Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345948 times)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1000 on: April 27, 2016, 05:29:19 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.

Do you transfer the title of your car to anyone who borrows it? You could still loan one without transferring ownership.

There's no way to enforce a limit without paperwork, though.

If you mean sales not transfers, I'm less bothered.

With regard to enforcing a limit without paperwork, I disagree.  Let me give you a couple possible scenarios:

1) Guy sets up a table at a gun show without a FFL.  You see more than xx guns sold without a FFL, arrest them.
2) Person buys a whole bunch of guns through a FFL in a short period of time and puts them on gunbroker or craigslist.  Start watching them.  Catch them.  Arrest them.

Straw purchase is hard to prove because of intent.  Selling XX guns in a year without a FFL should be much easier to prove.

If you want to actively buy and sell guns for a profit (not a few guns but on a regular basis), get a FFL.  The burdens being proposed will impact many.  I suspect 99.9% of gun owners aren't doing this stuff.  Why burden the 99.9% when all you need to do is go after those that are abusing the system and selling the majority of the guns that don't run through FFL dealers.  If you make it difficult for unlicensed sellers to operate with any volume, they will quit.

Lastly, don't make the line between FFL's and casual sellers murky or a secret.  Obama's statement that 1 or 2 guns could make you a dealer is BS.  You sell XX guns in a given period you are a dealer.  You sell less, you are not.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1001 on: April 27, 2016, 05:51:05 PM »
Man! I hate revolving arguments on long threads. I posted links to reliable sources, showing that the US and Canada have by far the most liberal laws concerning gun ownership in the western hemisphere, and by far the lowest rates of violent death. Please folks. Read the thread before posting.

Also, the 'we need more regulation' crowd, you have to realize this is just thinly veiled race/class warfare, like past US gun control has always been. Gotta keep the wops and the spics and various other brown folks from getting guns, so, make them get training, and a license and this and that and some other thing. Poor folks can't afford the cash or the time off work to take long training classes. I guess for you, their lives don't matter.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1002 on: April 27, 2016, 05:53:51 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.

Do you transfer the title of your car to anyone who borrows it? You could still loan one without transferring ownership.

There's no way to enforce a limit without paperwork, though.

If you mean sales not transfers, I'm less bothered.

With regard to enforcing a limit without paperwork, I disagree.  Let me give you a couple possible scenarios:

1) Guy sets up a table at a gun show without a FFL.  You see more than xx guns sold without a FFL, arrest them.
2) Person buys a whole bunch of guns through a FFL in a short period of time and puts them on gunbroker or craigslist.  Start watching them.  Catch them.  Arrest them.

Straw purchase is hard to prove because of intent.  Selling XX guns in a year without a FFL should be much easier to prove.

If you want to actively buy and sell guns for a profit (not a few guns but on a regular basis), get a FFL.  The burdens being proposed will impact many.  I suspect 99.9% of gun owners aren't doing this stuff.  Why burden the 99.9% when all you need to do is go after those that are abusing the system and selling the majority of the guns that don't run through FFL dealers.  If you make it difficult for unlicensed sellers to operate with any volume, they will quit.

Lastly, don't make the line between FFL's and casual sellers murky or a secret.  Obama's statement that 1 or 2 guns could make you a dealer is BS.  You sell XX guns in a given period you are a dealer.  You sell less, you are not.


Both situations you describe would fall under laws that already exist.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
Quote
 Determining whether you are “engaged in the business” of dealing in
firearms requires looking at the specific facts and circumstances of
your activities.
 As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and
sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,
if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal
collection, you do not need to be licensed.

Under federal law, a person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is a person
who “devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course
of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the
repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1003 on: April 27, 2016, 05:58:19 PM »
Man! I hate revolving arguments on long threads. I posted links to reliable sources, showing that the US and Canada have by far the most liberal laws concerning gun ownership in the western hemisphere, and by far the lowest rates of violent death. Please folks. Read the thread before posting.

Also, the 'we need more regulation' crowd, you have to realize this is just thinly veiled race/class warfare, like past US gun control has always been. Gotta keep the wops and the spics and various other brown folks from getting guns, so, make them get training, and a license and this and that and some other thing. Poor folks can't afford the cash or the time off work to take long training classes. I guess for you, their lives don't matter.

         

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9” percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.


AND................


A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

Drs. Sripal Bangalore, who works at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Dr. Franz Messerli of St. Luke's Medical Center studied the statistics of guns per capita and gun deaths. They used firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey to put together a list of 27 developed countries.

They said they carried out their study because of what they said are seemingly baseless claims on either side of the gun control debate.

"I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion and not merely people pulling things out of their hats," Bangalore said. "We hear time and time again about these shootings, especially in the last year or so. A lot of claims are made…so we wanted to look at the data and see if any of this holds water."

« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 06:08:54 PM by Northwestie »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1004 on: April 27, 2016, 06:16:54 PM »
Man! I hate revolving arguments on long threads. I posted links to reliable sources, showing that the US and Canada have by far the most liberal laws concerning gun ownership in the western hemisphere, and by far the lowest rates of violent death. Please folks. Read the thread before posting.

Also, the 'we need more regulation' crowd, you have to realize this is just thinly veiled race/class warfare, like past US gun control has always been. Gotta keep the wops and the spics and various other brown folks from getting guns, so, make them get training, and a license and this and that and some other thing. Poor folks can't afford the cash or the time off work to take long training classes. I guess for you, their lives don't matter.

         

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9” percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.


AND................


A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

Drs. Sripal Bangalore, who works at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Dr. Franz Messerli of St. Luke's Medical Center studied the statistics of guns per capita and gun deaths. They used firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey to put together a list of 27 developed countries.

They said they carried out their study because of what they said are seemingly baseless claims on either side of the gun control debate.

"I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion and not merely people pulling things out of their hats," Bangalore said. "We hear time and time again about these shootings, especially in the last year or so. A lot of claims are made…so we wanted to look at the data and see if any of this holds water."
USA - 112.6 guns per 100 residents. 3.8 murders per 100,000 people.
Switzerland - 45.7 guns per 100 residents. 0.6 murders per 100,000 people.
Serbia - 69.7 guns per 100 residents. 1.2 murders per 100,000 people.
Honduras - 6.2 guns per 100 residents. 84.3 murders per 100,000 people.

Statistics are easy to manipulate. The numbers you list also include suicides, which is incredibly misleading. South Korea has 1.1 guns per 100 residents and 0.8 murders per 100,000 people. They also have 28.9 suicides per 100,000 people.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 06:22:13 PM by JLee »

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1005 on: April 27, 2016, 06:22:39 PM »
Yea, I'm ok with suicides, and killings by the mentally ill - so there is a good reason not to include those in the stats.

Now if we would just remove the number of gun owners with small penis syndrome I'm sure the violence number would almost come to zero.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1006 on: April 27, 2016, 06:24:03 PM »


One of the least intrusive methods of firearm legislation that I could envision would be to simply require that all firearm ownership transfers take place through an FFL. However, without appropriate mental health reporting, this would only screen for prohibited possessors...basically convicted felons (with some exceptions). People will still buy and sell guns illegally, which is difficult to enforce (many criminals with guns are already felons prohibited by existing law from possessing, let alone purchasing, a firearm).

JLee - I wouldn't support all transfers going through FFL dealers.  You run into a practical problem of loans to friends, gifts, etc and end up making people accidental felons.

What I would support (and I believe most owners would as well) is a firm limit on how many guns a year you can sell without a FFL.  5, 10, 20?  If you are selling above the limit, get a FFL and run background checks.  It would benefit everybody.  There would be less guns at guns shows and craigslist going through unlicensed dealers and unlicensed sellers would know when they get in trouble.

Do you transfer the title of your car to anyone who borrows it? You could still loan one without transferring ownership.

There's no way to enforce a limit without paperwork, though.

If you mean sales not transfers, I'm less bothered.

With regard to enforcing a limit without paperwork, I disagree.  Let me give you a couple possible scenarios:

1) Guy sets up a table at a gun show without a FFL.  You see more than xx guns sold without a FFL, arrest them.
2) Person buys a whole bunch of guns through a FFL in a short period of time and puts them on gunbroker or craigslist.  Start watching them.  Catch them.  Arrest them.

Straw purchase is hard to prove because of intent.  Selling XX guns in a year without a FFL should be much easier to prove.

If you want to actively buy and sell guns for a profit (not a few guns but on a regular basis), get a FFL.  The burdens being proposed will impact many.  I suspect 99.9% of gun owners aren't doing this stuff.  Why burden the 99.9% when all you need to do is go after those that are abusing the system and selling the majority of the guns that don't run through FFL dealers.  If you make it difficult for unlicensed sellers to operate with any volume, they will quit.

Lastly, don't make the line between FFL's and casual sellers murky or a secret.  Obama's statement that 1 or 2 guns could make you a dealer is BS.  You sell XX guns in a given period you are a dealer.  You sell less, you are not.


Both situations you describe would fall under laws that already exist.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
Quote
 Determining whether you are “engaged in the business” of dealing in
firearms requires looking at the specific facts and circumstances of
your activities.
 As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and
sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,
if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal
collection, you do not need to be licensed.

Under federal law, a person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is a person
who “devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course
of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the
repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

I'm aware of the definition and find it murky as do many others.  That's bad for reputable people who want to sell without a FFL (scared of Obama/ATF over reach http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-05/obama-s-move-on-guns-turns-on-murky-definition-of-who-s-a-dealer) and better for people selling guns in higher volumes without a license (they at least have an argument they aren't in the business).  A bright line test based on the number of guns would improve simplify prosecutions and safeguard reputable people. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1007 on: April 27, 2016, 06:29:40 PM »
Yea, I'm ok with suicides, and killings by the mentally ill - so there is a good reason not to include those in the stats.

Now if we would just remove the number of gun owners with small penis syndrome I'm sure the violence number would almost come to zero.

Ah, I see you have resorted to simple trolling.  Where did I suggest that killings by mentally ill should be excluded?

Your article claims that a reduction in gun ownership will reduce the firearm homicide rate, therefore saving X lives.  It does not account for those who will simply choose some other means of murder.  Showing a reduction in firearm suicide rates and claiming that to "save lives" is just as flawed - as you can see from South Korea, there are other ways.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1008 on: April 27, 2016, 08:03:18 PM »
Just returning the favor  --I can't tell if it's a troll or just a lack of how statistics and health related peer-reviewed journals work -- or both.

First it's generalizations - "US has least gun violence".  When this is pointed out as patently false it's then qualified - "well if you remove suicides, the mentally ill, the guy who shoots his wife, or justified road rage or whatever.

Then it comes down to a very limp respond to actual scientific studies -- I love this one -- "well if it weren't for guns people would find other ways to kill each other"  None of this spew has anything to back it up of course.

I don't have an answer to how the US is awash in guns and the corresponding violence.  But really, let's not pretend the availability of guns and violence have no connection.  What?  Do you also believe Horton heard a Hoo÷

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1009 on: April 27, 2016, 09:02:09 PM »
Just returning the favor  --I can't tell if it's a troll or just a lack of how statistics and health related peer-reviewed journals work -- or both.

First it's generalizations - "US has least gun violence".  When this is pointed out as patently false it's then qualified - "well if you remove suicides, the mentally ill, the guy who shoots his wife, or justified road rage or whatever.

Then it comes down to a very limp respond to actual scientific studies -- I love this one -- "well if it weren't for guns people would find other ways to kill each other"  None of this spew has anything to back it up of course.

I don't have an answer to how the US is awash in guns and the corresponding violence.  But really, let's not pretend the availability of guns and violence have no connection.  What?  Do you also believe Horton heard a Hoo÷

Perhaps you should quote the people you intend to respond to, then. Quoting them directly is helpful if you intend to have an intelligent discussion.  Claiming that someone excused "justified road rage or whatever" is just as much "spew" as anything else in this thread.

It's ironic that you claim to be more scared of someone who's "legally packing" than they are of other dangers in the world, while simultaneously arguing with statistics and studies.  The chances of you being the victim of someone legally carrying a firearm are incredibly small, and the apparent fact that you hold this belief in the face of contrary evidence indicates that you are making decisions and arguments based on emotion, not fact.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 09:14:29 PM by JLee »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1010 on: April 27, 2016, 09:33:21 PM »
To continue:
I appreciate your thoughtful response.  You obviously have pondered this for a bit.

I have the opposite opinion.  Really, if the "government" really wanted to go dictator on us - do you think a few shotguns and M15s are going to help much?  I don't think so.

I'm just as baffled by the claim that arming yourself somehow defends our joint liberty.  How is this?  Just in case tomorrow the state of say, CT decides they are going to outright collect all guns, tax you 75%, and make you attend gay weddings or something?  I'm not sure where this paranoia comes from.

I've travelled quite a bit in Central and South America, conduct fieldwork in very remote places, and have had a turn in some gritty east coast cities.  Folks often are surprised about my travels and ask if I'm worried about my safety.  Frankly, I'm more worried that someone legally packing will get pissed at my driving or biking and find the need to forge his manhood by taking his insecurities out on me.

I'd feel much more secure with a sense of liberty if we had more European or Australian gun laws.  My take - those that feel the need to carry all the time are scared of something -robbers, the black guy, society in general, or the government.  Why?  I'm baffled.



http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/04/14/honduras-central-america-still-lead-the-world-in-murder-rates
Quote
Honduras remains the deadliest country in the world (90.4 murders per 100,000). Venezuela now holds the title of second-deadliest country in the world, but its murder rate (53.7) is almost half of the rate in Honduras. Belize is third with a homicide rate of 44.7. And El Salvador — previously second in the world — is fourth at 41.2.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12037479/Mapped-Which-countries-have-the-highest-murder-rates.html
Quote
Central and South American countries had the highest homicide rates in the world, according to figures published by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/
Quote
Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding.  Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders — a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police.

How can you justify being more concerned about being assaulted by a percentage of the population less likely to commit crime than police officers, while simultaneously not being concerned about visiting the murder capitals of the planet?

Considering you were saying something in another thread about science, faith, and adopting conclusions based on evidence, I hope you are able to revamp your previous statement based on this information.

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Australia
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1011 on: April 27, 2016, 10:17:58 PM »
Twenty years ago today, 35 innocent people were gunned down in cold blood at Port Arthur. Can we just take a moment and remember them, regardless of which side of the gun debate you are on.

Thank you, from one who was involved in the aftermath, and who hopes like hell nothing like this ever happens again, anywhere, for any reason.

The health services staff involved in caring for the Port Arthur victims speak.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1012 on: April 28, 2016, 12:50:12 AM »
Man! I hate revolving arguments on long threads. I posted links to reliable sources, showing that the US and Canada have by far the most liberal laws concerning gun ownership in the western hemisphere, and by far the lowest rates of violent death. Please folks. Read the thread before posting.

Also, the 'we need more regulation' crowd, you have to realize this is just thinly veiled race/class warfare, like past US gun control has always been. Gotta keep the wops and the spics and various other brown folks from getting guns, so, make them get training, and a license and this and that and some other thing. Poor folks can't afford the cash or the time off work to take long training classes. I guess for you, their lives don't matter.
I think most people feel that if you can afford to buy a firearm and ammo you can afford the fees required to buy a firearm and any training that is required - or the cost of a ccw permit if you need that. In Cali it costs about $25 or so to register a gun and not much more than that for the required safety course. An amount t most people can afford.

 If you get a ccw it costs around $100 for DoJ background check and fingerprinting, another $100 for the county to issue a permit and probably another $100 or so for the approx. 15 hours of training (although former military and LEOs can bypass the training).  My numbers may be off since I haven't bought a new gun in years.
Retired at 42 to play!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1013 on: April 28, 2016, 04:19:56 AM »
USA - 112.6 guns per 100 residents. 3.8 murders per 100,000 people.
Switzerland - 45.7 guns per 100 residents. 0.6 murders per 100,000 people.
Serbia - 69.7 guns per 100 residents. 1.2 murders per 100,000 people.
Honduras - 6.2 guns per 100 residents. 84.3 murders per 100,000 people.

Statistics are easy to manipulate. The numbers you list also include suicides, which is incredibly misleading. South Korea has 1.1 guns per 100 residents and 0.8 murders per 100,000 people. They also have 28.9 suicides per 100,000 people.

Well put. And this is where talking with gun control enthusiasts gets difficult. Do they want to reduce deaths by firearms? Do they want to reduce gun violence? Do they want to reduce mass shootings? These are all separate and very distinct topics that have very different answers. To boil the solutions down to one act or law is not going to be effective. Anything short of "Ban Guns" does not solve all of these problems. It's already been decided in America that banning all firearms is not going to happen.  So the next thing is to move on, define the problem and work towards solutions.  If the other side would pick one problem and focus instead of changing the goal posts everytime they lose the argument, some progress might be made.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1014 on: April 28, 2016, 05:12:56 AM »
It's interesting.  The gun lobby is always complaining that we should first enforce existing laws.  But get this - the ATF is not allowed to have an electronic database of gun ownership- thanks to congressional lobbying, instead - they have been relegated to a hall of manila folders thanks to the NRA.  Yea -- great.  So I agree - paperwork isn't needed - a 20th century solution is available.


A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

Drs. Sripal Bangalore, who works at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Dr. Franz Messerli of St. Luke's Medical Center studied the statistics of guns per capita and gun deaths. They used firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey to put together a list of 27 developed countries.

They said they carried out their study because of what they said are seemingly baseless claims on either side of the gun control debate.

"I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion and not merely people pulling things out of their hats," Bangalore said. "We hear time and time again about these shootings, especially in the last year or so. A lot of claims are made…so we wanted to look at the data and see if any of this holds water."

They concluded that more guns do not make people safer.


That conclusion they reached might be true, but the reverse is also true:
More guns do not make people any less safe.

Despite an increase in gun ownership in the U.S., the Pew Research Center is reporting that the gun homicide rate was at 3.4 per 100,000 in 2014, down from 7.0 in 1993. And non-violent firearm crime victimization was at 174.8 per 100,000 down from 725.3 in 1993.

Even here in the U.S. when you only compare our own states, you can come to that same conclusion. Washington D.C., California, Illinois, and Hawaii are well known for their highly restrictive gun laws, yet D.C had the highest per capita firearm murder rate of any other state at 12. The next closest state was Louisiana at around 6 or 7. California, Alaska, Texas, and Illinois were all number 16, 17, 18, and 19, respectively, on the list. Texas and Alaska both have a much higher rate of firearm ownership than both Illinois and California, yet they are statistically equal in their per capita firearm murder rate. Wyoming, Idaho, and North Dakota also have higher rates of firearm ownership, yet have lower firearm murder rates than the likes of New York, California, Illinois, Connecticut, and New Jersey. The outlier is Hawaii, who has the lowest rate of firearm ownership, and the lowest firearm murder rate in the country.

So while more guns may not necessarily make us more safe, more guns also do not necessarily make us less safe either.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-states-with-higher-gun-ownership-dont-have-more-gun-murders/article/2573353#
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1015 on: April 28, 2016, 05:42:11 AM »
It's interesting.  The gun lobby is always complaining that we should first enforce existing laws.  But get this - the ATF is not allowed to have an electronic database of gun ownership- thanks to congressional lobbying, instead - they have been relegated to a hall of manila folders thanks to the NRA.  Yea -- great.  So I agree - paperwork isn't needed - a 20th century solution is available.


A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

Drs. Sripal Bangalore, who works at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Dr. Franz Messerli of St. Luke's Medical Center studied the statistics of guns per capita and gun deaths. They used firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey to put together a list of 27 developed countries.

They said they carried out their study because of what they said are seemingly baseless claims on either side of the gun control debate.

"I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion and not merely people pulling things out of their hats," Bangalore said. "We hear time and time again about these shootings, especially in the last year or so. A lot of claims are made…so we wanted to look at the data and see if any of this holds water."

They concluded that more guns do not make people safer.


If there are fewer guns around, fewer people will be killed with guns. That's a no brainer and I'm surprised anyone would spend time and money investigating that fact. In the US, there are very few German-made Korth revolvers. Very few (if any) people are killed with Korth revolvers. Groundbreaking.

In places with fewer pools, fewer people drown in pools. In places with fewer cars, fewer people die in car-related incidents. In places with shorter buildings, fewer people die from falling off of buildings. In places with fewer elephants, fewer people are killed by elephants.

All of these things are true but they are meaningless in a public policy discussion.

More importantly, what does safety have to do with anything? If we could somehow make all civilian-owned guns in America disappear overnight, would the country become "safer" by some metrics? Probably.  But some things are more important than safety. I bet if we put surveillance cameras everywhere and instituted a nationwide curfew, the country would be safer. But I wouldn't support that, for the same reasons I don't support gun control.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1016 on: April 28, 2016, 05:52:27 AM »
Man! I hate revolving arguments on long threads. I posted links to reliable sources, showing that the US and Canada have by far the most liberal laws concerning gun ownership in the western hemisphere, and by far the lowest rates of violent death. Please folks. Read the thread before posting.

Also, the 'we need more regulation' crowd, you have to realize this is just thinly veiled race/class warfare, like past US gun control has always been. Gotta keep the wops and the spics and various other brown folks from getting guns, so, make them get training, and a license and this and that and some other thing. Poor folks can't afford the cash or the time off work to take long training classes. I guess for you, their lives don't matter.

         

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9” percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.


AND................


A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

Drs. Sripal Bangalore, who works at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Dr. Franz Messerli of St. Luke's Medical Center studied the statistics of guns per capita and gun deaths. They used firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey to put together a list of 27 developed countries.

They said they carried out their study because of what they said are seemingly baseless claims on either side of the gun control debate.

"I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion and not merely people pulling things out of their hats," Bangalore said. "We hear time and time again about these shootings, especially in the last year or so. A lot of claims are made…so we wanted to look at the data and see if any of this holds water."

Again, these studies are meaningless and cringeworthy. "We spent 6 months and 5 million dollars and determined that countries with more guns have more violent crimes committed with guns." Wow, you don't say? I feel embarrassed for those researchers.

What question is a study like this supposed to be answering? What are we supposed to do with this information?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1017 on: April 28, 2016, 06:48:04 AM »

 In the US, there are very few German-made Korth revolvers. Very few (if any) people are killed with Korth revolvers.

45 seconds ago I didn't know these existed. I was perfectly happy. Now I have to have one... Thanks for that.


Also, yes; very few Hippo deaths in the USA. Someone should call Africa and tell them to make the same hippo laws we have here.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 06:56:13 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1018 on: April 28, 2016, 06:55:37 AM »
Again, these studies are meaningless and cringeworthy. "We spent 6 months and 5 million dollars and determined that countries with more guns have more violent crimes committed with guns." Wow, you don't say? I feel embarrassed for those researchers.

What question is a study like this supposed to be answering? What are we supposed to do with this information?

Well, it can put to rest the argument that "If everyone had a gun, no one would get shot."  So that debate point can be put aside and the next suggestion can be considered. Progression is a series of steps, some forwards, some sideways, some backwards; without data it would be impossible to say for certain that giving everyone a gun wouldn't make a 'polite society.'
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1019 on: April 28, 2016, 06:59:54 AM »
To continue:
I appreciate your thoughtful response.  You obviously have pondered this for a bit.

I have the opposite opinion.  Really, if the "government" really wanted to go dictator on us - do you think a few shotguns and M15s are going to help much?  I don't think so.

I'm just as baffled by the claim that arming yourself somehow defends our joint liberty.  How is this?  Just in case tomorrow the state of say, CT decides they are going to outright collect all guns, tax you 75%, and make you attend gay weddings or something?  I'm not sure where this paranoia comes from.

I've travelled quite a bit in Central and South America, conduct fieldwork in very remote places, and have had a turn in some gritty east coast cities.  Folks often are surprised about my travels and ask if I'm worried about my safety.  Frankly, I'm more worried that someone legally packing will get pissed at my driving or biking and find the need to forge his manhood by taking his insecurities out on me.

I'd feel much more secure with a sense of liberty if we had more European or Australian gun laws.  My take - those that feel the need to carry all the time are scared of something -robbers, the black guy, society in general, or the government.  Why?  I'm baffled.



http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/04/14/honduras-central-america-still-lead-the-world-in-murder-rates
Quote
Honduras remains the deadliest country in the world (90.4 murders per 100,000). Venezuela now holds the title of second-deadliest country in the world, but its murder rate (53.7) is almost half of the rate in Honduras. Belize is third with a homicide rate of 44.7. And El Salvador — previously second in the world — is fourth at 41.2.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12037479/Mapped-Which-countries-have-the-highest-murder-rates.html
Quote
Central and South American countries had the highest homicide rates in the world, according to figures published by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/
Quote
Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding.  Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders — a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police.

How can you justify being more concerned about being assaulted by a percentage of the population less likely to commit crime than police officers, while simultaneously not being concerned about visiting the murder capitals of the planet?

Considering you were saying something in another thread about science, faith, and adopting conclusions based on evidence, I hope you are able to revamp your previous statement based on this information.

Related anecdote:

I had this frenimy (friendly enemy) in college. Let's call her Sue. Sue was very active in the university's liberal/progressive organizations. I was a leader in the university's conservative/libertarian organization. We also had the same major. We faced off in debates a number of times, found ourselves on the opposite sides of heated protests, etc. But she was an interesting person, easy on the eyes, and fun to be around as long as we didn't talk politics.

At the end of a spring semester Sue told me she was going to spend part of the summer doing a volunteering/outreach program in a Central American country. This country was very well known for it's high rates of violent crime. I pointed this out, and asked her to reconsider. Sue declined to do so. I showed her statistics and a few news stories about individual accounts of American women being harmed in that country, and asked her to at least be careful. I will never forget what she told me: "Winkeyman, I am more afraid of conservative white Christian gun owners than I am of anyone over there."

The next time I saw her in the fall she was a changed person. On their trip, her childhood friend who was traveling with her was assaulted quite viciously by a group of men. Sue herself narrowly escaped. None of the locals seemed interested in helping her or her friend, and the police were indifferent at best. It was sad to see the way that experience changed her.

Her personal biases clouded her ability to make a good judgment. In her highly political worldview, the yokels with bibles and guns in the flyover parts of her own country were dangerous, a threat, the enemy. The poor misunderstood downtrodden people in the country she was trying to help were victims of white imperialism, and her allies. She expected them to return the feeling. Apparently they didn't.

I'm betting that in the unlikely event she was assaulted by a group of men in flyover country, any of those bible and gun owing conservative hicks would have put a stop to it pretty quick. I never asked Sue for her opinion on this, but I wonder what she would say about it now.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1020 on: April 28, 2016, 07:01:54 AM »

 In the US, there are very few German-made Korth revolvers. Very few (if any) people are killed with Korth revolvers.

45 seconds ago I didn't know these existed. I was perfectly happy. Now I have to have one... Thanks for that.


Also, yes; very few Hippo deaths in the USA. Someone should call Africa and tell them to make the same hippo laws we have here.

Lol, sorry for that. Korth revolvers are awesome, but they are one of the least Mustachian things in the world.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1021 on: April 28, 2016, 07:12:18 AM »
Is it legit to compare countries apples/apples? I think not, except as a matter of interest. The countries are not identical: culture is different, laws are different etc.

For instance I travel to Brazil, one of the murder capitals. But it doesn't bother me because the Brazilian crime is largely relegated to the poor/bad parts of town (just as in the USA, whoda thunk?) and I don't go there. 

Here in USA, guns/capita continue to climb while gun homicide is flat to down, as below.
semi-SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 ‘stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini Money Mustaches...
Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out of it alive.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1022 on: April 28, 2016, 07:28:20 AM »
Is it legit to compare countries apples/apples? I think not, except as a matter of interest. The countries are not identical: culture is different, laws are different etc.

For instance I travel to Brazil, one of the murder capitals. But it doesn't bother me because the Brazilian crime is largely relegated to the poor/bad parts of town (just as in the USA, whoda thunk?) and I don't go there. 

Here in USA, guns/capita continue to climb while gun homicide is flat to down, as below.

Very true. I spend a lot of time in Macae, Brazil. As long as you stay on the main road to get from the Sheraton to the beach, and on the beach, you are good to go. If you get drunk and walk back from the beach towards the hotel on one of the side streets, all bets are off.

In Rio I usually stay at either the Sofitel or Marriott right where Copacabana meets Impanema. That area is pretty safe. So are many other parts of the city. However I only explore the other parts of the city with my translator in tow because you can wind up in the wrong place quite easily if you don't know where you are going.

Nothing is guaranteed though. One time I was waiting on the sidewalk in broad daylight on Copacabana waiting for my freshly opened coconut. A bunch of "youths" swarmed the beach snatching everything not nailed down from the people laying out on the beach. Coolers, cell phones, bags, purses, etc. They melted away into the city in the blink of an eye. It was quite a sight to see. I assume (hope?) they know better than to start shooting people on the beach in the middle of the afternoon though.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1023 on: April 28, 2016, 08:07:13 AM »
To continue:
I appreciate your thoughtful response.  You obviously have pondered this for a bit.

I have the opposite opinion.  Really, if the "government" really wanted to go dictator on us - do you think a few shotguns and M15s are going to help much?  I don't think so.

I'm just as baffled by the claim that arming yourself somehow defends our joint liberty.  How is this?  Just in case tomorrow the state of say, CT decides they are going to outright collect all guns, tax you 75%, and make you attend gay weddings or something?  I'm not sure where this paranoia comes from.

I've travelled quite a bit in Central and South America, conduct fieldwork in very remote places, and have had a turn in some gritty east coast cities.  Folks often are surprised about my travels and ask if I'm worried about my safety.  Frankly, I'm more worried that someone legally packing will get pissed at my driving or biking and find the need to forge his manhood by taking his insecurities out on me.

I'd feel much more secure with a sense of liberty if we had more European or Australian gun laws.  My take - those that feel the need to carry all the time are scared of something -robbers, the black guy, society in general, or the government.  Why?  I'm baffled.



http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/04/14/honduras-central-america-still-lead-the-world-in-murder-rates
Quote
Honduras remains the deadliest country in the world (90.4 murders per 100,000). Venezuela now holds the title of second-deadliest country in the world, but its murder rate (53.7) is almost half of the rate in Honduras. Belize is third with a homicide rate of 44.7. And El Salvador — previously second in the world — is fourth at 41.2.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12037479/Mapped-Which-countries-have-the-highest-murder-rates.html
Quote
Central and South American countries had the highest homicide rates in the world, according to figures published by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/
Quote
Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding.  Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders — a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police.

How can you justify being more concerned about being assaulted by a percentage of the population less likely to commit crime than police officers, while simultaneously not being concerned about visiting the murder capitals of the planet?

Considering you were saying something in another thread about science, faith, and adopting conclusions based on evidence, I hope you are able to revamp your previous statement based on this information.

Related anecdote:

I had this frenimy (friendly enemy) in college. Let's call her Sue. Sue was very active in the university's liberal/progressive organizations. I was a leader in the university's conservative/libertarian organization. We also had the same major. We faced off in debates a number of times, found ourselves on the opposite sides of heated protests, etc. But she was an interesting person, easy on the eyes, and fun to be around as long as we didn't talk politics.

At the end of a spring semester Sue told me she was going to spend part of the summer doing a volunteering/outreach program in a Central American country. This country was very well known for it's high rates of violent crime. I pointed this out, and asked her to reconsider. Sue declined to do so. I showed her statistics and a few news stories about individual accounts of American women being harmed in that country, and asked her to at least be careful. I will never forget what she told me: "Winkeyman, I am more afraid of conservative white Christian gun owners than I am of anyone over there."

The next time I saw her in the fall she was a changed person. On their trip, her childhood friend who was traveling with her was assaulted quite viciously by a group of men. Sue herself narrowly escaped. None of the locals seemed interested in helping her or her friend, and the police were indifferent at best. It was sad to see the way that experience changed her.

Her personal biases clouded her ability to make a good judgment. In her highly political worldview, the yokels with bibles and guns in the flyover parts of her own country were dangerous, a threat, the enemy. The poor misunderstood downtrodden people in the country she was trying to help were victims of white imperialism, and her allies. She expected them to return the feeling. Apparently they didn't.

I'm betting that in the unlikely event she was assaulted by a group of men in flyover country, any of those bible and gun owing conservative hicks would have put a stop to it pretty quick. I never asked Sue for her opinion on this, but I wonder what she would say about it now.

That must be why there's no sex crime at all in the southern states.  Guns, conservatism, and the bible protect people really really well.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1024 on: April 28, 2016, 08:14:37 AM »
To continue:
I appreciate your thoughtful response.  You obviously have pondered this for a bit.

I have the opposite opinion.  Really, if the "government" really wanted to go dictator on us - do you think a few shotguns and M15s are going to help much?  I don't think so.

I'm just as baffled by the claim that arming yourself somehow defends our joint liberty.  How is this?  Just in case tomorrow the state of say, CT decides they are going to outright collect all guns, tax you 75%, and make you attend gay weddings or something?  I'm not sure where this paranoia comes from.

I've travelled quite a bit in Central and South America, conduct fieldwork in very remote places, and have had a turn in some gritty east coast cities.  Folks often are surprised about my travels and ask if I'm worried about my safety.  Frankly, I'm more worried that someone legally packing will get pissed at my driving or biking and find the need to forge his manhood by taking his insecurities out on me.

I'd feel much more secure with a sense of liberty if we had more European or Australian gun laws.  My take - those that feel the need to carry all the time are scared of something -robbers, the black guy, society in general, or the government.  Why?  I'm baffled.



http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/04/14/honduras-central-america-still-lead-the-world-in-murder-rates
Quote
Honduras remains the deadliest country in the world (90.4 murders per 100,000). Venezuela now holds the title of second-deadliest country in the world, but its murder rate (53.7) is almost half of the rate in Honduras. Belize is third with a homicide rate of 44.7. And El Salvador — previously second in the world — is fourth at 41.2.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12037479/Mapped-Which-countries-have-the-highest-murder-rates.html
Quote
Central and South American countries had the highest homicide rates in the world, according to figures published by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/
Quote
Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding.  Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders — a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police.

How can you justify being more concerned about being assaulted by a percentage of the population less likely to commit crime than police officers, while simultaneously not being concerned about visiting the murder capitals of the planet?

Considering you were saying something in another thread about science, faith, and adopting conclusions based on evidence, I hope you are able to revamp your previous statement based on this information.

Related anecdote:

I had this frenimy (friendly enemy) in college. Let's call her Sue. Sue was very active in the university's liberal/progressive organizations. I was a leader in the university's conservative/libertarian organization. We also had the same major. We faced off in debates a number of times, found ourselves on the opposite sides of heated protests, etc. But she was an interesting person, easy on the eyes, and fun to be around as long as we didn't talk politics.

At the end of a spring semester Sue told me she was going to spend part of the summer doing a volunteering/outreach program in a Central American country. This country was very well known for it's high rates of violent crime. I pointed this out, and asked her to reconsider. Sue declined to do so. I showed her statistics and a few news stories about individual accounts of American women being harmed in that country, and asked her to at least be careful. I will never forget what she told me: "Winkeyman, I am more afraid of conservative white Christian gun owners than I am of anyone over there."

The next time I saw her in the fall she was a changed person. On their trip, her childhood friend who was traveling with her was assaulted quite viciously by a group of men. Sue herself narrowly escaped. None of the locals seemed interested in helping her or her friend, and the police were indifferent at best. It was sad to see the way that experience changed her.

Her personal biases clouded her ability to make a good judgment. In her highly political worldview, the yokels with bibles and guns in the flyover parts of her own country were dangerous, a threat, the enemy. The poor misunderstood downtrodden people in the country she was trying to help were victims of white imperialism, and her allies. She expected them to return the feeling. Apparently they didn't.

I'm betting that in the unlikely event she was assaulted by a group of men in flyover country, any of those bible and gun owing conservative hicks would have put a stop to it pretty quick. I never asked Sue for her opinion on this, but I wonder what she would say about it now.

That's really sad. : (

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1025 on: April 28, 2016, 08:28:48 AM »
To continue:
I appreciate your thoughtful response.  You obviously have pondered this for a bit.

I have the opposite opinion.  Really, if the "government" really wanted to go dictator on us - do you think a few shotguns and M15s are going to help much?  I don't think so.

I'm just as baffled by the claim that arming yourself somehow defends our joint liberty.  How is this?  Just in case tomorrow the state of say, CT decides they are going to outright collect all guns, tax you 75%, and make you attend gay weddings or something?  I'm not sure where this paranoia comes from.

I've travelled quite a bit in Central and South America, conduct fieldwork in very remote places, and have had a turn in some gritty east coast cities.  Folks often are surprised about my travels and ask if I'm worried about my safety.  Frankly, I'm more worried that someone legally packing will get pissed at my driving or biking and find the need to forge his manhood by taking his insecurities out on me.

I'd feel much more secure with a sense of liberty if we had more European or Australian gun laws.  My take - those that feel the need to carry all the time are scared of something -robbers, the black guy, society in general, or the government.  Why?  I'm baffled.



http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/04/14/honduras-central-america-still-lead-the-world-in-murder-rates
Quote
Honduras remains the deadliest country in the world (90.4 murders per 100,000). Venezuela now holds the title of second-deadliest country in the world, but its murder rate (53.7) is almost half of the rate in Honduras. Belize is third with a homicide rate of 44.7. And El Salvador — previously second in the world — is fourth at 41.2.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12037479/Mapped-Which-countries-have-the-highest-murder-rates.html
Quote
Central and South American countries had the highest homicide rates in the world, according to figures published by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/
Quote
Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding.  Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders — a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police.

How can you justify being more concerned about being assaulted by a percentage of the population less likely to commit crime than police officers, while simultaneously not being concerned about visiting the murder capitals of the planet?

Considering you were saying something in another thread about science, faith, and adopting conclusions based on evidence, I hope you are able to revamp your previous statement based on this information.

Related anecdote:

I had this frenimy (friendly enemy) in college. Let's call her Sue. Sue was very active in the university's liberal/progressive organizations. I was a leader in the university's conservative/libertarian organization. We also had the same major. We faced off in debates a number of times, found ourselves on the opposite sides of heated protests, etc. But she was an interesting person, easy on the eyes, and fun to be around as long as we didn't talk politics.

At the end of a spring semester Sue told me she was going to spend part of the summer doing a volunteering/outreach program in a Central American country. This country was very well known for it's high rates of violent crime. I pointed this out, and asked her to reconsider. Sue declined to do so. I showed her statistics and a few news stories about individual accounts of American women being harmed in that country, and asked her to at least be careful. I will never forget what she told me: "Winkeyman, I am more afraid of conservative white Christian gun owners than I am of anyone over there."

The next time I saw her in the fall she was a changed person. On their trip, her childhood friend who was traveling with her was assaulted quite viciously by a group of men. Sue herself narrowly escaped. None of the locals seemed interested in helping her or her friend, and the police were indifferent at best. It was sad to see the way that experience changed her.

Her personal biases clouded her ability to make a good judgment. In her highly political worldview, the yokels with bibles and guns in the flyover parts of her own country were dangerous, a threat, the enemy. The poor misunderstood downtrodden people in the country she was trying to help were victims of white imperialism, and her allies. She expected them to return the feeling. Apparently they didn't.

I'm betting that in the unlikely event she was assaulted by a group of men in flyover country, any of those bible and gun owing conservative hicks would have put a stop to it pretty quick. I never asked Sue for her opinion on this, but I wonder what she would say about it now.

That must be why there's no sex crime at all in the southern states.  Guns, conservatism, and the bible protect people really really well.

Do guns protect people? Yes, women that carry guns are unlikely to be victimized like this girl was.

Conservatism? No. Human decency does. Most American conservatives are decent people, as are most American liberals.

The Bible? No. But most Christian Americans are decent people, as are most not-Christian Americans.

The point is, my friend Sue was afraid of the wrong people. The vast majority of Americans (gun ownership, religious belief, and political affiliation aside) wouldn't have assaulted Sue's friend like this. And an even greater huge majority would not have stood by and let it happen. And I can guarantee that the police in any part of America would have come down like a hammer on this crime, unlike the police in the country she was "helping."

This is not the case in many parts of the world. I know this from experience. As an adult I have spent time in over 35+ countries. Most of them are not countries I would choose to visit for pleasure.

In America, Europe, Canada, etc, a visiting young woman alone is safe MOST places. She might not want to walk alone at night in the wrong part of Chicago or Athens, but those areas are the exception, not the rule. In huge parts of central America, some parts of South America and Asia, most of Africa and virtually all of the middle east, the reverse is true. There might be a few places such a visiting young woman could safely explore alone, but they are the rule rather than the exception.

You always have this wonderful way of taking what I say and assuming that you are reading the words of a caricature in your head rather than a reasonable human being.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1026 on: April 28, 2016, 08:32:32 AM »
Again, these studies are meaningless and cringeworthy. "We spent 6 months and 5 million dollars and determined that countries with more guns have more violent crimes committed with guns." Wow, you don't say? I feel embarrassed for those researchers.

What question is a study like this supposed to be answering? What are we supposed to do with this information?

Well, it can put to rest the argument that "If everyone had a gun, no one would get shot."  So that debate point can be put aside and the next suggestion can be considered. Progression is a series of steps, some forwards, some sideways, some backwards; without data it would be impossible to say for certain that giving everyone a gun wouldn't make a 'polite society.'

Exactly.  The fallacy that the availability of guns and the level of gun violence has not connection is on the same level of unicorns.  So let's at least be adults and get past that.

And yes - among about 80 developed countries the US has the highest rate of gun violence.  And yes- there are some countries where it is more violent than the US - Guatemala is an example.  But is the bar so low that it requires us to look there and say  - well, really, we're not so bad. 

Frankly I don't see a solution.  While the NRA is constantly saying "enforce the law" first - they constantly lobby congress to keep agencies such as ATF from even moving to electronic databases from paper.  So that is not very honest.

I used to own guns for hunting and did so with friends.  But for whatever reason I don't hunt anymore.  But none of us ever owned or wanted a handgun to protect us from some imagined boogeyman.  If you have a handgun in the house it is statistically more likely to kill  a relative, friend, or kid than anyone kicking down your door.  No thanks.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1027 on: April 28, 2016, 08:58:00 AM »
Again, these studies are meaningless and cringeworthy. "We spent 6 months and 5 million dollars and determined that countries with more guns have more violent crimes committed with guns." Wow, you don't say? I feel embarrassed for those researchers.

What question is a study like this supposed to be answering? What are we supposed to do with this information?

Well, it can put to rest the argument that "If everyone had a gun, no one would get shot."  So that debate point can be put aside and the next suggestion can be considered. Progression is a series of steps, some forwards, some sideways, some backwards; without data it would be impossible to say for certain that giving everyone a gun wouldn't make a 'polite society.'

Exactly.  The fallacy that the availability of guns and the level of gun violence has not connection is on the same level of unicorns.  So let's at least be adults and get past that.

And yes - among about 80 developed countries the US has the highest rate of gun violence.  And yes- there are some countries where it is more violent than the US - Guatemala is an example.  But is the bar so low that it requires us to look there and say  - well, really, we're not so bad. 

Frankly I don't see a solution.  While the NRA is constantly saying "enforce the law" first - they constantly lobby congress to keep agencies such as ATF from even moving to electronic databases from paper.  So that is not very honest.

I used to own guns for hunting and did so with friends.  But for whatever reason I don't hunt anymore.  But none of us ever owned or wanted a handgun to protect us from some imagined boogeyman.  If you have a handgun in the house it is statistically more likely to kill  a relative, friend, or kid than anyone kicking down your door.  No thanks.

I can't speak for the NRA as a whole, but I am a member and this is my opinion.

When I say "enforce the law", I do not necessarily mean gun laws.

Look at Chicago. In the first 10 days of 2016, more than 100 people were murdered in Chicago. In almost all cases, the murderer used a gun. We can assume none of those guns were not legally owned (it's Chicago after all).

Chicago could (try) to enforce it's gun laws more effectively. I would suggest instead that it enforces it's OTHER laws more effectively. The average Chicago (or other major US city) gangbanging murderer has usually been convicted of multiple violent crimes like assault, armed robbery, etc. The average time served for an armed robbery conviction is 3 years. Hell, many of these murderers have served time for murder before.

We live in a society where armed robbers only go to prison for 3 years. This is insane. When I say "enforce the law" I mean the courts should ensure that armed robbers serve the MAXIMUM sentence. We should change the law to make these max sentences longer. Murderers should serve life sentences. Release all the drug offenders and other victimless "criminals" to make room.

Obama talks about reducing gun violence. His proposal to do this always involves gun control. That makes it obvious to me that he doesn't care about reducing gun violence, he just wants to control people like me.

If he actually cared about reducing gun violence he would set up a Federal task force to help local authorities clean up Chicago, break up the gangs and make it clear that their behavior will not be tolerated. But that doesn't play as well with Democrat voters as gun control does.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1028 on: April 28, 2016, 09:04:34 AM »
I used to own guns for hunting and did so with friends.  But for whatever reason I don't hunt anymore.  But none of us ever owned or wanted a handgun to protect us from some imagined boogeyman.  If you have a handgun in the house it is statistically more likely to kill  a relative, friend, or kid than anyone kicking down your door.  No thanks.

And bless their hearts, in America no one would ever try to take away your right to not own a gun. It must be nice to have the freedom to decide how to do your own cost benefit analysis and decide which actions to take.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1029 on: April 28, 2016, 10:25:28 AM »
I used to own guns for hunting and did so with friends.  But for whatever reason I don't hunt anymore.  But none of us ever owned or wanted a handgun to protect us from some imagined boogeyman.  If you have a handgun in the house it is statistically more likely to kill  a relative, friend, or kid than anyone kicking down your door.  No thanks.

And bless their hearts, in America no one would ever try to take away your right to not own a gun. It must be nice to have the freedom to decide how to do your own cost benefit analysis and decide which actions to take.

And as other posters have pointed out, we see again this idea that if there is a 1 in 10 chance of something happening, that means there is a 1 in 10 chance of it happening to YOU. Which is not true.

Suppose some study says "A handgun in the home is 14 time more likely to harm a person living there than an intruder." Let's apply this idea to two different extreme cases.

Case #1, Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith have 3 children, ages 4, 8, and 14. Mrs. Smith has bipolar disorder and a history of manic episodes. Mr. Smith has a drinking problem. In their 15 years of marriage, police have been called to their house 4 times on domestic disturbance calls. The 14 year old son is bullied in school, has no friends, and has been in trouble for drawing scenes of his classmates being killed. The Smith family lives in an expensive home in a gated community with private security patrols 24/7.

Mr. Smith buys a handgun. He asks the gun store employee to load it for him, because he does not know how. He takes it home and puts it under his pillow, where it stays.

Case #2, Mr. and Mrs. Yates.

Mr. and Mrs. Yates have been married for 20 years but have no children. Neither of them has any mental illnesses or substance dependencies. They has always had a harmonious marriage. Whenever they do have disagreements, they calmly sort them out. When they have a significant conflict in their marriage, they go to their pastor for counseling. They have only had to do this twice in their 20 years of marriage. They live in an average middle class neighborhood with high crime areas within 10 miles.

Mr. Yates served in the Marine Corps as a firearms instructor in his youth. Mrs. Yates is the daughter of a police officer, and grew up around firearms. They own a large collection of firearms kept mostly in a safe. They carry concealed handguns on a daily basis. Those guns are kept loaded and close at hand in the home. They shoot recreationally and compete once a month in an IDPA league. Once a year they take an advanced firearms training course from a highly respected school taught by former special forces veterans. In the past 5 years they have taken Defensive Pistol, Advanced Defensive Pistol, Defensive Carbine, Advanced Defensive Carbine and a class on how to shoot from in and around vehicles.

 
Do you think both of these households are equally likely to end up victim to that 14x more likely statistic? No. Bad outcomes with firearms do not happen randomly. They are usually not accidents, they are usually the result of negligence.

Now, most households fall somewhere in between that of the Smiths and the Yates. I used them as two extreme examples, opposite ends of the spectrum. The Smiths are very unlikely to have to use a firearm in defense of their home, but very likely to have a bad outcome within the home. The Yates are the reverse.

My point is, all gun owners can (and most do) do things to get more towards the Yates end of the spectrum. The bad outcomes occur almost always near the Smiths end of the spectrum.

My household is very close to a Yates household. For example, the classes the Yates took are actually classes that my wife and I have taken together. You are not powerless in this. So when someone tells me "your guns are 14 time more likely to kill you than they are a home invader," I LITERALLY laugh at them.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 10:27:41 AM by winkeyman »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1031 on: April 28, 2016, 11:08:40 AM »
I used to own guns for hunting and did so with friends.  But for whatever reason I don't hunt anymore.  But none of us ever owned or wanted a handgun to protect us from some imagined boogeyman.  If you have a handgun in the house it is statistically more likely to kill  a relative, friend, or kid than anyone kicking down your door.  No thanks.

And bless their hearts, in America no one would ever try to take away your right to not own a gun. It must be nice to have the freedom to decide how to do your own cost benefit analysis and decide which actions to take.

And as other posters have pointed out, we see again this idea that if there is a 1 in 10 chance of something happening, that means there is a 1 in 10 chance of it happening to YOU. Which is not true.

Suppose some study says "A handgun in the home is 14 time more likely to harm a person living there than an intruder." Let's apply this idea to two different extreme cases.

Case #1, Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith have 3 children, ages 4, 8, and 14. Mrs. Smith has bipolar disorder and a history of manic episodes. Mr. Smith has a drinking problem. In their 15 years of marriage, police have been called to their house 4 times on domestic disturbance calls. The 14 year old son is bullied in school, has no friends, and has been in trouble for drawing scenes of his classmates being killed. The Smith family lives in an expensive home in a gated community with private security patrols 24/7.

Mr. Smith buys a handgun. He asks the gun store employee to load it for him, because he does not know how. He takes it home and puts it under his pillow, where it stays.

Case #2, Mr. and Mrs. Yates.

Mr. and Mrs. Yates have been married for 20 years but have no children. Neither of them has any mental illnesses or substance dependencies. They has always had a harmonious marriage. Whenever they do have disagreements, they calmly sort them out. When they have a significant conflict in their marriage, they go to their pastor for counseling. They have only had to do this twice in their 20 years of marriage. They live in an average middle class neighborhood with high crime areas within 10 miles.

Mr. Yates served in the Marine Corps as a firearms instructor in his youth. Mrs. Yates is the daughter of a police officer, and grew up around firearms. They own a large collection of firearms kept mostly in a safe. They carry concealed handguns on a daily basis. Those guns are kept loaded and close at hand in the home. They shoot recreationally and compete once a month in an IDPA league. Once a year they take an advanced firearms training course from a highly respected school taught by former special forces veterans. In the past 5 years they have taken Defensive Pistol, Advanced Defensive Pistol, Defensive Carbine, Advanced Defensive Carbine and a class on how to shoot from in and around vehicles.

 
Do you think both of these households are equally likely to end up victim to that 14x more likely statistic? No. Bad outcomes with firearms do not happen randomly. They are usually not accidents, they are usually the result of negligence.

Now, most households fall somewhere in between that of the Smiths and the Yates. I used them as two extreme examples, opposite ends of the spectrum. The Smiths are very unlikely to have to use a firearm in defense of their home, but very likely to have a bad outcome within the home. The Yates are the reverse.

My point is, all gun owners can (and most do) do things to get more towards the Yates end of the spectrum. The bad outcomes occur almost always near the Smiths end of the spectrum.

My household is very close to a Yates household. For example, the classes the Yates took are actually classes that my wife and I have taken together. You are not powerless in this. So when someone tells me "your guns are 14 time more likely to kill you than they are a home invader," I LITERALLY laugh at them.
Yep. Those are the ones you see in the news - and with over 300 million people in the USA, a very small percentage of stupid results in plenty of stories.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1032 on: April 28, 2016, 11:14:05 AM »
Hey look, another one:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/04/27/woman-shot-and-killed-by-2-year-old-son.html

Yeah. Sad, but not random. Tragic, but not really an accident. Pure idiocy and negligence.

If you keep a loaded gun on the floor of your car, and transport children in that car, I don't really know what to tell you.

Entirely, and easily preventable. All they had to do was not keep a loaded gun on the floorboards of their car. The mother, or the boyfriend are responsible for this incident. Not the gun, or the manufacturer, or the NRA, or me. Maybe we can pass a law that says "It is a crime to have a loaded gun sliding around on the floorboards of a car while 2 year olds are in the car." While we are at it, we can pass a law that says "It is a crime to get drunk and juggle lit torches while sitting in a bathtub full of gasoline."

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1033 on: April 28, 2016, 11:23:39 AM »
Yeah, totally agree Winkeyman.  Fuck them.  Fuck all 70+ of the people who have been shot by toddlers this year.  There's certainly no problem, and even if there was, there's certainly no way to solve it.  Everything is awesome.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1034 on: April 28, 2016, 11:31:06 AM »
Hey look, another one:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/04/27/woman-shot-and-killed-by-2-year-old-son.html

This is incredibly sad.

Negligence and lack of awareness result in so much preventable tragedy. The owner of the weapon even presumably trained. (according to a random web link - minimum 36 hours of training to carry a firearm as a security officer in that state.)

http://www.securityguard-license.org/states/wisconsin-private-security-persons.html
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1035 on: April 28, 2016, 11:40:45 AM »
Yeah, totally agree Winkeyman.  Fuck them.  Fuck all 70+ of the people who have been shot by toddlers this year.  There's certainly no problem, and even if there was, there's certainly no way to solve it.  Everything is awesome.

You are putting words in my mouth. I can't speak for 70+ cases, but in the case you linked to, yes, the person at fault was either the mother or the boyfriend. Whoever put a loaded gun under the seat of the car. Who else could possibly be at fault? The way to "solve" the problem would have been for the mother or boyfriend to NOT put a loaded gun under the seat, and then put a 2 year old in the back. Do you disagree with this? Who do you think is at fault?

For the larger issue of 70+ incidents, I imagine there were similar circumstances. If we want to refer to these incidents as a whole as "a problem", there is a way to solve it. Ban guns, or heavily restrict them like other Western nations do. Then confiscate the unauthorized ones like was done in Australia and other nations. That would prevent the vast majority, or all of incidents like these.

ETA:

But yeah, screw some of them, kinda. If you put a loaded gun in your child's crib, screw you. If the kid kills itself, screw you. If the kid kills you or someone else with it, screw you even more. Screw you for endangering your child. Screw you for giving your child a life without a parent. Screw you for giving your child a life where the child grows up with the burden of knowing they killed someone on accident. Screw you for endangering the people around you due to stupidity and negligence.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 11:54:46 AM by winkeyman »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1036 on: April 28, 2016, 11:42:58 AM »
Maybe we can pass a law that says "It is a crime to have a loaded gun sliding around on the floorboards of a car while 2 year olds are in the car."

Florida has such a law. It is a crime to allow a minor unsupervised access to a firearm. The woman who was shot by her child in an almost identical situation in that state is being prosecuted. (The incident is referenced in the current article)

I think it's a fantastic idea for a law.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1037 on: April 28, 2016, 12:17:08 PM »
Yeah, totally agree Winkeyman.  Fuck them.  Fuck all 70+ of the people who have been shot by toddlers this year.  There's certainly no problem, and even if there was, there's certainly no way to solve it.  Everything is awesome.

Looks like another one has resorted to trolling.

We were doing so well, too.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1038 on: April 28, 2016, 12:37:00 PM »
Here's a few facts everyone seems to agree on - or at least those not in denial of the facts:

--The US has the highest gun violence among 80 developed countries.  Sure - you can pick out ones such as Guatemeula say -but do we need to stoop as low as to pick a country challenged by civil war for decades and now a non-functional government to say --"see, really, we're not the worst!!   That is a pretty low threshold to choose for comparison.

--There is a scientifically proven relationship between the amount of guns and circulation and violence.   The counter seems to be yea- the more cars there are the more deaths.  But generally not by someone who gets pissed at his girlfriend, neighbor, or whoever on the road and needs to "set it straight".  If a gun weren't available for a quick solution there would be less deaths.  Yes, it is that simple.

--Access to guns for the mentally ill.  Yea - I know, enforce the laws.  But the NRA has their boot on the neck of the ATF and other agencies specifically not letting them have access to the data that would help this.  Very cynical.

--Accidents by children.  WTF?  "these folks were acting irresponsibly" is the phrase. Yea, no shit.  You have a gun in the house and it is statistically much more likely that you will kill grandma, your kid will shoot themselves, your kid will shoot his friend, or your kid will shoot a parent than you will use it to kill some boogeyman.

These are the facts.  I can't say I have an answer because we are just awash in guns in this country and with the corresponding level of violence.

And I don't know how we got so darn chickenshit scared that we feel we need to arm ourselves in such a manner.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1039 on: April 28, 2016, 12:55:06 PM »
Yeah, totally agree Winkeyman.  Fuck them.  Fuck all 70+ of the people who have been shot by toddlers this year.  There's certainly no problem, and even if there was, there's certainly no way to solve it.  Everything is awesome.

Looks like another one has resorted to trolling.

We were doing so well, too.

Not at all.  The well reasoned gun advocacy arguments have won me over.  There is no problem in the US with guns (that can't be solved with more guns and less restrictions on guns).  There is no way to improve current laws or to pass new laws that will help to solve the problem.  Actually, no problem exists.

70+ toddlers shooting people in the first four months of this year is perfectly normal.  It's a small price to pay for the regular and daily occurrences of one dude with an M16 taking out a band of ninja assassins who attempt to do him and his family harm.  Any attempt to protect the toddler will give the ninja assassins and potentially communist Hitler (constantly waiting in the wings to take power in the US should the government ever be able to computerize a gun registry) the edge.

Any attempt to make a change for the better, would in fact be a change for the worse.  Therefore everything is awesome.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1040 on: April 28, 2016, 12:58:47 PM »
Here's a few facts everyone seems to agree on - or at least those not in denial of the facts:

--The US has the highest gun violence among 80 developed countries.  Sure - you can pick out ones such as Guatemeula say -but do we need to stoop as low as to pick a country challenged by civil war for decades and now a non-functional government to say --"see, really, we're not the worst!!   That is a pretty low threshold to choose for comparison.

--There is a scientifically proven relationship between the amount of guns and circulation and violence.   The counter seems to be yea- the more cars there are the more deaths.  But generally not by someone who gets pissed at his girlfriend, neighbor, or whoever on the road and needs to "set it straight".  If a gun weren't available for a quick solution there would be less deaths.  Yes, it is that simple.

--Access to guns for the mentally ill.  Yea - I know, enforce the laws.  But the NRA has their boot on the neck of the ATF and other agencies specifically not letting them have access to the data that would help this.  Very cynical.

--Accidents by children.  WTF?  "these folks were acting irresponsibly" is the phrase. Yea, no shit.  You have a gun in the house and it is statistically much more likely that you will kill grandma, your kid will shoot themselves, your kid will shoot his friend, or your kid will shoot a parent than you will use it to kill some boogeyman.

These are the facts.  I can't say I have an answer because we are just awash in guns in this country and with the corresponding level of violence.

And I don't know how we got so darn chickenshit scared that we feel we need to arm ourselves in such a manner.

Lol. "These are the facts we all agree on, except for those in denial of the facts." I'll have to remember that one and use it down the road. Nice.

- The US has the most guns, and hence the most instances of guns being used in acts of violence. This is true. No brainer. The sky is blue. So what?
- If there were fewer guns, there may be fewer deaths. So what?
- Statistical likelihoods again. Irrelevant. Read my post #1032

My question is, when did we get so chickenshit scared of people dying that we decided calling to restrict our essential rights? There are more important things than 100, or 1000, or 10,000 people dying per year. Read my post # 945 for reasons why.

Maintaining the right to keep and bear arms is more important than preventing some deaths each year.

If we banned and confiscated all guns, we would probably save lots of lives. Not worth it. Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1041 on: April 28, 2016, 01:01:36 PM »
Yeah, totally agree Winkeyman.  Fuck them.  Fuck all 70+ of the people who have been shot by toddlers this year.  There's certainly no problem, and even if there was, there's certainly no way to solve it.  Everything is awesome.

Looks like another one has resorted to trolling.

We were doing so well, too.

Not at all.  The well reasoned gun advocacy arguments have won me over.  There is no problem in the US with guns (that can't be solved with more guns and less restrictions on guns).  There is no way to improve current laws or to pass new laws that will help to solve the problem.  Actually, no problem exists.

70+ toddlers shooting people in the first four months of this year is perfectly normal.  It's a small price to pay for the regular and daily occurrences of one dude with an M16 taking out a band of ninja assassins who attempt to do him and his family harm.  Any attempt to protect the toddler will give the ninja assassins and potentially communist Hitler (constantly waiting in the wings to take power in the US should the government ever be able to computerize a gun registry) the edge.

Any attempt to make a change for the better, would in fact be a change for the worse.  Therefore everything is awesome.

People dying by accidents involving firearms is bad. It is a problem.

Further restricting or eliminating the right to keep and bear arms is worse. It is a bigger problem.

Re-phrasing it in some snarky way doesn't make you clever.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1042 on: April 28, 2016, 01:01:57 PM »
Yeah, totally agree Winkeyman.  Fuck them.  Fuck all 70+ of the people who have been shot by toddlers this year.  There's certainly no problem, and even if there was, there's certainly no way to solve it.  Everything is awesome.

Looks like another one has resorted to trolling.

We were doing so well, too.

Not at all.  The well reasoned gun advocacy arguments have won me over.  There is no problem in the US with guns (that can't be solved with more guns and less restrictions on guns).  There is no way to improve current laws or to pass new laws that will help to solve the problem.  Actually, no problem exists.

70+ toddlers shooting people in the first four months of this year is perfectly normal.  It's a small price to pay for the regular and daily occurrences of one dude with an M16 taking out a band of ninja assassins who attempt to do him and his family harm.  Any attempt to protect the toddler will give the ninja assassins and potentially communist Hitler (constantly waiting in the wings to take power in the US should the government ever be able to computerize a gun registry) the edge.

Any attempt to make a change for the better, would in fact be a change for the worse.  Therefore everything is awesome.

And with this, I think my point has been made.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1043 on: April 28, 2016, 01:05:03 PM »
Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Preach on brother!

You don't want to live in an oppressive hell hole and bastion of anti-liberty like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Netherlands!  Those poor bastards are brutalized under the yoke of governmental oppression from morning to night!  Completely un-free in every way.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1044 on: April 28, 2016, 01:05:18 PM »
- The US has the most guns, and hence the most instances of guns being used in acts of violence. This is true. No brainer. The sky is blue. So what?
- If there were fewer guns, there may be fewer deaths. So what?
- Statistical likelihoods again. Irrelevant.
-Maintaining the right to keep and bear arms is more important than preventing some deaths each year.
If we banned and confiscated all guns, we would probably save lots of lives. Not worth it. Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Well, we each have our definition of insane.  How liberty=guns is anyone's guess.  Again - how did people get so paranoid and chickenshit?

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1045 on: April 28, 2016, 01:07:30 PM »
Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Preach on brother!

You don't want to live in an oppressive hell hole and bastion of anti-liberty like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Netherlands!  Those poor bastards are brutalized under the yoke of governmental oppression from morning to night!  Completely un-free in every way.

You could add about 80 other oppressed countries around the world who don't have the Freedum we do to purposely or accidently kill each other with easily accessible guns.   that's we are #1.  U-S-A, U-S-A!

However- I acknowledge your straightforward-ness on what you think is the higher value.  A lot of gun proponents will just dance around it.  But as you can tell, I think it's flawed logic.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 01:14:21 PM by Northwestie »

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1046 on: April 28, 2016, 01:13:28 PM »
If we ban cars we won't have any more DUI deaths either but no one seems to want to talk about that rationally.

Laws don't protect anyone.  They proscribe penalties for actions we (society) deem unacceptable.  The "gun control" side really want to take away guns from the citizens.  That is the truth no matter how you dress it up.  If they can manage to disarm the criminals FIRST, they might be able to convince the non criminals to shelve theirs.  Until then, their approach is like saying "If we get rid of our military, we won't have any wars".


The "gun control" side always wants to blame the firearm for the damage and not the person holding it or not properly controlling it.  Gifford who got shot blamed the pistol, not the shooter.

As to "assault" weapons, if it isn't a select fire, it isn't an "assault" weapon unless one uses it to commit an assault.  Like a hammer.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1047 on: April 28, 2016, 01:16:32 PM »
- The US has the most guns, and hence the most instances of guns being used in acts of violence. This is true. No brainer. The sky is blue. So what?
- If there were fewer guns, there may be fewer deaths. So what?
- Statistical likelihoods again. Irrelevant.
-Maintaining the right to keep and bear arms is more important than preventing some deaths each year.
If we banned and confiscated all guns, we would probably save lots of lives. Not worth it. Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Well, we each have our definition of insane.  How liberty=guns is anyone's guess.  Again - how did people get so paranoid and chickenshit?

I hate to quote myself, but...

I often wonder if anti-gun people understand the importance of the role of firearms when it comes to the liberty that most of us take for granted. People talk about where human rights come from in theory. It is also important to think about where they came from in practice.

Throughout (basically) all of human history, the vast majority of human beings lived in abject subjugation. The average person was basically the property of a king, or warlord, or emperor, or tribal ruler, or whatever. This situation was ALWAYS maintained using one basic mechanism; the professional soldier. In different times, places, and cultures, this looked different. The Roman Legion, the Greek Hoplite, the Byzantine Cataphract, and so on. The ruling class was able to maintain absolute control over the population by maintaining small numbers of expertly trained and well equipped soldiers. Human beings had, in practice, no rights because they could not exert their claim to human rights against rulers wielding even small numbers of professional soldiers.

Use the classic European Knight as an example. The knight was part of the ruling class. He was trained from a young age to fight. His weapons, armor, several trained warhorses and so on were incredibly expensive. By maintaining even a small number of these professional soldiers, the ruling class could maintain whatever level of control over the subject class they desired.

All the religious principles, all the philosophy, all the basic yearning people have for human dignity cannot stand up to a mounted charge from knights on horseback. Humans have always had basic, inherent rights. However, they had no way to force the ruling classes to acknowledge this fact. Five thousand righteously angry peasants with pitchforks could not stand up to 100 professionally trained and equipped knights on horseback.

Then the firearm was invented. Now, the peasant could be trained in a day to use a musket to shoot a knight off of his horse. Many people acknowledge how this changed warfare, but fewer acknowledge how it changed the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. After the proliferation of the firearm, the ruling class could no longer subjugate the vast majority of human beings with the threat of small numbers of professional soldiers. It totally changed the power dynamic. It is not a coincidence that the 18th and 19th and 20th century saw people all over the world overthrowing their rulers, or at least demanding basic human rights and dignity.

Human beings didn't suddenly figure out they should be free. They always knew it. The proliferation of the firearm gave them the ability to demand it. Human rights, dignity, and liberty in practice literally flow from the barrel of a gun. Ask, tell, make.

Those who would willingly give up the firearm and throw themselves on the mercy of their rulers are insane. They are not progressive, they are regressive. They are short sighted, they and blind, they do not understand history. Human ingenuity has given us a tool to ensure our basic human rights. Keeping this tool is worth the cost of 10, 20, 30, 50 thousand deaths a year and more.

How people can fail to see this baffles me.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1048 on: April 28, 2016, 01:18:47 PM »
I would disagree with some of your assertions.  Unfortunately the 5-4 SCOTUS decision has clarified the right of a citizen to own guns. 

But every proposed rule to help bend the curve a bit is stomped on by the NRA lobby as trying to take away guns.  Let's take one example. The ATF, by congressional rule, is not allowed to digitize their gun ownership files -- this is pretty cynical.  They keep saying "enforce the law" but then put up road blocks to do so.  You can't have it both ways.

The slippery-slope argument is pure BS.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1049 on: April 28, 2016, 01:21:03 PM »
Here's a few facts everyone seems to agree on - or at least those not in denial of the facts:

--The US has the highest gun violence among 80 developed countries.  Sure - you can pick out ones such as Guatemeula say -but do we need to stoop as low as to pick a country challenged by civil war for decades and now a non-functional government to say --"see, really, we're not the worst!!   That is a pretty low threshold to choose for comparison.

--There is a scientifically proven relationship between the amount of guns and circulation and violence.   The counter seems to be yea- the more cars there are the more deaths.  But generally not by someone who gets pissed at his girlfriend, neighbor, or whoever on the road and needs to "set it straight".  If a gun weren't available for a quick solution there would be less deaths.  Yes, it is that simple.

--Access to guns for the mentally ill.  Yea - I know, enforce the laws.  But the NRA has their boot on the neck of the ATF and other agencies specifically not letting them have access to the data that would help this.  Very cynical.

--Accidents by children.  WTF?  "these folks were acting irresponsibly" is the phrase. Yea, no shit.  You have a gun in the house and it is statistically much more likely that you will kill grandma, your kid will shoot themselves, your kid will shoot his friend, or your kid will shoot a parent than you will use it to kill some boogeyman.

These are the facts.  I can't say I have an answer because we are just awash in guns in this country and with the corresponding level of violence.

And I don't know how we got so darn chickenshit scared that we feel we need to arm ourselves in such a manner.


Do you propose solutions to these problems, short of confiscating all weapons in the US? Do you think that items that kill a similar number of children need to be restricted in similar ways?

We all agree guns are dangerous. We all agree there are improvements to be made. One side has offered suggestions: training in school, changes to the background check system/FFL licensing rules, prosecution of those that break the law, changes and improvements to the mental health laws of the country, criminal liability for those whose unsafe practices harm someone else.

The other side has offered: a bunch of laws that already exist, AUSTRALIA IA GREAT, confiscation/outlawing of all firearms, THINK OF THE BABIES, WHYAREYOUSCAREDANDCARRYAGUN??? and increased training requirements for people who carry in public and kill the least amount of people every year.

We look forward to your suggestions on improvements that cover new ground or offer compromise or insight into solutions that have been discussed.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM