Gun control ... actual question

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Rob hurt me. And now I will hurt Rob.

Holy shit, get a life Q-bert. And stop letting Rob live rent free in that tiny, disturbed head of yours.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

PS - The note about elevation was a bunch of happy horse shit.


For those of us whom have fired automatic weapons, we know they drift. This idiot, maybe a mental case, like Adam Lanza, didn't need to know a damned thing about the "drop." He was just, figuratively, firing at the broad side of a barn...

 

[Weird Harold]

You could kind of say that about anything ... we all have 'our own' reasons for doing anything. But the fact that large numbers of us do the same thing, and often the 'us's' are particular sorts of people, tends to suggest there are usually larger forces in play in shaping those decisions - cultural, economic, etc. The mere fact that the level of gun ownership is so much higher in the US than a lot of other western states is an example of that - you have a culture in which gun ownership is, to some extent, normalised. There is also, within that, a subculture which is pretty vehement in their protection of the right to gun ownership. Outside that population of gun owners is another subculture of people who are pretty vehement in their opposition to gun ownership and/or their desire for great regulation.

My point is that there are several broad categories of gun owners that get lumped into a single "culture" called "Gun Nuts." They tend to band together in opposition to the small but vocal anti-gun faction with the avowed -- and openly stated -- goal of not only banning but confiscating all firearms in private hands. Their openly stated tactic is to get the "gun nuts" to accept small incremental encroachments on the Second Amendment until a total ban is "only one more small step."

The rabid gun-grabbers tend to be urban, upper middle-class people. They have never faced a wild animal or needed to protect stock from predators or crops from "varmints."

The rabid "gun nuts" tend to be survivalists, libertarians, and outdoorsmen (campers, hikers, hunters, etc.)

There are a lot of variations between those two extremes.

As an aside, the structure of the Senate and Electoral College were designed to reduce the influence of urban concentrations of population. What might be appropriate restrictions on urban populations is totally inappropriate for sparsely populated non-urban settings.

The broader issue is the mindset that dictates that "Something Must Be Done" and "There Ought to be a Law" ignores the minor detail that passing a law that does nothing to correct the problem -- or addresses a problem that doesn't exist -- resulting in laws against carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket or a ban on cosmetic features of a firearm that fit a arbitrary definition of a weapon that doesn't exist and never has existed.

 

[richard_daily]

Out of the 74 countries for which data seems to be available, the US has the 11th highest rate of gun deaths (and the 10 higher countries are not exactly surprising). Of the 64 countries for which data is available, the US is the 12th highest for accidental gun deaths. (Source - yes, it's Wikipedia, but the way they make their tables able to be manipulated works pretty well. If anyone has a more reliable source for these data, I'd be interested to see it.)

Since the Vegas shooting, I've read a lot of stuff here and been thinking a lot about the issue of gun control. I personally don't have a problem with guns as a concept. However, we don't own a gun, and we don't live in a context in which gun ownership is common. We also have an incredibly low rate of gun death.

I've learnt a lot about the Second Amendment in the last few days, and read quite complex arguments about how gun ownership is a 'right' ... I'm not sill convinced that it's a human right, but I get that it's a right under the US constitution. And I have a better understanding (although far from complete) of the history of the US that's created the culture in which that seems to make sense.

So, in the light of all that, I'm thinking most people would still agree the stats in para one above are not great? Given that, what is proposed as the solution? If you don't think greater gun control is the answer, what is?

It would be great if any thoughts along any lines were supported by actual evidence.

*Feel free to hurl whatever insults you want in my general direction in response to anything that's said in this thread, but I won't respond to that. I'm actually genuinely interested in getting an understanding of the situation.

Maybe I'm reading the source wrong, but after sorting for "firearm related deaths per gun per year (the last column), the US came in 46th.

 

[DeYaKen]

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.

You can't change history but you can change the way you view it. You can look back on it and say "We're never going to do that again" or you can look upon it as a golden age and long for it's return.

Switzerland still has conscription so most Swiss males have served some time in the army. After service they are usually in the reserve and keep their semi-automatic long gun at home.

All firearms have to be registered to an individual and their address is verified. That's why for a long gun you can buy it in the morning but can't take it away until later in the day. Handguns require a background check which takes two days. This includes criminal record etc. These measures are not designed to stop people owning guns, they were designed to keep them out of the hands of people who pose a risk to the public.

There is another thing to take into account. The Swiss don't seem to get as angry as most of the Americans I meet on here. There is much higher equality of income there and that may well have something to do with it.

 

[Weird Harold]

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.

One difference is that the Swiss have mandatory military service that actually encompasses a large percentage of the male population. As a result, there is far more familiarity and training with firearms than (currently) in the US.

The US has lost its general familiarity with firearms while retaining the freedom of the Second Amendment. Schools used to have rifle and pistol teams, host "hunter safety" courses for junior hunters and adults, and just in general support firearms safety and education. Now second and third graders can't even draw a picture of a gun without being counseled or expelled.

 

[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.

Thanks ... I'll have a look at those, or at least the NY Post article. I'm generally OK with opinion pieces if they're well researched, not full of hyperbole, and actually analytical.

 

[KimGordon67]

Here's an echo of something that I already noted about "common sense" gun laws and the people whom had never even heard of bump stocks:



http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/06/a-prospective-bump-stock-ban-shows-how-d

I don't really understand what your point is.

 

[KimGordon67]

http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/08/overcoming-confirmation-bias-on-guns

Where, in this particular thread, have I demonstrated confirmation bias? As I've repeatedly said, I've actually modified my perspective in certain respects in the face of evidence ... in one particular case, evidence that I found myself, not anything provided by anyone else.

 

[KimGordon67]

Jesus Christ, back on the 'culture' trip. I don't suppose that it ever occurred to you that it's because we can. Because the government doesn't have the means to pass a law to make it safe for them to take our other freedoms away.

Look at the UK. They disarmed their populace and now they're regulating free speech. What is the next domino to fall in the governments relentless drive to control all aspects of their lives? It's all about control, of your life, my life. The selling of the notion that the government knows best and will take care of you. Four thousand years of recorded history put lie to that thought.

The government cannot make you safe from anything. Shit, they can't even build a road anymore.

Ishmael

Where have I said that?

The notion of 'freedom' is a tricky concept. You could say you have the right to be 'free' to own as many guns as you want. Someone else could argue that they have the right to 'free' from the increased likelihood of being shot. 'Freedom' doesn't just mean you get to do whatever you want ... well, I guess at it's root it does, but you're sort of ignoring the fact that you live in a society.

 

[erostwo]

Side Bar

If your not quite sure of the job qualifications you proclaim it from the bench!

 

[KimGordon67]

My point is that there are several broad categories of gun owners that get lumped into a single "culture" called "Gun Nuts." They tend to band together in opposition to the small but vocal anti-gun faction with the avowed -- and openly stated -- goal of not only banning but confiscating all firearms in private hands. Their openly stated tactic is to get the "gun nuts" to accept small incremental encroachments on the Second Amendment until a total ban is "only one more small step."

The rabid gun-grabbers tend to be urban, upper middle-class people. They have never faced a wild animal or needed to protect stock from predators or crops from "varmints."

The rabid "gun nuts" tend to be survivalists, libertarians, and outdoorsmen (campers, hikers, hunters, etc.)

There are a lot of variations between those two extremes.

As an aside, the structure of the Senate and Electoral College were designed to reduce the influence of urban concentrations of population. What might be appropriate restrictions on urban populations is totally inappropriate for sparsely populated non-urban settings.

The broader issue is the mindset that dictates that "Something Must Be Done" and "There Ought to be a Law" ignores the minor detail that passing a law that does nothing to correct the problem -- or addresses a problem that doesn't exist -- resulting in laws against carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket or a ban on cosmetic features of a firearm that fit a arbitrary definition of a weapon that doesn't exist and never has existed.

I don't think I ever either explicitly or implicitly referenced gun nut or gun grabbers (a term I'm not even familiar with).
I also don't think I've said 'there ought to be a law' ... I'm interested in suggested solutions to an apparent problem. 'There isn't a problem' does seem to be one argument. I'm not entirely sure that I'm in agreement with that - I'm still thinking through the argument.

 

[KimGordon67]

Maybe I'm reading the source wrong, but after sorting for "firearm related deaths per gun per year (the last column), the US came in 46th.

Ah - I see your point. I'll think about that a bit. I do like how Wiki (or the contributors or whoever) construct tables like that. Digging around in stats, at least at a basic level, has definitely gotten a lot easier in the last decade or so.

 

[KimGordon67]

You can't change history but you can change the way you view it. You can look back on it and say "We're never going to do that again" or you can look upon it as a golden age and long for it's return.

Switzerland still has conscription so most Swiss males have served some time in the army. After service they are usually in the reserve and keep their semi-automatic long gun at home.

All firearms have to be registered to an individual and their address is verified. That's why for a long gun you can buy it in the morning but can't take it away until later in the day. Handguns require a background check which takes two days. This includes criminal record etc. These measures are not designed to stop people owning guns, they were designed to keep them out of the hands of people who pose a risk to the public.

There is another thing to take into account. The Swiss don't seem to get as angry as most of the Americans I meet on here. There is much higher equality of income there and that may well have something to do with it.

Indeed. It would actually be interesting to look at the correlation of gun violence with income equality. (It's only men who are conscripted? I'd never thought about that - and one of my best friends is Swiss. It just never crossed my mind to ask her about it.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

There is another thing to take into account. The Swiss don't seem to get as angry as most of the Americans I meet on here. There is much higher equality of income there and that may well have something to do with it.

LMFAO!

It's clear that socialism makes people less angry and more peaceful....

Just like all the Dear Leaders who impose said equality of income.

https://img00.deviantart.net/7491/i/2004/03/1/c/socialist_leaders.jpg

 

[MGurkus]

I generally choose to interact with or not interact with people including Rob and his puppets based on how they present themselves in a particular post and I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else who to interact with about what, but I feel like I should point out to you that this is RobDownSouth's recently formed alt. He created it to replace his FreudianSlip alt that he had tarnished by going full "Skiddles" mode.

He had gotten some traction with that particular all by presenting fairly reasonable, intelligent-sounding posts where he borrows (without attribution) from scholarly sources. This particular sock puppet of his is supposed to be the new "smart" one.

He's not very organized about all of this so he frequently forgets which sock puppet he's using for what. The one thing he is consistent about is on his parent account RobDownSouth he always has a reference to me in his profile. He has made it his mission for the last 3 or 4 years to quote run me off the board unquote.



This is RobDownSouth in full unfiltered mode.^^^^

He has a rotating, never-ending army of sock puppets that he uses to impugn other people by making it appear that more than one person is fighting with his target while keeping RobDownSouth looking less manaically obsessed with "winning" the internet than he actually is.

What triggered you today? Whoa! LMAO!!!

 

[Weird Harold]

I also don't think I've said 'there ought to be a law' ... I'm interested in suggested solutions to an apparent problem.

No, you haven't said that explicitly. The solutions most often suggested are of the "ought to be a law" variety. I can't suggest many solutions, but I can point out the mindset that drives many proposed solutions that won't work.

'There isn't a problem' does seem to be one argument. I'm not entirely sure that I'm in agreement with that - I'm still thinking through the argument.

There are definitely problems. Note the plural there. Defining the problem to be solved is a necessary prerequisite to finding a solution that works. Only a very small fraction of legally owned guns are involved in human deaths. There are far greater corelations to be found than the availability of guns -- mental illness, drugs (legal and illegal,) gang rivalries, etc.

Just because each corelation would require separate study and understanding before crafting an effective solution, blaming everything on guns is easier to craft a single band-aid to give the appearance of "Doing something." Even if "guns" were the sole source of the perceived problem, the band-aid fixes proposed -- such as banning "bump stocks" -- don't do anything that really enforcing existing laws wouldn't do.

 

[richard_daily]

Ah - I see your point. I'll think about that a bit. I do like how Wiki (or the contributors or whoever) construct tables like that. Digging around in stats, at least at a basic level, has definitely gotten a lot easier in the last decade or so.

I think out of all of the stats there, that's the most important one. Of course, others may have other opinions, but based on that stat, it doesn't seem like the US HAS a gun problem.

I think the manufactured outrage serves a purpose, and the purpose isn't to grant more freedoms or civil liberties.

 

[richard_daily]

Indeed. It would actually be interesting to look at the correlation of gun violence with income equality. (It's only men who are conscripted? I'd never thought about that - and one of my best friends is Swiss. It just never crossed my mind to ask her about it.)

I don't completely disagree with the Swiss model of compulsory service. That said, if it was implemented in the US, I'd like to see options for people to do other sorts of compulsory service other than military duty.

 

[KimGordon67]

I don't completely disagree with the Swiss model of compulsory service. That said, if it was implemented in the US, I'd like to see options for people to do other sorts of compulsory service other than military duty.

Swiss military service isn't something I know much about ... I might do a bit of research to see exactly what that entails. The historical rationale for the existence of conscription would be interesting too. I think there's something to be said for making some sort of civic 'duty' a component of citizenship.

 

[KimGordon67]

LMFAO!

It's clear that socialism makes people less angry and more peaceful....

Just like all the Dear Leaders who impose said equality of income.

https://img00.deviantart.net/7491/i/2004/03/1/c/socialist_leaders.jpg

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

 

[lickitandstickit]

Mandatory service huh? Mexico might wanna put up their own wall, and judging from the last "draft" Canada might think of the same.

 

[KimGordon67]

Mandatory service huh? Mexico might wanna put up their own wall, and judging from the last "draft" Canada might think of the same.

I'm not really sure what I think about it. But I'm interested in how it works for Switzerland.

 

[lickitandstickit]

I'm not really sure what I think about it. But I'm interested in how it works for Switzerland.

In theory its a good idea, but argued by the left, then right and everyone in between it'll have more holes than a colander. Nobody is right or wrong persay, the first argument you will hear is we're not Switzerland.. Then it'll spiral out of control from there.

 

[Wrmfd]

I'm not really sure what I think about it. But I'm interested in how it works for Switzerland.

While you're disingenuously, irrelevantly and statistly swooning over Switzerland, don't forget the ELEPHANT in that, your wannabe room:

Racial makeup of Switzerland:

so-called "White" = 94%

Other = 6%