Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama's response to gun question

Obama's response to gun question (Page 4)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You can't stop all deaths. Cars probably kill more people than the rest of that list, but they have other uses. They even save lives. You can't ban cars or knives or hammers or clubs and you obviously can't ban hands and feet. The point is to try to prevent the easily preventable and needless deaths. The fact the left is going after "assault" rifles is more to do with what they might succeed at. Banning hunting rifles would be as daft as banning knives or hammers, but there is no way they are going to get away with a handgun ban so they are trying to do what they can.

If you take the protection argument, guns are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thieves and criminals only need them because their victims all have them.



What about a law ruling that weapons for personal protection (so excluding hunting rifles) had to be pink and sparkly? Or some other cosmetic requirement to make them less macho or less cool?
I can't see a logically strong argument against such a rule. Pink sparkly guns are just as effective for home defence, but maybe some of the gang members and other less responsible people would be less inclined to pose with them or carry them etc.
This feels like some weird political identity test which I guess I'm willing to agree with in order to pass the test, but it seems like it would run into issues were an attempt made to turn it into real policy.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 08:46 PM
 
And since its been mentioned, the US has 30K fatal car accidents per year.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You can't stop all deaths. Cars probably kill more people than the rest of that list, but they have other uses. They even save lives.
Guns don't save lives ? O Rly ?

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 10:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And as someone who's is probably in outer space on the issue compared to most, I have total understanding and sympathy for wanting to clamp down on handguns in urban centers, but as you say, none of that works unless it's a blanket, Federal law. Otherwise, it just flows from the unrestricted to the restricted by way of the black market.
Precisely.

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 11:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
I'm not super well versed in the gun debate, and have never owned a gun (nor plan on owning one). However, facts dont care about feelings. And i do respect and appreciate the American narrative which lead to the second amendment. I've heard several debates between my European and American friends. Some of the statements made(which i haven't verified) include:

1. Chicago has some of the nation's toughest gun control laws, yet the highest gun related crime/murder.
2. Switzerland and Israel have the highest number of guns per household. Why is gun crime lower there? (homogeneous societies? mandatory military service?)
You don't need to look abroad: also inside the US if you compare how guns per capita or gun ownership per household correlates with fire arm homicides, fire arm suicides and such, you see a very strong correlation. See e. g. here (taken from here, also look here):

If you want to know how the US compares to other countries, have a look here:


The last graph also contains Switzerland (in distant second place), and predictably, gun deaths are very high and correlate strongly with guns per capita.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
@Paco500
Ben Shapiro shared this on his FaceBook page.


While the *intentions* behind tough gun control advocates come from a good place, i'm not entirely convinced about the outcomes, especially when looking at countries around the world.
Where are handguns on that graph? The graph cherry picks its data very carefully.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 11:55 PM
 
The slide has only rifles on it because it pertains to legislation aimed at rifles.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 12:56 AM
 
@oreo
Cheers for the info. But i think you and waragainstsleep might have missed the point of my previous post.

I have no problem believing the info in those graphs you provided. Higher density of guns = more gun related violence/death. Just as higher density of cars = more car related deaths. DUH

That's not what I was questioning. And as you might have noticed in my previous post, I admitted that decreasing the total supply of guns probably reduces the chances of guns being used for crimes as well.

Does the change in the density of guns have an effect on the *total* amount of violent crime in a society? Thats the correlation/comparison im more interested in.

From my understanding the "cost" of gun bans, etc... is law abiding citizens not being able to defend themselves. Is that trade off worth it?

Regarding your last graph:
"The figures also do not directly represent the number of guns available, since in some countries, such as Israel, a significant number of civilians have government-owned military guns in their possession, which would not be included in the figures below."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number...ita_by_country

(I was under the impression that the same was true in Switzerland, but I dont know for sure)
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 04:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You don't need to look abroad: also inside the US if you compare how guns per capita or gun ownership per household correlates with fire arm homicides, fire arm suicides and such, you see a very strong correlation. See e. g. here (taken from here, also look here):

If you want to know how the US compares to other countries, have a look here:


The last graph also contains Switzerland (in distant second place), and predictably, gun deaths are very high and correlate strongly with guns per capita.
Those are such absurdly dishonest graphs. 60% of those deaths are suicides (NYT/CDC). The latest numbers from the CDC show that gun homicide rates are now <4/100k, which is even better than I'd previously thought.



Are you trying to say those people wouldn't have killed themselves if it weren't for guns? Because we know that isn't true, with the USA practically representing the statistical average: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_suicide_rate



So removing the gun suicides, people in the EU, and other anti-firearm countries outside it, use other means to kill themselves (and it's the #1 tool for that in the America), the USA would be here on your own graph:



Wow, how are our numbers so small despite having so many guns? And it's improving every year. Frankly, we're doing a tremendous job so far, we just need to improve our screening process and provide better firearm education.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 04:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
That's not what I was questioning. And as you might have noticed in my previous post, I admitted that decreasing the total supply of guns probably reduces the chances of guns being used for crimes as well.

Does the change in the density of guns have an effect on the *total* amount of violent crime in a society? Thats the correlation/comparison im more interested in.
That's a fuzzy question, and in certain cases simple statistics may be misleading.

Let me give you an example that has nothing to do with the topic: for the first part of WW1 none of the armies equipped their soldiers with helmets. (Most helmets were not meant to be bullet proof, they were supposed to protect soldiers from falling debris and shrapnel.) The British kept meticulous records, and so when they finally introduced their helmet and issued them to the soldiers, they could measure the effectiveness. To their amazement and horror, head injuries increased five fold! How can this be? Think about it for a sec before you unveil the spoiler.
 


So for instance, tighter gun laws which lead to a reduction in gun deaths could lead to corresponding spikes in other crimes. Not because these other crimes are all of a sudden more common, but because a previously robbery-turned-homicide now appears as one extra robbery in the crime statistics.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
From my understanding the "cost" of gun bans, etc... is law abiding citizens not being able to defend themselves. Is that trade off worth it?
How would you measure whether the trade-off is worth it? Lives lost? Or would you include intangible things such as “Gun ownership is part of our culture.”

If your primary objective is saving lives, then the statistics are clear, the answer is “yes”. Of course, this is a statistical effect, i. e. less guns means ordinary crimes have less of a chance to escalate. On the other hand you will always find exceptions, cases where if the victim had been armed, it could have killed the criminal. Just like you can find cases where not wearing a seat belt could have saved someone's life.

Personally, I think getting a gun should be like getting a pilot's license: you should be vetted, train regularly, you'd have to learn about your responsibilities and duties as a gun owner. And the guns should be stored safely. Getting a gun should not be as easy as buying a printer. Nor should legally blind people be eligible for a carry permit.* Of course, this is not possible within the current legal framework in the US. (Although in principle the constitution can be amended, and a constitutionally guaranteed right is not necessary to have a gun friendly culture. Feel free to disagree.)

Banning certain types of guns solves just a fringe problem, mass shootings, which represent only a tiny sliver of the total overall number of victims. Most gun fatalities in the US are due to hand guns, and banning “assault rifles” would not significantly diminish these numbers. Nevertheless, there is a hope that over time this would reduce the number of mass shootings. I also think that linking the permission for a gun purchase to the various Islamist watch lists will not do much to make a dent in the statistics. That is because mass shootings are so common in the US (unlike in other countries), only statistically, only a tiny share of them is due to Islamists. According to these statistics there were 176 instances of mass shootings (defined in this case as shootings with 4 or more victims). If the previous 3 years are anything to go by, on average there will be one mass shooting per day. Official numbers are a bit hard to come by, so if you have anything more recent or more complete, feel free to post it here, I'd appreciate that. Of course, you can narrow your focus by having slightly different definitions (e. g. at least 6 victims or at least 4 fatalities). As far as I am aware, only two cases out of 176 this year were linked to Islamists. Of course, you can also use the number of victims, but then the Orlando shooting skews the statistics to some degree. Again, this is different for, say, European countries, as there mass shootings are exceedingly rare and a significant share of them is perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Regarding your last graph:
"The figures also do not directly represent the number of guns available, since in some countries, such as Israel, a significant number of civilians have government-owned military guns in their possession, which would not be included in the figures below."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number...ita_by_country
You can nit pick single data points on the graph, and I am sure Israel is a very curious corner case. If you've ever been to Israel, you know how omnipresent military-grade guns are. And you'd probably also have to clarify what counts as a death by gun here. Moreover, a huge share of its citizenry received significant training on how to handle guns properly. No matter what the subtleties are, I'm sure you'd agree that Israel is quite special in this respect.

I don't know the answer to your question in this case, but nevertheless the general trend is very clear.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
(I was under the impression that the same was true in Switzerland, but I dont know for sure)
I've had several Swiss colleagues, at least one of them served in the special forces. In Switzerland a significant share of the guns in circulation are army issue, and because all men between 20 and 34 are conscripted into the military, they are required to keep their military gear at home. The bullets are in cans, and if one of these cans is opened, you apparently get into a boat load of trouble. Apparently people can ask the military to let them keep their guns (although the automatic weapons will be modified to allow only for semi-automatic fire). Moreover, in order to purchase guns, you need to apply for an acquisition permit. The Swiss aren't known to be sloppy with their paper work.


* This is really insane to me: even if I put myself in the perspective of an ardent guns rights supporter, I cannot bridge the gulf to the rationale for why this is good idea.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 04:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Those are such absurdly dishonest graphs. 60% of those deaths are suicides (NYT/CDC). The latest numbers from the CDC show that gun homicide rates are now <4/100k, which is even better than I'd previously thought.
And what's wrong with including suicides? Suicides by gun are big part of the problem.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Are you trying to say those people wouldn't have killed themselves if it weren't for guns?
Yes, there'd be less suicides. A gun in your home increases the risk of suicide. And it is obvious why (quote taken from the article):
“The apparent increased risk for suicide associated with firearms in the home … may be more of an indicator of the ease of impulsive suicide,” the authors wrote. “Impulsiveness may be a catalyst in using a firearm to commit suicide and may also play a role in firearm-related homicide.”
So removing guns would have all sorts of benefits. I consider this a main benefit, but if you think of it as a “side benefit”, then so be it.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
So removing the gun suicides, people in the EU and other anti-firearm countries use other means to kill themselves (and it's the #1 tool for that in the America), the USA would be here on your own graph:

Have you only removed suicides in the US or also for all other countries on the graph? If you haven't, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Wow, how are our numbers so small despite having so many guns? And it's improving every year. Frankly, we're doing a tremendous job so far, we just need to improve our screening process and provide better firearm education.
In view of all this violence, how can you say that “we're doing a tremendous job so far”? The US is number 1 here, but not in a good way.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 05:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
And what's wrong with including suicides? Suicides by gun are big part of the problem.
Those people would simply kill themselves by other means, there's no lack of options there (as France, Iceland, Austria, and Belgium clearly show).

Yes, there'd be less suicides. A gun in your home increases the risk of suicide. And it is obvious why (quote taken from the article):
So you're saying US suicide rates should be better than everyone else's? (Since we're already squarely in the middle.) How exactly does that work? We're a great country but that's ridiculous.

So removing guns would have all sorts of benefits. I consider this a main benefit, but if you think of it as a “side benefit”, then so be it.
No it wouldn't, your argument holds no water. Seriously, you're walking around with a bucket full of holes asking if Americans want a drink. It's absurd. I see you guys pitching this nonsense, claiming things that they refuse to look at critically, twist statistics to suit your needs, all the while preaching from countries that have fewer liberties than we have. It's madness.

Have you only removed suicides in the US or also for all other countries on the graph? If you haven't, you're comparing apples to oranges.
See the above, why would you expect the US to have a lower suicide rate than anywhere else? Why? In the vast majority of other countries they have no, or very few, guns, but they seem to be able to off themselves just fine, it just happens to be a more readily available method here. There's not one scrap of proof to show that the US rate would be lower without guns, not one.

In view of all this violence, how can you say that “we're doing a tremendous job so far”? The US is number 1 here, but not in a good way.
I don't watch the 24hr news cycle, it's full of hyperbole and pearl-clutching media outlets pushing their own agendas (often running counter to our civil liberties), for ever-higher ad revenues. Mostly I just look at the stats for these things, and a gun homicide rate of 3.7/100k (latest CDC), a large number of those being self-defense, is quite impressive, given our citizens have more firearms than all other countries' citizens, combined. The spin from the Left won't change gun ownership in the USA, in fact all it does is increase gun sales. Seriously, Obama has been the best salesman Smith & Wesson has ever had.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 06:35 AM
 
@Cap'n Tightpants
Why don't you try arguing with facts?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post

Does the change in the density of guns have an effect on the *total* amount of violent crime in a society? Thats the correlation/comparison im more interested in.
If you can buy the idea of impulsive suicide (which I totally do), I see no reason that certain people wouldn't be more tempted to commit certain impulsive crimes. A guy behind a protective cage in a liquor store isn't going to hand over cash if you wave a knife at him. If you mug someone on the street at knifepoint, they might pull a gun but if you have a gun on them, they probably won't. Either of these could very much feel like easy ways for desperate gun owners to get cash fast in a pinch. You can even do it with a borrowed gun, so you only need to know someone and it seems most people will.

So in those terms, it probably adds to the violence. Also there is a sensible argument that a burglar should carry a gun. Theres a very good chance his targeted house will have guns inside so any risk of harsher sentencing is outweighed by the risk of getting shot and killed (in many states without any consequence to the intended victim. Meaning they could catch you cold and choose to execute you instead of calling the cops first and totally get away with it). In countries where armed robberies carry much heavier sentences and no-one owns guns, you'd be mad to take one with you when you go burgling. In many cases we are talking a difference in sentence of 6 months to 3 years for burglary, 10-20 years for armed robbery. Its also easy to see how such crimes could go wrong and end up with people getting killed when no-one had any intention of it happening.

That said I think its obvious there is a culture of macho, hero, gun loving that is a contributing factor. I don't know if its some civil war or wild west hangover or a by product of American military worship but its there. There is probably a cyclical nature driving these tendencies. Culture gets guns, guns drives the culture.

As for "Guns are part of our culture", so was slavery but it shouldn't be so now it isn't. So is racism but even the racists know it shouldn't be so in a few more generations hopefully it will be gone. This might be a statement of fact, but its not a valid argument.


Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
From my understanding the "cost" of gun bans, etc... is law abiding citizens not being able to defend themselves. Is that trade off worth it?
As valid as self defence might be in some cases, its not part of the 2nd amendment so it shouldn't really have any bearing on lawmaking should it? The government has a duty to protect citizens from each other, this is why it regulates everything that it regulates. There is no constitutional justification for firearms being excepted from that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
This is nonsense. Year after year, there are far less than 100 gun homicides a year in the UK (population of over 70million). By your logic, all laws are useless because they sometimes get broken. The US and the UK are very different countries, and I'm not saying the UK laws would work in the US, but to claim they are a failure is completely bogus.

As for restrictions on kitchen knives? They don't let kids buy big, sharp, knives- BFD.
How many intentional homicides, gun or otherwise? And what about the restrictions on the number of knives one can buy? "I want to buy a knife set as a housewarming gift." "Sorry, you can only buy the chef's knife and the paring knife today. You'll have to come back for the steak knives." (Much of this is how stores interpret the law, but whether it's the letter of the law or not, the law caused it.)

My thesis stands: a total ban, with confiscation, of firearms does NOT eliminate violent crimes - which is the stand that most on the "OMG let's ban them all!!!111" crowd adhere to - let alone eliminating all gun related crimes.

I am NOT suggesting that there is no problem here. But the problem is not the legal right of Americans to own firearms, which is the actual issue most "ban them all" folks subscribe to. It's that there are so many different social and political issues at play that it is impossible to fix ANY of them with a "simple, common sense" fix that won't do what most people who support that "fix" think it will. We need to step back, examine each issue (mental health, pseudo-religious violent extremism, the causes of the drug epidemic, etc.) and address THEM. As subego stated earlier, if we simply dealt with the drug issue, a huge number of "gun crimes" (which are actually drug related crimes at their heart) will simply go away.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
In other words, "once you fiddle the numbers to suit your own agenda...."

As Paco said, since a bunch of states have legalised weed, and given that your sentencing in many states is way higher than other countries there is an argument that your drug laws are much less of an incentive to gun crime than most.

Another key point that all of you are conveniently ignoring is the gun deaths that get ruled as accidents or suicides. Name another country that regularly sees toddlers shooting themselves or family members.

With UK style gun laws you would eliminate 99% of those accidents and who knows how many suicides. No-one knows because the CDC are forbidden to study gun deaths. That would be another common sense gun law worthy of fixing btw.
Eliminating "inner city" data would essentially remove most "drug related crimes committed with guns." Which could demonstrate how severe the drug crime problem is, and why the DRUG PROBLEM must be addressed by itself.

We have a serious and troubling problem with accidents caused by idiots who do not take the simplest and most basic steps to prevent them. Leaving a gun unsecured where a child can find it is criminal negligence - and in many states it's treated as such, even if it means you go to jail because your toddler killed your 1st grader.

If you study the issue of suicide, you find that those who intend to end their lives find ways to do so. If guns aren't available, tall buildings are. It's not availability of the means, it's the problem that leads to the person feeling the need to escape through suicide. Mental health care in the US is shamefully bad, especially primary care mental health. We need to address THAT as much as any other public health crisis.

Final note: the CDC is legally prohibited from "studying" firearms-related issues as a public health matter because the CDC has a history of using questionable and politically stilted "data" in this area. The AMA is flat out against firearms, period. That doesn't mean that US doctors hate guns (I worked with a physician who has a collection of machine guns), but that officially, "American physicians" are against any and all firearms, mostly because physicians gravitate toward specializations enough that they don't have much time to do anything beyond their specialty. Which is a problem both in medical care and politics. I've known some really effective physicians who made me wonder who tied their shoes for them... Just being an MD doesn't mean one is even able to manage personal finance, much less "an expert on all things". (Don't tell specialists that, though. They often think they know everything.)

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Nor should legally blind people be eligible for a carry permit.*

* This is really insane to me: even if I put myself in the perspective of an ardent guns rights supporter, I cannot bridge the gulf to the rationale for why this is good idea.
The definition of "legally blind" does NOT mean "unable to see well enough" for many things. The US definition is "with correction, no better than 20/200". That's pretty bad, but when you consider that many people with low vision are already terrified of being victimized, a carry permit (if you can qualify, of course) isn't as oddball as it may sound.

In Texas, someone with 20/200 probably would not qualify, since part of the qualification course requires actual target shooting at distances up to 30 yards. But (this is on another of your points) not all states require any sort of training or qualification assessment, whether classroom or on the range. Texas' qualification system isn't easy, and though it doesn't weed out everyone who "shouldn't" have a concealed weapon, it's much more effective at preparing a person who actually takes firearm ownership and use seriously.

I completely concur that most people should have to actually learn about guns somewhere other than at the Multiplex, with real, hands on training. Unfortunately our culture has done some silly things, including demonizing guns enough that many people don't even talk about them, let alone explore to learn what they're all about - whether they wind up continuing with their interest or learn that it's not for them.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 12:28 PM
 
If one is equally afraid of homocides and suicides, then putting both numbers together makes sense.

Otherwise, not so much.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@Cap'n Tightpants
Why don't you try arguing with facts?
Maybe because he already tried (see few post above), but you don't seem to be interested in the facts, so he gave up ?

-t
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@Cap'n Tightpants
Why don't you try arguing with facts?
I did, I gave several links, why don't you try logic?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Eliminating "inner city" data would essentially remove most "drug related crimes committed with guns." Which could demonstrate how severe the drug crime problem is, and why the DRUG PROBLEM must be addressed by itself.
And if you legalise everything then you won't have any crime at all.


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
We have a serious and troubling problem with accidents caused by idiots who do not take the simplest and most basic steps to prevent them. Leaving a gun unsecured where a child can find it is criminal negligence - and in many states it's treated as such, even if it means you go to jail because your toddler killed your 1st grader.
Except its rarely enforced. Typically the press release ends "no charges were filed as it was deemed the family had suffered enough already".

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
If you study the issue of suicide, you find that those who intend to end their lives find ways to do so. If guns aren't available, tall buildings are. It's not availability of the means, it's the problem that leads to the person feeling the need to escape through suicide. Mental health care in the US is shamefully bad, especially primary care mental health. We need to address THAT as much as any other public health crisis.
Thats in direct opposition to what the rest of us have been talking about. It continually amazes me that a medical professional with military experience cannot see any difference between shooting yourself (or someone else) in the head, or cutting your own wrists or throat. Most people don't have tall buildings to hand when they sit in a chair and finish a bottle of scotch after a bad day. And just because you are feeling down about something for an hour, day, week or a couple of months, doesn't mean you are mentally ill. Sometimes being sad is logical. Shit happens. But if you are in that state of mind and you self-medicate AND you have a gun to hand, you might easily do something that prevents you from waking up in the morning feeling much better. Guns are a matter of speed, convenience and perceived lack of pain or discomfort. No blood and gore, no fear, pain or time for regret, just click - boom - gone. You don't get cold feeling the blood run from your veins or see it spray all over the floor, you don't have the time to rethink the bottle of pills you swallowed. The wish to change your mind without being able to as you slowly strangle yourself hanging from the ceiling. I could go on but I shouldn't need to. You shouldn't be this short sighted.

If you were going to kill yourself, how would you do it?

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Final note: the CDC is legally prohibited from "studying" firearms-related issues as a public health matter because the CDC has a history of using questionable and politically stilted "data" in this area. The AMA is flat out against firearms, period. That doesn't mean that US doctors hate guns (I worked with a physician who has a collection of machine guns), but that officially, "American physicians" are against any and all firearms, mostly because physicians gravitate toward specializations enough that they don't have much time to do anything beyond their specialty. Which is a problem both in medical care and politics. I've known some really effective physicians who made me wonder who tied their shoes for them... Just being an MD doesn't mean one is even able to manage personal finance, much less "an expert on all things". (Don't tell specialists that, though. They often think they know everything.)
This is a weak argument. The data is what it is and any political slant should (and will) be applied by the politicians. X people shot, Y people died, Z suicides, A for accidents. It makes a lot of sense that physicians would be against them in the main given they are the ones who have to deal with gunshot wounds. I don't know why you started rambling on about their expertise here.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 08:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The definition of "legally blind" does NOT mean "unable to see well enough" for many things. The US definition is "with correction, no better than 20/200". That's pretty bad, but when you consider that many people with low vision are already terrified of being victimized, a carry permit (if you can qualify, of course) isn't as oddball as it may sound.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here: are you arguing against a ban? Do you think the legal definition of blind (which I understand is different from seeing absolutely nothing) is inadequate to capture whether someone is able to use a gun?
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I completely concur that most people should have to actually learn about guns somewhere other than at the Multiplex, with real, hands on training. Unfortunately our culture has done some silly things, including demonizing guns enough that many people don't even talk about them, let alone explore to learn what they're all about - whether they wind up continuing with their interest or learn that it's not for them.
Sorry, I can't follow your argument here: what do lack of training and demonization of guns have to do with one another? People who want to own guns certainly do not demonize them, and people who demonize guns probably don't own any.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
My thesis stands: a total ban, with confiscation, of firearms does NOT eliminate violent crimes - which is the stand that most on the "OMG let's ban them all!!!111" crowd adhere to - let alone eliminating all gun related crimes.
But I don't think many people actually advocate for a total ban, nor have I seen someone claim here that a complete ban of guns would eliminate violent crimes. I certainly haven't. But a significant reduction will lead to a significant reduction in gun deaths.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
We need to step back, examine each issue (mental health, pseudo-religious violent extremism, the causes of the drug epidemic, etc.) and address THEM. As subego stated earlier, if we simply dealt with the drug issue, a huge number of "gun crimes" (which are actually drug related crimes at their heart) will simply go away.
But that's not how we approach problems in any other area: when terrorists started hijacking planes in the 1970s, we put in more regulations and safety procedures at airports. You're no longer able to bring guns with you when you travel, for example (like my father's host brother did when he came to visit my parents in the 1970s — he's was a police officer). When terrorists started blowing planes up instead, our security procedures evolved and adapted. In the wake of 9/11, they were adapted still. Of course, all of this is in addition to counter terrorism efforts focussing on the groups du jour that were the culprits (e. g. Libya in the 1980s). What you're advocating is taking care of anything but guns, to take care of anything but more safety regulations at airports (in my analogy). That doesn't make any sense.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Final note: the CDC is legally prohibited from "studying" firearms-related issues as a public health matter because the CDC has a history of using questionable and politically stilted "data" in this area. The AMA is flat out against firearms, period.
The only argument against bad science is good science — not no science. Not letting anyone study the effects of fire arms scientifically is a recipe for disaster. From my perspective it's that certain politicians simply didn't like the findings which are clear: statistically, owning a gun makes you less safe. That's not a finding that many people like to hear, just like that there is overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 08:49 PM
 
Not letting anyone?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 09:24 PM
 
Re: suicide

The more guns which are available, the more suicides which will happen.

We, as a society, have to decide whether the trade-off is worth it.

If the trade-off is we have a suicide rate right in between two rich, Western European countries (France and Austria), the argument can be made the trade-off is worth it.

I'm supposed to be chastened by the 1 homicide per 100K of Western Europe, versus our 5 homicides, but noting our number of suicides are equivalent is somehow a bullshit argument.

     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 09:58 PM
 
Comparisons are fine up to a point. If you could do something to reduce that number to 0.5 in 100k, should you not do it just because everyone is is still around 1 in 100k?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2016, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Comparisons are fine up to a point. If you could do something to reduce that number to 0.5 in 100k, should you not do it just because everyone is is still around 1 in 100k?
This is half a question.

Reducing the number will incur a cost. I can't make a proper assessment without knowing the cost.

As I said above, there's going to be a trade-off involved.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 03:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Re: suicide

The more guns which are available, the more suicides which will happen.
As I said before, I don't think so. Other first world countries without guns have similar, if not worse, suicide rates than the USA. Take away guns and they'll use pills, take those away and they'll use knives or rope. Barring those, there are plenty of tall buildings and bridges to take advantage of (a 17 y/o kid in my town killed himself last week jumping off into a deep gorge, after finding out his girlfriend was pregnant). Unfortunately, where there's a will, there's always a way.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 03:33 AM
 
Most of them have better, though, and some are way better. Germany is 9. England is 6.

Likewise, the bad ones are Scandinavian, which I think needs to be corrected for the lack of sun.

Japan is, well... Japan.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 03:47 AM
 
France and Belgium? Austria?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 03:56 AM
 
As I said, contrast those with Germany and England.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 04:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Most of them have better, though, and some are way better. Germany is 9. England is 6.

Likewise, the bad ones are Scandinavian, which I think needs to be corrected for the lack of sun.

Japan is, well... Japan.
Regarding “trade-offs”, what exactly are you trading? Statistically lowering gun ownership is a win-win for both, safety and suicide rates.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 04:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Regarding “trade-offs”, what exactly are you trading? Statistically lowering gun ownership is a win-win for both, safety and suicide rates.
An armed citizenry is a check against tyranny. Lowering gun ownership through regulation weakens the check.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 04:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As I said, contrast those with Germany and England.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/he...year-high.html

Surprisingly, the main issue is with the USA's rate is the new rash of intentional drug ODs.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 04:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
An armed citizenry is a check against tyranny. Lowering gun ownership through regulation weakens the check.
How would you quantify that sentiment? How can you show whether this deterrent exists at all, and how effective it is? The way you phrase this sentiment makes it neither provable nor disprovable, it is just too vague.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 05:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
How many intentional homicides, gun or otherwise?
It's in the chart I posted.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And what about the restrictions on the number of knives one can buy? "I want to buy a knife set as a housewarming gift." "Sorry, you can only buy the chef's knife and the paring knife today. You'll have to come back for the steak knives." (Much of this is how stores interpret the law, but whether it's the letter of the law or not, the law caused it.)
What in the world are you talking about? I walk to local kitchen shop or go on amazon.co.uk and pick up a complete set in one go. Where are you getting this nonsense from?

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
My thesis stands: a total ban, with confiscation, of firearms does NOT eliminate violent crimes - which is the stand that most on the "OMG let's ban them all!!!111" crowd adhere to - let alone eliminating all gun related crimes.
That may be what you were thinking but not at all what you said. You said the killing of the MP in the UK proved that the gun laws in the UK and Australia don't work. The restrictive gun laws in both the UK and Australia were in response to mass shootings. Thus far, they have both worked flawlessly- no mass shootings in either country since the new laws came into effect.

Further more, neither were 'total bans,' I totally legally own a shotgun. You are spouting hysterical nonsense on both knives and guns.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 06:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
How would you quantify that sentiment? How can you show whether this deterrent exists at all, and how effective it is? The way you phrase this sentiment makes it neither provable nor disprovable, it is just too vague.
The quickest way for me to show the deterrent would be by pointing to the correlation between deposing tyrants and force of arms.

The extent to which it's effective? That's the $64,000,000 question. I would argue it's very effective, but I can give you a spoiler... my arguments are in no way unimpeachable. I could be wrong and the efficacy could be practically nothing (though in regards to your first question, I'd still argue the effect was non-zero in the direction towards deterrence).
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 06:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
That may be what you were thinking but not at all what you said. You said the killing of the MP in the UK proved that the gun laws in the UK and Australia don't work. The restrictive gun laws in both the UK and Australia were in response to mass shootings. Thus far, they have both worked flawlessly- no mass shootings in either country since the new laws came into effect.
Actually we had one, conducted with rifles and shotguns. Derrick Bird. It was a bad one too, but still only the one in twenty years since banning handguns.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Jun 20, 2016 at 06:51 AM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
reeses
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2016
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 07:53 AM
 
The graph that displays the deaths in each country caused by guns is super interesting, didn't realize USA was that high!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 08:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The quickest way for me to show the deterrent would be by pointing to the correlation between deposing tyrants and force of arms.
Yeah, but the US has had more than two centuries of experience with democracy, so I don't think you can compare it to, say, Turkey or Morocco where you have elements of democracy but no democratic tradition (yet). Moreover, these days there is a huge difference between the kinds of weapons the military has access to and the guns that civilians can own. Back when the US was born, the difference was much, much smaller. Even if you allow civilians to own fully automatic assault rifles, they won't have Predator drones, F22s and tanks (even if just because these are extremely expensive).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The extent to which it's effective? That's the $64,000,000 question. I would argue it's very effective, but I can give you a spoiler... my arguments are in no way unimpeachable. I could be wrong and the efficacy could be practically nothing (though in regards to your first question, I'd still argue the effect was non-zero in the direction towards deterrence).
When you balance risks and benefits, you should have some idea how large benefits are to be able to weigh one against the other. The situation is very different from when the United States were born: there is no colonial power to thwart, America is not only at peace with its neighbors, but ultimately can defend itself. And the biggest risk to American democracy are the voting choices some American people make. This day and age information is a much more powerful weapon than any type of gun in the hands of a probably-not-properly-trained civilian.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Actually we had one, conducted with rifles and shotguns. Derrick Bird. It was a bad one too, but still only the one in twenty years since banning handguns.
Wow- can't believe I forgot about that one- I was already living here when it happened.
( Last edited by Paco500; Jun 20, 2016 at 09:35 AM. )
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 10:16 AM
 
@OreoCookie
A tangent from the gun debate for a moment. But i think this is necessary:
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
@OreoCookie
A tangent from the gun debate for a moment. But i think this is necessary:
I don't see the relevance of the video: the question is whether in this day and age information or a gun is the more powerful weapon with which to arm its citizens. And given that the internet and other forms of rapid communication did not exist at the time of Washington, I don't see that necessarily the answer that were correct over 200 years ago still need to be the same ones today.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 12:07 PM
 
Maybe we need to ban doctors


Banning assault rifles? Ten minutes and an aftermarket kit turns a Ruger 10/22 rabbit gun into a "weapon of war".
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 01:02 PM
 
Maybe gun owners should be required to have insurance, since owning a gin puts them, their families and potentially their neighbours at risk.
Want something needlessly big? Price goes up. Wanna carry it public, in a car, price goes up.
Crank the premiums on assault rifles up through the roof. Same principle as charging extra for a basic Honda Civic with a huge bodykit and alloys and go faster stripes.

No register required, but if a cop sees you with a gun and decides to check you out, he can ask you to produce a policy number or something within 7 days that he can check with the insurer who will simply confirm that sufficient cover was live at the time and date or not.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 01:16 PM
 
Stay in the UK.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 01:34 PM
 
Seems like Waragainstsleep doesn't recognize the irony:

The British telling the US they don't need guns in the hands of common people.

-t
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 01:45 PM
 
CRAP! Now I have coffee all over my keyboard!
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Stay in the UK.
That's key, isn't it? The vast majority of those on this forum complaining aren't in the USA, nor are they citizens, so their opinion means nothing. They allowed themselves to be disarmed and to be treated like children, with no control over what their gov't does to them, their rights quickly eroding with each passing day, powerless, and it "sticks in their craw" that we haven't buckled to fear-mongering like they did. In fact, we have more guns than ever before, and more new gun owners, while our violent crime and shooting statistics continue to drop. Irks the **** out of them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Regarding “trade-offs”, what exactly are you trading? Statistically lowering gun ownership is a win-win for both, safety and suicide rates.
Have you even considered the # of DGUs when considering "safety"?

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

"Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of 4.7 million incidents per year"

It's extremely tough to take your arguments seriously when you wholesale ignore the stats and circumstances that don't fit your narrative. Even if we took the lowest numbered offered @ 55,000 per year - that stat alone completely shreds your "safety" argument, especially when you consider that the numbers you're using to demonstrate that guns make you less safe (by way of homicide by firearm) include situations where a DGU resulted in a death, making the innocent more safe despite you counting that homicide as "less safe".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
When you balance risks and benefits, you should have some idea how large benefits are to be able to weigh one against the other. The situation is very different from when the United States were born: there is no colonial power to thwart, America is not only at peace with its neighbors, but ultimately can defend itself. And the biggest risk to American democracy are the voting choices some American people make. This day and age information is a much more powerful weapon than any type of gun in the hands of a probably-not-properly-trained civilian.
Did our transformation into utter monsters in the wake of 9/11 not make an impression?

Considering our nation's appalling behavior over the last 15 years, I don't understand why the idea America could conceivably be a threat to itself and others encounters so much resistance.

Look behind me... there's the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, an endless parade of NSA surveillance programs, rendition, torture, drone executions, two countries are a smoking crater, and an entire region of the world is in flames.

This isn't even hardball. We get to see that if someone manages a dirty nuke.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,