84 replies to this topic

[The Average Joe]

As Obama begins to use executive action for "common sense" gun control,and when you hear politicians talk of "common sense" laws,  consider the fact that NONE of their proposed laws would have stopped ANY of the mass shootings. Nor do they have much common sense....i.e. it doesn't make sense to focus on scary "assault rifles" when they are responsible for less than 1% of gun crime, while having no similar focus on handguns which are responsible for the vast majority of gun crime.

 

If you know of ANY gun control proposals that are a: Constitutional   b: practical   and c:effective, please post them here so we can have a rational discussion.

 

https://youtu.be/-Rn3IDgs_BY

 

[ghost35me]

There are some, not unexpected, voicing that gun control is a fallacy.Criteria a, b, c above are difficult. a is challenging in and of itself. and c is problematic depending on what the problem statement really is and how one might measure effectiveness.

 

NRA:

 

WaPo Fact Checker:

https://www.washingt...id=ss_fb-bottom

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Unfortunately, firearms are a highly polarizing topic.  At every mass shooting, two things are always present...a nut job and a firearm.  Both contribute.  Sadly, the opposing political factions both retreat to their ideological corners.  One side claims the firearm has nothing to do with it, the other side claims the nut job has nothing to do with it.  Both views are irrational. 

 

I believe this is the fundamental problem --->  The federal gov't seems completely paralyzed on the issue and won't attempt to resolve it because they fear the backlash from the various extremist factions.  In this vacuum, various state and local gov'ts are passing any number of legislative answers to the problem.  Unfortunately, very few of these efforts account for the legislative actions (or lack thereof) of surrounding jurisdictions and states.  The results of this show up all the time.  I saw one report recently that said a very large % of the firearms used in Calif crimes originated in Nevada.  Note that the firearm laws between the two states are polar opposites of each other, so the result should be no surprise.  I suspect the situation is similar in other places.  I would bet that a large % of the firearms used in Chicago crimes are obtained outside of the city or the state. 

 

Until the fed devises a uniform set rules regarding firearms and applies it nationwide, the carnage we see daily will continue.  The current solution is left to each citizen individually ---> don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time.   Sad.

[ghost35me]

I'm not sure about the those stats. But even if guns used in crimes in CA were sourced in a different state, do we believe that closing up those restrictions would help. Drug dealers are able to bring in tons upon tons of drugs into the country. People are entering the country illegally every day carrying whatever they wish.

 

Do we really believe that domestic laws would have any net end effect? Laws are not a deterrent for criminal activity; they are only to met out punishment. Those who would discount the punishment will disregard the laws.

 

Given Nevada's perceived lax gun control laws, what is Nevada's mass shooting incident rate versus CA? AZ? WA? OR? ID? UT? CA is surrounded by states with less strict gun laws. What are the differences in gun crime stats vs CA?

 

https://www.washingt...ed-by-gun-laws/

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Many of the differences could be attributed to the substantial difference between Nevada and Calif population numbers also.  Calif has almost 14X the population of Nevada, so it would be reasonable to expect that a large variety of other stats would scale about the same.  Number of cars, number of births, number of illnesses, and number of crimes, etc.  A straight-on comparison of the numbers would not be valid unless adjustments were made regarding population.

[The Average Joe]

It is hard to come to a conclusion. That in turn leads me to believe that there is no obvious effectiveness for current gun laws. For example. Let's take CA and Nev. One with very strict gun laws, one without. According to the CDC, Ca has 12.1% of the US population and accounts for 11.7% of the murders and 8.9% of firearm deaths. Nev has .89% of the US population and .76% of murders and 1% of firearm deaths. Aha! A slight statistical difference. What the evidence actually suggests is that there are probably far more suicides and accidental deaths by firearm in Nev.

However, the CDC does not break down the stats (at least the tables I used) into suicides, accidental deaths, death by police and murder by gun. One would also have to include what types of firearms were used by state to determine if a state with more hunters had more mishaps. Gang populations should also be taken into account as you are FAR more likely to be murdered by firearm if you are involved with gang activity (see Chicago). I'm sure there could be a rural/city breakdown as well that would prove illustrative. Same for previous felons/no previous history. That is what makes it so difficult to get a handle on if any gun laws are reasonable and effective.  I'm all for effective ways to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them. I just have yet to hear of any "common sense" gun laws that would do that.

 

Anecdotally, there are millions more guns in circulation now than when Obama took office, and yet the homicide rate has been trending down for the last several decades.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

ghost - a recent article in the Sac Bee said that a DOJ report showed about 25% of firearms recovered from Calif crimes from 2011 - 2014 came from outside the state.  If state laws were more uniform or there was some federal set of rules, this number might be smaller, and Calif crime might decrease.

 

I always cringe a little when I hear someone say, "Current gun laws aren't eliminating gun crimes, so any new guns laws will also be ineffective".  It's a little like telling a cancer researcher, "Your last attempt at developing a cure didn't eliminate all cancers, so any new research won't work either".  Seems shortsighted to me.

[ghost35me]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what laws would reduce mass shootings that would also not infringe on the rights of lawful citizens. Crimes in general are a topic for a different threat and that would be even more challenging. In the context of this thread, what laws will prevent mass shootings w/out infringement upon lawful citizens?

[GrumpyOldGuy]

I suspect that effective laws to stop mass shootings, and avoiding infringement of the 2nd Amendment are mutually exclusive.  Some things could be done, however.  Examples:  

 

- Universal background checks could make it more difficult for shady people to possess firearms. Would it reduce mass shootings?  No way to find out until you try it. 

 

- Take a look at how other nations handle it.  Swiss law requires firearm owners to not only register their firearms, but also firearm components, and ammunition...each round.  Even with these strict regulations, the Swiss have a gun ownership rate that is fairly substantial...about half of the US rate.  Does Swiss law violate the 2nd Amendment?  I don't know, but they have a firearm related death rate that is about 1/3 of the US rate.

 

- In vast portions of our society, technology has made life better.  Why not introduce technology solutions into firearm products?  The idea of smart guns is intriguing, and certainly doesn't infringe the 2nd Amendment.  I chuckled several months ago when I heard somebody claim that the technology doesn't work.  He had never seen a smart gun, never held one in his hand, never fired one, and even admitted he really didn't know much about how it operated.  But he was absolutely certain "it didn't work" and that "a 10 year-old could modify it to a non-smart gun in 20 minutes". 

 

- If our society was serious about stopping mass shootings, it can be done.  In 1996, Australia instituted draconian restrictions on firearm ownership, and it worked.  There have been no mass shooting in Australia since.  Of course, they don't have a 2nd Amendment.

 

So maybe the solution comes down to a very very fundamental choice.  We either overturn the 2nd Amendment and eliminate the right to bear arms, or we overturn the 5th amendment and eliminate the right to life.  Either one would solve the problem and we can stop arguing about it.

[The Average Joe]

I vote eliminate neither. I am not for ceeding any right out of fear.  The difference between the two is that the GOVERNMENT would eliminate your second amendment right while an INDIVIDUAL is infringing your 5th amendment right.

 

Australia has also seen an increase in violent crimes like rape and assault since the ban.

 

The Swiss stats are fuzzy. They are required to serve in the military (men anyway) and they can keep their weapons when they get out if they apply to do so. They are not required to register each round of ammo, but they are generally not allowed to stockpile or store ammo (even military although they keep their service weapon at home). Range ammo is purchased on site and used there. The ,military weapons at home while active are select fire, so they can be considered automatic weapons which are generally not allowed here. They must be converted to semi auto when their service is done if they wish to keep the weapon. Other than those differences, their laws are pretty similar to ours.  And if you took gang related shootings out of our statistics, we would be pretty typical as far as gun violence. The difference is the culture around guns and the culture of valuing life.

 

As for smart guns. When it can be done with 100% effectiveness and without reducing the reliability, great. Better living through technology.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe - Regarding your comment on Australian crime, take a look at the data shown here - http://www.aic.gov.a...lent crime.html  It shows that after their new gun laws, some crimes increased (from 1996 - 2004), but since then all major crimes have decreased to levels at or below pre-1996 numbers.  You comment is misleading.

 

On Swiss firearm regulation - We have a sales manager who lives in Bevaix Switzerland and he's an avid shooter.  He's talked about Swiss gun regulations during visits to the states and has said his ammo purchases are reported to the gov't and include the quantity.  I interpret that as the gov't is aware of every round he buys.  Maybe they don't put a serial number on each round and report it, but knowing the quantity kind of leads to the same result.

 

Finally, it's dishonest to suggest that our data looks about the same as the Swiss data AS LONG AS you totally disregard a major anomaly in those data.  Look, I'm the first to admit that the criminal and violent problems in our society are not caused by gun ownership.  Nor are they solved by gun ownership.  The problems are much deeper than that. 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe - one more response regarding your comment on smart guns.  If you applied the same rule to your car, you'd be walking to work, which I doubt you are.  Nothing is 100% except death and taxes.

[ghost35me]

So maybe the solution comes down to a very very fundamental choice.  We either overturn the 2nd Amendment and eliminate the right to bear arms, or we overturn the 5th amendment and eliminate the right to life.  Either one would solve the problem and we can stop arguing about it.

 

I think this is where we might have fundamental differences of perspective. The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure one has an ability to defend oneself. It's there so that one can protect other rights. It's not there to enable others to harm one. 

 

If you view the 2nd Amendment as one that results in your harm, and that you would be safer without out it, then we are at an impasse. You will never convince me to believe in your position.

[The Average Joe]

Thanks for the link. It does show that sexual assault went up and has remained at pre ban levels. I mentioned nothing of robbery, but assaults aren't listed on this chart. Here is the glaring problem. When the chart stops and starts. You need a chart that has the 20 years before and after  the ban included. That way, you would see that most crimes, including murder, had been falling for years BEFORE the ban came into effect. Proponents of AGW do this all the time. Depending on where you pick your dataset from, your results will vary substantially.

 

I don't need a car to be 100% effective. I won't die if it breaks down (generally). I call a tow truck.  If I ever have an occasion to use a weapon in self-defense, it must be 100% dependable as its only function is to protect me in a time of immediate crisis. That's one reason I retired the .45 from that role. Despite gunsmith work, it has stovepiped more than once on me. I still shoot it because I enjoy it, and it hasn't had any issues in a long time, but I can't trust it 100%.

 

I included the mention of gangs as those opposing guns often paint a picture that you are in danger for your life at every minute. Not so much. For example, the disaster that is Chicago. If you go by the weekly shootings, you would think there were bullets flying everywhere. In truth, it is a few neighborhoods and primarily gang violence driving the stats Check out this amusing look at a depressing topic https://impotenceofb...m/tag/shooting/ the second map is very telling. He makes some other points about school closings, art funding, and coffee shops which hopefully won't be used for bad science. I.e. There are shootings where art funding is low and none where it is high so we need to increase art funding in low income areas to solve gun violence.

 

It isn't the guns. Most countries have guns without the same level of violence (although 3rd world countries with guns have FAR more violence than the US generally).  It is the culture that surrounds them. Now if you want to try to change the culture around guns, I'm definitely listening to ideas on how we can do that.

Here is another interesting article that infers the CULTURAL differences are driving gun violence.

https://www.washingt...killed-by-guns/

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe -   You expect the firearm mechanisms to have 100% reliability to save your life.  You say you don't need your car to be 100% effective.  Are you sure? The car is filled with any number of safety systems designed to save your life...seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, anti-rollover system, collapsible steering column, crush zones, reinforced door pillars, etc.  In 2014 there were 33,636 firearm related deaths in the USA (CDC data).  In the same year there were 33,804 automobile related deaths.  The risk of death from either is about the same.  The expectation of reliability from either should also be about the same.  If, your airbag worked only 50% of the time, it would be a problem.  It's interesting how peoples' fears are irrational.  Many fear guns, but almost no one fears automobiles.  Yet the risk of dying from either is about the same.  Go figure...