Author Topic: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache  (Read 30691 times)

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #150 on: July 15, 2016, 01:19:21 PM »
Regarding a registry, I have a question: a lot of gun-rights on this board reference criminals getting guns illegally. If there were a registry, wouldn't that be used to track weapons used in crimes back straw-buyers and illegal gun dealers/resellers?

Illegal sale and purchase of firearms is a problem (described by gun-rights advocates, here) where a problem hasn't been proposed (in conversation on this forum). I understand worrying that a registry would be misused (for confiscation), but there are legitimate uses.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #151 on: July 15, 2016, 01:40:22 PM »
A registry serves no purpose if it isn't to confiscate the guns at some point.  It doesn't have to be wholesale confiscation.  But if even one person who has registered is forced to surrender their property, there ya go.  It will absolutely be used for this purpose.  Trying to say it won't be is believing in an impossibility.  But those people don't deserve guns!  Whatever.  Make that case.  Until then, trying to set up the registry and claim it won't be for that is dishonest, and dishonesty shouldn't be part of the conversation.

But we register cars!  Yes, and we pay taxes on them, and we get them confiscated if we don't follow certain rules about cars, etc etc etc.
But we register houses!  Yes, and we pay taxes on them, and they get confiscated if we don't pay those taxes.

Pass the registry.  Tax the shit out of it, confiscate my property.  I'm not an idiot, I know what you're trying to do.

You will never convince me this isn't the plan, Because it is the plan.

I guess there is some benefit in having an agreed upon understanding of what we mean when we say 'gun confiscation'.

You seem to be describing the general practice of confiscating property when said owner violates laws regarding that property. Don't pay your property taxes, you house gets seized. Get caught driving a non-registered car? The car gets impounded.

If that is the definition of confiscation that people are concerned about, they should be up in arms about electronic property records because they help the state to more efficiently confiscate your house if you don't pay your property taxes.

Cyaphas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • Age: 37
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #152 on: July 15, 2016, 02:13:09 PM »
If you know your trade and keep up with the trends, you can go into a gun show with a couple hundred dollars and walk out with a couple thousand dollars a few hours later.  No paper trail, no record that you were ever an owner of any of the guns.


I'm calling BS on the claim of no paper trail.  I'd like to know how you think that this can be done, and then I'd like to see you try it.

In most parts of the US, there is no paper trail involved in a private gun transaction. I guess you could say it involved federal reserve notes?

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3285
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #153 on: July 15, 2016, 02:14:50 PM »
Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:

- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people.  Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns.  This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.

- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window.  Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.

- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons.  Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.
I can think of two problems with the bolded point above:
1) There are already plenty of laws regarding straw purchases, i.e. if you knowingly buy for someone who has lost their right to bear arms (felons).  These laws are seldom enforced.
2) Such a measure would be hilariously easy to bypass.  You need a serial number in order to trace a gun, criminals have an aversion to being caught, and criminals are more than willing to file the serial number off the gun (which is also illegal, but they're criminals, right?), so actually back-tracing a firearm through its chain of custody would be impossible.

Take out all the suicides.  Take out all the law-enforcement related shooting (setting aside that disarming the police is a real conversation I'd like to have at some point, what would it take to get that to happen and lets do that).  Take out all the shootings by criminals who were already not allowed to have guns.  Look at that number of homicides compared to elsewhere.  And then ask would you rather someone come at you with a gun, or a bomb?  The knife argument is a red-herring.  The total homicides statistic is a red-herring.  At best, legislation could impact how many unlawful shootings are committed against another person by law-abiding citizens.  It's not fucking many.  I'll grant that it is probably nonzero.
I've actually done the research on this for you, so I can provide some numbers.  These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related.  Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified.  More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*

* - this number includes justified homicides

Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem

BTW, there's no accurate count, but estimates peg the number at about 350 million guns in the US and 100 million gun owners.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #154 on: July 15, 2016, 02:50:54 PM »

 These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related.  Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified.  More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*

* - this number includes justified homicides

Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem


EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.

As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.

Cyaphas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • Age: 37
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #155 on: July 15, 2016, 03:00:27 PM »

EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.

As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.

It does make for really good single issue voter appeal.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14177
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #156 on: July 15, 2016, 03:07:37 PM »
Quote from: zolotiyeruki link=topic=58569.msg1154075#konami codemsg1154075 date=1468613690

 These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related.  Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified.  More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*

* - this number includes justified homicides

Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem


EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.

As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.

The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .

Cyaphas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • Age: 37
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #157 on: July 15, 2016, 03:20:11 PM »

The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .

Rightfully so; over time the 2nd amendment has illegally become more and more restricted. The Anti-gun side will cite the same stats for more restrictions that they're citing now for their current 'reasonable' restrictions. After a bit of time goes by and things get worse, the same crowd will roll out the same stats with more 'reasonable' restrictions.

 Do you think that we're the first generation to have this debate? Do you think that we've discussed some new idea in here that hasn't been discussed before us? The gun deaths/restrictions debate has always been more about gang violence and economics than it has been about the personal rights of legal gun owners. Yet here we are...

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #158 on: July 15, 2016, 03:29:28 PM »
Quote from: zolotiyeruki link=topic=58569.msg1154075#konami codemsg1154075 date=1468613690

 These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related.  Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified.  More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*

* - this number includes justified homicides

Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem


EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.

As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.

The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .

In this thread...

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #159 on: July 15, 2016, 05:55:16 PM »
Quote from: zolotiyeruki link=topic=58569.msg1154075#konami codemsg1154075 date=1468613690

 These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related.  Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified.  More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*

* - this number includes justified homicides

Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem


EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.

As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.

The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .

Right, because we know that's the eventual outcome for people who:

1. Think gun deaths are unacceptable.

2. Think restrictions on guns are the way to reduce gun deaths.

There are many people with those two characteristics.  Sure, right now they want a registry, or magazine limits, or some other "reasonable" restriction.  What happens when those restrictions go through and someone still manages to shoot up a kindergarten? I doubt they'll say "Well we tried, but i guess bad things just happen sometimes." They'll be calling for more restrictions and the cycle will repeat until confiscation happens. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #160 on: July 15, 2016, 07:16:25 PM »
Sounds good to me. Let's open up the background check system to civilians so that if I wish to sell a gun to Chris, I can call into the system, run his information, and get a yes/no.  This would remove the biggest hassle of background checks (having to have, and pay, a dealer to do it) and still allow easy, simple transactions.

Restricting firearm ownership from people with documented mental health issues would be wise as well. It's already illegal, but perhaps raising the bar one notch would be better - require mental health/public officials to report people with self-harm behavior such as cutting, substance abuse, etc. so that their ability to purchase firearms would be removed.

C) - Every firearm I've ever purchased comes with either an internal system or an external lock that allows it to be secured and rendered incapable of being fired by the owner. Furthermore the NRA offers free gun locks for older firearms. So the ability to reduce accidents already exists; perhaps a public service campaign ala tobbacco or texting and driving would be effective in reducing accidents.


ETA - if the above proposals were paired with the removal of magazine capacity limits, removal of 'assault' weapon bans and the removal of the repeal of most of the NFA, I would think there'd be broad support from most of the country.

And so we wind up back here, where compromise seems to be the best solution and also the most effective.

I did forget to add "Mandatory firearm safety training in public schools" to the list along with a federal level concealed carry permitting program.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11675
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #161 on: July 16, 2016, 08:20:24 AM »
This forum is funny.  We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.

It's not "mustachian", but there are few other hobbies where you can go spend several hundred dollars on equipment, enjoy the equipment (while paying for consumable) and then when you get tired of it, resell the equipment for 80-90% of what you paid for it in the first place.  Can't do that with golf, bicycling, travel, gardening, cooking, cars (usually), motorcycles (usually), boating (usually), etc etc etc.  Go buy yourself a $300 (golf) driver and try to resell it 2-3 years later, it's worth $100 at most.  I have a bike I spent ~$1200 on in 2004, I'd struggle to get $500 for it.  But go buy a $300 shotgun, at resell time it's probably worth $250+ in any kind of decent condition.
Spinning - spinning wheels hold value well.  When I bought my DT Lendrum (new) I would have paid the same for it used, plus driven to get it.  I sold a wheel I wasn't using for the same I paid for it, so had free use of it.  Plus we are in a craft with lots of home-made history.  Need a lazy kate? A shoe-box and some knitting needles will do just fine.  Dog brushes make great flickers.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 08:23:06 AM by RetiredAt63 »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #162 on: July 18, 2016, 09:17:42 AM »
Quote from: zolotiyeruki link=topic=58569.msg1154075#konami codemsg1154075 date=1468613690

 These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related.  Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified.  More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*

* - this number includes justified homicides

Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem


EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.

As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.

The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .

Right, because we know that's the eventual outcome for people who:

1. Think gun deaths are unacceptable.

2. Think restrictions on guns are the way to reduce gun deaths.

There are many people with those two characteristics.  Sure, right now they want a registry, or magazine limits, or some other "reasonable" restriction.  What happens when those restrictions go through and someone still manages to shoot up a kindergarten? I doubt they'll say "Well we tried, but i guess bad things just happen sometimes." They'll be calling for more restrictions and the cycle will repeat until confiscation happens.

This is exactly correct.

Also, I have yet to see one prominent anti-gun person, organization, politicians, etc propose an ACTUAL compromise. The last big one I am aware of happened in 1986, as the Firearms Owners Protection Act. This law lifted a bunch of stupid, onerous restrictions on gun owners while simultaneously making it much harder to acquire a fully automatic machine gun (closed the registry).

Anti-gunners want to close the (non-existent, really) Gun Show Loophole? Ok, fine make P2P transfers at gun show events illegal. Draft a bill to do that, but in exchange remove SBRs from the NFA.

Want to move the legal purchase age for rifles from 18 to 21? Fine, but rescind the various import bans on firearms/ammo from China etc.

I'm not necessarily endorsing any of these ideas, but a proposal like this from Democrats would at least indicate to me that they have some interest in compromising and working with gun owners, rather than just dictating to us from their supposed moral high ground.


JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #163 on: July 18, 2016, 09:58:29 AM »
Quote from: zolotiyeruki link=topic=58569.msg1154075#konami codemsg1154075 date=1468613690

 These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related.  Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified.  More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*

* - this number includes justified homicides

Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem


EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.

As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.

The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .

Right, because we know that's the eventual outcome for people who:

1. Think gun deaths are unacceptable.

2. Think restrictions on guns are the way to reduce gun deaths.

There are many people with those two characteristics.  Sure, right now they want a registry, or magazine limits, or some other "reasonable" restriction.  What happens when those restrictions go through and someone still manages to shoot up a kindergarten? I doubt they'll say "Well we tried, but i guess bad things just happen sometimes." They'll be calling for more restrictions and the cycle will repeat until confiscation happens.

This is exactly correct.

Also, I have yet to see one prominent anti-gun person, organization, politicians, etc propose an ACTUAL compromise. The last big one I am aware of happened in 1986, as the Firearms Owners Protection Act. This law lifted a bunch of stupid, onerous restrictions on gun owners while simultaneously making it much harder to acquire a fully automatic machine gun (closed the registry).

Anti-gunners want to close the (non-existent, really) Gun Show Loophole? Ok, fine make P2P transfers at gun show events illegal. Draft a bill to do that, but in exchange remove SBRs from the NFA.

Want to move the legal purchase age for rifles from 18 to 21? Fine, but rescind the various import bans on firearms/ammo from China etc.

I'm not necessarily endorsing any of these ideas, but a proposal like this from Democrats would at least indicate to me that they have some interest in compromising and working with gun owners, rather than just dictating to us from their supposed moral high ground.

Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #164 on: July 18, 2016, 11:36:17 AM »
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.

Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons?  I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress.  Common sense gun laws do exist! :D

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #165 on: July 18, 2016, 12:36:34 PM »
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.

Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons?  I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress.  Common sense gun laws do exist! :D

I would be surprised if any NFA weapons have been used in a crime lately.

A main problem on this topic is that anti-gunners don't know enough about guns and gun laws to formulate anything reasonable.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #166 on: July 18, 2016, 12:43:55 PM »
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.

Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons?  I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress.  Common sense gun laws do exist! :D

I would be surprised if any NFA weapons have been used in a crime lately.

A main problem on this topic is that anti-gunners don't know enough about guns and gun laws to formulate anything reasonable.

Bingo...probably a thought process like this - 'omg people can buy federally restricted easily concealable short barreled ASSAULT RIFLES without a background check simply by opening an NFA trust, CLOSE TEH LOOPHOLES' -- but very rarely are people using these guns in crimes going to bother actually opening a legal trust and filing all the necessary federal paperwork. Why would you do that for illegal use when you could just buy a short barreled upper and build your own illegal short barreled rifle without any paperwork at all?

Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.

Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons?  I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress.  Common sense gun laws do exist! :D

Exceptionally uncommon, actually.

Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.

Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons?  I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress.  Common sense gun laws do exist! :D

Exceptionally uncommon, actually.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2162
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #167 on: July 18, 2016, 01:15:29 PM »
But I am admittedly a member of a tiny minority of hunters who actually reap a tangible financial benefit from a firearm. I only hunt family land, or friends' land by permission. Most hunters I know pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on hunting leases. I only buy a $35 in-state tag for whitetail deer. Many of my friends have spent thousands of dollars on out-of-state permits, guides, lodging, and traveling costs to bag a bull elk or some sub-species of turkey that is slightly different from the variety that we have at home. I don't "scout" an area, I just sit in a likely spot and wait. If a deer walks into view, super. If not, oh well. Most hunters spend hundreds of dollars each year on traveling to scout for deer, feeders and salt licks to attract them, motion-sensing cameras to photograph them, etc. When I shoot a deer, I process it myself, from start to finish. Most hunters spend upwards of $4-5/lb to have it processed into ground venison, cube steak, sausage, etc.

I have basically nothing in common with most hunters. For them it's a hobby, and they only care about how the size and quantity of the bony protrusions of their deer's head. (Not that's there's anything wrong with that.) I just want meat. It's like comparing a landscaper to a farmer just because they both grow plants.

Wouldn't you admit though, that only a "tiny minority" of hunters have access to family lands on which to hunt?  I've heard/read that the biggest reason people quit hunting is a lack of access.

I have no evidence to make that determination. Do you?

But in any case, my point had nothing to do with whether people do or do not have access to hunting lands. My point was that I simply wouldn't hunt if I could buy the same meat for a lesser price than I spend on hunting (which is basically just the cost of a license and bullets). It is not a hobby for me.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #168 on: July 18, 2016, 01:35:43 PM »
But I am admittedly a member of a tiny minority of hunters who actually reap a tangible financial benefit from a firearm. I only hunt family land, or friends' land by permission. Most hunters I know pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on hunting leases. I only buy a $35 in-state tag for whitetail deer. Many of my friends have spent thousands of dollars on out-of-state permits, guides, lodging, and traveling costs to bag a bull elk or some sub-species of turkey that is slightly different from the variety that we have at home. I don't "scout" an area, I just sit in a likely spot and wait. If a deer walks into view, super. If not, oh well. Most hunters spend hundreds of dollars each year on traveling to scout for deer, feeders and salt licks to attract them, motion-sensing cameras to photograph them, etc. When I shoot a deer, I process it myself, from start to finish. Most hunters spend upwards of $4-5/lb to have it processed into ground venison, cube steak, sausage, etc.

I have basically nothing in common with most hunters. For them it's a hobby, and they only care about how the size and quantity of the bony protrusions of their deer's head. (Not that's there's anything wrong with that.) I just want meat. It's like comparing a landscaper to a farmer just because they both grow plants.

Wouldn't you admit though, that only a "tiny minority" of hunters have access to family lands on which to hunt?  I've heard/read that the biggest reason people quit hunting is a lack of access.

I have no evidence to make that determination. Do you?

But in any case, my point had nothing to do with whether people do or do not have access to hunting lands. My point was that I simply wouldn't hunt if I could buy the same meat for a lesser price than I spend on hunting (which is basically just the cost of a license and bullets). It is not a hobby for me.

No one I know who hunts just discards the meat.  Yes, they may be in it for a trophy, but everyone I've ever come across (and there have been quite a few) believes you harvest everything you reasonably can from the animal, you don't just take the trophy and discard the rest.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2162
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #169 on: July 19, 2016, 08:12:29 AM »
But I am admittedly a member of a tiny minority of hunters who actually reap a tangible financial benefit from a firearm. I only hunt family land, or friends' land by permission. Most hunters I know pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on hunting leases. I only buy a $35 in-state tag for whitetail deer. Many of my friends have spent thousands of dollars on out-of-state permits, guides, lodging, and traveling costs to bag a bull elk or some sub-species of turkey that is slightly different from the variety that we have at home. I don't "scout" an area, I just sit in a likely spot and wait. If a deer walks into view, super. If not, oh well. Most hunters spend hundreds of dollars each year on traveling to scout for deer, feeders and salt licks to attract them, motion-sensing cameras to photograph them, etc. When I shoot a deer, I process it myself, from start to finish. Most hunters spend upwards of $4-5/lb to have it processed into ground venison, cube steak, sausage, etc.

I have basically nothing in common with most hunters. For them it's a hobby, and they only care about how the size and quantity of the bony protrusions of their deer's head. (Not that's there's anything wrong with that.) I just want meat. It's like comparing a landscaper to a farmer just because they both grow plants.

Wouldn't you admit though, that only a "tiny minority" of hunters have access to family lands on which to hunt?  I've heard/read that the biggest reason people quit hunting is a lack of access.

I have no evidence to make that determination. Do you?

But in any case, my point had nothing to do with whether people do or do not have access to hunting lands. My point was that I simply wouldn't hunt if I could buy the same meat for a lesser price than I spend on hunting (which is basically just the cost of a license and bullets). It is not a hobby for me.

No one I know who hunts just discards the meat.  Yes, they may be in it for a trophy, but everyone I've ever come across (and there have been quite a few) believes you harvest everything you reasonably can from the animal, you don't just take the trophy and discard the rest.

Wait, what? Who the hell said that? I have indeed known a few people who will kill a deer, cut out the backstraps, and discard the rest, but by no means do they comprise even a significant minority of the hunters that I know. I struggle to even dignify them by referring to them as "hunters".

My point was simple and non-controversial: Someone early on in this conversation simply made a point about the possibility of a rifle being an "investment" if you got enough meat from hunting. I agreed with the possibility on the grounds that I do, indeed, get more value from meat than I spend on hunting. However, I made the further observation that an overwhelming majority of hunters spend far, far more on hunting than they receive back in meat. For most, it is a hobby, not an investment. Not even close. And for the record, I am fine with that - I just think it's important to draw the distinction.

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #170 on: July 19, 2016, 11:46:51 AM »
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license.  then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat.   At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.

However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up.   Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied.  Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?

This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it.   Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #171 on: July 19, 2016, 04:03:11 PM »
Guns are like so many other hobbies. There is that initial sunk cost of buying the guns/tools but once purchased, the costs go way down unless you get stuck in the upgrade trap. That new one is better than my old one. Bob's gun is better than mine. The new fishing boat goes 2 mph faster than the old boat.

I have a home workshop shop and a few guns. My guns haven't cost me anything since purchase unless on those rare occasions I take them out and shoot them. Not been a big priority. I can likely get what I paid for them if I resold them. My tools will last a long, long time at the pace I use them. They aren't expensive tools. Most people don't wear out a decent drill press or table saw in a lifetime. i might wear out an air tool every five or six years beut then I purchased the cheap "Made in Asia" option. Under daily use it wouldn't last 6 months.

If I was using my guns regularly or got stuck in the upgrade loop then I could spend every last dollar on my "toys" (tools, guns). I've watched people do that. Watched one coworker go from hobby to hobby dropping tens of thousands of dollars on each one as the obsessions peaked. 

BDWW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Location: MT
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #172 on: July 19, 2016, 04:43:04 PM »
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license.  then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat.   At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.

However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up.   Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied.  Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?

This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it.   Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.

Depends on who you know I guess. Most of those I know have a rifle, ammunition, knife, and an orange vest - heck, for awhile I didn't even have a rifle, I borrowed my dad's. They're not really into hunting for show(is there a similar term to "glamping" for hunting?)  Butcher paper isn't $25 bucks, and most already have knifes in the kitchen... although a couple do have meat grinders.

In my mind it's pretty similar to fishing. There are people that have to have the latest most expensive, flashy gear, boats etc. Meanwhile, a pole with a worm on the end get's the job done most of the time.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #173 on: July 20, 2016, 06:20:45 AM »
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.

This is an example of a reasonable compromise, and as far as I know not many gun advocates were all that mad about it.  It's silly for there to be a loophole through which you don't get a background check for restricted items (whether they should be restricted is another topic).  It's also silly for the local sheriff to have veto power for everyone in their jurisdiction's purchases.

This is different from the usual "compromises" that are proposed:

Anti:  "Let's ban all 'assault weapons' for good."

Pro:  "Let's not."

Anti:  "Okay let's ban the ones that are imported, compromise is important."

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #174 on: July 20, 2016, 08:20:47 AM »
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license.  then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat.   At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.

However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up.   Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied.  Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?

This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it.   Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.

Depends on who you know I guess. Most of those I know have a rifle, ammunition, knife, and an orange vest - heck, for awhile I didn't even have a rifle, I borrowed my dad's. They're not really into hunting for show(is there a similar term to "glamping" for hunting?)  Butcher paper isn't $25 bucks, and most already have knifes in the kitchen... although a couple do have meat grinders.

In my mind it's pretty similar to fishing. There are people that have to have the latest most expensive, flashy gear, boats etc. Meanwhile, a pole with a worm on the end get's the job done most of the time.

Most of my $$$ (and that's relative, it isn't that $$$) hunting gear outside of the rifle isn't about flash, or even about killing deer, it's about staying warm.  I bought a full insulated canvas suit from Cabela's, some higher end gloves, etc etc.  I hunt in Northern WI in the end of November, not uncommon to be 10* with a foot of snow on the ground.  Outside of that, a non-resident deer permit costs me ~$165, and then maybe $.50 for a bullet if I take a shot.  Plus another $50 for my share of the food for the weekend, and gas to get there.  Figure it costs me <$300 for a weekend (only 1 weekend a year), but I hunt on private family land.

lemanfan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #175 on: July 20, 2016, 09:17:40 AM »
A world awash in Guns and homicidal maniacs!
Gun ownership


As a scandinavian, I have to comment this picture.  One big BIG difference between the guns spread in the USA and in Scandinavia, is that pistols and revolvers i.e. guns that can be used with one hand and that can be concealed are very VERY hard to get a license for here.  Professional use aside (military, police, security), the only way to get such a gun is to be a sports shooter, competing and active in a club.  The licenses are time-limited to five years, after which you have to re-apply again.

The overwhelming majority of if guns are for hunting, i.e. long guns - rifles and shotguns. Here the rules are a bit more lax, and licenses are not time limited (but will be revoked upon many crimes or upon doctors orders).

Since a DUI or similar crimes will lead to revoked licenses, most hunters and sports shooters here are very law-abiding.  If you lose the right to practice your biggest hobby or main interest, life will be boring.

Keeping to the original post - even here, guns regardless of type, can be a bit non-moustachian.  You tend to want the best, and then if you're a hunter you need all accessories which are not always cheap. I'm getting more and more drawn in to this world, as I've both disovered the fun of spoorts shooting and also I've started to pick up some hunting interest from hanging with "the wrong crowd".

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #176 on: July 20, 2016, 10:25:30 AM »
May God have mercy on your soul Lemanfan, and may her noodley goodness bless your cheque book as well!

lemanfan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #177 on: July 20, 2016, 10:40:32 AM »
May God have mercy on your soul Lemanfan, and may her noodley goodness bless your cheque book as well!

Thanks, I think.  It's almost 20 years since I had a cheque book, though... ;)

This far it's not an expensive hobby for me.  Since I started less than six months ago I do not even have a theoretical chance of getting a license for purchasing a pistol yet... and I have quite a way to go before I shoot good enough to get the license too.  And I yet haven't figured out how to get a certified gun safe (minimum weight 330 lb) into my fifth floor walkup.

Thus far i've only purchased .22LR ammo, which is not too expensive.

BDWW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Location: MT
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #178 on: July 20, 2016, 11:31:33 AM »
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license.  then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat.   At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.

However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up.   Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied.  Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?

This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it.   Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.

Depends on who you know I guess. Most of those I know have a rifle, ammunition, knife, and an orange vest - heck, for awhile I didn't even have a rifle, I borrowed my dad's. They're not really into hunting for show(is there a similar term to "glamping" for hunting?)  Butcher paper isn't $25 bucks, and most already have knifes in the kitchen... although a couple do have meat grinders.

In my mind it's pretty similar to fishing. There are people that have to have the latest most expensive, flashy gear, boats etc. Meanwhile, a pole with a worm on the end get's the job done most of the time.

Most of my $$$ (and that's relative, it isn't that $$$) hunting gear outside of the rifle isn't about flash, or even about killing deer, it's about staying warm.  I bought a full insulated canvas suit from Cabela's, some higher end gloves, etc etc.  I hunt in Northern WI in the end of November, not uncommon to be 10* with a foot of snow on the ground.  Outside of that, a non-resident deer permit costs me ~$165, and then maybe $.50 for a bullet if I take a shot.  Plus another $50 for my share of the food for the weekend, and gas to get there.  Figure it costs me <$300 for a weekend (only 1 weekend a year), but I hunt on private family land.

Yeah, if you're traveling out of state to do it, it gets expensive. Same for pretty much any activity that's not local and common. Here everyone already has cold weather gear, because they're already in it. And it's generally just a carhartt jacket and pants. A local A tag is $27 and additional B tags are $7.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #179 on: July 20, 2016, 11:49:57 AM »
Most of my other coldweather gear is for snowmobiling/skiing/etc and not for hunting.  I needed something more rugged for trudging through the woods (canvas) and that was quieter (again, canvas over nylon, etc) so I wasn't making all kinds of noise moving around in the tree.  But I think the whole suit cost me like $120 and will last 10 years or more.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #180 on: July 20, 2016, 03:18:42 PM »
..unless you get fat... ;)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #181 on: July 21, 2016, 12:23:12 AM »
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license.  then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat.   At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.

However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up.   Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied.  Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?

This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it.   Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.

What should the break-even point be on fresh harvested wild game? I'd almost certainly hunt anyways, but can one compare hunted wild game to store-bought grass-fed organic hamburger? How about store-bought ground turkey- even cheaper.  Or should it be compared directly to the price of store-bought venison?

I haven't bought meat from the store for so long that I'm not sure what it costs, but googling Walmart show ground beef at $4 a pound. So if packaging takes $1/lb, one could still spend $150 a year to end up at the same price as ground Walmart beef assuming 50# end weight.


Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #182 on: July 21, 2016, 05:05:57 AM »
The two of us typically eat an elk and 2-3 deer every year.   That's about the only red meat we eat with exception of an occasional good steak, or bacon & sausage occasionally for breakfast.   I'd hate to guess my price per pound for that wild game, as it would be astronomical.   I process my own game, not necessarily to save money, but because i don't care for the way most processors handle it, I do a much better job.  Hunting is an activity that is a big part of my life, the healthy lean meat is just a really nice bonus.

CCGStache_01

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #183 on: April 12, 2017, 08:47:39 PM »
This forum is funny.  We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.

For my family, for decades, hunting has been an important aspect of our lives.
We have many family heirloom guns, such as my great-great-great-great grandfather's saddle rifle, which he had before the civil war and long before my state was even a state, or may other grandfather's hunting rifle that he had since he was my age (I am very young, even by mustachian standards, where retirement is at 40 or sooner)

My great-grandfather's and their fathers before them relied on hunting to survive, and while now it is more sport and tradition than necessity, it is still very important in my family's life.

A single elk can provide lean, high quality meat all year, usually over 700 lbs of it, the bone can be used to carve or sell, a single rack can fetch over $100, and the hide can be sold for about $100.
And the money spend on putting in the lottery for a licence is used to fund the state's Game and Fish, which in turn runs conservation efforts for endangered species here, and for providing other wildlife services here, such as maintaining public lands.

So while money is spend on the hobby, it is worth it too us, because we are having fun (the thrill of the chase is something that can only be felt in very few other situations, like wing-suiting down a mountain, or driving a Ferrari over 200 mph (something you should try if your ever in Vegas, its pretty cheap for the experience that you get)), we are supporting keeping state forests and parks open, and we are getting up to $900 dollars worth of meet, for the cost of the hunt, the ammunition, and butchering, which in total comes out to about $400-500

So we get high protein meat, because elk is much leaner than domestic animals, and we have a fun time. Win/Win especially compared to some hobbies someone could have.

Mac_MacGyver

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #184 on: April 13, 2017, 06:08:50 PM »
I keep my guns under a kilt in my closet... Shhhhh

Reynold

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #185 on: April 25, 2017, 03:01:23 PM »

That sounded funny to me, so I checked.  The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.

There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).s

In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns.  (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls).

That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths.  Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.

As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).  How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?

It seems possible that by "2/3 of gun deaths" they were referring to only the cases of one person shooting another, and excluding suicides, since suicides could be carried out without a gun and I don't think most firearms laws are expected to address suicides.  If so, and of the 33,636 firearms deaths there were 21,175 suicides, that leaves 12,461 that were involuntary killings.  if there were 8,454 murders out of 12,461 involuntary deaths, or 68%, it does seem possible that that 2/3 "criminals shooting criminals" number isn't far off.  We also don't know how the approximately 1000 justified police shootings per year mentioned by another poster are classified in those numbers, though obviously they aren't suicides so they are somewhere in one group or another of the 12,461. 

I don't own a gun or have a particular desire to, I have hobbies I am more interested in than shooting and it would be foolish to buy something that expensive if I wasn't going to use it.  I did some shooting with my father and friends when I was young, and it does seem as though increasingly strict laws are passed with each tragedy which will affect law abiding owners much more so than the actual people who carried out these acts.  Long before the Sandy Hook shootings in CT, I had a friend in that state who wanted to get a gun for self defense, but was unable to because that town required recommendation letters from residents of that town to get a permit.  She was a bit of an introvert, and the only people she knew were in neighboring towns, so no permit for her.  I also had occasion to research this at one point, and if I remember correctly you were not even allowed to drive with a gun in a locked box in your trunk in CT if you didn't have a permit.  It may also be one of several places in the Northeast where even if you have a permit from where you live, you aren't allowed to drive through with a gun, that I'm not sure of though. 

On the subject of holding people who sell guns to an individual responsible for the background, mental fitness or intent of that individual, if anyone recalls the 2010 New York City Times Square failed car bomb attempt, they almost immediately traced the car to the previous owner who had sold it to someone via Craigslist.  Astonishingly, he had not reregistered it in his name. :)   All she had was a cell phone number contact.  They did not hold her responsible for the use to which the buyer put it.  I'm not sure how you could in a case like that, short of a very intrusive government database on everybody which would have to include things like mental health, DUIs, and criminal history which everybody could access so they could sell a car, or a gun to a suitable candidate.  That seems. . . problematic. . .

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14177
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #186 on: April 26, 2017, 05:58:30 AM »

That sounded funny to me, so I checked.  The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.

There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).s

In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns.  (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls).

That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths.  Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.

As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).  How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?

It seems possible that by "2/3 of gun deaths" they were referring to only the cases of one person shooting another, and excluding suicides, since suicides could be carried out without a gun and I don't think most firearms laws are expected to address suicides.  If so, and of the 33,636 firearms deaths there were 21,175 suicides, that leaves 12,461 that were involuntary killings.  if there were 8,454 murders out of 12,461 involuntary deaths, or 68%, it does seem possible that that 2/3 "criminals shooting criminals" number isn't far off.  We also don't know how the approximately 1000 justified police shootings per year mentioned by another poster are classified in those numbers, though obviously they aren't suicides so they are somewhere in one group or another of the 12,461.

The language used (which I notice you removed from my post) was:

"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals."

That's not a fact at all, it's a lie.  It's also a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead.  If your reasoning that they didn't consider death due to suicide by gun to be valid (since suicides happen by other means) then certainly death due to murder by gun is also invalid (since murders happen by other means).  Not very consistent logic.

Either way, what they claimed is demonstrably untrue as I reported.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #187 on: April 26, 2017, 07:42:25 AM »

That sounded funny to me, so I checked.  The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.

There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).s

In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns.  (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls).

That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths.  Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.

As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).  How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?

It seems possible that by "2/3 of gun deaths" they were referring to only the cases of one person shooting another, and excluding suicides, since suicides could be carried out without a gun and I don't think most firearms laws are expected to address suicides.  If so, and of the 33,636 firearms deaths there were 21,175 suicides, that leaves 12,461 that were involuntary killings.  if there were 8,454 murders out of 12,461 involuntary deaths, or 68%, it does seem possible that that 2/3 "criminals shooting criminals" number isn't far off.  We also don't know how the approximately 1000 justified police shootings per year mentioned by another poster are classified in those numbers, though obviously they aren't suicides so they are somewhere in one group or another of the 12,461.

The language used (which I notice you removed from my post) was:

"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals."

That's not a fact at all, it's a lie.  It's also a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead.  If your reasoning that they didn't consider death due to suicide by gun to be valid (since suicides happen by other means) then certainly death due to murder by gun is also invalid (since murders happen by other means).  Not very consistent logic.

Either way, what they claimed is demonstrably untrue as I reported.

Quite frankly, I think using suicide in statistics of gun deaths is a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead (inflate the number of gun deaths).

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #188 on: April 26, 2017, 03:06:29 PM »

That sounded funny to me, so I checked.  The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.

There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).s

In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns.  (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls).

That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths.  Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.

As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).  How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?

It seems possible that by "2/3 of gun deaths" they were referring to only the cases of one person shooting another, and excluding suicides, since suicides could be carried out without a gun and I don't think most firearms laws are expected to address suicides.  If so, and of the 33,636 firearms deaths there were 21,175 suicides, that leaves 12,461 that were involuntary killings.  if there were 8,454 murders out of 12,461 involuntary deaths, or 68%, it does seem possible that that 2/3 "criminals shooting criminals" number isn't far off.  We also don't know how the approximately 1000 justified police shootings per year mentioned by another poster are classified in those numbers, though obviously they aren't suicides so they are somewhere in one group or another of the 12,461.

The language used (which I notice you removed from my post) was:

"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals."

That's not a fact at all, it's a lie.  It's also a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead.  If your reasoning that they didn't consider death due to suicide by gun to be valid (since suicides happen by other means) then certainly death due to murder by gun is also invalid (since murders happen by other means).  Not very consistent logic.

Either way, what they claimed is demonstrably untrue as I reported.

Quite frankly, I think using suicide in statistics of gun deaths is a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead (inflate the number of gun deaths).

Indeed it is. The author could have prevented this diversion by saying "the number of people who are shot and killed by another person..."

Reynold

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #189 on: April 27, 2017, 12:51:15 PM »

The language used (which I notice you removed from my post) was:

"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals."

That's not a fact at all, it's a lie.  It's also a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead.  If your reasoning that they didn't consider death due to suicide by gun to be valid (since suicides happen by other means) then certainly death due to murder by gun is also invalid (since murders happen by other means).  Not very consistent logic.

Either way, what they claimed is demonstrably untrue as I reported.

I honestly did not remove the language to mislead anyone, I try to avoid making posts with huge amounts of quoted text and trim them down to what I feel are the most relevant points.   I was discussing the numbers more than the language used, so that is the section of the post I focused on.  Here I'm trimming out the numerical discussion, since that was in my previous post, and discussing the language. 

Based on looking at the numbers earlier, I agree with ncornilsen that the writer on that site should have been more careful with their language to make it clear that by "people who die each year from gunfire" they were only referring to people shooting other people.  I think they were trying to address the fear ordinary people have of getting gunned down by bad guys, and making the point that you have much less to worry about if you aren't a criminal.  If the writer had actually used numbers, or had a link to something more than a general web site, it would have been clearer.  Of course, a lot of people would skim over it if it had numbers in it, sigh. 

Out of curiosity, I checked the definition of "gunfire", and according to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gunfire it is "the repeated firing of guns".  That probably rules out all suicides, though I imagine it rules out a few gun murders as well.  I would be surprised if any government agency breaks out the latter by "number of shots fired", though.