Gun control ... actual question

[KimGordon67]

What woman doesn't?

Oh ... yeah. I forget about that inherent weakness. My lady brain is so full of icing recipes and patterns for sewing curtains, it just slips my mind that I'm relatively helpless.

 

[DeYaKen]

I wasn't aware that Switzerland was socialist. They do a really good job of hiding that.

They certainly do. In fact, they have some of the most liberal money laws in the world. However, the country is highly regulated. Especially in the area of pollution control.

As far as equality of income goes, it doesn't have to be imposed by government. The country with the most equality of income is Japan. There it just happens, the government has nothing to do with it.

You can study the difference equality of income makes just by studying different states in the US.

In the book The Spirit Level this is described in detail.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spirit-Level-Equality-Better-Everyone/dp/0241954290

This gives you some information but it is not just about guns but violence as a whole
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/violence

The data for the US came from official US government figures.

 

[KimGordon67]

They certainly do. In fact, they have some of the most liberal money laws in the world. However, the country is highly regulated. Especially in the area of pollution control.

As far as equality of income goes, it doesn't have to be imposed by government. The country with the most equality of income is Japan. There it just happens, the government has nothing to do with it.

You can study the difference equality of income makes just by studying different states in the US.

In the book The Spirit Level this is described in detail.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spirit-Level-Equality-Better-Everyone/dp/0241954290

This gives you some information but it is not just about guns but violence as a whole
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/violence

The data for the US came from official US government figures.

I've been meaning to get around to reading The Spirit Level for ages. Hopefully NEXT year I'll be able to start tackling some of the books on the 'meaning to' list.

 

[KimGordon67]

Much as I would like to agree, that doesn't make a good metric. Americans for sure have more than one gun per person. Possibly as much as one and a half guns per person. it's hard to say how many households actually have guns because of course no one that illegally has guns reports on surveys of such and anybody with any common sense doesn't tell anyone over the phone yes I have a gun in the house would you like to come steal it?

Most estimates is ownership is somewhere around a third of American households I would guess it's probably closer to a half but for the sake of discussion lets go with the third. That would mean all of those figures that you're looking at represent households with three guns a piece or more. I would guess with notable exceptions such as the vegas shooter people with large numbers of guns are the least likely to use them. if tomorrow we went out and manufactured a bunch of guns and distributed them to already existing owners that wouldn't lower (or raise) expectations as to the number of crimes that might be committed. So having more guns per person is a false metric. Individuals owning multiple guns are watering down that statistic.

If statistics were available of the number of armed citizens versus number of citizens committing gun crimes that would be a useful comparison.

Een that would be problematic because it's hard to say whether some of the gun crimes were multiple crimes by the same individual.

Yeah, that was sort of my thinking too, but it was 5am and I couldn't really articulate it properly. To some extent, it doesn't matter so much how many guns a person has. They can only use one at a time. (Well, two I guess, but you'd have to be fairly enthusiastic.)
[Having said that, I do think 48 seems somewhat excessive. I'm still somewhat alarmed that stockpiling that number of firearms doesn't rings an alarm bell somewhere - surely, unless you're a collector, that's an indication that something's not quite right? I understand that the laws vary state by state - am I right in thinking that in some states, you'd have to register every gun, but in others, you just have one licence that allow you to own 'guns' ... but in some states is there no licencing or registration?]

I think the bolded point above is right, which points to complexity of establishing the extent of the issue ... if there is an issue ... but would you also have to include the number of deaths/crimes prevented through gun ownership as well?

 

[KimGordon67]

Please read nypost.com/the-depressing-truth-about-gun-control. Written by Leah Libresco formerly of fivethirtyeight.com. While the NY Post article is an opinion piece, it is in reference to a fivethiryeight series Gun Deaths in America. If you read that series it lists where the statistics in the series are referenced as well as the the companion articles.

It's interesting reading without all the hyperbolic rhetoric used in most mainstream articles and might give you a different insight into the issue.

This is possibly one of the most useful things I've read thus far - I really like the focus on the victims of gun violence, rather than those perpetrating it.

So ... the suicide stats, while obviously depressing, aren't, as far as I can gather, really linked to guns. The US suicide rates, while a bit higher than the international average, isn't startling. [The obvious proviso here is that suicide stats, like rape stats, are not particularly reliable.] Although there is evidence that maybe there's a correlation: "Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states." (Source) However, I think the solution here is pretty obvious. (Well, maybe not obvious, as if it were it would already be enacted, but I'm sceptical that tighter gun regulation would make a difference.)

The other two areas ... hmmm.

 

[KimGordon67]

... and while I was writing that post, I was PMed an invitation to RP with someone with a BBC. Apparently some people DO find talking about gun control erotic. Who would have thought?

 

[KimGordon67]

This is possibly one of the most useful things I've read thus far - I really like the focus on the victims of gun violence, rather than those perpetrating it.

So ... the suicide stats, while obviously depressing, aren't, as far as I can gather, really linked to guns. The US suicide rates, while a bit higher than the international average, isn't startling. [The obvious proviso here is that suicide stats, like rape stats, are not particularly reliable.] Although there is evidence that maybe there's a correlation: "Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states." (Source) However, I think the solution here is pretty obvious. (Well, maybe not obvious, as if it were it would already be enacted, but I'm sceptical that tighter gun regulation would make a difference.)

The other two areas ... hmmm.

So, in 2013 5% of gun-related homicides were domestic violence incidents - not quite the staggering rate the NYPost article implied, but still an issue worth addressing - I'm assuming we can all agree that people being killed by their (ex)partners, or the ex-partners of their current partners is not a desirable situation.
The regulation of gun ownership in instances of domestic violence seems patchy and fairly minimal in many cases (source)
Is one possibility tightening up that situation? For example, if someone is issued with a restraining order, removing their guns and revoking their legal ownership of guns (however 'legal ownership of guns' is established - I still can't quite work that out).

 

[BotanyBoy]

Is one possibility tightening up that situation? For example, if someone is issued with a restraining order, removing their guns and revoking their legal ownership of guns (however 'legal ownership of guns' is established - I still can't quite work that out).

No it's usually not.

In the USA someone getting a restraining order against you isn't sufficient to strip you of your rights. If a judge sees fit they might be able to intervene on some levels but because our constitution neuters the government from infringing upon citizens it usually requires probable cause to suspend someones rights and due process to permanently take them.

Legal ownership is established by the Constitution under 2A as a right.

If you're a citizen that hasn't specifically been stripped of the right to bear arms in accordance with the law (due process) then you have the legal right to own guns.

 

[KimGordon67]

No it's usually not.

In the USA someone getting a restraining order against you isn't sufficient to strip you of your rights. If a judge sees fit they might be able to intervene on some levels but because our constitution neuters the government from infringing upon citizens it usually requires probable cause to suspend someones rights and due process to permanently take them.

Legal ownership is established by the Constitution under 2A as a civil right.

If you're a citizen that hasn't specifically been stripped of the right to bear arms in accordance with the law (due process) then you have the legal right to own guns.

So you think that protecting that constitutional right on the part of people who perpetrate domestic violence takes precedence over the rights of approximately 600 people a year to not be killed?

I'm assuming you don't extend that protection to felons though?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you think that protecting that constitutional right on the part of people who perpetrate domestic violence takes precedence over the rights of approximately 600 people a year to not be killed?

No and neither do most states. If you're a convicted of DV you loose those rights, in most jurisdictions if there is probable cause a judge can suspend those rights pending trial.

The problem here is called due process.

Because of the Constitution legally protects our rights the state can't just run around stripping people of their rights all willy nilly. They have a process by which they must follow in order to strip peoples rights from them, without that process there are no rights.

And about 600 times a year, the crazies slip through that due process crack. Because they haven't been convicted of anything, and the judge didn't have what they needed in order to arrest/disarm someone.

The right to due process and a speedy trial BEFORE the state can take any of my rights from me, I do think is worth 600~ lives a year if not a significantly higher number. I'd fight and die on that hill with no regrets.

I'm assuming you don't extend that protection to felons though?

No. While some states operate differently, generally speaking being a convicted felon means you're fucked and have no rights.

 

[DeYaKen]

So, in 2013 5% of gun-related homicides were domestic violence incidents - not quite the staggering rate the NYPost article implied, but still an issue worth addressing - I'm assuming we can all agree that people being killed by their (ex)partners, or the ex-partners of their current partners is not a desirable situation.
The regulation of gun ownership in instances of domestic violence seems patchy and fairly minimal in many cases (source)
Is one possibility tightening up that situation? For example, if someone is issued with a restraining order, removing their guns and revoking their legal ownership of guns (however 'legal ownership of guns' is established - I still can't quite work that out).

Owning a gun certainly makes this easier, but, as we in Britain know, not having a gun doesn't stop it happening. A restraining order can only be used after the event. It is supposed to be a deterrent but it only works with people who are thinking logically. If hate or anxiety overrule rationality, as is often the case with spousal murder, restraining orders mean nothing. The deed is done before the order can be enforced. The weapon can be a knife, fists or anything that comes to hand.

 

[KimGordon67]

No and neither do most states. If you're a convicted of DV you loose those rights, in most jurisdictions if there is probable cause a judge can suspend those rights pending trial.

The problem here is called due process.

Because of the Constitution legally protects our rights the state can't just run around stripping people of their rights all willy nilly. They have a process by which they must follow in order to strip peoples rights from them, without that process there are no rights.




No. While some states operate differently, generally speaking being a convicted felon means you're fucked and have no rights.

Taking a protection order out is surely not something one does 'willy nilly'? Yes, no doubt you can cite one case where a woman did it out of spite where her (ex) partner was clearly innocent, but in the vast majority of cases, women who take out protection orders do so with good reason. If their (ex) partners are still allowed to have guns ... well, to be honest, I consider the wisdom of the protection order, given that research tends to demonstrate that those sort of actions make many men even angrier. So you end up in a situation were not only are (ex)partners getting killed, but there seems a good likelihood that the risk is preventing other women from using the legal system to protect them. But that's all OK because the Second Amendment?

 

[AnneSexton]

This is possibly one of the most useful things I've read thus far - I really like the focus on the victims of gun violence, rather than those perpetrating...

I heard this song on the radio the other day and thought it was so moving and powerful. It’s perhaps not “useful” but, it is topical, and I thought you might like it.



Somewhere in America by the Aternate Routes

LYRICS:

The last thing that my father saw
When he was still alive.
Was the gun in the hands of a sick young man
with bright blue eyes.
A man who looked just like me,
As far as anyone else could see
A stranger, not an enemy
And my mother watched it all.
That was the last thing that she saw.
Somewhere in America
A phone’s about to ring.
Nothing can prepare you for
the news it’s going to bring.
Nothing ever changes
Just the names and faces.
Somewhere in America
A phone’s about to ring.
An unlucky break
wrong time, wrong place
I’ve heard them all so many times.
If your dad had had a gun of his own,
maybe they’d still be alive.
But I still can’t believe the resistance.
The denial, the insistence
When somethings broken
that clearly needs fixing
You can fight to change
Or you can fight to stay the same.
Somewhere in America
the news is about to break
Nothing can prepare you for
The toll it’s gonna take
Nothing ever changes
Just the dates and the locations.
Somewhere in America
The news is about to break.
How long is too long
Before the words you can’t say
Just speak for you.
The years have been kind ma
I’ve got a son now of my own.
When I think of what I’ll tell him happened to you
I still don’t know.
That the worlds a much safer place
That kind of danger,
you won’t ever have to face.
I pray he lives to see that day
No idea what I’m going to say.
Somewhere in America
A phone’s about to ring
Nothing can prepare you for
the news its going to bring.
All this while we’ve been waiting
taking time and debating
Somewhere in America
A phone’s about to ring
Somewhere in America

 

[KimGordon67]

Owning a gun certainly makes this easier, but, as we in Britain know, not having a gun doesn't stop it happening. A restraining order can only be used after the event. It is supposed to be a deterrent but it only works with people who are thinking logically. If hate or anxiety overrule rationality, as is often the case with spousal murder, restraining orders mean nothing. The deed is done before the order can be enforced. The weapon can be a knife, fists or anything that comes to hand.

In 2011, 926 women were killed by a partner in the US. (source) Of those, 614 were gun-related deaths - so approximately 2/3. (source)

I'm sceptical the number would be so high if there weren't guns involved. I'm loathe to do international comparisons, because there's a grillion confounding variables, but here if you get the equivalent of a restraining order taken out against you, you have to surrender any guns, and your gun licence is suspended. Here, the proportion of DV homicides committed by guns is 17%.

Maybe the people here using other methods would have just used guns if they were available ... or maybe access to firearms increases the likelihood of DV deaths.

 

[KimGordon67]

I heard this song on the radio the other day and thought it was so moving and powerful. It’s perhaps not “useful” but, it is topical, and I thought you might like it.



Somewhere in America by the Aternate Routes

LYRICS:

The last thing that my father saw
When he was still alive.
Was the gun in the hands of a sick young man
with bright blue eyes.
A man who looked just like me,
As far as anyone else could see
A stranger, not an enemy
And my mother watched it all.
That was the last thing that she saw.
Somewhere in America
A phone’s about to ring.
Nothing can prepare you for
the news it’s going to bring.
Nothing ever changes
Just the names and faces.
Somewhere in America
A phone’s about to ring.
An unlucky break
wrong time, wrong place
I’ve heard them all so many times.
If your dad had had a gun of his own,
maybe they’d still be alive.
But I still can’t believe the resistance.
The denial, the insistence
When somethings broken
that clearly needs fixing
You can fight to change
Or you can fight to stay the same.
Somewhere in America
the news is about to break
Nothing can prepare you for
The toll it’s gonna take
Nothing ever changes
Just the dates and the locations.
Somewhere in America
The news is about to break.
How long is too long
Before the words you can’t say
Just speak for you.
The years have been kind ma
I’ve got a son now of my own.
When I think of what I’ll tell him happened to you
I still don’t know.
That the worlds a much safer place
That kind of danger,
you won’t ever have to face.
I pray he lives to see that day
No idea what I’m going to say.
Somewhere in America
A phone’s about to ring
Nothing can prepare you for
the news its going to bring.
All this while we’ve been waiting
taking time and debating
Somewhere in America
A phone’s about to ring
Somewhere in America

Yeah ... as with the abortion debate, I think it's important to add a human face to the stats sometimes. Even, really, in the reverse situation - it's been interesting for me to have apparently quite sane and reasonable people say that having a gun makes them feel safer, and in some instances has literally made them safe. I'm still convinced that's a good universal argument, but it explains things to me a little bit.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Taking a protection order out is surely not something one does 'willy nilly'?

A persons sense of security isn't probable cause for arrest, suspension of rights or confiscation of property.

Yes, no doubt you, but in the vast majority of cases, women who take out protection orders do so with good reason.

I'm sure. But a restraining order is something you get so you (or the state in the case of your eventual demise) can be used against the other person in court.

If their (ex) partners are still allowed to have guns ... well, to be honest, I consider the wisdom of the protection order, given that research tends to demonstrate that those sort of actions make many men even angrier.

Their ex-partners are entitled to due process.

If you can't show a judge probable cause then you don't get to take their rights, liberty or property from them.

There is a criteria in the USA to be met in order to strip a citizen of their rights, liberty and property.

"I feel scared!!" doesn't cut it no matter how justified that fear might be.

So you end up in a situation were not only are (ex)partners getting killed, but there seems a good likelihood that the risk is preventing other women from using the legal system to protect them.

The risk is lying to women and telling them that the legal system even exist to protect them.

Because it doesn't. There is no magical paperwork that will stop Mr.Murderer from doing his murdering.

Only thing stopping him is a roll of the dice luck you have a police officer on hand, or the ability to defend yourself against the attack.

But that's all OK because the Second Amendment?

It's all ok because civil rights, as a whole, at large.

Without due process, there is no such thing as civil rights. It's just the god state at that point bullying whoever they want however they want. Little better than a high end mafia.

 

[KimGordon67]

A persons sense of security isn't probable cause for arrest, suspension of rights or confiscation of property.



I'm sure. But a restraining order is something you get so you (or the state in the case of your eventual demise) can be used against the other person in court.



Their ex-partners are entitled to due process.

If you can't show a judge probable cause, or have the gumption to charge that piece of shit the last 2,000 times he beat the piss out of you and you didn't press charges and took him back cuz' ya love em......

Then you don't get to take their rights, liberty or property from them.

There is a criteria in the USA to be met in order to strip a citizen of their rights, liberty and property.

"I feel scared!!" doesn't cut it.



The risk is lying to women and telling them that the legal system even exist to protect them.

Because it doesn't. There is no magical paperwork that will stop Mr.Murderer from doing his murdering.

Only thing stopping him is a roll of the dice luck you have a police officer on hand, or the ability to defend yourself against the attack.



It's all ok because civil rights, as a whole, at large.

Without due process, there is no such thing as civil rights. It's just the god state at that point bullying whoever they want however they want. Little better than a high end mafia.

I've maybe misunderstood how restraining orders work.

The rest of your posts suggests we have fairly fundamental differences in our understandings of domestic violence, so I'll just leave it there.

 

[Que]

Devoted anti-gun nut Terry McAuliffe in an effort to improve Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected essentially restored voting rights to a fifth of a million felons. Restoration of gun rights don't necessarily follow but as this article in the liberal Washington Post shows it's easier for them to get gun rights once they have voting rights because it doesn't make a lot of sense to deny the gun rights if they've had their voting rights restored.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/in-virginia-felon-voting-rights-mean-a-simpler-path-to-gun-ownership/2016/05/20/5980101e-1e92-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?utm_term=.feba83cad0fd

 

[KimGordon67]

Devoted anti-gun nut Terry McAuliffe in an effort to improve Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected essentially restored voting rights to a fifth of a million felons. Restoration of gun rights don't necessarily follow but as this article in the liberal Washington Post shows it's easier for them to get gun rights once they have voting rights because it doesn't make a lot of sense to deny the gun rights if they've had their voting rights restored.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/in-virginia-felon-voting-rights-mean-a-simpler-path-to-gun-ownership/2016/05/20/5980101e-1e92-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?utm_term=.feba83cad0fd

I personally find the idea of denying someone the right to vote because they, at some point in their lives, committed a felony pretty abhorrent.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*



The only real criminals are conservatives clinging to their culture, guns and Bibles...

 

[BotanyBoy]

I've maybe misunderstood how restraining orders work.

In most cases you just go petition the court for one.

They give you a piece of paper that says Jon/Jane Doe can't come within 500yard of you, your work or your residence.

If you catch them you can show it to a cop and NOW they are fucked by the law.

But if they decide to just kill you, then you're fucked.

The rest of your posts suggests we have fairly fundamental differences in our understandings of domestic violence, so I'll just leave it there.

I don't think it's the DV where we have a misunderstanding.

I think the difference is in what what we think a civil right is, which would fit culturally and from a political perspective.

 

[AnneSexton]

Yeah ... as with the abortion debate, I think it's important to add a human face to the stats sometimes. Even, really, in the reverse situation - it's been interesting for me to have apparently quite sane and reasonable people say that having a gun makes them feel safer, and in some instances has literally made them safe. I'm still convinced that's a good universal argument, but it explains things to me a little bit.

I agree.

Also, speaking of sane and reasonable people, I like reading your conversations with other people here.

 

[KimGordon67]

I agree.

Also, speaking of sane and reasonable people, I like reading your conversations with other people here.

Well thanks. I think I've expressed my fondness for your poetry elsewhere.

(Actually, that joke would work better if you were complimenting me on my killer basslines ... but oh well.)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I personally find the idea of denying someone the right to vote because they, at some point in their lives, committed a felony pretty abhorrent.

Especially for those that committed election fraud!

Mm-Mm, That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
http://cdn.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/sharpton-melowese.jpg
That's what I voted for!
6 TIMES!

 

[Wrmfd]

American constitutionalism overall:

Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

As it applies to weapon possession:

Everyone is naturally endowed with the unalienable right to keep and bear arms, and government can only obstruct that right if an individual commits felonies or suffers mental illness.

Indiana's Constitution is a perfect example: a citizen doesn't have to have any "reason" to carry a weapon because the law of that land recognizes keeping and bearing as a natural, unalienable right. The state has no power to deny a concealed carry permit to any citizen - unless they've committed felonies or have history of mental illness.

Indiana's concealed carry permit process is simple, swift and easy, and it used to cost just $25; it also used to offer a lifetime permit for just $100.

Socialism overall:

Everyone is at least a suspect - if not guilty - until they can convince the state otherwise. WHICH. ALMOST. NEVER. HAPPENS.

As it applies to weapon possession:

No individual has any "right" to freely keep and bear arms; government either outright outlaws such possession or it totally controls/regulates the possession of arms only to it and those elite few who government allows.

New York City is a perfect example: you can research yourself all the obstacles NYPD purposely puts in your way to even conduct its lengthy permit process; you also have to submit a Letter of Necessity to justify to the state why you have the audacity to even believe you have any need for a weapon at all (and, yes: the state decides whether your necessity merits approval - which it overwhelmingly doesn't); it's process is costly: over $425 - almost 20x Indiana's cost - non-refundable.


These are the fundamental differences between America constitutionalism and the rest of the world's socialism regarding this issue, and it's stark exposition of exactly how individual liberty and statism totally contradict each other certainly illustrates why socialists - whether foreign enemies to the Constitution like the OP, or domestic enemies like GB progressives - have no degree of appreciation, let alone reverence, for the natural freedom of individual man to defend his life, liberty, and property.