rights
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 06:57 PM
Oct 2015

We really don't have that many right to begin with. I never owned a gun and never will but it is still a right. So is free speech and abortion and I don't want those bartered with either.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
129. How about life liberty and the persuit of happyness are those rights?
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:14 PM
Oct 2015

Woman arraigned in Home Depot shooting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027285503

2 transported to hospital after shooting at Griner’s Supermarket
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027285482

Gun Falls out of Purse, Results in Accidental Shooting in Beaumont
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7285471
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
140. All these good things are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 04:21 PM
Oct 2015

They are ideals promulgated in the Declaration of Independence

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
21. the thing is
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 06:26 PM
Oct 2015

other countries HAVE done this... they HAVE successfully removed guns off the streets... and your meme fails because it assumes that people are addicted to guns... which is of course false....

Laws largely work, believe it or not, except when they're not fit for purpose... trying to treat a medical illness like addiction with the criminal justice system doesn't work, and you can look at places that take a different approach and see there are indeed way to lower drug addiction figures that don't involve jails...

IF it had never been done successfully, or if countries with no guns had as much gun violence as countries with excessive numbers of guns, you might have a point, but as neither of those things are true, and no one is addicted to guns... #memefail

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
24. no they haven't
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 06:44 PM
Oct 2015

England's murder rate was actually lower when there was no gun control laws. Countries passed their laws because of the Red Scare, because their murder rates were actually lower than they are now. Partly because many of their 17-25 year old men were dead because of the first world war. IOW, they "solved" a problem they never had. Japan is, quite frankly, a police state. They had two decades of when their murder rates approached ours, but gun laws were the same. That probably had to do with social upheaval like the Tokyo stock market crash in 1924 and crop failures, and after being bombed back to the stone age.
Guns are not that hard to make, even without CNC or 3D printing. The one shot zip gun is the easiest home made gun to make, the second easiest is an open bolt machine gun. Resistance groups in occupied Europe and biker gangs in Australia do just that. All you need are the tools found in a 1940s bicycle repair shop.
My meme is very correct. This one is even more spot on.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
44. sigh
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:32 AM
Oct 2015

more memes?

How about facts?

'Over time, however, gun violence in virtually all its guises has significantly come down with the aid of stricter enforcement and waves of police anti-weapons operations. The most current statistics available show that firearms were used to kill 59 people in all of England and Wales in 2011, compared with 77 such homicides that same year in Washington, D.C., alone.

“What we have in the U.K. now are significantly lower levels of gun crime, levels that continue to fall today,” said Andy Marsh, firearms director at Britain’s Association of Chief Police Officers. “People say you can’t unwind hundreds of years of gun history and culture [in America], but here in the U.K., we’ve learned from our tragedies and taken steps to reduce the likelihood of them ever happening again.”

But starting in 2005 — and following years of anti-gun sweeps by police forces in British cities that made illegal guns far less accessible — gun violence began to ebb. In 2011, England and Wales recorded 7,024 offenses involving firearms, down 37 percent from their peak in 2005. Given that British crime statistics also count fake guns as “firearms,” criminologists say the number of violent crimes involving real guns is likely significantly lower."'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-shooting-tragedies-britain-went-after-guns/2013/01/31/b94d20c0-6a15-11e2-9a0b-db931670f35d_story.html

As for the murder rate:

Murder at lowest level in 30 years


"'In the last ten years alone, the number of homicides in London has been cut in half, from around 200 in 2003 to less than 100 in 2013, for example - making it one of the safest cities in the world.'

In England and Wales, the murder rate has dropped by eight per cent to 1.04 per 100,000 population since 1995.

In Scotland, the rate has dropped by 19 per cent to 1.8 per 100,000 population and in Northern Ireland it has fallen by 61 per cent to 1.4, according to the data."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411113/Murder-at-lowest-level-in-30-years.html

What about Australia?

Australia's homicide rate fell sharply over past decade, new research shows

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/06/australias-homicide-rate-fell-sharply-over-past-decade-new-research-shows

So yeah #memefail

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
54. Your WaPo articles speaks to gun violence, not violence as a whole as GE was speaking.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 02:01 PM
Oct 2015

It's a statistical sleight-of-hand we see frequently.

If a nation suffers, say, 20 homicides per 100,000 that is 20 homicides, regardless of the method used to take the life. If that same nation suffered 15 of those 20 homicides from gun violence and the remaining 5 were murder by other means then imposing a gun law that reduces the homicide by gun rate to 5 but another 15 (or more) are murdered by other means may be a victory for gun control but it isn't a victory for murder victims.

In your other articles about murder rates declining -- well, so have US murder rates by comparable measures. And we did so without house-to-house searches that would violate amendments besides the second.

safeinOhio

(32,532 posts)
92. Ive never said anything about house to house searches.
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 04:05 PM
Oct 2015

Only registration of handguns and background checks on all sales.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
96. Coincidentally, my post was not in response to any of your posts.
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 04:48 PM
Oct 2015

However, registration is a non-starter. The authorities abuse the information and no one can be prosecuted for using an unregistered gun in a crime so that would mean the only people being prosecuted would be those who lawfully use guns that happen to be unregistered.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
89. the memes were a valid point
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:42 PM
Oct 2015

One made fun of the absurd idea that guns can disappear if you ban it, like heroin. The other simply pointed out the logical fallacy you were using, circular logic. If fact, you used it again along with appeal to authority. Do you know what a logical fallacy is? It is something people skilled in critical thinking avoid. Certainly should be avoided when it comes to public policy. The problem with gun control activists, or any kind of prohibitionists, they can't make argument without them. Of course there are the standard propaganda techniques. The most common logical fallacies activists use are
appeal to emotion
ad hoc
bandwagon
ad hominem
genetic fallacy

The most common propaganda techniques are demonetization and card stacking.
I noticed at no time did you address the points I made. Instead you ignore use as facts articles that may or may not be relevant and, quite frankly, meaningless. Some police official blows his own horn about a lower lower murder rate. Is there any actual evidence that he wasn't just bullshitting? BTW, is the article using statistics from the Home Office? If so, they are pretty meaningless. It could simply be that the number of murders are the same, but fewer convictions for the crime. If ten people were murdered and the crime went unsolved or nobody is convicted for the crime, those homicides are simply not counted by the Home Office. That has been their policy since 1967. An apples to apples comparison, meaning if they counted their murders the same way the FBI does, the numbers would be two to three times what the HO reports.

It also said that a crack down on criminal gangs who had illegal guns, meaning they didn't just take the guns, they took the gangbangers too. Not proof, just more circular logic.
Since the UK has had gun licensing systems before our lifetimes, criminals didn't buy them in guns stores.
Your argument fails.

Australia's murder fell the past ten years. And? Every Australian state had some type of licencing system and some had registration. The National Firearms Agreement was in 1996. What the article forgets to mention that gun ownership and the number of privately owned guns in Australia have increased during that ten year period, now passing pre NFA levels. A fact that has gun prohibition activists clutching their pearls and screaming for even stricter laws. Meanwhile in the US, guns and gun ownership increase over the past 20 years, while murder and violent crime is half of what it was then. Oh, and heroin deaths have doubled in the US over the past ten years. There is no evidence that NFA had anything to do with the drop. There could be an infinite reasons for the drop including
biker gangs stopped killing each other
improved policing
aging population
improvements in the social safety net
finally getting rid of leaded gasoline
In case you were wondering
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

Holding up the UK Parliament as some kind of paragon of wisdom ignores the problem of knee jerk laws they pass from the pointless handgun ban which only affected the few licensed target shooters to the despicable and, biologically at least, racist mass killing of harmless dogs based on stupidity and ignorance.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
19. Welcome. I will respond when I have time to consider your questions thoroughly...
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 05:20 PM
Oct 2015

Though I favor universal BG checks, training for concealed-carry, an overhaul of the decrepit NICS, I am considered by some of the controllers as pro-NRA, a gun lobbyist (on $724 net SS/mo!!), suffering from inadequate penis length AND a gun-humper. So bear with me. Thanks.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
27. I would restrict concealed carry permits to trained professionals with a demonstrated need.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:10 PM
Oct 2015

Proliferation of CCPs fosters a 'wild west' mentality that I think is unhealthy for society.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
31. I'm not familiar with those states' concealed weapon laws.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:43 PM
Oct 2015

Here in Oregon, they are pretty easy to get. I see flyers for CCW permit classes stapled to telephone poles.

I have six acquaintances with permits: one is my son-in-law, who needs it for his job (nightclub security), one is a friend who only has it so he can transport his weapon in his glove box, and four are assholes who have demonstrated a distinct lack of judgement with how they carry their weapons - for example, one had his loaded .45 fall out of his jacket while drunk.

2/6 is not good odds, although I understand my evidence in anecdotal.

I myself own a .38 Special, a semi-automatic .22 rifle and a bolt action 30-30, but see no need to carry a concealed weapon.



 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
32. In Maine and Vermont...
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:44 PM
Oct 2015

You don't even need a permit to carry concealed. Yet, they are among the safest states in the U.S.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
33. Correlation is not causation.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:47 PM
Oct 2015

What works in Maine and Vermont may not work elsewhere.

I don't want an armed populace.

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
34. I wasn't suggesting that it was. I was simply pointing out that a carrying populace does not
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 08:05 PM
Oct 2015

lead to a Hollywood like "wild west" environment.

You don't have the right to force your hoplophobia onto others.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
37. It's not a phobia - it's a reasonable preference.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 03:26 AM
Oct 2015

I have the same right as anyone else to advocate for changes I think would be to the benefit of all society.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
41. welll....
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:14 AM
Oct 2015

relative to the rest of the industrialised world the US already has a wild west culture of guns... the same number of Americans die at the end of a gun every 33 days as died on 9/11, and more Americans have died at the end of a gun in the last 15 years than died in WW2.

Pretty hard to look at those numbers and think there's not a problem. At least it is for me.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
40. No, it isn't, is it.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:11 AM
Oct 2015
Correlation is not causation.

That's a concept that many on the gun-control bandwagon can't seem to grasp.

What works in Maine and Vermont may not work elsewhere.

I think you'll find that the bulk of the gun crime that plagues other states is not being committed by legal concealed carriers. See above.

I don't want an armed populace.

Then perhaps you can establish a utopian community somewhere and live out your dream. Godspeed to you.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
42. no need for utopia
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:19 AM
Oct 2015

All he needs to do is go to ANY industrialised country except America... utopia ahoy.

And what YOU'LL find is that the states with concealed carry have a MUCH higher rate of gun homicide than countries without the prevalence of guns in concealed carry states...

England has 60M people and manages to have zero kids shot almost every year. The same is true for pretty much every European nation, and Asian nation, and Australia and Canada.

Extremely safe, and MUCH safer than places with concealed carry.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
45. Oh, the irony ...
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:40 AM
Oct 2015
And what YOU'LL find is that the states with concealed carry have a MUCH higher rate of gun homicide than countries without the prevalence of guns in concealed carry states...

Correlation is not ... oh, never mind.

What are you comparing? States to countries? You do know that there isn't a single state that doesn't have some form of concealed carry, right? And you also know that Vermont, where anyone can carry a concealed handgun without a permit, ranked 37th in the nation in gun homicides, below the national average, right?

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
49. Compare it however you want
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 08:30 AM
Oct 2015

Vermont's murder rate is low, as low as Canada, but not nearly as low as some European COUNTRIES, which have actual cities and millions of people...

Let's, though, look at other states with unrestricted conceal carry to see if there's anything to your theory:

Arizona: 5.4, well above the national average...

Alaska: 4.6 above the national average...

What about states with tougher laws and few guns?:

States with tough gun laws have fewer shooting deaths: study

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/states-tough-gun-laws-shooting-deaths-study-article-1.2343815

I know it's impossible to believe that places with fewer guns have less gun violence, but it's kinda equivalent to places with with few sandwiches having less sandwich related violence, etc.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
55. Why not -- it works for you.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 03:14 PM
Oct 2015
Compare it however you want


Vermont's murder rate is low, as low as Canada, but not nearly as low as some European COUNTRIES, which have actual cities and millions of people...

But lower than the UK, which also has actual cities and millions of people.

Let's, though, look at other states with unrestricted conceal carry to see if there's anything to your theory:

Arizona: 5.4, well above the national average...

Alaska: 4.6 above the national average...

Which only shows that we can both cherry-pick the results that we like, proving nothing else.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
52. birds like warm weather
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:27 AM
Oct 2015

straw man: Correlation is not ... {causation}.

That's not exactly it. The logic fallacy is saying that correlation proves or implies causation, when it's not necessarily so, and can. Birds flying south during colder weather does not prove birds make it colder, even tho the correlation is rock solid. Birds like warmer weather is a valid inference tho, supported by other data. If a correlation exists, causation can indeed be the case at times.

wiki: Correlation does not imply causation .. to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. The counter-assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy.. also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin..
As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not imply that the resulting conclusion is false.


We can demonstrate this with the following correlation between declining gun ownership rates concomitant with declining violent crime rates from early 1990's to now, especially ~1992 - 2000 (gallup agrees). Gun ownership rates declined 25% - 35%, while violent crime rates declined dramatically. There is a correlation between declining gun ownership rates & declining v-crime rates. Does it prove it? no, but the correlation exists & cannot be forcefully DISproved, so I believe the hypothesis that declining g.o. rates contributed to declining v-crime rates. (Clinton's anti-crime bill also contributed).


General Social Survey (GSS), conducted roughly every two years ... The GSS data show a substantial decline in the shares of both households and individuals with guns... 1973, 49% reported having a gun or revolver in their home or garage. In 2012, 34% said they had a gun in their home or garage.
.. personal gun ownership in 1980, 29% said a gun in their home personally belonged to them. This stands at 22% in the 2012 GSS survey. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
... The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our Dec 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A Jan 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of {GSS}.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
58. Jimmy painfully elaborates the obvious.
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 03:37 PM
Oct 2015

Of course: Correlation can indicate causation, but the causation must be shown. Documentation of correlation does not constitute proof of causation.

Does it prove it? no, but the correlation exists & cannot be forcefully DISproved, so I believe the hypothesis that declining g.o. rates contributed to declining v-crime rates.

Belief despite the absence of proof? I believe that's called "faith," Jimmy, not "science."

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
73. is he or isn't he?
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:46 PM
Oct 2015

straw man, emph added: ......Of course: Correlation can indicate causation, but the causation must be shown

Straw man caught correcting himself, when he was about to write that 'correlation is not causation':

straw man wrote: Correlation is not ... oh, never mind

So what is your opinion today straw man? is it not? or it can be?

straw man: Belief despite the absence of proof? I believe that's called "faith," Jimmy, not "science."

No it's also called a 'hypothesis', which is science. Duh.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
76. Once more, Jimmy.
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:19 PM
Oct 2015
straw man, emph added: ......Of course: Correlation can indicate causation, but the causation must be shown

Straw man caught correcting himself, when he was about to write that 'correlation is not causation':

straw man wrote: Correlation is not ... oh, never mind

So what is your opinion today straw man? is it not? or it can be?

Smoke is not fire. Smoke can indicate fire. Assuming that any airborne particulate is smoke and therefore indicates the presence of fire is just bad science, Jimmy. More information is needed.

See how that works?

straw man: Belief despite the absence of proof? I believe that's called "faith," Jimmy, not "science."

No it's also called a 'hypothesis', which is science. Duh.

"Hypothesis" is not the same thing as "belief." If they are equivalent things to you, then your "science" is severely flawed. You drew a conclusion based entirely on correlation because it accorded with what you like to "believe." That's not science.

Duh, indeed.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
78. hypothesis defined for ray bolger's buddy
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:29 PM
Oct 2015

straw man: "Hypothesis" is not the same thing as "belief." If they are equivalent things to you, then your "science" is severely flawed. You drew a conclusion based entirely on correlation because it accorded with what you like to "believe." That's not science.

You make a grown man cry; hypotheses are indeed developed from what individuals believe to be true. Duh. Hypotheses are indeed developed from correlations which have not yet been proven to be linked to causation, that's pretty much what a hypothesis 'iss'.
Again you play at trivial pursuit & picayune hair splits.

oxford: hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:

straw man: Smoke is not fire. Smoke can indicate fire.

Thanks for the update from the paleolithic age.
A nifty way to dodge this question I asked, repeated here:

straw man wrote: ......Correlation can indicate causation, but the causation must be shown
straw man also wrote: Correlation is not ... oh, never mind
jimmy: So what is your opinion today straw man? is it not? or it can be?

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
79. Double duh.
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:37 PM
Oct 2015
You make a grown man cry; hypotheses are indeed developed from what individuals believe to be true. Duh. Hypotheses are indeed developed from correlations which have not yet been proven to be linked to causation, that's pretty much what a hypothesis 'iss'.
Again you play at trivial pursuit & picayune hair splits.

Wrong. Hypotheses are developed from what individuals think may be true. If you think that that phrase is equivalent to believe to be true, then you have a problem with your vocabulary as well as your scientific method.

You have taken a faith-based belief, misnamed it a "hypothesis," and attempted to confirm its validity by pointing at mere correlation without even at attempt at proof. Your pursuits are indeed trivial.

oxford: hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:

I'll throw your Oxford back at you and say that "supposition or proposed explanation" is most decidedly not the same as what you "believe to be true," the latter being an endpoint rather than a starting point. And if your "belief" is not supported by proof, then it's a faith-based endpoint.

A nifty way to dodge this question I asked, repeated here:

straw man wrote: ......Correlation can indicate causation, but the causation must be shown
straw man also wrote: Correlation is not ... oh, never mind
jimmy: So what is your opinion today straw man? is it not? or it can be?

Ask yourself this, Jimmy: If I really wanted to dodge it, why wouldn't I just have omitted the entire sentence? What you're seeing is an expression of exasperation at having to repeat the bloody obvious so many times.

Smoke and fire, Jimmy. Smoke and fire. The answer is there if you'll uncover your eyes.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
81. I think, therefore I believe
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:01 PM
Oct 2015

straw man: Wrong. Hypotheses are developed from what individuals think may be true. If you think that that phrase is equivalent to believe to be true, then you have a problem with your vocabulary as well as your scientific method.

I have no problem with my vocabulary, you have a problem with alternate definitions & applying your own definition to what other people say. And trivial pursuit to boot.
Straw man argues 'believe' cannot equate to 'think':

amer heritage: believe: 3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.


merriam websters: 3 to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>

Collins: (when transitive, takes a clause as object) to think, assume, or suppose - I believe that he has left already
6. (transitive; followed by of; used with can, could, would, etc) to think that someone is able to do (a particular action)


IE: I believe the correlation would be true. I believe the correlation between declining gun ownership rates and declining violent crime rates demonstrates a contributing causative affect to the former.

Quick definitions from Macmillan (believe)
verb to think that a fact is true...
to think that what someone has said is true...
To believe or accept that something is true or exists: think, believe in, suppose

http://www.onelook.com/?w=believe+&ls=a

thesaurus gets poor straw man on both ends:
think verb to believe something based on facts or ideas
believe in - to think that someone or something exists


Had enough?

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
84. Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy ...
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 05:37 PM
Oct 2015
Straw man argues 'believe' cannot equate to 'think':

I argue no such thing, and you know it. I argue that there is a difference between thinking something may be true (uncertainty) and believing something to be true (certainty).

thesaurus gets poor straw man on both ends:
think verb to believe something based on facts or ideas
believe in - to think that someone or something exists

Your reliance on a supposed equivalence between individual words is childishly reductive. Words make up phrases and sentences, in which there are other words that refine the meaning. For example, you have chosen to ignore the "based on facts or ideas" portion of the cited definition of "think," as well as overlooking the fact that your citation for "believe" is actually the phrasal verb "believe in," which is not the same thing at all. The statements "I believe you" and "I believe in you" are quite different, one suggesting a trust in your veracity and the other suggesting a faith in your capabilities -- neither of which I possess, by the way.

If you think that all of this is "trivial" or "picayune," then you don't understand language. In your formulation, the statements "I think that is true" and "I think that may be true" would be equivalent. They are not.

IE: I believe the correlation would be true. I believe the correlation between declining gun ownership rates and declining violent crime rates demonstrates a contributing causative affect to the former.

Based on what? Based on nothing more than your own pre-existing belief that such a causative relationship exists: in other words, an article of faith, unproven. Demonstration of correlation does not constitute proof of causation. Could I make it any clearer?

Had enough?

I have more than enough of this nonsense, but feel free to carry on. You're only making yourself look foolish.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
124. think again, my irrefutable rebuttal
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:30 AM
Oct 2015

Up to your usual tapdancing I see. I am not going to argue anymore with continuing gibberish from a duplicitous spin doctor. Whatever reply you make I will simply repost this, which destroys any picayune argument you make that 'I believe a hypothesis exists' cannot equate synonymously to 'I think a hypothesis exists'.

I first wrote: .. so I believe the hypothesis that declining g.o. rates contributed to declining v-crime rates.

straw man: Hypotheses are developed from what individuals think may be true. If you think that that phrase is equivalent to believe to be true, then you have a problem with your vocabulary as well as your scientific method.

I have no problem with my vocabulary, you have a problem with alternate definitions & applying your own definition to what other people say.
Straw man argues 'believe' cannot equate to 'think':

amer heritage: believe: 3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

merriam websters: 3 to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>

Collins: (when transitive, takes a clause as object) to think, assume, or suppose - I believe that he has left already
6. (transitive; followed by of; used with can, could, would, etc) to think that someone is able to do (a particular action)


Quick definitions from Macmillan (believe)
verb to think that a fact is true...
to think that what someone has said is true...
To believe or accept that something is true or exists: think, believe in, suppose
http://www.onelook.com/?w=believe+&ls=a


thesaurus gets poor straw man on both ends:
think - verb to believe something based on facts or ideas
believe in - to think that someone or something exists

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
137. Stop letting dictionaries do your thinking for you.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:41 PM
Oct 2015

Ignore the syntactic matrix at your peril. Without it, you remain mired in reductive, simplistic thinking.

I first wrote: .. so I believe the hypothesis that declining g.o. rates contributed to declining v-crime rates.

You are apparently claiming that the above statement is equivalent to this:

"I think that the hypothesis {that declining g.o. rates contributed to declining v-crime rates} may be true."

The first affirms acceptance of the hypothesis as fact. The second indicates that more investigation is necessary. They are clearly different.

Straw man argues 'believe' cannot equate to 'think':

At long last, sir, have you no shame? Please stop pretending I said anything of the kind. Here is what I said:

Hypotheses are developed from what individuals think may be true. If you think that that phrase is equivalent to believe to be true, then you have a problem with your vocabulary as well as your scientific method.

I'm standing by that. The key word is "may." Once you state that you "believe" a hypothesis, you have reached a point of certainty. If you do so without scientific support, you are engaging in an act of faith.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
156. arguing the absurd again he is
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 03:09 PM
Oct 2015

straw man: Stop letting dictionaries do your thinking for you

You should rely on dictionaries more then; you continue to make utterly absurd counters, trying to make some tedious strained point, by splitting hairs.

straw man, +emph: Hypotheses are developed from what individuals think may be true. If you think that that phrase is equivalent to believe to be true, then you have a problem with your vocabulary as well as your scientific method.
The first affirms acceptance of the hypothesis as fact. The second indicates that more investigation is necessary. They are clearly different.
.

Observe readers the dictionary definition of hypothesis; note how hypotheses have been formulated countless times in the past by researchers who either 'believe' it to be true, or simply 'think may be true'. :

oxford: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

general: an idea that attempts to explain something but has not yet been tested or proved to be correct.

Merriam Webster: .. an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussionhttp://www.onelook.com/?w=hypothesis&ls=a

Whether a man actually believes his 'proposed explanation' is true, or thinks his idea 'may be true', does not refute that his idea is a hypothesis. You hair split the meaning of believe & think may be, is all, trying to save face. Stop playing stupid word games.

merr websters: Full Definition of HYPOTHESIS a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences


Duh strawman, I made an assumption which I both believe & think may be true. Duh, I made a tentative assumption which I both believe, as well as think may be true.
You strawman, split hairs with strained reasoning, and argue the absurd.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
157. So ...
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:37 PM
Oct 2015
Duh strawman, I made an assumption which I both believe & think may be true. Duh, I made a tentative assumption which I both believe, as well as think may be true.

... when the fundies say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," are they stating a hypothesis? Do they "think it may be true"?

Again, ignore the syntactic matrix at your peril. You are making a fool of yourself. Believe it.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
158. absurdum ad infinitum
Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:19 AM
Oct 2015
... when the fundies say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," are they stating a hypothesis? Do they "think it may be true"?

Again with absurdity, taking a particular alternate definition & applying it broadly.
I say 'You stink', doesn't mean I can actually smell you.

Daughter asks dad did you see my backpack? ... it's out in the car... thanks, as she walks out of the house ... mom comes in & asks have you seen our daughter? .. dad says I believe she went out to the car.
See how this simple vignette destroys any argument you try to make? he doesn't firmly believe whether she went to car, he just believes it so, thinks it so.

straw man; Again, ignore the syntactic matrix at your peril. You are making a fool of yourself. Believe it.

Macho machismo BS from the man of straw. The only fool here is you & your inane argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Straw man's inane argument:

straw man: Hypotheses are developed from what individuals think may be true. If you think that that phrase is equivalent to believe to be true, then you have a problem with your vocabulary as well as your scientific method.
The first affirms acceptance of the hypothesis as fact. The second indicates that more investigation is necessary. They are clearly different.


Observe readers the dictionary definition of hypothesis; note how hypotheses have been formulated countless times in the past by researchers who either 'believe' it to be true, or simply 'think may be true'. :

oxford: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation
.. general: an idea that attempts to explain something but has not yet been tested or proved to be correct.
.. Merriam Webster: .. an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion
http://www.onelook.com/?w=hypothesis&ls=a

Whether a man actually believes his 'proposed explanation' is true, or thinks his idea 'may be true', does not refute that his idea is a hypothesis. You hair split the meaning of 'believe' & 'think may be'.

merr websters: Full Definition of HYPOTHESIS a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences


I made an assumption which I both believe & think may be true.
You strawman, split hairs with strained reasoning, and argue the absurd.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
159. Belief.
Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:22 PM
Oct 2015
absurdum ad infinitum

... when the fundies say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," are they stating a hypothesis? Do they "think it may be true"?

Again with absurdity, taking a particular alternate definition & applying it broadly.

Exactly. Perhaps you missed this, but I gave it as an example of what you are doing and why you are wrong.

Daughter asks dad did you see my backpack? ... it's out in the car... thanks, as she walks out of the house ... mom comes in & asks have you seen our daughter? .. dad says I believe she went out to the car.
See how this simple vignette destroys any argument you try to make? he doesn't firmly believe whether she went to car, he just believes it so, thinks it so.

straw man; Again, ignore the syntactic matrix at your peril. You are making a fool of yourself. Believe it.

Another example of exactly what I'm warning you against. You are the one who keeps citing the dictionary definitions of the words and ignoring syntactic context.

"I believe she went out to the car" and "I believe the literal truth of the Bible" are two very different uses of the word "believe." Ignore the difference at your peril.

This is comic gold. Couldn't be better. Too bad no one but the two of us is reading it.
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
160. "Too bad no one but the two of us is reading it." Incorrect, unfortunately for the Stuart heir
Thu Oct 29, 2015, 04:46 PM
Oct 2015

Like many true believers, he mistakenly equates volubility and self-certainty with
persuasiveness...

sarisataka

(18,222 posts)
85. A favor, if you would...
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 02:07 AM
Oct 2015

take that argument to the atheist group and explain the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis that simply lacks proof.

Please.

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
29. Why do controllers only care about "gun violence"?
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:40 PM
Oct 2015

I take issue with people focusing specifically on so called "gun violence" which generally means the sum of suicides and homicides in an effort by controllers to confuse people into thinking the statistic is a tally of all homicides.

I think a > 50% reduction in the homicide rate is potentially feasible, and the suicide rate as-is is probably already low enough but could be lower with improvements in mental heath services to significantly impacted populations.

I am not willing to support any new gun restrictions, including UBCs, without significant compromise from controllers. National concealed carry reciprocity, repeal of the Hughes Amendment, revoking sections of GCA '68, and substantial changes to the NFA. With those compromises, I would consider supporting UBCs with exemptions for family.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
38. How do you figure
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:10 AM
Oct 2015

that the suicide rate is low enough?

It's twice that of say the UK.

And study after study has shown that guns are a HUGE risk factor in suicide attempts...

As for trading some gun restrictions for others, that's not going to ever happen... and you illustrate the deadlock very clearly... thanks for your response!

Oh and btw, if we had a 50% reduction in our homicide rate, it would STILL be higher than any European country, and twice as high - or higher - than most!

Which is still a very low bar to be aiming at IMO.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
46. Yes. And ...
Wed Oct 21, 2015, 04:54 AM
Oct 2015
Oh and btw, if we had a 50% reduction in our homicide rate, it would STILL be higher than any European country, and twice as high - or higher - than most!

... if you take all gun homicides off the table, our homicide right would still be higher than England's. Our homicide rate has always been higher, even in the 19th century, when England had no form of gun control whatsoever.

And in 2011 stats, the overall homicide rate of Vermont (Remember Vermont?) was lower than that of the UK. Does this mean anything? Damned if I know.

deathrind

(1,786 posts)
36. There are many ingredients.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 08:56 PM
Oct 2015

Needed to make a firearm work. Stronger more common sense legislation on the firearm itself is only part of the solution not the entire solution.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
80. I currently "live with" tens of thousands of alcohol-related deaths a year...
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:59 PM
Oct 2015

Most Americans do, as they do with other causes of death. I Certainly live with the nearly 50% DROP in gun-related homicides over the last 20+ years. The control of handguns, which you seem to imply is the means to reduce gun-deaths by some tolerable level, does not seem feasible. Such a cheme would be tantamount to a national registry in a country quite capable of quickly and efficiently evading prohibitionist measures. I say prohibitionist because elements within the gun control outlook Will immediately move to greater restrictions, up to and including confiscation and blanket ciminalization (the latter Always a feature in any prohibition). Examples of this can be found in CA, and have been posted here. In the event, such a scheme may run against the Constitution, and would be unworkable.

As has or will be stated here, some states have had such registries with no convincing long-term causal relationship to gun-crime rates. Usually, registries are passed to prevent certain races and ethnicities from acquiring guns; NYC's "Sullivan Laws" were passed during a wave of anti-Italian sentiment, esp. when Irish ethnic groups (some with ties to organized crime) felt threatened by comparable Italian groups. Most of the rest (north or south) stem from post-Reconstruction models enacted in the South. They are quite elitist even within dominant European control: Sylvester Stallone (a big fund-raising favorite with the Bradys) decries gun proliferation, but has a difficult to obtain concealed carry permit and a number of handguns listed on a CA "registry." Of course Diane Feinstein famously carried concealed for years. The Mediamatters outfit (no friend to the Second) used armed personnel to transfer large sums of cash, probably in violation of D.C.'s gun laws.

States have the powers to regulate the manner of carry, and I support that. I also support reasonable training where CC OR public-carry is in effect. I also support a univeral BG check for the U.S., assuming the interstate commerce clause allows such. This CAN be done in the individual states, but the gun-control outlook has no real presence in most states, and is otherwise pre-occupied with Beltway-generated regulations and restrictions, hoping its chief power source, MSM, will serve as a "movement." (At present MSM is certainly amping up its game, hoping to light something off, but we've seen this before.)

The best approach to this "problem" is to step back from the narrow, headline-grabbing doctrines of gun control and prohibition and ask:


JUST WHAT PROBLEMS ARE WE SOLVING?

1). Is it the schoolyard spectaculars which are driven by CelebroPunks who know a little immortaliy when they see it, in a culture which is slavish to celebrity more than it is to money? If so, these mass-murders account for a tiny % of gun-homicides a year. THIS CelebroPunk style is what drives the hateful gun-control rhetoric in DU and the U.S.

2). Is it the mournful murmur of the battlefield we call the Inner Cities? Perhaps, but this is NOT what causes GD to go into "Guns-Dicks" mode. Said another way, if mass murder dropped from -2.5 events/yr to, say, once every 2.5 years, would MSM resume pumping the gas for bans; would the owners of DU continue to allow a general blow out in GD; would most Americans give a flying fuck? The answer to this question goes a LONG WAY to clarifying the "issue of guns" as a public health/safety model ormjust another culture war.

3). Is it truly about crime rates? If so, it Must be recognized these rates have fallen during a period of massive gun availability expansion, and a great liberalization of gun laws. This should behoove anyone to ask WHAT HAS CAUSED these gun-crime rates to fall; i.e., it may not be about guns in the end.

We all need to step back and define problems, see what works, and make plausible proposals.

Thanks for your patience.



EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
88. in fact
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 08:34 AM
Oct 2015

the opposite is true:

Crime rates and murder rates have fallen at the same time gun ownership has fallen..

And while it HAS fallen it's still absurdly high... orders of magnitude higher than any similar country..

I'm not sure we should be patting ourselves on the back because our murder rate is no longer as high as Haiti's but is instead ONLY as high as Niger and Latvia.

The US has had more people die at the end of a gun in the last 15 years than it had die in WW2... as many people die at the end of a gun every 33 days as died on 9/11.

And gun owners - unlike drinkers - represent the minority of citizens... AND the use rate of death from alchohol is lower than or on par with similar countries...

It's just the murder rate and the gun violence that is exceptional about the US.. and as an American that lives somewhere without gun violence, where my kids don't see endless mass shooting on tv or train for school shooting emergencies, I can tell you that that freedom from violence and fear is much more freeing than any "right" to own unlimited weaponry to protect myself from others with unlimited weaponry.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
91. This kind of data we have all heard and argued many times...
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 03:53 PM
Oct 2015

The meme Constantly sold by controller/banners is:

"More guns = more crime."

The controller/banners Do Not speak to the level of gun ownership, instead they speak to the number of guns "proliferated" and the "ease" by which they are attained.
It is their argument, and it does not pan out on its face.



Rights recognized in the Constitution are not based on majority/minority status. Nearly all my life I have lived "free of violence and fear." And I suspect most Americans have lived this way as well. You say this as well. So it seems that a "minority" of Americans have fears of "gun violence"/ " violence" (you used these terms interchangably). This is curious, since one of the droll and hoary controller/banner talking points is gun-owners are "paranoid."

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
93. there is no evidence to support
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 04:07 PM
Oct 2015

the claim that gun ownership has fallen, other than one poll. Other polls say otherwise. Other indicators also say otherwise such as
increases in ownership permits in states that require them, like Illinois
more ranges being built
increased ammunition and accessories being sold
increase in certified trainers
increased attendance in training classes.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
125. 3 polls say gun ownership rates have fallen since '93
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:52 AM
Oct 2015

Johnston, +emph: there is no evidence to support the claim that gun ownership has fallen, other than one poll. Other polls say otherwise.

Actually there are 3 reputable polls that show gun ownership RATES have fallen over the past 20 years: Gallup, Pew, & GSS (general social survey).

1) Gallup: .. even Gallup's numbers show a decline in gun ownership since the early 1990s, from 54% of households in late 1993 to 43% as of this fall. http://www.gallup.com/poll/186236/americans-desire-stricter-gun-laws-sharply.aspx

2): General Social Survey (GSS) .. data show a substantial decline in the shares of both households and individuals with guns... 1973, 49% reported having a gun or revolver in their home or garage. In 2012, 34% said they had a gun in their home or garage.
.. personal gun ownership in 1980, 29% said a gun in their home personally belonged to them. This stands at 22% in the 2012 GSS survey. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
3) ... The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our Dec 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A Jan 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of {GSS}.


I know you've seen these postings of mine before Johnston, why do you keep ignoring the facts?
And also Johnston, about your claim that 'other polls say otherwise', could you post some of these 'other polls'? your beloved peer review & all that.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
128. actually, only GSS actually says that
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:12 PM
Oct 2015

assuming it is true, it is simply going back to 1960s levels. In the late sixties and the seventies, a lot of people bought pistols in response to rising crime rates. Almost all of them sat in sock drawers for decades until discovered by adult children when mom and dad are going to the old folks home. That is how you get the almost new old guns showing up at flea markets and pawn shops. Oh, and the occasional "buy back".
As I explained, other indicators there is actually an increase in the shooting sports and people are lying to pollsters, especially GSS.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
136. abracadabra, and he thinks he wins
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:07 PM
Oct 2015

Johnston: actually, only GSS actually says that assuming it is true, it is simply going back to 1960s levels

Observe the magician Johnston as he mumbles abracadabra and changes the goalposts simply by blinking.
No, Johnston, what you clearly replied to was my saying this, post 125: .. 3 reputable polls that show gun ownership RATES have fallen over the past 20 years: Gallup, Pew, & GSS..

Why do you suddenly backpedal with 'going back to 1960's', and try to weasel out of what you clearly tried to mislead with? I clearly titled post 125: "3 polls say gun ownership rates have fallen since '93.."

How can you sit there & lie, when the graphs I posted showed all 3 - galllup, pew, & gss - saying gun ownership rates have fallen since early 1990's?

Johnston to my above assertions: there is no evidence to support the claim that gun ownership has fallen, other than one poll

1) Gallup: .. even Gallup's numbers show a decline in gun ownership since the early 1990s, from 54% of households in late 1993 to 43% as of this fall.

2): General Social Survey (GSS) .. data show a substantial decline in the shares of both households and individuals with guns... 1973, 49% reported having a gun in their home.. In 2012, 34% said they had a gun in their home or garage. .. personal gun ownership 1980, 29%.. 22% in 2012

3) .. Pew has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our Dec 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household .. 2013 Pew survey found 33%

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
98. Allow me to reframe your question:
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 05:32 PM
Oct 2015

What level of hunger is acceptable in the richest nation in the world?

How many rapes are considered normal per 100,000 people?

How much economic inequality is acceptable?

When you speak of what level of horror is acceptable, you are stating that a certain level of senseless violence is to be accepted. My question to you would be:
How many gun massacres have occurred in Australia since the Port Arthur gun massacre of 1996 prompted Australia to institute common sense restrictions on gun ownership?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
99. Their restrictions were not common sense
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 06:04 PM
Oct 2015

and the usual suspects in Australia didn't think the NFA went far enough
BTW, why did New Zealand pass no new gun laws after their streak, yet have fewer mass murders than Australia?
To answer your question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
100. Define "common sense" in a way that does not posit certain
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 06:18 PM
Oct 2015

things as being necessary for them to be considered to be common sense.

My definition of common sense would probably be much different from your own when talking about common sense gun regulation.

And the inescapable fact is that subsequent to the implementation of the Australian gun regulations, there have been no mass shootings in Australia. Mass shootings are becoming epidemic in the US, while most countries do not experience them.
Whether the violence has its roots in record levels of social inequality and attendant stress, or the fact that the US has a massive number of personal weapons in civilian hands, the fact is that these massacres are occurring with depressing frequency.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
101. fact is, there have been mass shootings, as my link documented
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 06:26 PM
Oct 2015

not to mention mass murder by arson, something that may or may not have existed before. Clearly you didn't bother to look at the link.
Actually, they are very rare. Just that when they do, the media creates copy cats. Also, Australia doesn't have the population we do.
To claim that there have no mass shootings in Australia since the NFA is demonstrably false. It still doesn't address the gang violence between biker gangs, especially in Sydney and Perth.
Common sense is simply a meaningless weasel term meant to dupe the intellectually lazy and mentally weak, no more and no less.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
104. I should have said that there are no mass killings in other countries like in the US.
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 07:42 PM
Oct 2015

To clarify, of course there are mass killings, ISIS and Boko Haram notable offenders, and the lunatic in Norway certainly fits the profile, but the US is experiencing them with depressing frequency.

There is violence in every country. Northern Ireland and South Africa were both scenes of horrific violence, but in both countries the violence subsided after the causes for the violence were settled. Israel/Palestine is also the scene of terrible violence, but again, there is a specific conflict that causes the violence. Other than extreme inequality, there seems to be no specific reason for the violence here.

As to population, I am not aware of any studies linking population levels to violence. Both Australia and Canada are quite similar to the US in that:
all three countries are nations of immigrants, and all three countries were founded by British settlers, the Quebec area excepted. Given the similarities, what explains the remarkable difference in gun violence levels?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
106. entirely different cultures
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 08:04 PM
Oct 2015

with different levels of wealth inequality and and levels of organized crime. We are more individualistic than the other two. We bought into the whole John Locke thing to the point of violently kicking the British out, they did not. Those few examples of similarities. While we are English speaking, only because English beat German by one vote, we have always been more of a melting pot than either Canada or Australia.

Northern Ireland and South Africa were both scenes of horrific violence, but in both countries the violence subsided after the causes for the violence were settled.
Did? Do you know what the murder rate of South Africa is? It is also the very definition of rape culture.
South Africa, Estonia, Russia, Brazil, Mexico are all OECD countries. I guess that means they are "developed", whatever that means and how that is relevant is never explained, is it? They also have strict gun laws, and higher murder rates than we do.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
107. I cannot speak for Australians, but in my view, the difference
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 08:26 PM
Oct 2015

between Canada and the US is that in Canada there is more belief in the ability of government to solve problems. As to the melting pot idea, Canada is as ethnically diverse as the US. Ballots for the last election were printed in 14 different languages.

When I spoke of South Africa and Ireland I was referring to the violence associated with the national struggles.

Intentional Homicide per 100,000 Firearms death rate per 100,000

Brazil:25 Brazil: 19.03
Estonia: 5 Estonia: 2.54
Mexico: 22 Mexico: 11.17
Russia: 9 Russia: 12.5
South Africa: 31 South Africa: 21.51
United States: 5 United States: 10.5

Australia: 1 Australia: 0.86
Canada: 2 Canada: 2.22
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5


So intentional homicide levels in the US per 100,000 are 2.5 times as high as Canada and five times as high as Australia. Gun homicide comparisons are even worse for the US when compared with Canada and Australia. But is this really the argument to make? That the US is bad but some countries are worse?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
110. the firearms death includes suicides
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 08:44 PM
Oct 2015

our gun homicide is actually closer to three. That is how Switzerland has a high "gun death" rate but an almost nonexistent murder rate. About half of our suicides are with guns, not true with Canada and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Australia
Which was also true when the gun laws were about the same on balance of the three countries. Canada's murders are equally divided between firearms, knives, and blunt blunt objects/bare hands. Most of our murders are criminals killing each other. Most of Australia's are victims of home invasion. Most Mexican murders are with knives. Cartel wars are simply a tip of the iceberg.

Once again, your entire argument is based on a false premise and more logical fallacies. In your entire reply another poster is based on the logical fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

You haven't established that murder rates were higher and dropped after gun laws were passed or that the laws had anything to do with it. You simply make the assertion.
http://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Proof_by_Assertion__Proof_by_Repeated_Assertion.html#.VirYF2erRwA

more reading
http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/manuel_eisner/large_scale-variation.pdf
http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence-rights/homicides/

Response to guillaumeb (Reply #112)

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
109. well
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 08:43 PM
Oct 2015

here's the thing:

You can not stop gun massacres completely. That's an impossibility. Aiming for that as a goal is like trying to swim to the moon; you can try all you want, but you're just gonna end up tired and disappointed.

What CAN be done though is GREATLY reduce gun violence and gun crime.

The point it, unless politicians actually start putting numbers to their policies, and start being willing to lose to try and make meaningful changes to gun policy, nothing will change. All we'll get is nebulous political grandstanding, which is what Hillary is offering.

The ACTUAL policies that would be needed to stop 99% of gun violence would require - in 2015 - something akin to a military coup. And that's not going to happen.

So - what the left needs to do is what they currently do with every other policy: make a plan, set targets, decide where to compromise, and sell it. Then make it work so they can prove their goals are attainable. A HUGE political firestorm, that results in 2-3% less gun violence is the OPPOSITE of meaningful, and indeed could set the cause back by decades, like MANY think the incredibly stupid AWB did.

Oh and BTW, here's the annual gun deaths in Australia since 1996:

2012: 226
2011: 187
2010: 232
2009: 226
2008: 231
2007: 231
2006: 242
2005: 220
2004: 241
2003: 289
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428

Here's 1996 and before:

1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

They've gotten it down by 2/3rds, which would save between 7-8000 Americans a year, but they have NOT got it down to zero, nor will they ever.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
114. Agreed. Killing will continue no matter the weapon employed.
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 09:05 PM
Oct 2015

Everyone agrees that killing is a problem, and the amount of gun violence in the US, where 30,000 Americans are killed every year, is an outrage.

But HOW to reduce the killing is where the debate begins.

So how does the debate start?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
115. 21K are suicides
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 09:07 PM
Oct 2015

better suicide prevention would be a major step. BTW, that is only a little over half of all suicides.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
116. FBI says that 20k are suicide.
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 09:15 PM
Oct 2015

SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-2-1In 2010, there were 31,672 deaths in the U.S. from firearm injuries, mainly through suicide (19,392) and homicide (11,078), according to CDC compilation of data from death certificates.6 The remaining firearm deaths were attributed to accidents, shootings by police and unknown causes. The gun homicide rate in 2010 was the lowest it had been since CDC began publishing data in 1981. Other homicide data, from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (Cooper and

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/chapter-2-firearm-deaths/

So we agree that homicide by firearm is a problem. What solves or lessens the problem?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
117. Suicide in general
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 09:26 PM
Oct 2015

is a problem. Rather than tackle half the problem, I would prefer to fix the whole problem as much as possible. Suicide by firearm, rope, drinking battery acid are all equally tragic.

gwheezie

(3,580 posts)
132. When I do suicide assessments
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:40 PM
Oct 2015

Access to a firearm is a red flag, hanging is also very lethal. When mental health professionals assess suicide risk, method is part of the assessment. You can't ignore the lethality of suicide by gun. There is no time to call for help as there may be for overdose or cutting. Same thing with hanging. I'm not saying that to minimize less lethal methods. It takes a longer time to swallow pills than it does to pull a trigger. It takes a longer time to cut often and deeply enough to bleed to death. There is a chance for intervention.
I have taken care of people who had committed themselves to suicide who could not swallow enough pills or made the 1st cut and changed their mind in a few seconds.

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
102. Gun control will not do much to save lives, that being said...
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 06:55 PM
Oct 2015

there are a lot of gun control measures we should adopt immediately and will have no impact or at worst a slight impact on people who get their guns legally.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

From the article:

"Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,": so people who talk about locking up the guns that are legally obtained do have a good point if we can keep stolen guns off the street it will make a small, but significant impact on gun violence. It just isn't a solution by itself.

straw purchase sales: this is definitely where we need to crack down on. I have heard that this isn't a real issue, but I have a hard time believing it if this is how criminals are saying they are getting their guns.

corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers: life sentences for these people.

unlicensed street dealers: I don't know what we currently do when someone doing this is caught, but see above sentencing guidelines.

I think we should concentrate on getting illegal guns off the street. But, just taking guns from people who don't get them illegally is not going to solve the massive problem of people becoming victims of gun violence. It certainly won't solve the more common problem of people committing suicide by gun.


So, that would be what we can do legally which I think is significant. It however, won't drive the statistics on violence down very much in the long run. What we need to do in addition to stopping the flow of illegal guns is do something and a lot of somethings to cool down our culture of violence.

1. This will sound a little kooky, but tuition free college and housing if necessary, probably only about 10% of students will actually need free housing, but make that available as well. College educated people are a lot less violent in general than those who don't go to college.

2. Fix the freaking holes in the safety net. So that people who live in violent households can get out and stay out.

3. Stop the militarization of the police force. No more broken windows policies and hire more police from the community and more beat cops that just go around and actually talk to people. They can also keep tabs on things that might be helpful for people in the community and find out which families are struggling and just maybe save some kids from starving. Social workers on the beat? Yes I think we need this.

4. More focus on intellectual activities like oh I dunno the chess club, give those kids bigger trophies or something. Feature them in the news things like that. And less focus on violent contact sports, don't get rid of those things, just stop hero worshipping people that can tackle a 300 lb man running at them at 10 miles an hour.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
103. I agree with some of what you are talking about
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 07:30 PM
Oct 2015

however I have to wonder if the the ten to fifteen percent is stolen or simply reported stolen. How many people take the time to write down the serial number for possible police report? Without that, it doesn't get entered in NCIC, or at least not that individual gun.
Straw purchases, we need to petition AG Lynch to instruct the US attorneys to pursue provable straw purchasing cases. We might look at sentencing guidelines. I don't think even Ted Nugent or Larry Pratt finds this acceptable anymore than Shannon Watts would.

There were 55 counts of strawman purchases intended to deliver guns to criminals on the street, each good for 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Instead of 550 years in prison and nearly $14 MILLION in fines, Judge Randa sentenced Mills to probation for putting dozens of guns into the hands of violent criminals.

http://bearingarms.com/need-gun-laws-judge-gives-strawman-seller-probation/

That shit is unacceptable. If the feds won't do it, then maybe states need to do it. All the bill would have to say is "violating this provision of the Gun Control Act is also a felony under state law".

Not only college, but also trade school. Not everyone is college material, and frankly not everyone wants to be.

I don't know about the football angle, since gangbangers don't give a shit about football. Kids need to ultimately learn that greed is not good and use microloans or whatever to help would be drug dealers to use their business skills, which are very good, to a business where they can contribute to the well being of the community instead of its destruction. Oh, and allow them to settle their disputes with lawyers with pens.

unlicensed street dealers: I don't know what we currently do when someone doing this is caught, but see above sentencing guidelines.
I don't know, but I don't see the ATF or the DoJ doing much in that area anymore than they do the straw purchasers. That isn't entirely their fault, because the local cops would rather not mention it.

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
105. I don't know about the percent of stolen guns either.
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 07:44 PM
Oct 2015

Ultimately though none of this is going to change our culture of violence, which I see as the bigger culprit. People are willing to kill each other all to frequently in our culture. That is the real tragedy. Still, getting on the ATF and the DOJ to do something about straw purchases and those other methods of getting illegal guns off the street it will help. If these measures save 1,000 lives a year it's a good thing no doubt. But, I think we save more by working toward a more humane society.

Your point about Tech school is spot on. In fact I favor that approach over college, but not everyone is Tech school material. I wish I was, but most the programs they offer I have 0 aptitude for. Any trade like electrician, or plumbing is great those jobs can't be outsourced.

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
119. The only questions that I'm interested in addressing are:
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:21 AM
Oct 2015

1) Why are we not enforcing laws already on the books?

2) What are the best ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (given that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those with extensive criminal records) and persons with psych issues? How do we determine which psych issues warrant prohibition?

3) What can we reasonably hope to accomplish, given political realities, in reforming the counter-productive "War on Drugs (given that 2/3 of all gun mayhem is criminal-on-criminal violence)

4) How can we improve national data-sharing w/regard to identifying those prohibited from gun ownership?

5) When, if ever, will a significant percentage of restriction supporters be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they've swallowed lies w/regard to the gun restriction issue that prevent us from pursuing meaningful methods of violence reduction? ("assault weapons", "cop-killer bullets", "gun show loopholes" etc.)

The rest, AFAIC, is a lot of academic masturbation.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
120. and what would you propose
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:53 AM
Oct 2015

to reduce the gun violence and murder rates in America?

And why do states with fewer guns per capita have less gun violence and fewer suicides? And why do states that loosen restrictions on gund see their suicide rates and gun violence rates increase?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/02/health/gun-laws-lead-to-suicide-drop/

And btw, we do enforce a LOT of the laws on the books, but when you're talking about 10s of millions of gun transactions and 10s of thousands of gun deaths a year, it's daunting.

It's a bit like asking why aren't jaywalking laws enforced more strictly.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
122. they don't increase
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:41 AM
Oct 2015

the claim is based on a Bloomberg shill study creates a control that is rigged to get the results they want. Read the actual study. That is also why it is done by a Bloomberg funded medical professional instead of a criminologist and isn't published in a peer review criminology journal.

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
138. I would propose that a good start would be for folks like you
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:46 PM
Oct 2015

to roll up your sleeves and do some real research on gun violence. Confront your biases ---- if you dare. As GE mentioned, your "studies" are agenda driven. Try reading Targeting Guns -- the award-winning book by liberal criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck and get back to us.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
127. Let's see two threads today about people getting shot by reckless concealed carry
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:08 PM
Oct 2015

people and one about a vigilante shooter.

The left really needs to talk to gunners! Sure they do not.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
130. define vigilante shooter
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:23 PM
Oct 2015

you mean like the fool at Home Depot or a case like this? Cenk Uyger would say that the defender should "take his beating like a man".

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Questions the left won't ...