March For Our Lives 3/24/18

[sui generis]

Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.

All except the "death by cops" folks who still want to go out in a blaze of gunfire. These types of folks like to shoot it out with cops every once in a while don't they? They plan to die so they don't care who is armed as long as they, the bad guy gets to pop off a few rounds / murder a few people before they the bad guy dies. Personally I categorize most if not all school shooters as this type. They have to know that their chance of going to jail instead of the morgue is pretty small.

Yep.  And not to mention that the stated goal of the March (to bring this back around to the topic at hand) is not just about ending school shootings. It's about gun regulations that would reduce all gun violence and while this was prompted by a school shooting, we all know that the preposterous levels of gun violence in this country are not mostly attributable to mass shootings.  We don't just want to end mass shootings (at schools or not), we want to have anywhere near the levels of gun violence they have in any other industrialized country, from "gun-toting" countries like Israel and Switzerland to countries that are less so, like Australia and the UK.  They all have something in common, besides their vastly lower levels of gun violence - gun regulation. 

Also, no not "all valuable people and things in this world...are protected by guns."  See again every other country, for a start.

[Just Joe]

The problem with more guns is it still does not address the desire of the nutters to kill people - especially children. If they can't have a gun they'll go for mail bombs or booby traps or arson.

We still aren't addressing the root of the problems with more guns. No single cause, no single answer. A healthier society and a sense of community might be a good start. Teaching our kids to respect each other, avoid socially isolating the "different" kids, and get to know our neighbors. A better effort to make our society better places to live would go a long way. Improve people's quality of life. Instead we have people struggling along with no end in sight for their troubles. Things always getting worse (real or not) than better.

I think the ACA was a BIG step in that direction. Of course the GOP has endlessly tried to kill it rather than improve it. Tough to get help for one's woes when healthcare access is so damn complicated.

[libertarian4321]

I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience.  Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.

Ehh, why stop there then if applying that logic? How about an MP3, or an M249!

You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).


[MOD NOTE: Manners, please.  If you can't keep your tone civil, these threads will be shut down.]

An AR-15 is a civilian weapon, with no more killing capacity than many common (and rather ancient) hunting or ranch rifles.

The AR-15 LOOKS like a military weapon.  It does not have the capability of one.  It's a simple "one trigger squeeze, one shot" weapon like any other old semi-auto ranch rifle.

You hand an AR-15 to a soldier and tell him he has to go into battle with that thing, and he's going to look at you like you've lost your mind.

I simply prefer the AR-15 to something like a relatively harmless looking Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle because I am more familiar with the weapon.

Not "scary" and therefore "okay?":



Scary!  Ban it!



Actually, in this case, the "non-scary" rifle is more dangerous than the "scary" AR-15.  It has more "scary black plastic" on it, but is actually chambered for a less lethal round.

[libertarian4321]

As usual, this entire backlash is against inanimate objects and their owners, instead of the actual bad guy.

Yup, they always demonize the tens of millions of decent, upstanding citizens who have never done anything wrong, rather than proposing something that will stop the nutjobs who want to commit acts of violence.

Then they wonder why people like us resist their agenda.

Propose something rational, that might reduce the violence, without demonizing the millions of good people who own guns, and we can talk.

Come at me like I've done something wrong just because I own a rifle, and you won't get cooperation.

And that's why this "movement" will fail, because it's demonizing decent folks, just like they always do...

[libertarian4321]

The other thing I always find amusing about these "protests". 

Rather than reducing the number of guns, they always result in a RISE IN GUN SALES.

Gun and ammo makers in the USA were dying with Trump in office.  After Barack Obama (the best gun salesman in the history of the world-every time he'd rant about guns, sales would skyrocket) left, people stopped worrying about "bans" and gun sales tanked.  Remington (bankruptcy reorganization) and others were on the ropes financially.

With the FL shooting, and all the "ban guns" protests/hoopla surrounding it, and Trump (sometimes) talking about more laws, gun sales are shooting up again.

[sui generis]

Yup, they always demonize the tens of millions of decent, upstanding citizens who have never done anything wrong, rather than proposing something that will stop the nutjobs who want to commit acts of violence.

Look, there are nutjobs everywhere.  America doesn't have a corner on the nutjob market.  But we do have a corner on the gun violence market.  So blaming nutjobs, who are everywhere, for something that only happens in America, is only gonna be partially helpful at best. I mean, I don't want to NOT do something about nutjobs, but also, we clearly have a problem that other countries don't have.  And it's because we don't have good gun regulations, not because every other country somehow escaped the scourge of having nutjobs.

[Poundwise]

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 2,545 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

It looks like you may have misread property crimes in CA as violent crimes.

Here are the latest figures I could find for violent crimes/100,000 people. In parentheses are the murder rates per 100,000 people. I added my home state, NY, out of curiosity... NY rates of gun ownership are 10.3% (10,300 per 100,000 people). 

2016   California: 445.3  (4.9) Texas: 434.4 (5.3)   New York: 376.2 (3.2)
2015   CA: 426.3  (4.8)       TX: 412.2 (4.8)    NY:  379.7  (3.1)
2014   CA: 396.1  (4.4)       TX: 405.9 (4.4)    NY: 381.8  (3.1)
2013   CA: 402.1 (4.6)        TX: 408.3 (4.3)    NY:393.7 (3.3)
2012   CA: 423.1 (5.0)        TX: 408.6 (4.4)    NY: 406.8 (3.5)

source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-3
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2012.xls

Also, for a different source
2007   California: 523    Texas: 511   New York: 414
source: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2009/compendia/statab/129ed/rankings.html

Population sizes in 2016 were:
CA: 38,041,430
TX:  26,059,203
NY: 19,570,261

And population densities are, per square mile (from Wikipedia, got lazy)
CA:  251
TX:  105
NY:  420

Median incomes (2015, Wikipedia)
CA: $64,500
TX: $55,653
NY: $60,850

Your point does not hold.

[libertarian4321]

Yup, they always demonize the tens of millions of decent, upstanding citizens who have never done anything wrong, rather than proposing something that will stop the nutjobs who want to commit acts of violence.

Look, there are nutjobs everywhere.  America doesn't have a corner on the nutjob market.  But we do have a corner on the gun violence market.  So blaming nutjobs, who are everywhere, for something that only happens in America, is only gonna be partially helpful at best. I mean, I don't want to NOT do something about nutjobs, but also, we clearly have a problem that other countries don't have.  And it's because we don't have good gun regulations, not because every other country somehow escaped the scourge of having nutjobs.

You are right, to a degree.  They took away guns in places like Britain and France, so over there, the nutjobs prefer ramming vehicles into crowds.  Sometimes they follow the ramming with a little wetwork with a knife. 

I'm not sure getting the nuts to drive a truck into a crowd is necessarily a great solution to the problem.

Mostly because I own a truck, too, and it would only be a matter of days before someone would be calling for a ban on trucks...

[sui generis]

Yup, they always demonize the tens of millions of decent, upstanding citizens who have never done anything wrong, rather than proposing something that will stop the nutjobs who want to commit acts of violence.

Look, there are nutjobs everywhere.  America doesn't have a corner on the nutjob market.  But we do have a corner on the gun violence market.  So blaming nutjobs, who are everywhere, for something that only happens in America, is only gonna be partially helpful at best. I mean, I don't want to NOT do something about nutjobs, but also, we clearly have a problem that other countries don't have.  And it's because we don't have good gun regulations, not because every other country somehow escaped the scourge of having nutjobs.

You are right, to a degree.  They took away guns in places like Britain and France, so over there, the nutjobs prefer ramming vehicles into crowds.  Sometimes they follow the ramming with a little wetwork with a knife. 

I'm not sure getting the nuts to drive a truck into a crowd is necessarily a great solution to the problem.

Mostly because I own a truck, too, and it would only be a matter of days before someone would be calling for a ban on trucks...

This is really misleading.  As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means).  It is to end gun violence.  Crime  in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns.  Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns.  Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns. 

But even so, even if we were just wanting to reduce deadly mass killing events, I invite you to show me statistics that show that they've had as many deaths by truck (or analogy) as we have by mass shootings.  I'll bet it's not even close.  Because we've heard all the stories of trucks being driven into crowds, and it's tragic and I definitely want it to stop.  But we don't even hear of all the shootings anymore...it happens so often.  We're inured to it.  There is simply no comparing a few trucks driven into crowds to the thousands and thousands of deaths in mass shootings in this country.

So yeah, like I said, I don't want to do *nothing* about nutjobs, but it's pretty clear that nutjobs in those countries are a lot less dangerous and deadly than in this one.

[Eric]

I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience.  Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.

Ehh, why stop there then if applying that logic? How about an MP3, or an M249!

You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).

No one needs to be an expert to know that they don't want to be mowed down in a hail of gunfire by a mad man.  The idea that every man, woman, or child needs to be an expert on firearms in order to have an opinion on not dying from them is a logical fallacy.

[Samuel]

Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.

I can't tell if this is facetious or not. I hope so.

I was not particularly athletic in high school but I'm pretty sure I could have overpowered and disarmed more than half of my teachers if I wanted to. So now we're also training them in weapons retention, hand to hand combat, and use of force rules that dictate when they're allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves from their angriest, most impulsive students? To say nothing of the accidents and poor judgement that inevitably accompany gun ownership (in the aggregate)? Or the horrific mistakes that will happen when school shooting incidents always involve dozens of non-uniformed people running around holding weapons? When you're talking about 130,000 schools with an untold number of classrooms you would really just be trading a blessedly rare tragedy for a steady drip of injury and death that would inevitably result in a net loss of life. Your idea would kill more people.

Of course it's purely hypothetical anyways since 80% of the teachers would immediately quit and the schools would be closed anyways because they're uninsurable, but yeah, it's the people interested in slightly better gun control laws that are being irrational...

Part of the solution will almost certainly be to increase police presence in schools. Maybe even a limited number of undercover "school marshals". But the belief you can blindly add guns to any situation and always expect a DECREASE in deaths is pure fantasy. Guns are not magic.


(Standard disclaimer: I have guns and a CCW)

[Midwest]

This is really misleading.  As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means).  It is to end gun violence.  Crime  in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns.  Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns.  Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns. 

Since suicide rates are frequently quoted in an attempt to promote gun control, I think it's pretty important to point out that our suicide rate is not significantly higher (or even lower) than many countries.  Japan (no guns) 15.4/ US 12.6 / Austria 11.7/ Canada 10.4 / Australia 10.4.  Unfortunately in the absence of firearms, people use other means to kill themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

[sui generis]

This is really misleading.  As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means).  It is to end gun violence.  Crime  in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns.  Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns.  Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns. 

Since suicide rates are frequently quoted in an attempt to promote gun control, I think it's pretty important to point out that our suicide rate is not significantly higher (or even lower) than many countries.  Japan (no guns) 15.4/ US 12.6 / Austria 11.7/ Canada 10.4 / Australia 10.4.  Unfortunately in the absence of firearms, people use other means to kill themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

and "Differences in overall suicide rates across cities, states and regions in the United States are best explained not by differences in mental health, suicide ideation, or even suicide attempts, but by availability of firearms,"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

[GuitarStv]

I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience.  Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.

Ehh, why stop there then if applying that logic? How about an MP3, or an M249!

You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).

An AR-15 is a civilian weapon, with no more killing capacity than many common (and rather ancient) hunting or ranch rifles.

The AR-15 LOOKS like a military weapon.  It does not have the capability of one.  It's a simple "one trigger squeeze, one shot" weapon like any other old semi-auto ranch rifle.

You hand an AR-15 to a soldier and tell him he has to go into battle with that thing, and he's going to look at you like you've lost your mind.

I simply prefer the AR-15 to something like a relatively harmless looking Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle because I am more familiar with the weapon.

Not "scary" and therefore "okay?":



Scary!  Ban it!



Actually, in this case, the "non-scary" rifle is more dangerous than the "scary" AR-15.

This is a rather disingenuous argument.

The AR-15 you've pictured has a pistol grip and retractable stock (both of which make it easier to use and maneuver in close quarters), a flash suppressor (makes it easier to shoot multiple rounds accurately in low light situations, makes it harder to locate a shooter), and a beveled magazine well (which aids in quickly re-loading).  Sure, it's not fully automatic . . . but all you would need to do is upgrade it with a bump stock to legally make it so (something not possible to do with the Ruger).  As a (apparently knowledgeable) gun owner, why don't you know any of this?  If you do know it, why are you arguing that these are all cosmetic features that do not increase the effectiveness of the weapon?

It has more "scary black plastic" on it, but is actually chambered for a less lethal round.

The AR15 is capable of firing the same rounds (5.56 NATO) as the Ruger you displayed.  At least according to the websites you took the images from:

https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/79557/Core+15+100278+M4+Rifle+30%2B1+223REM%2F5.56NATO+16

https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5801.html

Did you not know this?

[Midwest]

This is really misleading.  As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means).  It is to end gun violence.  Crime  in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns.  Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns.  Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns. 

Since suicide rates are frequently quoted in an attempt to promote gun control, I think it's pretty important to point out that our suicide rate is not significantly higher (or even lower) than many countries.  Japan (no guns) 15.4/ US 12.6 / Austria 11.7/ Canada 10.4 / Australia 10.4.  Unfortunately in the absence of firearms, people use other means to kill themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

and "Differences in overall suicide rates across cities, states and regions in the United States are best explained not by differences in mental health, suicide ideation, or even suicide attempts, but by availability of firearms,"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

The washington post is behind a paywall.

Regarding the CBS article, it's pretty slanted, but even that acknowledges - 

"the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, ."

Yes, people in the US tend to kill each other with guns and kill themselves with guns more often than other countries.  However, our suicide rate is very similar to other first world countries.

In addition, our murder rate is 3-5x higher than that of other countries not 25x as the article would initially lead you to believe.  Do guns contribute to that - to a some extent.  There are other factors in play.  For instance african americans tend to kill (typically other african americans at a much higher rate).  I think poverty and the drug war contribute to that much more than guns.  You solve that one and our murder rate drops significantly.

[sui generis]

This is really misleading.  As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means).  It is to end gun violence.  Crime  in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns.  Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns.  Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns. 

Since suicide rates are frequently quoted in an attempt to promote gun control, I think it's pretty important to point out that our suicide rate is not significantly higher (or even lower) than many countries.  Japan (no guns) 15.4/ US 12.6 / Austria 11.7/ Canada 10.4 / Australia 10.4.  Unfortunately in the absence of firearms, people use other means to kill themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

and "Differences in overall suicide rates across cities, states and regions in the United States are best explained not by differences in mental health, suicide ideation, or even suicide attempts, but by availability of firearms,"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

The washington post is behind a paywall.

Regarding the CBS article, it's pretty slanted, but even that acknowledges - 

"the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, ."

Yes, people in the US tend to kill each other with guns and kill themselves with guns more often than other countries.  However, our suicide rate is very similar to other first world countries.

In addition, our murder rate is 3-5x higher than that of other countries not 25x as the article would initially lead you to believe.  Do guns contribute to that - to a some extent.  There are other factors in play.  For instance african americans tend to kill (typically other african americans at a much higher rate).  I think poverty and the drug war contribute to that much more than guns.  You solve that one and our murder rate drops significantly.

I don't subscribe and I had no problem accessing it.  It's all an interesting read, so I hate to pick out just parts, but it compares suicide in America to other countries (while the rate may not be significantly different, it's accelerating much faster in America) and the study estimates that suicide in America would decrease by 20-38% with more limited firearms availability.  Another point: "One 2006 study found that from the 1980s to the 2000s, every 10 percent decline in gun ownership in a census region accompanied a 2.5 percent drop in suicide rates. There are numerous other studies that show similar results."

[Poundwise]

Last year, a study found that rankings of states by gun ownership were linked to overall (not just firearm) suicides from 1983 to 2013. So this contradicts arguments that people will just find another means of killing themselves.

Our findings also add to the evidence that higher gun ownership is associated with higher overall suicide rates among male persons. Based on our model, if gun ownership in Wyoming were at the average for all states (41.0%) instead of at 72.8%, the overall male suicide rate in Wyoming would be lower by 5.7 per 100 000 among male persons (a 16% decline). Unlike a number of previous studies,7,9,10,24,25 we did not find a relationship between gun ownership and overall suicide rates among female persons. Because of these conflicting results, this issue warrants further study.

They speculate that this pattern is seen in men but not women because of higher impulsiveness in men than women. Various countries have found that removing access to a fast lethal means of suicide, lowers suicide rates.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984734/

[Sibley]

I've never killed anyone and I hope never to have to. But I do believe that there's a emotional and mental difference between killing someone with your hands or a knife than with a gun.

If you kill someone with a knife, you're most likely going to have blood on you. There's an emotional reaction to touching blood - why else would people get squeamish at a minor cut? This serves as a deterrent. Not a perfect one of course.

If you kill someone with your hands - choke them, etc, there's much less likely to be blood but there's still very potent physical sensations. Again, emotional reaction. Again, this will serve as a deterrent.

Guns are different. You can shoot and kill from a distance, sometimes a very large distance. The potential for the emotional response is quite a bit less, and it's possible to have no response. Thus, much lower or no deterrent.

Now, consider accidents.

Knife - absolutely can kill you in an accident, but unless you're running and trip, there's a much higher chance of a knife accident resulting in a minor injury. Even in a stab accident, there's a pretty decent chance that it's not going to kill you.

Hands - depending on skill level, it's pretty hard to kill with hands. If you punch someone, they're getting bruised. Much less likely to die.

Guns - yeah, can injure, but it really depends on where you get shot. It's much easier to accidentally kill with a gun.

Incidentally, if you look historically, you can start to see changes in war once guns were introduced.

------
Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.

I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.

[TexasRunner]

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 2,545 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

It looks like you may have misread property crimes in CA as violent crimes.

Here are the latest figures I could find for violent crimes/100,000 people. In parentheses are the murder rates per 100,000 people. I added my home state, NY, out of curiosity... NY rates of gun ownership are 10.3% (10,300 per 100,000 people). 

2016   California: 445.3  (4.9) Texas: 434.4 (5.3)   New York: 376.2 (3.2)
2015   CA: 426.3  (4.8)       TX: 412.2 (4.8)    NY:  379.7  (3.1)
2014   CA: 396.1  (4.4)       TX: 405.9 (4.4)    NY: 381.8  (3.1)
2013   CA: 402.1 (4.6)        TX: 408.3 (4.3)    NY:393.7 (3.3)
2012   CA: 423.1 (5.0)        TX: 408.6 (4.4)    NY: 406.8 (3.5)

source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-3
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2012.xls

Also, for a different source
2007   California: 523    Texas: 511   New York: 414
source: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2009/compendia/statab/129ed/rankings.html

Population sizes in 2016 were:
CA: 38,041,430
TX:  26,059,203
NY: 19,570,261

And population densities are, per square mile (from Wikipedia, got lazy)
CA:  251
TX:  105
NY:  420

Median incomes (2015, Wikipedia)
CA: $64,500
TX: $55,653
NY: $60,850

Your point does not hold.

Ohh, you are correct!  I have fixed my previous post.  Thank you for point out my error in the numbers.

However,... you are saying I am incorrect...  Even though violent crime rates are equal...  And Texas has 10% higher per capita gun ownership?
I though more guns would = more crime?  Is that not the case?

[TrudgingAlong]

People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.

And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.

Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

Think about what you just said. If you intend to commit harm, which would you rather:
- armed good guys only in easily distinguishable uniforms driving flashy cars
- armed good guys scattered amongst the citizenry, no way to tell who is ready to pop you in the face and who is not

Common misconception is that LEOs protect. Bullshit. They react. The crime is in process or complete when 911 is called. The Thin Blue Line uses the phrase 'Protect and Serve' to keep the sheep feeling safe. In reality they 'Clean Up and Chase the Baddie'. Not to disparage the LEOs by any means, but this is the truth, and they will tell you so.

So, basically you're asking me to accept that literally everyone walking around me toting a gun is somehow safer and more trustworthy than cops? Every time I hear this stupid "good guy" line, I realize some people have spent a little too much time watching superhero movies. P.S. What about "good women", or do they just not need to bother with guns because of all those "good guys" sprinkled through the crowd?

[MasterStache]

I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience.  Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.

Ehh, why stop there then if applying that logic? How about an MP3, or an M249!

You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).
[Struck by moderation]

Actually those are weapons that I am trained in (and what I would be completely comfortable using) among many others. As well as calling in airstrikes. But obviously when I use the same logic as you, it's ridiculous. It couldn't be that your logic is completely ridiculous as well. Funny how that is.

It's shame what you and a couple other gun nuts have turned this thread into. Your own personal vendetta against those you don't agree with. Those who are simply seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Don't worry, your side is "winning."

[Mod note:  Let's keep things civil without the name calling.  Thanks.]

[ncornilsen]

People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.

And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.

Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

Think about what you just said. If you intend to commit harm, which would you rather:
- armed good guys only in easily distinguishable uniforms driving flashy cars
- armed good guys scattered amongst the citizenry, no way to tell who is ready to pop you in the face and who is not

Common misconception is that LEOs protect. Bullshit. They react. The crime is in process or complete when 911 is called. The Thin Blue Line uses the phrase 'Protect and Serve' to keep the sheep feeling safe. In reality they 'Clean Up and Chase the Baddie'. Not to disparage the LEOs by any means, but this is the truth, and they will tell you so.

So, basically you're asking me to accept that literally everyone walking around me toting a gun is somehow safer and more trustworthy than cops? Every time I hear this stupid "good guy" line, I realize some people have spent a little too much time watching superhero movies. P.S. What about "good women", or do they just not need to bother with guns because of all those "good guys" sprinkled through the crowd?

Statistically, concealed handgun license holders are, infact, safer and more trustworthy than police officers.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler

Nice touch with the gender straw man though, because "good guy" definitely isn't a generic phrase for any law abiding, stand-up individual.

Going further up in your quote thing... you realize that most people aren't seriously proposing that 100% of teachers carry, right? rather, just to allow those who want to get the training and licensing to carry concealed, to do so. I know it's easier to be outraged by your strawman of arming every teacher, but you're basically the same as the gun-rights people who are worried that someone wants to take all of their guns.

[TexasRunner]

People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.

And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.

Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

Think about what you just said. If you intend to commit harm, which would you rather:
- armed good guys only in easily distinguishable uniforms driving flashy cars
- armed good guys scattered amongst the citizenry, no way to tell who is ready to pop you in the face and who is not

Common misconception is that LEOs protect. Bullshit. They react. The crime is in process or complete when 911 is called. The Thin Blue Line uses the phrase 'Protect and Serve' to keep the sheep feeling safe. In reality they 'Clean Up and Chase the Baddie'. Not to disparage the LEOs by any means, but this is the truth, and they will tell you so.

So, basically you're asking me to accept that literally everyone walking around me toting a gun is somehow safer and more trustworthy than cops? Every time I hear this stupid "good guy" line, I realize some people have spent a little too much time watching superhero movies. P.S. What about "good women", or do they just not need to bother with guns because of all those "good guys" sprinkled through the crowd?

Yup.

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

Comparing conviction rates between police and concealed carry permit holders

https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm

[RetiredAt63]

Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.

All except the "death by cops" folks who still want to go out in a blaze of gunfire. These types of folks like to shoot it out with cops every once in a while don't they? They plan to die so they don't care who is armed as long as they, the bad guy gets to pop off a few rounds / murder a few people before they the bad guy dies. Personally I categorize most if not all school shooters as this type. They have to know that their chance of going to jail instead of the morgue is pretty small.

Yep.  And not to mention that the stated goal of the March (to bring this back around to the topic at hand) is not just about ending school shootings. It's about gun regulations that would reduce all gun violence and while this was prompted by a school shooting, we all know that the preposterous levels of gun violence in this country are not mostly attributable to mass shootings.  We don't just want to end mass shootings (at schools or not), we want to have anywhere near the levels of gun violence they have in any other industrialized country, from "gun-toting" countries like Israel and Switzerland to countries that are less so, like Australia and the UK.  They all have something in common, besides their vastly lower levels of gun violence - gun regulation. 

Also, no not "all valuable people and things in this world...are protected by guns."  See again every other country, for a start.

Our former Prime Minister protected himself from a knife-wielding home invader with an Inuit carving.

I heard that it was Aline who grabbed the carving!  Stories differ.   ;-)

[RetiredAt63]

Those of you who carry concealed, feel free to come north and walk around where no-one will be carrying concealed, and see what it feels like.  And don't bother bringing your hand guns, because they are not allowed over the border.  Unless you decided to smuggle them of course, but none of you would do that, because you would respect our laws.  You can bring other things, but must realize that we have rules.
https://www.thoughtco.com/laws-for-taking-guns-into-canada-3321846

[Just Joe]

For instance african americans tend to kill (typically other african americans at a much higher rate).  I think poverty and the drug war contribute to that much more than guns.  You solve that one and our murder rate drops significantly.

THAT! No hope of life getting better. PTSD from living like this too long. Potentially serious psychological problems from being mad at the world for so long and being born into a society that has issues with you simply because of your race.

[Kris]

For instance african americans tend to kill (typically other african americans at a much higher rate).  I think poverty and the drug war contribute to that much more than guns.  You solve that one and our murder rate drops significantly.

THAT! Also help the mentally ill get to a doctor. A little handholding if necessary b/c they might not know who to work the system to get what they need.

As an aside, if the "no gun regulations" folks who point to the mentally ill as the problem, then how come they aren't militating for single-payer so that everyone has access to health care?

[GuitarStv]

People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.

And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.

Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

Think about what you just said. If you intend to commit harm, which would you rather:
- armed good guys only in easily distinguishable uniforms driving flashy cars
- armed good guys scattered amongst the citizenry, no way to tell who is ready to pop you in the face and who is not

Common misconception is that LEOs protect. Bullshit. They react. The crime is in process or complete when 911 is called. The Thin Blue Line uses the phrase 'Protect and Serve' to keep the sheep feeling safe. In reality they 'Clean Up and Chase the Baddie'. Not to disparage the LEOs by any means, but this is the truth, and they will tell you so.

So, basically you're asking me to accept that literally everyone walking around me toting a gun is somehow safer and more trustworthy than cops? Every time I hear this stupid "good guy" line, I realize some people have spent a little too much time watching superhero movies. P.S. What about "good women", or do they just not need to bother with guns because of all those "good guys" sprinkled through the crowd?

Yup.

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

Comparing conviction rates between police and concealed carry permit holders

https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm

It's true that concealed carry permit holders are arrested very rarely.  However, the assumption that this makes the states they live in safer is wrong.  It has been shown that violent crime has increased at a higher rate in right to carry states than in states with more strict gun control:
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/good-guys-guns-right-to-carry-laws-crime-rates/

Even if you accept that concealed carriers are safer and more trustworthy that the cops, there's good reason based on solid evidence to want them limited in your state.

[Peter Parker]

Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.

I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.

You make too much sense--and everytiime someone brings up some of these commonsense notions of regulation, they push back like you are trying to ban all guns.  Because of this push back, and unwillingness to embrace some of these commonsense notions, I'm starting to fall into the retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens camp....

If we can't agree on gun regulation, perhaps the Second Amendment needs to be repealed....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html

But, before I go there, I'm going to do my best to vote in politicians who agree with me (and you) that the Second Amendment is fine the way it is--just do a better job of regulating weapons.

[Kris]

Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.

I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.

You make too much sense--and everytiime someone brings up some of these commonsense notions of regulation, they push back like you are trying to ban all guns.  Because of this push back, and unwillingness to embrace some of these commonsense notions, I'm starting to fall into the retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens camp....

If we can't agree on gun regulation, perhaps the Second Amendment needs to be repealed....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html

No NRA supporter will go for this stuff. The whole point of their lobby is to refuse any measure of increased regulation. So there's no point in talking to the hard-liners on this thread about any of it.

[Peter Parker]

Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.

I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.

You make too much sense--and everytiime someone brings up some of these commonsense notions of regulation, they push back like you are trying to ban all guns.  Because of this push back, and unwillingness to embrace some of these commonsense notions, I'm starting to fall into the retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens camp....

If we can't agree on gun regulation, perhaps the Second Amendment needs to be repealed....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html

No NRA supporter will go for this stuff. The whole point of their lobby is to refuse any measure of increased regulation. So there's no point in talking to the hard-liners on this thread about any of it.

As a former NRA supporter, I gotta believe others might see things differently too.

But you are right that the current objectives are so looney-toon crazy that they can't see any compromise.  Therefore, I see NRA contributions as indicator who NOT to vote for.

For my friends in Arizona, please vote for Doctor Hiral Tipirneni for Congress in the April 24, 2018 Election.  She proudly gets an "F" rating from the NRA, while her opponent gets an "A+" 

To get to know more about Doctor Tipineni, you can see her information a http://hiralforcongress.com  God forbid we actually elect a smart, educated, women of color

[ncornilsen]

Incidentally, if you look historically, you can start to see changes in war once guns were introduced.

Yes, you see a leveling of the playing field where serfs could battle opression without having to be carefully trained and specially equipped for battle. A guy with a flintlock could win against an armored knight. Before that, the only people with access to effective means of fighting were those who were rich and those who fought for the crown.

------
Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.

Agreed.

2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.

No way. This is not common sense regulation, this is a preamble for confiscation as has been proven time and time again.

3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.

If you have universal background checks, make the above criteria for failure. Done. No need for a registry.

4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.

I'd compromise on this. 10 is about as low as I'd find feasible. Reloading takes about 3 seconds if you're practiced so it makes no real difference to me.

5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?

These are already effectively illegal. The ones owned legally are never used in crimes, because it get a legal one is extremely expensive and there is a limited supply of ones old enough to qualify.  Despite this, illegally owned ones are used regularly in crime.

6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)

Agreed; provided some due-process for appealing it.

7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.

Require ownership of a safe? yes... whatever.  Require guns to be in it? no. How do you ever use the gun? How can I have one to use for self defense? This creates a huge gray area that could be used for harassment and tacit gun bans. I would, however, be OK with holding the owner of a gun used in a crime responsible to some degree, depending on the case.

8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.

Buy? yes. As long as the voting age goes with up with it.  If the judgement of someone under 21 isn't good enough to own a firearm, it isn't good enough to decide the direction of our country. 
I'm not sure why you separate out "owning" a gun. How do you see that being enforced; in what kinds of cases? Can those cases be differentiated between a 16 year old hunting in the woods own their own with their parents gun?

I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.

I think some of the things you suggest are reasonable and would have a small positive effect on gun violence.

[GuitarStv]

2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.

No way. This is not common sense regulation, this is a preamble for confiscation as has been proven time and time again.

Except that confiscation of all firearms hasn't happened in the vast majority of first world countries that have enacted gun control laws.  As seen in Canada, Australia, Britain, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, etc.  There are regulations set by democratic process, and firearms are readily available in all of these countries.

3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.

If you have universal background checks, make the above criteria for failure. Done. No need for a registry.

Not true.  A registry makes it significantly easier to catch straw purchasers.

5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?

These are already effectively illegal. The ones owned legally are never used in crimes, because it get a legal one is extremely expensive and there is a limited supply of ones old enough to qualify.  Despite this, illegally owned ones are used regularly in crime.

You've made the claim that illegally owned automatic weapons are regularly used in crime.  Can you provide the statistics you're using to make this determination please?

It's also not true that this is illegal.  It's perfectly legal to buy a bump stock for an AR-15, which transforms it into a fully automatic weapon.

7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.

Require ownership of a safe? yes... whatever.  Require guns to be in it? no. How do you ever use the gun? How can I have one to use for self defense? This creates a huge gray area that could be used for harassment and tacit gun bans. I would, however, be OK with holding the owner of a gun used in a crime responsible to some degree, depending on the case.

A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child).  If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).

[Midwest]

A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child).  If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).

What are the storage requirements in Canada?

[Nick_Miller]

I hate to say this, but this is what it would take for the NRA types to (maybe?) consider some change.

Thousands of men of color organize to take their lawfully-owned weapons and open carry them (this is legal) while peacefully walking through the NICEST lily white suburbs in every town in America.

Can you IMAGINE the shitstorm? I mean, seriously, what would happen??

[Kris]

I hate to say this, but this is what it would take for the NRA types to (maybe?) consider some change.

Thousands of men of color organize to take their lawfully-owned weapons and open carry them (this is legal) while peacefully walking through the NICEST lily white suburbs in every town in America.

Can you IMAGINE the shitstorm? I mean, seriously, what would happen??

Absolutely. I honestly can't believe that BLM hasn't organized this yet.

[caracarn]

Also interesting:  It appears the counter-barrage of gunfire from the capitol police who were present (and there were only 4 the way I read it) was able to deter the gunman until more LEOs could arrive.  In other words, 4 people legally carrying guns stopped a mass shooter who had the advantages of (1) a rifle, (2) position, (3) cover (presumably), and (4) mental preparation.  It is reasonable to assume that had the capitol police not been there but, lets say 8 representatives did posses their firearms and could access them, the result would have been similar.  If no capitol police had been there and no representatives had their firearm, the deaths probably would have stacked up quickly...

Any opinions on that?

Yeah.  You believe that Capitol police have completely useless training?  Or at least so useless that they are no more effective at stopping a gunman than some random members of congress who own guns?  That's what your 'reasonable assumption' seems to stem from.

Wow...  That straw man came up fast.

No, I'm saying that if (8) reps had been able to have their firearms nearby, then maybe their suppressive fire would have been similar to the (4) Capitol Police that were present.  Namely (8) representatives that would have not been on the field and as such could have gotten to their firearms very quickly.  As in, the numbers would have helped balance out the training.  Considering the goal at that point in time was suppressive fire until more assistance could arrive, it is feasible that more firearms (lets say 8) would have benefited a lack of training the LEOs go through.

Wow, really?!  So your solution that you propose is to just send out a hail of bullets to compensate for lack of training?  And that is supposed to make those who are concerned about gun safety feel good as a reasonable solution?  You ever seen how many people are killed by stray bullets in shootings?  And the solution you want us to be comfortable with is just add a whole lot more stray bullets to the mix?!  Come on!

[GuitarStv]

A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child).  If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).

What are the storage requirements in Canada?

Weapons stored unloaded, with trigger lock or in a locked cabinet/safe.

[TexasRunner]

Also interesting:  It appears the counter-barrage of gunfire from the capitol police who were present (and there were only 4 the way I read it) was able to deter the gunman until more LEOs could arrive.  In other words, 4 people legally carrying guns stopped a mass shooter who had the advantages of (1) a rifle, (2) position, (3) cover (presumably), and (4) mental preparation.  It is reasonable to assume that had the capitol police not been there but, lets say 8 representatives did posses their firearms and could access them, the result would have been similar.  If no capitol police had been there and no representatives had their firearm, the deaths probably would have stacked up quickly...

Any opinions on that?

Yeah.  You believe that Capitol police have completely useless training?  Or at least so useless that they are no more effective at stopping a gunman than some random members of congress who own guns?  That's what your 'reasonable assumption' seems to stem from.

Wow...  That straw man came up fast.

No, I'm saying that if (8) reps had been able to have their firearms nearby, then maybe their suppressive fire would have been similar to the (4) Capitol Police that were present.  Namely (8) representatives that would have not been on the field and as such could have gotten to their firearms very quickly.  As in, the numbers would have helped balance out the training.  Considering the goal at that point in time was suppressive fire until more assistance could arrive, it is feasible that more firearms (lets say 8) would have benefited a lack of training the LEOs go through.

Wow, really?!  So your solution that you propose is to just send out a hail of bullets to compensate for lack of training?  And that is supposed to make those who are concerned about gun safety feel good as a reasonable solution?  You ever seen how many people are killed by stray bullets in shootings?  And the solution you want us to be comfortable with is just add a whole lot more stray bullets to the mix?!  Come on!

Strawman much. Specific incident calling for specific action.  Or do you think the hundreds of rounds fired by the capitol police were all perfectly spot on?

Really pointless addition to the conversation.

[Midwest]

A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child).  If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).

What are the storage requirements in Canada?

Weapons stored unloaded, with trigger lock or in a locked cabinet/safe.

If wikipedia is accurate (always an if), a safe is only one of the options -

Restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:

Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) and securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into; or
Locked in a vault, safe or room that was built or adapted for storing these types of firearms 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada

I agree with you on safe storage, but I suspect we disagree on the definition of what safe storage is.  My unattended weapons are unloaded, in a locked house, in a locked closet.  A safe seems like an undue burden for most gun owners.  With the exception of adding a trigger lock (which does nothing to prevent theft), my firearms would be stored in compliance with the laws of Canada for storage.

If I had a loaded firearm in my house, it would be in a safe because I have kids.  I agree (trying to find common ground rather than argue), that dipshits who leave unattended loaded firearms within easy access of children are a problem and should be held responsible if something happens. 

[caracarn]

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better.  It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation.  Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold.  Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000


I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Really?  You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out? 

[TexasRunner]

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better.  It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation.  Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold.  Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000


I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Really?  You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?

But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!

The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?

[GuitarStv]

A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child).  If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).

What are the storage requirements in Canada?

Weapons stored unloaded, with trigger lock or in a locked cabinet/safe.

If wikipedia is accurate (always an if), a safe is only one of the options -

Restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:

Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) and securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into; or
Locked in a vault, safe or room that was built or adapted for storing these types of firearms 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada

I agree with you on safe storage, but I suspect we disagree on the definition of what safe storage is.  My unattended weapons are unloaded, in a locked house, in a locked closet.  A safe seems like an undue burden for most gun owners.  With the exception of adding a trigger lock (which does nothing to prevent theft), my firearms would be stored in compliance with the laws of Canada for storage.

If I had a loaded firearm in my house, it would be in a safe because I have kids.  I agree (trying to find common ground rather than argue), that dipshits who leave unattended loaded firearms within easy access of children are a problem and should be held responsible if something happens.

Yeah, that sounds accurate.  I don't know anyone with a dedicated locked room for gun storage, we always used a gun cabinet.  As long as it's stored unloaded, and locked so that it can't easily be stolen I'd say you're meeting a reasonable definition of 'safe storage'.

[caracarn]

Also interesting:  It appears the counter-barrage of gunfire from the capitol police who were present (and there were only 4 the way I read it) was able to deter the gunman until more LEOs could arrive.  In other words, 4 people legally carrying guns stopped a mass shooter who had the advantages of (1) a rifle, (2) position, (3) cover (presumably), and (4) mental preparation.  It is reasonable to assume that had the capitol police not been there but, lets say 8 representatives did posses their firearms and could access them, the result would have been similar.  If no capitol police had been there and no representatives had their firearm, the deaths probably would have stacked up quickly...

Any opinions on that?

Yeah.  You believe that Capitol police have completely useless training?  Or at least so useless that they are no more effective at stopping a gunman than some random members of congress who own guns?  That's what your 'reasonable assumption' seems to stem from.

Wow...  That straw man came up fast.

No, I'm saying that if (8) reps had been able to have their firearms nearby, then maybe their suppressive fire would have been similar to the (4) Capitol Police that were present.  Namely (8) representatives that would have not been on the field and as such could have gotten to their firearms very quickly.  As in, the numbers would have helped balance out the training.  Considering the goal at that point in time was suppressive fire until more assistance could arrive, it is feasible that more firearms (lets say 8) would have benefited a lack of training the LEOs go through.

Wow, really?!  So your solution that you propose is to just send out a hail of bullets to compensate for lack of training?  And that is supposed to make those who are concerned about gun safety feel good as a reasonable solution?  You ever seen how many people are killed by stray bullets in shootings?  And the solution you want us to be comfortable with is just add a whole lot more stray bullets to the mix?!  Come on!

Strawman much. Specific incident calling for specific action.  Or do you think the hundreds of rounds fired by the capitol police were all perfectly spot on?

Really pointless addition to the conversation.

How is is a strawman?  You seem to dismiss anything you can't argue against.  You never actually came back with anything about the study that states with right-to-carry laws have a higher incidence of crime.  You just somehow got really quiet.  Now I respond to your proposal that 12 people shooting is better than 4 people shooting and someone I'm not addressing your specific example?  And while we're at it can you explain how any of this is a conversation? 

You just spend all your time telling everyone how wrong we are and how Tejas is the place to be.  For all of us who do not want to live in the Wild West because we prefer a more civil environment we would love to have every gun owner stop assuming that gun regulation or severely restricting the ease of which one can obtain a firearm somehow is always intended to lead to banning weapons.  Don't think gun owners are proposing a return to the Wild West?  Look at all the proposals a change the wording a bit.....  Arm teachers and everyone else (Make sure I have my six shooter in the holster before I head to the saloon so we can duel at high noon).  A good guy with a gun is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun (Glad the Sheriff and his posse were in town to take care of Jesse James)  Do you get that for those of us who arming the whole world is not a good option, what you propose is fearful and concerning?

[caracarn]

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better.  It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation.  Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold.  Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000


I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Really?  You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?

But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!

The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?

OR you could ask another question that I think is also avoided by the gun lobby.  Why does Texas not have 78% less crime if guns = safety?  Do you not have enough good guys with guns?

[shenlong55]

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better.  It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation.  Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold.  Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000


I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Really?  You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?

But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!

The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that more guns = more crime...  I think they're saying that more guns != less crime...

[caracarn]

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better.  It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation.  Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold.  Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000


I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Really?  You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?

But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!

The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that more guns = more crime...  I think they're saying that more guns != less crime...

In TexasRunner's defense I did bring up a close point (right-to-carry = more crime) a bit earlier.  Summarized below:

Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime.   A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.

Want to know why it's hard to find evidence ("real statistics")?  Read point #5

http://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/

http://nber.org/papers/w23510

[shenlong55]

If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....

No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better.  It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation.  Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold.  Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000


I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Really?  You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?

But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!

The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that more guns = more crime...  I think they're saying that more guns != less crime...

In TexasRunner's defense I did bring up a close point (right-to-carry = more crime) a bit earlier.  Summarized below:

Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime.   A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.

Want to know why it's hard to find evidence ("real statistics")?  Read point #5

http://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/

http://nber.org/papers/w23510

Ah, I see, ignore my comment then.  It's hard to keep up with all these threads moving so fast.

[MasterStache]

But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!

The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?

Yes guns do kill people. As do drugs, cigarettes, heart disease, cancer, etc. Yet guns are the only means of death you are actively encouraging more people to posses. Weird logic.

What I find interesting about your response is that the central claim seems to be that more guns equals less crime. And in your quest to back up this obvious faulty assumption is tossing out some impossibly perfectly correlated number involving increased gun ownership and crime. Even a modest increase in crimes blows your argument out of the water.

I think in arguments like these integrity is perceived as some sort of catch phrase reserved for the weak minded. Sad but tue.

[Poundwise]

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 2,545 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

It looks like you may have misread property crimes in CA as violent crimes.

Here are the latest figures I could find for violent crimes/100,000 people. In parentheses are the murder rates per 100,000 people. I added my home state, NY, out of curiosity... NY rates of gun ownership are 10.3% (10,300 per 100,000 people). 

2016   California: 445.3  (4.9) Texas: 434.4 (5.3)   New York: 376.2 (3.2)
2015   CA: 426.3  (4.8)       TX: 412.2 (4.8)    NY:  379.7  (3.1)
2014   CA: 396.1  (4.4)       TX: 405.9 (4.4)    NY: 381.8  (3.1)
2013   CA: 402.1 (4.6)        TX: 408.3 (4.3)    NY:393.7 (3.3)
2012   CA: 423.1 (5.0)        TX: 408.6 (4.4)    NY: 406.8 (3.5)

source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-3
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2012.xls

Also, for a different source
2007   California: 523    Texas: 511   New York: 414
source: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2009/compendia/statab/129ed/rankings.html

Population sizes in 2016 were:
CA: 38,041,430
TX:  26,059,203
NY: 19,570,261

And population densities are, per square mile (from Wikipedia, got lazy)
CA:  251
TX:  105
NY:  420

Median incomes (2015, Wikipedia)
CA: $64,500
TX: $55,653
NY: $60,850

Your point does not hold.

Ohh, you are correct!  I have fixed my previous post.  Thank you for point out my error in the numbers.

However,... you are saying I am incorrect...  Even though violent crime rates are equal...  And Texas has 10% higher per capita gun ownership?
I though more guns would = more crime?  Is that not the case?

You first claim that higher gun ownership is associated with lower violent crime.

Well, you are right in that your sources show that CA had a slightly higher violent crime rate than TX in the year 2016, though nowhere near the 5.9:1 ratio that you originally claimed.  And this is true for three out of the last five years.  However, if you look at 2014 and 2013, TX actually had a higher rate of violent crime.  And TX also had a higher or equal murder rate to CA for three out of five years, but lower for 2/5 years.

Moreover, using your logic, we could equally use the TX vs NY rates to say that lower gun ownership is strongly associated with lower violence.

Fact is, there is no significant conclusion that can be drawn from the stats you or I provided.  The proper thing to do would be to do a rank test comparing rankings of gun ownership and violent crime for all 50 states, to see if there is an association. And this would be much better if we had gun ownership data for all states for several years (but this is not available).

I would not be surprised if there were no association.  Whether a person shoots a gun at another person, leading him to be wheelchair bound, or just throws rocks at him, leading to bruises and contusions, it will be counted in the stats as a single violent crime. I don't think that gun access will directly affect the rates at which people get angry and crazy. But the real issue is how much more damage are they doing if they have a quick easy means of destruction at hand?
 
The next natural claim is that if there is no association, why take the guns away, since even if they do not protect, they are doing no harm?

In Table 2 of the following study, it appears that more gun ownership by state IS significantly associated with more overall homicides.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bc6f/104b5b658796ce6b7ca1e1afe8caeb55ff6b.pdf

I think the murder rate is a better measure, but that can be affected by the quality of medical care available in a state. The best stat to have (which I couldn't find in a 2 second google), is the number of people seriously wounded or killed in violent crimes and suicide, per state, for the past 20 years. That is what we care about.

Because yeah, if a crazy guy wants to kill badly enough, if guns aren't available, he will make a bomb or use poison or a car or a pack of attack dogs to get the job done. And your hobby guns will have been taken away for nothing. Gun regulation won't stop evil planners, though it may slow them down. But maybe there will be a drop in the severity of injuries to themselves and others caused by impulsive people. Which will be a good thing.

I'd like to see a study looking at gun ownership vs critical injury/death (not just by firearms). I haven't been able to find one so far, though you might be more successful. So support removal of the Dickey Amendment.