Gun control ... actual question

[KimGordon67]

Cali resident, 2 x 1911's in .45ACP (Springfield Operator/Wilson Combat Professional) , Savage 110BA .338Lapua mag, Remington 700 in .308, M1A SOCOM II, Glock 42 .380ACP and a pair Mossy Moss 12ga M500's and a side by side 12ga.

Got crossbows, composite bows, long bows, Japanese recurve bow, morning stars, maces, clubs, 2 Kurkris, couple dozen throwing knives, several hatchets, 4 antique Katana blades made from 1683 to 1749 and a pair of modern combat ready blades made by Korehira Watanabe.

That's just at the house.

The connex I have buried in NV contains the good shit.



Don't care enough to go dig and find it for all the "Parents and educators have no responsibility for how their kids turn out! Poverty is the problem and socialism is the answer!! " crowd.

If you want to find out how important having parents is vs. not there is plenty of information at the end of a google search supporting the idea that contrary to socialist dogma, the state doesn't do anywhere near as good of a job of raising children as an invested pair of parents.

OK, so without seeing the actual research, that seems like a simplistic argument at best.

 

[KimGordon67]

The question you should have asked yourself is why is it that two Free Gun Societies should be so vastly different. It suggests that if the US could somehow learn from the Swiss, You could keep your free access to guns and reduce the level of violence.

Sorry for being serious, I just happen to think that loss of human life is a serious matter.

Obviously I do too. So what is it that you think the Swiss do now that makes the difference, given that we can't really suggest that the US change its history.

 

[KimGordon67]

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hFKNImW5ofbhzFJ9VeqOxCYr8V8=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9371353/gun_ownership_states.png

One of the cornerstones of Que's argument seems to be that in the majority of those cases, the deaths would happen by other means.
Given that his stat that 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and the US doesn't have a particularly high suicide rate (a little higher than the international average, but not overly so), in respect of suicides at least, there's a point to be made there.
However, he also pointed out at the gun death rate would be a lot higher if it weren't for the US's health care system ... so maybe the question is about gun injuries, rather than gun deaths. I need to think about that one a little.

 

[adrina]

One of the cornerstones of Que's argument seems to be that in the majority of those cases, the deaths would happen by other means.
Given that his stat that 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and the US doesn't have a particularly high suicide rate (a little higher than the international average, but not overly so), in respect of suicides at least, there's a point to be made there.
However, he also pointed out at the gun death rate would be a lot higher if it weren't for the US's health care system ... so maybe the question is about gun injuries, rather than gun deaths. I need to think about that one a little.

The chart takes into account all gun deaths - homicides and suicides.

I believe the US healthcare he is talking about is the ER - emergency room services. Which basically should be mirrored in just about every advanced nation. I'm assuming Australia has emergency services, ambulances and emergency rooms/departments in their hospitals. As well as countries like England, Germany etc. Whereas less advanced or war torn countries do not. At least generally.

 

[Que]

Obviously I do too. So what is it that you think the Swiss do now that makes the difference, given that we can't really suggest that the US change its history.

They live in a wealthy, insular, homgeneous society that has no culture glorifying senseless violence.

At some point I should probably take a look at Australian statistics to see what's going on there I recall though that the trend line immediately prior to the gun confiscation was downward (as it has been until lately and all modern Western societies) and that that trendline was constant during the transition.

Maybe now, nearly a generation removed there is a statistical improvement.

 

[KimGordon67]

He's talking utter crap, as usual. And as for the suicide question, "they'll just find another way to do it" is bollocks, too. Google British coal gas for a real eye opener.

Yet US suicide stats aren't particularly high - around 12 per whatever of the population, rather than the international average of 10. (Sorry, I can't remember what the 'whatever of the population' figure actually is, but I looked it up last night. It's just the Wiki entry on the international comparison suicide rates.)

Can you briefly explain the coal gas argument and how it relates to this?

 

[KimGordon67]

Basically, More guns, less crime. I believe that was actually the title of his book. He completely falsified his data then conveniently "lost" it when challenged. He posed as other people online to praise his work and teaching. He peer reviewed his own work. Google Mary Rosh if you want a laugh.

OMG - seriously? How do you even end up in a position where you're able to peer review your own work? It always amazes me that researchers would go to lengths like that ... I guess they could plead the pressures of the neoliberal university environment, but still ... I always end up wondering how much falsified/exaggerated research remains undetected.

 

[Hypoxia]

2nd amendment and its current legal interpretations ain't divine law engraved on granite blocks handed down from Lord {JHWH}, but legal texts devised and variously regarded by humans. They have been changed and will continue so. But as Dubya proclaimed, the US Constitution "is just a scrap of paper." Both individuals and gov't regularly ignore it and have since day one. Legal guarantees are worth the pulp on which they're scribbled.

Physical reality: Firearms suffuse Amerikkka. Pistols can be 3D-printed. Ammo can be smuggled or fabricated. New deadly weapon technologies are imminent. The horse is out of the bag. Control is impossible.

 

[KimGordon67]

The chart takes into account all gun deaths - homicides and suicides.

I believe the US healthcare he is talking about is the ER - emergency room services. Which basically should be mirrored in just about every advanced nation. I'm assuming Australia has emergency services, ambulances and emergency rooms/departments in their hospitals. As well as countries like England, Germany etc. Whereas less advanced or war torn countries do not. At least generally.

OK, I need to think through the first point - I take a while to percolate some stats.

The point that was made (if you look further up the thread) is that the contexts that have higher rates of gun deaths than the US are those in which we'd expect ER services to be much less effective. So Que was kind of disproving his own argument there - if we accept that people getting shot is a problem, the problem seems greater, in terms of international comparisons, than the gun death stats originally suggest.

 

[Sean]

Yet US suicide stats aren't particularly high - around 12 per whatever of the population, rather than the international average of 10. (Sorry, I can't remember what the 'whatever of the population' figure actually is, but I looked it up last night. It's just the Wiki entry on the international comparison suicide rates.)

Can you briefly explain the coal gas argument and how it relates to this?

We used to use coal gas for cooking. And some huge percentage of British suicides were caused by people sticking their heads in the oven. In the early 70s (I remember it when I was a kid) we switched over to North Sea "natural" gas which is far less toxic. The UK suicide rate plummeted AND NEVER WENT BACK UP.

 

[Que]

So if we agree that there is no correlation between rates of violent crime and levels of gun ownership, does that not suggest that gun ownership doesn't result in greater safety? I guess you'd have see the stats on violent crime experienced by gun owners vs non-owners to make that statement definitively - I don't have time to go looking right now, but I'd be surprised if those stats are (reliably) collected by anyone. But at a general level, can we say that high levels of gun ownership have no discernible effects on violent crime either way?

No, there is no data collected on guns used to dissuade a criminal. Also, you obviously can't measure the number of times that a criminal reconsidered his options because he suspected the guy with the NRA sticker on his truck might be armed. I know of no instances where criminal attempted to hold up a gun show, nor a gun shop open for business.

Even without being able to necessarily prove my admittedly s.w.a.g. thesis that guns are a net benefit to society because of the aggregate safety and security (or at least the belief in such) provided to those law-abiding people that choose to arm themselves, I would favor the status quo.

I believe the ability to confidently be in a position to defend oneself is fundamental.

Assuming I lived in a society where there was no culture of guns and there was no particular culture of violence and crime was low I wouldn't see myself for example suggesting the introduction of guns to that environment.

 

[KimGordon67]

They live in a wealthy, insular, homgeneous society that has no culture glorifying senseless violence.

At some point I should probably take a look at Australian statistics to see what's going on there I recall though that the trend line immediately prior to the gun confiscation was downward (as it has been until lately and all modern Western societies) and that that trendline was constant during the transition.

Maybe now, nearly a generation removed there is a statistical improvement.

The report in the link acknowledges there was a historical downward trend, but that it increased markedly after gun control.

So re: the Swiss situation - are you kind of saying there's less gun violence there because there's less poverty? (I know I've probably belaboured that point a little, but it's worth being clear on that.)

 

[KimGordon67]

We used to use coal gas for cooking. And some huge percentage of British suicides were caused by people sticking their heads in the oven. In the early 70s (I remember it when I was a kid) we switched over to North Sea "natural" gas which is far less toxic. The UK suicide rate plummeted AND NEVER WENT BACK UP.

... and nothing else happened in the 70s that might have explained that? (Interesting though.)

 

[KimGordon67]

2nd amendment and its current legal interpretations ain't divine law engraved on granite blocks handed down from Lord {JHWH}, but legal texts devised and variously regarded by humans. They have been changed and will continue so. But as Dubya proclaimed, the US Constitution "is just a scrap of paper." Both individuals and gov't regularly ignore it and have since day one. Legal guarantees are worth the pulp on which they're scribbled.

Physical reality: Firearms suffuse Amerikkka. Pistols can be 3D-printed. Ammo can be smuggled or fabricated. New deadly weapon technologies are imminent. The horse is out of the bag. Control is impossible.

Yeah, 'the Constitution' argument is interesting, especially as an outsider. It does seem to take on a Biblical aspect in some people's understandings.

 

[KimGordon67]

No, there is no data collected on guns used to dissuade a criminal. Also, you obviously can't measure the number of times that a criminal reconsidered his options because he suspected the guy with the NRA sticker on his truck might be armed. I know of no instances where criminal attempted to hold up a gun show, nor a gun shop open for business.

Even without being able to necessarily prove my admittedly s.w.a.g. thesis that guns are a net benefit to society because of the aggregate safety and security (or at least the belief in such) provided to those law-abiding people that choose to arm themselves, I would favor the status quo.

I believe the ability to confidently be in a position to defend oneself is fundamental.

Assuming I lived in a society where there was no culture of guns and there was no particular culture of violence and crime was low I wouldn't see myself for example suggesting the introduction of guns to that environment.

I guess that's my fundamental position on the situation too. Living in a culture that's pretty much as you describe, I know I feel a lot safer knowing that assailants don't have a gun.
There's sort of an element of 'mutually assured destruction' aspect about owning a gun in a culture in which that's normative that, I guess, makes me a little uneasy.

(s.w.a.g.?)

 

[Que]

The report in the link acknowledges there was a historical downward trend, but that it increased markedly after gun control.

So re: the Swiss situation - are you kind of saying there's less gun violence there because there's less poverty? (I know I've probably belaboured that point a little, but it's worth being clear on that.)

I don't have a counter to that but for example are they including suicides? I would think suicides by gun would to increase dramatically when there aren't guns readily available.

I suspect that even such measures as the waiting period mandatory in California probably has a slight benefit in that suicides are going to have time to reconsider.

Whether or not that would yield a net reduction in suicides is hard to say.

It's things are pretty complicated because we're talking about thousands of individual humans doing individual things according to their own motivations.

for example I don't know if anyone is even really looked at how long before the suicide did the person who did suicide by gun happen to a purchase that gun.

did they already have it around the house and having it around the house did that increase their likelihood of using it? do despondent people really drive to gun shops by gun go home and use it? Why not simply shoot themselves in the gun store?

One of the favorite statistics that gun nuts like to use is how much more likely you are to be involved in quote unquote gun violence if you have a gun in the home. Well no shit. They are much more likely to shoot a burglar if they have a gun than if they don't. They are much more likely to use one to commit suicide or to harm a family member that they are raging at if they have a gun.

What is unknowable is how much access to an efficient means to do those things increases their frequency. It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that that is never a factor. Because surely at some point it is.

Suicide attempts by gun are almost always successful. Other means are not as successful. On the unsuccessful attempts you'd have to actually look at each and every case on a case-by-case basis interview them and try to determine did they really want to be successful with it or not? I'm quite sure there are people who sincerely wanted to commit suicide and are alive today because the method they chose was not effective.

On all of these controversial issues people stake out a an indefensible position. I've never heard an anti-gun nut ever once express the possibility that guns have ever made anyone save her at any time. That there aren't people who should be carrying because of the kind of work that they do the environment they are in or the threats that they are facing perhaps from a spurned ex-husband for example.

This is somewhat technical but different states have different requirements for who can and cannot carry concealed. Most states require that you get a permit to do so my state quite sensibly doesn't require that. Some of the states that do we have requirements in to get a concealed carry permit are what are called shall issue States. Meaning that if you meet the requirements to get the training and certification and whatnot you get the permit no further questions asked. Other states are may issue states where the local law enforcement can decide whether or not you get to exercise your natural right as enshrined in the Constitution.

the states were local law enforcement has the option whether to approve or deny your application the amounts of approvals are embarrassingly low. This tells you why you do not want the government deciding whether you do or don't need a pistol.

Heller was legally permitted to own a firearm but basically wasn't allowed to use it because he wasn't allowed to leave his home with it. Which makes ownership moot. SCOTUS affirmed that having the gun WITH you is the point of the 2nd amemdment.

To further complicate things I don't actually agree with Heller. The reason I don't agree with Heller is because the Second Amendment actually only applies to what the federal government can or can't do your local states can and historically have had restrictions on firearm ownership. Unless your state constitution also has an analogous Second Amendment (most do) guaranteeing you that right to keep and bear arms unfettered from State and local control, you don't have that right.

 

[KimGordon67]

On all of these controversial issues people stake out a an indefensible position. I've never heard an anti-gun nut ever once express the possibility that guns have ever made anyone save her at any time. That there aren't people who should be carrying because of the kind of work that they do the environment they are in or the threats that they are facing perhaps from a spurned ex-husband for example.

Well, this is the fundamental problem with the 'safety' argument really, I think from both sides of the equation. In order to make that argument at a population level, you need to have access to stats regarding gun deaths - and assume you can disaggregate on the basis of whether the death would have happened in the absence of a gun. I guess you could use 'unintended gun death' figures, although I'm not entirely sure how that's defined. There's probably some very conservative figure you could arrive at though, as an agreed on measure of 'deaths that only happened because there was a gun in the equation'. But then you'd have to gather equally reliable stats on 'deaths that were prevented because there was a gun in the equation' ... and as we've pretty clearly established, those stats are impossible to get.

 

[KimGordon67]

What is unknowable is how much access to an efficient means to do those things increases their frequency. It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that that is never a factor. Because surely at some point it is.

Anecdotally, I guess I'd instinctively assume that access to a gun in violent encounters increases the likelihood that encounter resulting in death. But this is based only on my experience of being around dickheads who liked beating up other dickheads, and my feeling that if guns were involved, that would have escalated fairly nastily. (And yes, in amongst those dickheads were dickheads prone to killing people, as someone got killed in one of those instances - although I don't think the death was intentional, clearly they decided that level of violence was warranted.) I don't really have any evidence to back up that instinct.

 

[Que]

I guess that's my fundamental position on the situation too. Living in a culture that's pretty much as you describe, I know I feel a lot safer knowing that assailants don't have a gun.
There's sort of an element of 'mutually assured destruction' aspect about owning a gun in a culture in which that's normative that, I guess, makes me a little uneasy.

(s.w.a.g.?)

Stands for scientific wild-assed guess.

What you are describing though, is an environment where you do not realistically expect to have an assailant of any description. If you had such an assailant in mind and you are well aware that your society had a large number of unaccounted-for and illegally held firearms you would feel differently, especially since your assailant would know that you were unarmed. If your society had a large number of rapes and strong arm robbery occurring I can't imagine that you as a woman would feel less safe if you yourself were appropriately trained and armed.

I fully understand why some people my father included would feel that they themselves do not wish to be armed. what I don't understand is how anyone in good conscience can want that for their immediate neighbour that they are aware is a law-abiding person at who would not abuse such societal trust.

If you had a neighbor who had a abusive ex-husband who came around regularly drunk rattling the front door, would you deny her the option of sleeping more soundly knowing that she had a firearm if worse came to worst?

All these possibilities are just simply anecdotes of possibilities but nothing about responsible being people being armed contributes to the rate of criminality, other than the fact that the more responsible gun owners you have in society the more likely that a criminal might in the course of a burglary acquire a firearm. That horse has long left the barn in America run down the path and over into the next County. Austrailians were fairly compliant in turning in guns and they still only got an estimated 25% of the available guns. Such a program in America would easily leave 300 million guns behind. That's assuming of course that you don't touch off the next Civil War which more likely than not would occur.

 

[Que]

Anecdotally, I guess I'd instinctively assume that access to a gun in violent encounters increases the likelihood that encounter resulting in death. But this is based only on my experience of being around dickheads who liked beating up other dickheads, and my feeling that if guns were involved, that would have escalated fairly nastily. (And yes, in amongst those dickheads were dickheads prone to killing people, as someone got killed in one of those instances - although I don't think the death was intentional, clearly they decided that level of violence was warranted.) I don't really have any evidence to back up that instinct.

that's not an unreasonable guess but we're guessing. There are times when I've seen situations where there's a good possibility that people were armed, things were said and nobody engaged. When you are armed, you have an extra responsibility to avoid a physical confrontation because if something you instigated that then resulted in you having to defend yourself is not gping to always be seen as self defense.

Law-abiding trained gun ownets ( we actually did used to have concealed carry licenses and mandatory training for those carrying concealed. . . The dropped requirement of training required now is not necessarily a good thing) are aware that they have a responsibility to avoid confrontations.

Those that are forbidden to carry firearms aren't eager to display or brandish such.

in the west where I live they like to say that an armed Society is a polite Society. I'm not entirely sure that's true but just like in your supposition I think it does occur on occasion.

 

[KimGordon67]

Stands for scientific wild-assed guess.

What you are describing though, is an environment where you do not realistically expect to have an assailant of any description. If you had such an assailant in mind and you are well aware that your society had a large number of unaccounted-for and illegally held firearms you would feel differently, especially since your assailant would know that you were unarmed. If your society had a large number of rapes and strong arm robbery occurring I can't imagine that you as a woman would feel less safe if you yourself were appropriately trained and armed.

I fully understand why some people my father included would feel that they themselves do not wish to be armed. what I don't understand is how anyone in good conscience can want that for their immediate neighbour that they are aware is a law-abiding person at who would not abuse such societal trust.

If you had a neighbor who had a abusive ex-husband who came around regularly drunk rattling the front door, would you deny her the option of sleeping more soundly knowing that she had a firearm if worse came to worst?

All these possibilities are just simply anecdotes of possibilities but nothing about responsible being people being armed contributes to the rate of criminality, other than the fact that the more responsible gun owners you have in society the more likely that a criminal might in the course of a burglary acquire a firearm. That horse has long left the barn in America run down the path and over into the next County. Austrailians were fairly compliant in turning in guns and they still only got an estimated 25% of the available guns. Such a program in America would easily leave 300 million guns behind. That's assuming of course that you don't touch off the next Civil War which more likely than not would occur.

That's not true. I realistically expect to have assailants based on prior experience. I didn't want to reduce this to anecdotal evidence, but I've been dragged off the street by a stranger and successfully fought him off, and I've had someone in my house while me and my husband were sleeping, and my husband successfully dispensed with him. In both instances, had the assailants been armed, I would have been raped, and god knows what would have happened with the guy in our home.
The 'rape' argument is also pretty problematised by the fact that, statistically speaking, you're more likely to be raped by someone you know. So arguing that women will be more protected from rape by possessing guns assumes that not only would they (a) have time to get to their gun (which I wouldn't have in the above situation); (b) been prepared to use it; and (c) been prepared to use against someone they know and often love.
In the 'violent ex husband' scenario described above ... again, she's far more at risk if he has a gun.
The argument for safety presupposed that only the good guys have guns. In a culture in which the bad guys are routinely armed, I can see an argument for the good guys having guns making them safer. But you're ignoring the fact that arming the good guys inevitably results in the bad guys being armed ... and let's remember that the bad guys are bad, and I would presume (although again this a hunch, not evidence-based) subsequently have less qualms about using a gun.

 

[KimGordon67]

that's not an unreasonable guess but we're guessing. There are times when I've seen situations where there's a good possibility that people were armed, things were said and nobody engaged. When you are armed, you have an extra responsibility to avoid a physical confrontation because if something you instigated that then resulted in you having to defend yourself is not gping to always be seen as self defense.

Law-abiding trained gun ownets ( we actually did used to have concealed carry licenses and mandatory training for those carrying concealed. . . The dropped requirement of training required now is not necessarily a good thing) are aware that they have a responsibility to avoid confrontations.

Those that are forbidden to carry firearms aren't eager to display or brandish such.

in the west where I live they like to say that an armed Society is a polite Society. I'm not entirely sure that's true but just like in your supposition I think it does occur on occasion.

... and, as I said in the above statement, you're sort of skirting around the point that having law-abiding trained gun owners means there are guns available, and hence non-law-abiding non-trained gun owners.
Which, I guess, brings me back to my original point. Let's assume the following:
- gun ownership is a right under the Second Amendment;
- the cultural and historical background of the US has resulted in fairly high levels of legal gun ownership;
- significant chunks of the population seem disinclined to tighten up on gun control;
- significant numbers of guns within the population and the relative normalisation of gun ownership inevitably means there's also fairly high levels of non-legal gun ownership;
- a lot of deaths results from non-legal gun ownership.

Is that a problem? And if so, how do you resolve it?

 

[Libsam]

The DOJ quit publishing crime statistics broken down by race... in 2008.

And they had just started releasing crime stats where latinos and whites were separated, instead of all being lumped into the white group.

But those weren't global stats, and I highly doubt the UN is gonna compile global violent crime stats based on race world wide.

How are humans supposed to figure things out if we don't have all the data?
What are they hiding?

 

[KimGordon67]

If you had a neighbor who had a abusive ex-husband who came around regularly drunk rattling the front door, would you deny her the option of sleeping more soundly knowing that she had a firearm if worse came to worst?

Just to follow up on this point, I did some quick & dirty analysis of stats. In 2007, in the US, 0.0007768924302788844% of the population were killed in cases of domestic violence. In Australia, in 2014, the figure was 0.00030264279624893435%. Pretty much half the US figure.

This isn't rigorous research at all, because I just don't have time to do a really thorough breakdown of the stats, and I'm not stupid enough to suggest that gun ownership is the only variable at play here by a long shot (ha!) ... but it does call into question your assertion that (predominantly) women are safer in instances of domestic violence.

 

[Wrmfd]

Yeah, 'the Constitution' argument is interesting, especially as an outsider.

"an outsider" who repeatedly proves she has no American constitutional comprehension at all, and, even worse, scoffs at any such thing actually having anything to do with American constitutional reality...

...when it's got EVERYTHING to do with it.

It does seem to take on a Biblical aspect in some people's understandings.

Only in a Ten Commandmentsesque aspect, maybe, in that Laws are to be obeyed by all.

Other than that, I know of ABSOLUTELY no way the Ten Commandments can be amended, when the Constitution MOST CERTAINLY can and has been - 27 times, so far, in fact.


Socialists revere their nation of men, who change law at subjective whim, subjective law which doesn't ever apply equally to all men. Socialism employs democracy to establish their subjective mob rule.

Individual liberty lovers revere a nation of law, where certain laws are unalienable, fully above all men, thus objectively subjecting all men to them equally. Individual liberty dictates republicanism to establish the rule of law over all.

Socialism is the direct enemy of the Constitution's mandated republican form of government to the US fed government and every one of its states...

Individual liberty, on the other hand, is the very heart, soul and SPIRIT of American constitutionalism itself.