Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 375653 times)

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #950 on: April 27, 2016, 11:43:27 AM »

Training would also reduce the murder rate because as you know, most crimminals are essentially lazy.    Beyond your occasional psychopath, they're probably not going to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a gun.


A BJS study done in 2004 interviewed inmates with criminal convictions for crimes involving firearms, only 11% admitted to purchasing a gun in a retail setting. Right around 37% said they got the gun from a family member or friend by either purchasing it, borrowing it, or as a gift, and 40% admitted to getting their gun via less than legal means (from drug dealers, theft, etc.).

Similarly, in a recent Politifact article they noted:
"Philip Cook, a professor of economics and sociology at Duke University...and colleagues Susan Parker and Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago interviewed 99 inmates of the Cook County Jail in Chicago. Of the 70 inmates who had possessed a firearm, only 2, or 2.9 percent, had bought it at a gun store. The report found that percentage was in line with the findings of the Chicago Police Department when it traced weapons seized from suspected gang members."

Based on those statistics, your proposed training and regulations probably won't do much in the way of preventing criminals from getting guns. It also doesn't necessarily help the suicide rate as mentioned above. So your proposals would likely have little to no effect on the number of firearm deaths and be regulation for the sake of regulation, something everybody should oppose.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #951 on: April 27, 2016, 11:45:21 AM »
You're completely ignoring the big picture. We've shown again and again that regulation doesn't change the market, it's not as enforceable as airplane regulation. This is shown as it's easier to control a commercial industry requiring significant infrastructure (like planes) vs a private industry like firearms. Policy is very dependent on the ability to regulate and enforce the policy. If you can't enforce it, especially on something as easily producible as firearms, good luck. Also, please be aware that people change behaviors based on controls implemented. Increasing the costs and ability to purchase a firearm will push more private trades under the table and increase the black-market on firearms.

Here's something that's pretty sweet, make your own guns in your garage for cheap. The government can't stop or control it:
https://www.ghostgunner.net/

The UK, Canada, Australia have all failed to impact gun violence with legislation. It's unacceptable to promote a reduction in liberty for no gain to society other than that liberal placebo of paternal protection.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #952 on: April 27, 2016, 11:50:05 AM »
Training is twofold.    Unfamiliarity is a serious problem, I believe you said that you're ex LEO, I went through OCS in the Marine Corps (dor'ed before you ask) and I've seen seen some really bad habits at civilian ranges, I'm sure you have too.    I've also seen my redneck family members keep loaded weapons in the open around children.      These people need some more training.     Two, mandatory training would allow instructors to spot potential crimminals, crazies and terrorists and red flag them for further investigation.     I used to train a lot of foreign pilots, (the 9-11 high jackers trained 10 miles up the road from my school).    After 9-11, every instructor had to go through training to spot potential terrorists.    It seems to have worked fairly well.

You're right that alone this won't reduce the murder and suicide rate, that's another issue which needs to be dealt with through community mental health and poverty reduction programs.    Every gun owner should be lobbying Congress to implement more spending in these areas.    However, having to qualify with a weapon would make you come into contact with more officials.   That would potentially allow them to spot people who might be suicidal.     My wife is a psychologist, the threshold for determining suicidality is fairly specific and simple.

Training would also reduce the murder rate because as you know, most crimminals are essentially lazy.    Beyond your occasional psychopath, they're probably not going to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a gun.

Based on your responses, I don't know why we wouldn't allow someone like you to own an M-16.    Especially used surplus built after 1986 that should cost $500 instead of $20,000.

Unfamiliarity is a serious problem, yes -- but it is not the cause of murders and suicides, which comprise the vast majority of firearm-related deaths. Relying on a lay person to determine mental health is a recipe for disaster, and also invites a massive amount of liability on the part of anyone relied upon to make that determination.

How is it a faulty comparison?    They're both objects that are simple to master but difficult to recover in tenuous situations.     If anything, keeping a plane flying in bad weather or with mechanical situations is more difficult than keeping a bullet from entering an innocent person.

One is a mode of transportation.  One is a weapon.  Your emphasis appears to be that "training will solve the problem" -- were the 9/11 hijackers untrained?  How is a firearm "difficult to recover in tenuous situations"? I'm no ATP, but I've landed a C182RG in a crosswind and that was more complicated than plinking cans with my Ruger 10/22.

A more accurate comparison would be airplanes to cars (which kill over 30,000 people annually).

They're both tools, tools require training and practice.    You've plinked cans since you were 9 years old, I'm sure you're better at it than me.    I got to the point as an instructor that I could land a plane by simply telling a student (who had never flown the plane) what sort of adjustments to make while I stared out the side window.

The classic example with a firearm is a noise heard in the middle of the night.    Do you have the training necessary to go from a dead sleep to identifying a robber from your spouse?    That's a difficult situation that's hard to recover from.

The 9-11 highjackers should have been stopped by the FBI after the instructors training them made reports.    That was a failure of the system that wouldn't happen today because we've adjusted systems and training relative to events.

The incidents which your suggestions focus on are not the ones that cause the most deaths. How many gang murders are there vs how many misidentified intruders? I understand that some of your suggestions would have a positive impact, but the situations in which they would be beneficial are rare in comparison to everything else.

Also, the crime rate for existing CCW holders is about the same as that for law enforcement officers. I don't see how increasing their standards dramatically is going to make much of an impact, given the low rate they're already demonstrating.  The people who are following current laws are not the problem (which makes sense, given that law-abiding people don't generally commit murder).

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).

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #953 on: April 27, 2016, 12:22:10 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.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 12:24:18 PM by Midwest »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #954 on: April 27, 2016, 12:22:44 PM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.   


I believe you argue the current CCW training classes (in most states) aren't enough despite the low incident rate.  How much training would you envision for a CCW to carry a 9MM? 

With regard to your pilot comparison, it's unfair to compare professional pilots to citizen gun owners.  Amateur pilots have a much higher incident rate than airlines for miles flown yet we still allow them to fly.

I'm not sure.   There would probably be a graduated certificate  based on hours trained and testing.    Then specific endorsements for more highly sensitive areas like schools, courthouses or say packed concerts.     Maybe 40 hours of training with a written and practical exam could be considered a license to learn.    You could carry in relativery low density areas or in locations like your car.    LEO's and ex military would also be able to test out immediately if they chose.

Yes, general aviation is considerably less safe than airlines.   Beyond pilot ability and oversight, the equipment simply isn't as good at the GA level on the whole.    However, the FAA and NTSB continually evaluate the cause of GA crashes and change requirements and training based on statistics and individual findings.    Pilots are also continually evaluated throughout their career, and the FAA offers lots of free training material for pilots at all levels.    From seminars to emails.    This does reduce the incidences of accidents and incidents for GA.

Interesting proposal. Since knowing how to be safe around firearms is a skill that would benefit almost everyone in a society awash in guns, would you agree that it would be beneficial if these classes were taught in school? Then all citizens would learn how to be safe around firearms, would know the storage requirements and consequences of not following basic safety regulations, would be reasonably skilled to safely use firearms and the monetary and time costs of such intensive training would not be prohibitive to lower-income persons.  Kinda like driver's education is taught in school; make it mandatory and widely available to ensure that this important information is shared with as many people as possible.
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 #955 on: April 27, 2016, 12:28:46 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.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4217
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #956 on: April 27, 2016, 12:33:01 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.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.
I would see that as reasonable if the penalty for selling to someone who failed was high enough.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #957 on: April 27, 2016, 12:36:46 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.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.

So every time I loan a gun to a friend, I need to run a background check or face charges?  No thanks.  FWIW, I know my friends aren't felons and would not sell to someone I don't know without an FFL.

From a practical perspective, FFL keep paperwork and a book.  How would non-FFL's document all this?

I think you achieve most of the benefit by putting and enforcing a a firm limit on sales by non FFL's.   Straw purchases are hard to prosecute but proving transfers above the set amount would seem to be easier.  Set a limit, publicize the limit and enforce the limit. 

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #958 on: April 27, 2016, 12:51:04 PM »
Why be worried?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xi9pyQ2MFsE/U8gvekvNe2I/AAAAAAAACbg/LuFupWQadHM/s1600/Gun_deaths+v+guns+chart.jpg

And, again, if you take suicides out of the numbers it'll be far lower. Stop cherry-picking data and use the correct statistics.

Yup.  Suicides are a HUGE percentage of the gun deaths in the USA.

After that, most are due to the insane DRUG WAR.  Gangs of criminals who provide drugs killing each other over turf.  Or battling with the police.  In both cases, any related deaths of thugs, cops, or innocent bystanders are a direct result of the failed "War on Drugs."

Note:  If drugs weren't illegal, you wouldn't need the Mexican and Colombian mafia, and the Bloods and Cryps, selling them.  End the insane "Drug War" and you make a massive dent in the number of gun deaths overnight.

That would be far more effective than taking guns away from honest, law abiding citizens like myself who are no threat to anyone who isn't kicking down my front door at 3 am...

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #959 on: April 27, 2016, 01:07:18 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.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.

So every time I loan a gun to a friend, I need to run a background check or face charges?  No thanks.  FWIW, I know my friends aren't felons and would not sell to someone I don't know without an FFL.

From a practical perspective, FFL keep paperwork and a book.  How would non-FFL's document all this?

I think you achieve most of the benefit by putting and enforcing a a firm limit on sales by non FFL's.   Straw purchases are hard to prosecute but proving transfers above the set amount would seem to be easier.  Set a limit, publicize the limit and enforce the limit.

If you know your friends aren't felons, no need to check them. The law reads that you are responsible for that weapon; it only becomes an issue when someone who isn't allowed to have a weapon uses it for a crime.

The paperwork would be kept by the background check place. "I'd like to sell a Ruger 10/22, number abc123 to Joe Smith." That gun then becomes Smiths. No need for an FFL, or even and individual, to keep paperwork.

The issue I have with FFL's being required is that forces me, and the party I'm selling to, to drive to an FFL.  If I want to transfer to my dad, or my friend, or my uncle, it could be 2-3 hours one way for them to drive to a dealer. Seems completely inefficient, just for the dealer to dial a phone number and read a sheet of paper. I can handle that.
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 #960 on: April 27, 2016, 01:11:58 PM »
I would see that as reasonable if the penalty for selling to someone who failed was high enough.

18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) - fines up to $250,000 and 10 years in prison is the current law. In my opinion that's a good place to anchor.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #961 on: April 27, 2016, 01:54:42 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.

What if we opened the current background check to civilians? Instead of having to transfer through an FFL, I could call the transfer and get a pass/fail from the background check center. (Basically the exact same system we have now, only it's currently restricted to FFL dealers, for some reason)  Then the onus is on the individual to ensure that the friend/neighbor/uncle I'm loaning or giving my weapon to is not prohibited from possession.

So every time I loan a gun to a friend, I need to run a background check or face charges?  No thanks.  FWIW, I know my friends aren't felons and would not sell to someone I don't know without an FFL.

From a practical perspective, FFL keep paperwork and a book.  How would non-FFL's document all this?

I think you achieve most of the benefit by putting and enforcing a a firm limit on sales by non FFL's.   Straw purchases are hard to prosecute but proving transfers above the set amount would seem to be easier.  Set a limit, publicize the limit and enforce the limit.

If you know your friends aren't felons, no need to check them. The law reads that you are responsible for that weapon; it only becomes an issue when someone who isn't allowed to have a weapon uses it for a crime.

The paperwork would be kept by the background check place. "I'd like to sell a Ruger 10/22, number abc123 to Joe Smith." That gun then becomes Smiths. No need for an FFL, or even and individual, to keep paperwork.


If the FFL or you don't keep a record of the check, how do you prove it happened unless you have a central registry on the firearm.  When you get a background check now, it is my understanding the FBI doesn't keep a record of the firearm.  The FFL keeps the record on the transfer. 

I wouldn't support a registry because it has too much possibility for abuse.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #962 on: April 27, 2016, 02:06:08 PM »
If the FFL or you don't keep a record of the check, how do you prove it happened unless you have a central registry on the firearm.  When you get a background check now, it is my understanding the FBI doesn't keep a record of the firearm.  The FFL keeps the record on the transfer. 

I wouldn't support a registry because it has too much possibility for abuse.

Agreed, if the government tries to keep a firearm registry it's a non-starter. Just like if they attempt to push gun control legislative or regulation costs to the manufacturers or the consumer.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #963 on: April 27, 2016, 02:48:46 PM »
Why not a double blind registry system where people's weapons are assigned a number that isn't associated with that name?    That way if someone is caught with a weapon they would have to produce a number or pass phrase that would associate them with that weapon.     No more straw purchases, or underground deals.    Transfers could be made through a website or phone number with a weapon's serial number and your unique number.    No need for

I had to pay for drivers ed (I think it was $400 in 1995) and it was at a private school.    I don't see why you can't offer something like that for teenagers, though I'm not sure how helpful it would be for someone that couldn't purchase the item until their 18th or 21st birthday.    Perhaps they could start building hours for training at that point.

I know you guys will hate this, but I think the only way we could really impact gun violence and accidents, is with a certificate system which was the sole means of obtaining weapons.    If you can't pass the basic class, you can't buy a gun.    If you can, you can keep going and buy whatever you qualify on.   Again, it should be run as a joint government civilan venture to prevent abuse.    If someone proves their safe, sane and competent then they have a weapon.    Once they've done more specific training, they can use better equipment in places that require more skill.

JLee, lay people evaluate people's mental health on a daily basis.    They don't determine them sane or insane, they just tell someone above them that this guy is acting strange and we shouldn't let him do ___ without checking him out.    It was a big part of my flight instructor training, and reporting someone's strange behavior to the FAA didn't open me up to liability.    There's also a series of mental health questions on the medical examination.   

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #964 on: April 27, 2016, 03:20:20 PM »
Why not a double blind registry system where people's weapons are assigned a number that isn't associated with that name?    That way if someone is caught with a weapon they would have to produce a number or pass phrase that would associate them with that weapon.     No more straw purchases, or underground deals.    Transfers could be made through a website or phone number with a weapon's serial number and your unique number.    No need for

I had to pay for drivers ed (I think it was $400 in 1995) and it was at a private school.    I don't see why you can't offer something like that for teenagers, though I'm not sure how helpful it would be for someone that couldn't purchase the item until their 18th or 21st birthday.    Perhaps they could start building hours for training at that point.

I know you guys will hate this, but I think the only way we could really impact gun violence and accidents, is with a certificate system which was the sole means of obtaining weapons.    If you can't pass the basic class, you can't buy a gun.    If you can, you can keep going and buy whatever you qualify on.   Again, it should be run as a joint government civilan venture to prevent abuse.    If someone proves their safe, sane and competent then they have a weapon.    Once they've done more specific training, they can use better equipment in places that require more skill.

JLee, lay people evaluate people's mental health on a daily basis.    They don't determine them sane or insane, they just tell someone above them that this guy is acting strange and we shouldn't let him do ___ without checking him out.    It was a big part of my flight instructor training, and reporting someone's strange behavior to the FAA didn't open me up to liability.    There's also a series of mental health questions on the medical examination.   

Nothing you propose will impact gun violence. It hasn't worked abroad, it won't work here. Stop trying to punish, or place additional burdens on, responsible owners for crimes they're not committing.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #965 on: April 27, 2016, 05:05:41 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.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #966 on: April 27, 2016, 05:28:30 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 05:32:56 PM by Northwestie »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #967 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: 527
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #968 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: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #969 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 #970 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: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #971 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 #972 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: 1112
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #973 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: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #974 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 #975 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: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #976 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: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #977 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: 1231
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Australia
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #978 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.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #979 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 #980 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 #981 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 #982 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 #983 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 #984 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 #985 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 #986 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: 1171
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #987 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.
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #988 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: 8232
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #989 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: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #990 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 #991 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 #992 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 #993 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 #994 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 #995 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: 8232
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #997 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 #998 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: 8232
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #999 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.