What do Mustachians think about Gun Control?

[beltim]

This perfectly describes Chicago, New York, California & other Democrat controlled places that have the most gun laws AND sky high murder rates.

Fact check time.  Despite rhetoric on both sides, there isn't convincing evidence either way.  See http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/ for a long explanation, but here's a few blurbs that show that your statement is completely wrong:
Top 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

Lowest 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).

For those who don't know, the first list tends to have loose firearm restrictions and vote Republican, and the second list tends to have stricter firearm restrictions, and are more likely to vote Democratic.

Thank you, beltim, for doing the research that I suspected was true but was too lazy to search for.

No problem.  This has been an interesting discussion to follow even though I haven't weighed in, but sometimes facts just need to be corrected. 

Here's an addendum, with the 30 cities with the highest murder rates in the US.  You'll note that Chicago and New York are not on the list (although East Chicago, in Indiana, is):
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/top-lists/highest-murder-rate-cities/

[Kris]

This perfectly describes Chicago, New York, California & other Democrat controlled places that have the most gun laws AND sky high murder rates.

Fact check time.  Despite rhetoric on both sides, there isn't convincing evidence either way.  See http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/ for a long explanation, but here's a few blurbs that show that your statement is completely wrong:
Top 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

Lowest 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).

For those who don't know, the first list tends to have loose firearm restrictions and vote Republican, and the second list tends to have stricter firearm restrictions, and are more likely to vote Democratic.

But there are a lot of confounding issues.  The biggest one to me is that the first list is basically a collection of the poorest states in the country and the second is the wealthiest.  Hard to believe that would not massively influence this (and every other statistic) given that income is pretty much the determinant of everything in the US.

Isn't it funny that the poorest states in the country somehow happen to vote Republican, and the wealthiest happen to vote Democratic?

[beltim]

Top 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

Your statistic has lumped in all gun deaths, including suicide. It's also not corrected for the number of residents per state. Illinois/Chicago, the gun murder capital of the US, isn't on either list.

Those numbers are per 100,000 people, so they absolutely are adjusted for population.

Yes, Illinois is not on the list - it's in the middle 30 states.  It is therefore not the gun murder capital of the US.  Neither is Chicago, which doesn't even rate in the top 30 cities by murder rate.

[Kris]

...maybe, just maybe the presence of guns in one's life makes it easier in periods of anger or crisis to lash out in ways you regret or are uncharacteristic of you.

I see what you are saying JustaJane, that there is a connection between guns and impulsivity. But I wonder if the garden variety violence you’re talking about would really diminish if handguns were banned. It seems like there is a psychological idea that guns are the go-to method of killing someone. Take guns away, and suddenly knives become the go-to for violence.

I’m not slamming your theory. Just thinking in type. I did attempt a little research, but the only link I could find was from an nutjob-y site. Linked for your enjoyment, but not something I'm endorsing as my credo.

I'm not sure if there could be any credible research, but I agree with Justajane.  We tend to believe that "mentally ill' people are a different species than we are.  But how many people in your lives are diagnosed with a mental disorder of some sort? And I think we have a tendency to believe we are a lot more rational and in control of ourselves than we actually are.  My entourage thinks of me as extremely calm and unflappable (I know this because I have been told it many times.) It has never occurred to me, in a moment of anger at a betrayal, to grab a knife to do violence to someone. But I believe that there are extreme circumstances that could occur in my life that would cause me to at least flash on the gun in my drawer.  I have even said to myself numerous times when I'm behind the wheel that if I had a gun on me when the road raging jackass puts my life in danger, I would at least momentarily contemplate drawing said gun and brandishing it. 

Emotions escalate quickly. I am sure everyone on this board, if they were honest with themselves, can think of a time in their past when they have lost their cool and done something they regret. The presence of a gun at the ready makes those situations all the more dangerous, for all concerned.  And that is not safety.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I wasn't arguing against the connection between guns and impulsive violence. It obviously exists. I also wasn't using it as an argument against banning guns. Just a thought experiment to wonder if that impulsivity could end up being transferred to knives, if a culture is given enough time to shift it's collective unconscious. Maybe, maybe not. You're right that it would be hard to research.

May I ask what you DO think is safety? Personally, I urge everyone important to me attend a short course in effective self-defense movements. I see it as more effective, and longer term. Guns can be taken away, but everyone's got a groin! I see this as particularly useful to women, who generally feel unsafe(er) while moving about in the world.

Well, for one thing, I am not advocating banning guns.  I would say, for one thing, that AR-15s need to go.  Secondly, I am simply in favor of good, rigorous background checks.  That's all. 

[beltim]

This perfectly describes Chicago, New York, California & other Democrat controlled places that have the most gun laws AND sky high murder rates.

Fact check time.  Despite rhetoric on both sides, there isn't convincing evidence either way.  See http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/ for a long explanation, but here's a few blurbs that show that your statement is completely wrong:
Top 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

Lowest 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).

For those who don't know, the first list tends to have loose firearm restrictions and vote Republican, and the second list tends to have stricter firearm restrictions, and are more likely to vote Democratic.

But there are a lot of confounding issues.  The biggest one to me is that the first list is basically a collection of the poorest states in the country and the second is the wealthiest.  Hard to believe that would not massively influence this (and every other statistic) given that income is pretty much the determinant of everything in the US.

Yes.  Hence the bolded part of my post:Despite rhetoric on both sides, there isn't convincing evidence either way.

What is indisputable is that Gizmo's statement is 100% wrong.

[Mntngoat]

This article very clearly shows many of the stats pertinent to this topic.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

  when you cite VOX as a source you lose all credibility.  Think you could find a  more biased source?

ML

[Kris]

Living in a society filled with people carrying lethal weapons for protection is not freedom, that is a society trapped by fear.

This.

I find it kind of interesting that we are on a forum that is about realizing that spending lots of money mindlessly is not freedom, it's enslavement.  Most people in our society think that money buys happiness, but in fact, equating happiness with purchasing power is voluntarily enslaving ourselves. 

Believing that the inviolable right to bear any damn weapon we feel like is about freedom and not something else seems similarly mindless to me.

YES. THIS.

How free do you feel if you believe there's a violent criminal just waiting to get you as soon as you're without a weapon? I would argue that we without guns are much more free, because freedom is a state of mind.

Also, it really would not be that hard to get gun ownership down to a negligible level in the US.

1. Ban carrying guns in all public spaces, open or concealed. (So you can't take the gun out of your home.)
2. Ban the sale of ammunition. (Can't shoot with no bullets!)
3. Levy outrageous fines on those found with a gun.
4. Offer an incentive (financial, funded by the aforementioned outrageous fines?) for people to hand in their guns.
5. Allow shooting clubs to keep guns on their premises for use on their premises by members, and have some kind of crazy-ass licensing requirements for farmers/hunters who need a shotgun.

Sorted. And no, I'm not that bothered that this means that the only people who have guns are criminals and preppers. Preppers don't want to draw attention to themselves so will keep their guns under lock and key until SHTF and only criminals (and farmers) have guns in the UK and our gun violence is minimal. Organised crime will find a way to traffic guns but organised crime is not a threat to my personal safety because I am not even on their radar, so no way will they bust into my house will all the proverbial guns blazing.

All of the above is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and would be met with extremely stiff opposition by a significant fraction of the electorate (especially the part that is already armed).  Practically speaking, it would also result in a massive boom in sales of firearms, ammunition and reloading components.  Hmmm, perhaps I should revisit the idea of some Ruger stock...

On another note, I know that this is hard for you to grasp, but I and millions of other Americans feel safer with a firearm available.  We do not trust the government to protect us and we know that the police have no legal duty to protect us.  Many of us are in places where police response times are upwards of 30 minutes, often measured in hours.  Many of us do not believe it is wise to allow only the government to be armed.  We also frequently have a use for our firearms for hunting or sport.  We are not giving them up.

And again, I would posit that your feeling of safety has an underlying cause that is less about any real threat and more about something rooted in the collective psyche.

And I would suggest your hoplophobia stems from some kind of underlying cause that I would rather not know about.  See where that gets us?

Hey, I learned a new word today! Cheers!

And I'm not hoplophobic. I even have a gun in my house right this second.

Heh, cheers!

Don't you think you should surrender that firearm to the nearest police station or Democratic party facility?

No, because I'm not advocating banning guns.

[Mntngoat]

can't think of a more Mustachain thing to do by hunting my own food  to fill my own freezer in order to have a higher quality food at a lower cost.

ML

[Mntngoat]

US ranks 111 in the world for murders per capita and rank #1 in gun ownership. Honduras ranks #1 for murders and is a socialist nation where virtually nobody can own a gun

http://lmgtfy.com/

ML

[mr_orange]

We're heading back to hot-air, loaded statistics now.  Statistics are meaningless to me. 

Logic
1.  Criminals will always have weapons (guns and other)
2.  Response times from the police are non-zero
3.  Ergo, people should be afforded the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the criminals

It is really this simple to me.  What is in the best interest of society or what statistics say don't matter.  I should have the right to protect myself and my family with guns instead of relying on other humans with guns arriving much too late to assist. 

Everything else to me is hot air. 

[GuitarStv]

See, I think most of where you fall on this issue depends on your gut feeling about guns.  People who grew up around them or have family who own them tend to be gun supporters and then find and cherry pick data to support their feelings.  People who have a visceral dislike of guns do the same thing on their end.  These very strong emotions tend to overtake critical thinking on both sides, and it makes it very difficult to have any sort of constructive debate when one side starts with "Get rid of the second amendment!" and the other says "Everyone should carry a gun!".

I don't think this framing is correct. Gun-control supporters don't have a visceral dislike of guns; they have a very rational dislike of people dying.

I agree. I grew up around guns.

+1

I grew up hunting in northern Ontario with my dad.  Used a .22 and 30-06 all fall long from about the age of 12.  I have no visceral dislike of guns, just think that enforced safety and licensing make sense when you're carrying a deadly weapon.

[Kris]

Just in the spirit of conversation, an article from an Australian POV...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html

[regulator]

Just in the spirit of conversation, an article from an Australian POV...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html

What patronizing garbage.  Australia is also a lot smaller, is not heavily multi-ethnic and has an entirely different history than the US (the descendants of criminals probably have a reason not to want each other to have firearms, ya think?).  Go back to suckling on the Chinese teat, dude!

[Kris]

Just in the spirit of conversation, an article from an Australian POV...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html

What patronizing garbage.  Australia is also a lot smaller, is not heavily multi-ethnic and has an entirely different history than the US (the descendants of criminals probably have a reason not to want each other to have firearms, ya think?).  Go back to suckling on the Chinese teat, dude!

 In spite of your rudeness, I think you have a point.  That said, I believe our main difference is that our multi-ethnicity creates an attitude whereby "others" are marginalized, leading to a high rate of disaffection.

[regulator]

Just in the spirit of conversation, an article from an Australian POV...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html

What patronizing garbage.  Australia is also a lot smaller, is not heavily multi-ethnic and has an entirely different history than the US (the descendants of criminals probably have a reason not to want each other to have firearms, ya think?).  Go back to suckling on the Chinese teat, dude!

 In spite of your rudeness, I think you have a point.  That said, I believe our main difference is that our multi-ethnicity creates an attitude whereby "others" are marginalized, leading to a high rate of disaffection.

For sure, an ethnically diverse population can be a massive handicap when a nation is measured by certain yardsticks.  So all these smug buggers in places like the UK, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, etc. can tout their moral or whatever superiority all they like, but the fact is that they do not have to contend with the downside of a multi-ethnic population.  Don't get me wrong, a diverse population has benefits as well, but it makes everything more complicated and changes the rules somewhat when you are trying to achieve population-wide goals.

[justajane]

Just in the spirit of conversation, an article from an Australian POV...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html

What patronizing garbage.  Australia is also a lot smaller, is not heavily multi-ethnic and has an entirely different history than the US (the descendants of criminals probably have a reason not to want each other to have firearms, ya think?).  Go back to suckling on the Chinese teat, dude!

 In spite of your rudeness, I think you have a point.  That said, I believe our main difference is that our multi-ethnicity creates an attitude whereby "others" are marginalized, leading to a high rate of disaffection.

For sure, an ethnically diverse population can be a massive handicap when a nation is measured by certain yardsticks.  So all these smug buggers in places like the UK, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, etc. can tout their moral or whatever superiority all they like, but the fact is that they do not have to contend with the downside of a multi-ethnic population.  Don't get me wrong, a diverse population has benefits as well, but it makes everything more complicated and changes the rules somewhat when you are trying to achieve population-wide goals.

Sorry, but this is bullocks. Have you been to Canada or the UK? London is one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world, as is Toronto. It would be more correct to isolate America's disadvantaged population, including disadvantaged minorities. I agree with you above in your assessment of the highest fire arm death rates in the South. It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the poverty in these states. This, coupled with a high degree of gun ownership, makes for a bad combination.

[regulator]

Just in the spirit of conversation, an article from an Australian POV...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html

What patronizing garbage.  Australia is also a lot smaller, is not heavily multi-ethnic and has an entirely different history than the US (the descendants of criminals probably have a reason not to want each other to have firearms, ya think?).  Go back to suckling on the Chinese teat, dude!

 In spite of your rudeness, I think you have a point.  That said, I believe our main difference is that our multi-ethnicity creates an attitude whereby "others" are marginalized, leading to a high rate of disaffection.

For sure, an ethnically diverse population can be a massive handicap when a nation is measured by certain yardsticks.  So all these smug buggers in places like the UK, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, etc. can tout their moral or whatever superiority all they like, but the fact is that they do not have to contend with the downside of a multi-ethnic population.  Don't get me wrong, a diverse population has benefits as well, but it makes everything more complicated and changes the rules somewhat when you are trying to achieve population-wide goals.

Sorry, but this is bullocks. Have you been to Canada or the UK? London is one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world, as is Toronto. It would be more correct to isolate American's disadvantaged population, including disadvantaged minorities. I agree with you above in your assessment of the highest fire arm death rates in the South. It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the poverty in these states. This, coupled with a high degree of gun ownership, makes for a bad combination.

Toronto and London are not Canada and the UK.  A brief Wikipedia search tells me that Canada is 19.1% minority, the US is 36.3% and the UK is 16.8%.  Those countries also have a fraction of US total population put together (and with Australia stacked on top).

If I take you to parts of the US you would believe we are the most diverse or the whitest country on Earth.

[stripey]

Just in the spirit of conversation, an article from an Australian POV...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html

What patronizing garbage.  Australia is also a lot smaller, is not heavily multi-ethnic and has an entirely different history than the US (the descendants of criminals probably have a reason not to want each other to have firearms, ya think?).  Go back to suckling on the Chinese teat, dude!

Okay, I don't agree with that editorial (and I agree, it's laying it on a bit thick) but to imply that we're all (or mostly) descended from criminals and that's the reason we don't want each other to have firearms is... well... pretty offensive. Just to make it clear, the majority of Australians are not descended from convicts, one in four Australian citizens was born overseas, and the current gun control laws came into effect in the mid 1990s, not the 1890s.

[regulator]

Just in the spirit of conversation, an article from an Australian POV...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html

What patronizing garbage.  Australia is also a lot smaller, is not heavily multi-ethnic and has an entirely different history than the US (the descendants of criminals probably have a reason not to want each other to have firearms, ya think?).  Go back to suckling on the Chinese teat, dude!

Okay, I don't agree with that editorial (and I agree, it's laying it on a bit thick) but to imply that we're all (or mostly) descended from criminals and that's the reason we don't want each other to have firearms is... well... pretty offensive. Just to make it clear, the majority of Australians are not descended from convicts, one in four Australian citizens was born overseas, and the current gun control laws came into effect in the mid 1990s, not the 1890s.

The sauce that is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Kris]

Not to muddy the waters, but...

I'm a college professor.

So, what if I brought a loaded pistol to class every day, and at the beginning of class I took it out and slammed it down on the desk in front of my students before starting the lesson.

Would that be okay?

And if not, why?

[Flyingkea]

Has anyone here seen the movie Out of the Blue?
It's not set in America, but rather my home country of New Zealand, and is about the Aramoana massacre.  I just think it might be interesting viewing for both sides of the argument. I don't recall it being pro or anti gun, but more about recounting the events of those 2 days.

[marty998]

Just in the spirit of conversation, an article from an Australian POV...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html

What patronizing garbage.  Australia is also a lot smaller, is not heavily multi-ethnic and has an entirely different history than the US (the descendants of criminals probably have a reason not to want each other to have firearms, ya think?). Go back to suckling on the Chinese teat, dude!

That is incredibly rude, insensitive and unnecessary. Not to mention grossly wrong.

[swick]

MOD NOTE: Okay people, seriously, This is obviously a topic that can't be discussed without resorting to name-calling, making sweeping and inaccurate generalizations about entire countries and groups of people, and causing people act like complete jerks.  Locking thread.