Gun Control

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:36 am UTC

Making gun in 3D printers is for fun.
Don't attempt to take all the fun out of life.

If people want guns, we have guns.
The People of the United States own Guns.
-And; A Fuck of a Lot of Them.-

We have people that want guns and guns.
Where is the problem? The US Congress?

What does that bunch of sissies want?
They Have Guns! I saw a formal discussion between the officials of the US.

Those people were braging about having guns.
It is a Rich Man's Game? no. no. no. no.

The People want to play, too.
What will The People do with the guns?

I hope they don't do much with them.
But; People being people we will have to wait and see.

What do you think the first Congressional Public Education annoucment should be?
Your gun. Don't take your guns to town child. Don't take your guns to town.

no. People live in towns. They can't keep their guns at the country place like the Congress and Media guys do.
Those guys go to The Ranch to play with their guns.

The People might need Public Shooting Ranges.
With professionals to help people develop good citizenship skills.

It is not required that we take classes in Citienship, but it is nice to get out and hobnob with the other gun owners.
Hey! Malishias! What fun!

Each little town or borreo could have its own sharpshooters.
They could agree to meet at the High School and play against Targets.
Or; They could play War. If we take that town, then we can play in the Nationals.

It would never get that far. It is not nice to declare war on other towns, because you are bored.
Besides. Humans are difficult to get along with.
No town would become that organized before The People lost interest and needed to sit down and google something.

I made up two ways it can go. There are other ways it can go.
The Truth is we will not know, until it is done.

Give The People what they want. What do The People want?
Some say guns. That is so easy. If guns will make them happy, give them guns.

We have loads. We have guns. Some in every County in most states.
It was a Law! You people are not breaking that Law, too! Are You??
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

johnie104
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby johnie104 » Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:29 am UTC

I'm not here to debate gun control (I'm assuming people here now a lot more about it then me, and have done every argument 10 times).
I also haven't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if this has come up already. I just have a question.

If you look at how many guns per capita there are per country, the USA is on top (source), but there are enough western countries that aren't that far behind (well, the USA has almost twice as much, but if we just look at the ranking then the western countries aren't far behind).

If we then look at gun-related deaths (source), then we see a lot of countries from South-America and a few African countries up top. These numbers can be explained by the instability of those countries.
However the top Western country is the USA, and the second western country in the list is Switzerland, which has a third of the amount of deaths.

So my question is: How come there are more deaths per weapon in the USA then in any other western country? My guess would be that America simply has a more violent culture, but I can't really say that seeing as I haven't lived in the US.
If there is a reason, how can this be reversed? So, how to decrease the amounts of deaths caused by guns, while not decreasing the amount of guns.
Signature removed because of it's blinding awesomeness.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:01 am UTC

In my opinion, To control guns, the people must be able to control themselves.

yes. The US does have a more violent culture than other Western nations.
We are a Monkey See; Monkey Do species.

The TV in the US is frightening!
I know for a fact, young men are a bunch of monkeys.

I have watched young men from a less violent culture attempt to 'Be Bad'.
They were irritating. Nothing like the scary SOB's I have encountered inside the US.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:45 pm UTC

johnie104 wrote:I'm not here to debate gun control (I'm assuming people here now a lot more about it then me, and have done every argument 10 times).
I also haven't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if this has come up already. I just have a question.

If you look at how many guns per capita there are per country, the USA is on top (source), but there are enough western countries that aren't that far behind (well, the USA has almost twice as much, but if we just look at the ranking then the western countries aren't far behind).

If we then look at gun-related deaths (source), then we see a lot of countries from South-America and a few African countries up top. These numbers can be explained by the instability of those countries.
However the top Western country is the USA, and the second western country in the list is Switzerland, which has a third of the amount of deaths.

So my question is: How come there are more deaths per weapon in the USA then in any other western country? My guess would be that America simply has a more violent culture, but I can't really say that seeing as I haven't lived in the US.
If there is a reason, how can this be reversed? So, how to decrease the amounts of deaths caused by guns, while not decreasing the amount of guns.


It's likely a culture issue, yeah. Norway and Iceland are also fairly high among gun ownership in western nations, but have remarkably low violence rates. VERY different cultural attitudes towards crime, though. They definitely seem to favor a more rehabilitation-oriented prison system, while we prefer a more punishment-based one. I'd wager you could draw a fairly strong correlation between those styles and crime patterns.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:49 pm UTC

I think the standard approach is to look at the characteristics of gun violence and compare it to the characteristics of non-gun-related violence. That helps to control for culture a little bit (though it doesn't answer the question of whether gun availability aggravates the incidence of violence).

If you look at gun-related violence in the United States, it's predominantly people with existing criminal records who are committing violent crimes. Under that it's domestic violence, with mental illness trailing far far behind. If you look at non-gun-related violence, it's also people with existing criminal records, then, domestic violence, then mental illness.

So, yeah, it seems that the criminal population's recidivism is the greatest contributing factor. But we can't do anything about that without taking money away from the prison system. And the prison system is a big lobby power.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:37 pm UTC

An alternate view is that the US is rural country pockmarked with concentrated uban sprawl. The rural areas are deathtraps where everyone dies and gets hurt more often and can't be treated as fast. Of course, this trend applies for all injuries and deaths, not just gun violence/harm.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:An alternate view is that the US is rural country pockmarked with concentrated uban sprawl. The rural areas are deathtraps where everyone dies and gets hurt more often and can't be treated as fast. Of course, this trend applies for all injuries and deaths, not just gun violence/harm.

And the size of the rural areas in comparison to the concentration of the urban sprawl makes enforcement of gun control laws a huge huge joke.

Intuitively, I'm thinking that the ratios of mean population density, median population density, and mode population density in the US are vastly unlike the corresponding ratios of any other single country. The best comparison I can make is if you suddenly had all the EU nations under a single federal government trying to do all the things the state governments do, while the individual state governments were still trying to do everything on their own at the same time.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Gun Control

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:40 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
sardia wrote:An alternate view is that the US is rural country pockmarked with concentrated uban sprawl. The rural areas are deathtraps where everyone dies and gets hurt more often and can't be treated as fast. Of course, this trend applies for all injuries and deaths, not just gun violence/harm.

And the size of the rural areas in comparison to the concentration of the urban sprawl makes enforcement of gun control laws a huge huge joke.

Intuitively, I'm thinking that the ratios of mean population density, median population density, and mode population density in the US are vastly unlike the corresponding ratios of any other single country. The best comparison I can make is if you suddenly had all the EU nations under a single federal government trying to do all the things the state governments do, while the individual state governments were still trying to do everything on their own at the same time.


That's actually a fairly accurate assessment of the US, given the differences in culture between, for instance, the Deep South, the Northeast, the upper Midwest, SoCal, etc.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:15 pm UTC

sardia wrote:An alternate view is that the US is rural country pockmarked with concentrated uban sprawl. The rural areas are deathtraps where everyone dies and gets hurt more often and can't be treated as fast. Of course, this trend applies for all injuries and deaths, not just gun violence/harm.


They're complimentary views, really. Both are certainly true. Violent crime rates may be higher in urban areas, but getting urgent care rapidly is a HUGE factor in survival.

This factor seems somehow lost on country folk who feel unsafe in the big city.

And I certainly must agree that culture varies widely over the US...comparing it to the EU is pretty sound. Sure, there are commonalities among our cultures, but merely driving from say, Austin into the rest of Texas can give you an entirely different culture.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:36 pm UTC

Unless you grew up in the United States, traveled in the United States a good deal, lived in both rural and urban population centers, and have experience with the interaction of local, state, and federal politics, it's probably hard to get a good grasp of the enormity of factors affecting something like gun violence. Comparing the entire US to a single state like France or Germany or the UK isn't just apples-and-oranges; it's apples-and-carburetors.

Can't compare the US to a large country like Australia or Canada, either; both of those countries have a MUCH lower median population density. Canada has ten provinces, each with only a single major population cluster. Australia has only seven provinces with around eleven discrete population clusters. The US has fifty "provinces", each with an autonomous state government, and each of those "provinces" have several discrete urban population clusters embedded in a dense rural population. The scale of difference is really dramatic.

China isn't a good comparison either. They have a closer median population density, but they only have two major coastal population centers with a nice even gradient going inland. And that's not even accounting for the extreme cultural, governmental, and historical differences.

Any rational treatment of gun violence in the United States has to examine states individually while simultaneously recognizing the limited federal oversight along with the total lack of border checks between any states.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:55 pm UTC

sardia wrote:An alternate view is that the US is rural country pockmarked with concentrated uban sprawl. The rural areas are deathtraps where everyone dies and gets hurt more often and can't be treated as fast. Of course, this trend applies for all injuries and deaths, not just gun violence/harm.

Yes! This is true!
Don't go into the country with your guns to play!

You might come out as a hood ornament!
Tell everyone the Forests are Dangerous!

AirVac for Civilians? yes. The US has Air Vac for Civilians, maybe.
It does depend upon who you are. right?

Or; Are some of them, the americans, like Commies?
You know; Like Commies. They take all Comers.

The Commies I have known seem to make a distinction between Human and Non-Human, sometimes.
Fricking animals are Family? See?

We are on a Survival Craft! We each must defend our Right To Life with Deadly Force?
Against the other Survivors! What the fuck did we Survive?

Evolution? Yea!
Spoiler:
(that is so funny. I hated being called a Survivor. I did not want anyone to know. How could they tell?)

Whoop-Tee-Do. Big fucking deal.

Your gun is bigger than my gun. May I shoot it?
I like the scopes better than the Rife. Just truth.

The Rife is the carrier for the Scope. The Rife steadies the Scope.
yes. I would watch men through a Scope. Wouldn't you?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:01 pm UTC

I wasn't going to shoot anybody, officer! Honest injun, I wasn't! I was just using the rifle to hold my scope to watch people!

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:05 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:I wasn't going to shoot anybody, officer! Honest injun, I wasn't! I was just using the rifle to hold my scope to watch people!

See? It looks bad.

Hey! We are arguing about our nation.
Let us get back to that.
davidstarlingm wrote:Unless you grew up in the United States, traveled in the United States a good deal, lived in both rural and urban population centers, and have experience with the interaction of local, state, and federal politics, it's probably hard to get a good grasp of the enormity of factors affecting something like gun violence. Comparing the entire US to a single state like France or Germany or the UK isn't just apples-and-oranges; it's apples-and-carburetors.

Can't compare the US to a large country like Australia or Canada, either; both of those countries have a MUCH lower median population density. Canada has ten provinces, each with only a single major population cluster. Australia has only seven provinces with around eleven discrete population clusters. The US has fifty "provinces", each with an autonomous state government, and each of those "provinces" have several discrete urban population clusters embedded in a dense rural population. The scale of difference is really dramatic.

China isn't a good comparison either. They have a closer median population density, but they only have two major coastal population centers with a nice even gradient going inland. And that's not even accounting for the extreme cultural, governmental, and historical differences.

Any rational treatment of gun violence in the United States has to examine states individually while simultaneously recognizing the limited federal oversight along with the total lack of border checks between any states.

What?
Hey!

The US must have different rules of conduct, because it is Special?
No. If that is what you are saying, then I think you are wrong.

It is not more Culturally Shocking to go from a Best Western in Kentucky to a Best Western in LA;
Than it is to go from a Hostel in Eastern Europe to a Hostel in Western Europe.

The American can't get along with one another. Why? Too much alike?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Rokkerboyy
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Rokkerboyy » Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:31 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Any rational treatment of gun violence in the United States has to examine states individually while simultaneously recognizing the limited federal oversight along with the total lack of border checks between any states.



I dunno, gun violence doesn't typically spill over state borders, at least in any legal manner. Not to mention the idea of setting up state by state borders is absurd and costly and would likely end up being ineffective. Examining the states would prove useless because both sides would twist the facts into their favor.

[quote=addams]The US must have different rules of conduct, because it is Special?
No. If that is what you are saying, then I think you are wrong.

It is not more Culturally Shocking to go from a Best Western in Kentucky to a Best Western in LA;
Than it is to go from a Hostel in Eastern Europe to a Hostel in Western Europe.

The American can't get along with one another. Why? Too much alike?[/quote]

1) Not at all, we "must have different rules of conduct" because America is very unique in many ways compared to other countries.
2) Where did hotels come into the mix? And why do you say a state (Kentucky) and then a city (LA)? And Kentucky and LA can be vastly different.
3) ... I don't understand what your last statement meant to say.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Fri Dec 13, 2013 3:32 am UTC

Every country is Unique.
Is the US dangerously Unique?

Not all her people, but enough?
Enough that the rest of the world has need to worry?

We rarely kill the citizens of other nations on US soil.
I am looking for a ray of sunshine. Is that it?

In the interest of Sanity, our own and that of others;
Should we promote Self Control?

Not Gun Control, but Self Control.
If our people have Self Control, Gun Control will be a natural extension. Correct?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:13 pm UTC

Rokkerboyy wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Any rational treatment of gun violence in the United States has to examine states individually while simultaneously recognizing the limited federal oversight along with the total lack of border checks between any states.



I dunno, gun violence doesn't typically spill over state borders, at least in any legal manner. Not to mention the idea of setting up state by state borders is absurd and costly and would likely end up being ineffective. Examining the states would prove useless because both sides would twist the facts into their favor.


Violence doesn't travel far, true. A guy who kills someone generally wants to kill a specific someone, not just any random person. Guns can travel, though. The US has a *lot* of guns, transport of them is inherently fairly easy, and it's not as if the border patrol stops you whenever you cross state lines. I mean, even if they did, it's not like they're great at stopping drugs, but in any case, nobody really wants to have the kind of country where each state border looks like the Maginot Line.

So, the logical conclusion is that city/state level bans are going to be inherently pretty ineffective because guns will flow in to supply the criminal demand. The same logic also applies on a larger scale, albeit somewhat less fluidly, because national borders are more strictly enforced and transit times would generally be longer. I would expect that the smaller the area affected by a gun ban, the more pointless the ban would be.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:29 pm UTC

The point of looking at states individually is that all states have different laws, different penalties, and different demographic sets, just like each of the countries in the European Union.

The issue of borders is that their complete permeability makes gun bans utterly impossible to enforce.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:03 am UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:The point of looking at states individually is that all states have different laws, different penalties, and different demographic sets, just like each of the countries in the European Union.

The issue of borders is that their complete permeability makes gun bans utterly impossible to enforce.

What??
We don't want gun bans.
We don't have gun bans.

Stop scaring people!
Gun Bans are a bad idea!
We don't have a gun ban and we are not going to get one.

What we might get is some self control that comes from adult behavior.
The people of the US are not too stupid to drive cars.
(to be fair, the cars of today are easy to drive)
The people of the US are not too stupid to have guns.

My people are so frightened of Obama taking their guns that people are borderline dangerous.

You can make up any reason you want for not banning guns.
The nation is too large. The nation is too open. It is not practical. The nation is too diverse. The nation is too homogenous.

As long as there is no effort to force the American people to act in responsible ways. Don't force them, allow them.
Settle down and be calm. Don't worry. Don't shoot. Be a grown up. What do grown ups do?
Spoiler:
No! You little TEA BAG Bastard! Taking things into your own hands and shooting congress people is NOT the adult thing to do.
Close. You get points for not being an Apathetic Zombie.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

johnie104
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby johnie104 » Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:24 pm UTC

addams wrote:What we might get is some self control that comes from adult behavior.
The people of the US are not too stupid to drive cars.
(to be fair, the cars of today are easy to drive)
The people of the US are not too stupid to have guns.


Are you then also of the opinion that heroin should be legal?

Tyndmyr wrote:
Rokkerboyy wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Any rational treatment of gun violence in the United States has to examine states individually while simultaneously recognizing the limited federal oversight along with the total lack of border checks between any states.

I dunno, gun violence doesn't typically spill over state borders, at least in any legal manner. Not to mention the idea of setting up state by state borders is absurd and costly and would likely end up being ineffective. Examining the states would prove useless because both sides would twist the facts into their favor.

Violence doesn't travel far, true. A guy who kills someone generally wants to kill a specific someone, not just any random person. Guns can travel, though. The US has a *lot* of guns, transport of them is inherently fairly easy, and it's not as if the border patrol stops you whenever you cross state lines. I mean, even if they did, it's not like they're great at stopping drugs, but in any case, nobody really wants to have the kind of country where each state border looks like the Maginot Line.

So, the logical conclusion is that city/state level bans are going to be inherently pretty ineffective because guns will flow in to supply the criminal demand. The same logic also applies on a larger scale, albeit somewhat less fluidly, because national borders are more strictly enforced and transit times would generally be longer. I would expect that the smaller the area affected by a gun ban, the more pointless the ban would be.


If you banned at the state-level, most people wouldn't buy guns anymore. Only the people that REALLY want guns and criminals would probably go to the effort of driving to another state and buying a weapon that is illegal to use in their home-state. So you would get less guns in the state, but criminals would still have the same amount of guns. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing. If a criminal knew while robbing a home that the owner doesn't have a gun, they are less likely to shoot the owner to prevent themselves being shot.
Signature removed because of it's blinding awesomeness.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:30 pm UTC

johnie104 wrote:
addams wrote:What we might get is some self control that comes from adult behavior.
The people of the US are not too stupid to drive cars.
(to be fair, the cars of today are easy to drive)
The people of the US are not too stupid to have guns.


Are you then also of the opinion that heroin should be legal?


If you banned at the state-level, most people wouldn't buy guns anymore. Only the people that REALLY want guns and criminals would probably go to the effort of driving to another state and buying a weapon that is illegal to use in their home-state. So you would get less guns in the state, but criminals would still have the same amount of guns. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing. If a criminal knew while robbing a home that the owner doesn't have a gun, they are less likely to shoot the owner to prevent themselves being shot.


oh. Dear. That is not a question.
You wrote a statement.
Do I agree?

No. I may have agreed with you a few years ago. I don't, now.
The part about those AssHoles will not shoot unarmed animals.

Unarmed Helpless Human Animals and their Servants and even their Animals.
please excuse me. i would like to practice good will toward my fellow man.

You, Dear Poster, may be correct. A regular run of the mill Thief will take the valuables and leave.
Spoiler:
What kind of games do you play on your X-Box? Some people watch outdoor adventure movies, then go have an outdoor adventure.
Some people play first person shooter games. Do people get the itch from X-Box games the same way people get the itch from Porn?


We can not ban or control guns.
We can promote Self Control.

What good would it do? All the people with Self Control may as well not be armed.
What would the Private Voice of the armed and not dangerous, yet say?

Gee, Mr. Cleaver; Why have a tool, if you don't use it?

Mr. Cleaver; You can't let that Man talk to you like that. That shows a lack of Respect.
Fuck him, Mr. Cleaver. You have a gun. Shoot him. No one will ever know.

No one will ever know, Mr. Cleaver. I don't like him, either.


I know Squat-minus-A-fuck-of a lot, about Criminal Justice.
That has got to be a Difficult Major.

The History of My People if populated with Good Guys.
Shining Examples of The Human Spirit Gone Good.

The History of Their People is populated with Bad Guys.
Fucked Up Examples of The Human Spirit Gone Bad.

We can make guesses about what people will do.
If those guesses are based on what other people have actually done, that might be a good guess.

We do not know what people will do, until they do it.
I have seen people do some weird stuff.

All in good fun, I suppose.
Sometimes I feel like George W. sounded.

He said things like, "You can't know anything more than I do. And; I don't know very much."
I am looking at you and saying, "You can't know anything more about the human mind than I do. And; I don't know very much."

Don't ban guns. Promote Self Control.
Besides! Even for the victims it is a better way to go.

Shot by an angry mob or hung by the neck until dead by a bunch of amateurs?
That is not a tough choice for me. You?

What do you want to do?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:53 pm UTC

johnie104 wrote:If you banned at the state-level, most people wouldn't buy guns anymore. Only the people that REALLY want guns and criminals would probably go to the effort of driving to another state and buying a weapon that is illegal to use in their home-state. So you would get less guns in the state, but criminals would still have the same amount of guns. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing. If a criminal knew while robbing a home that the owner doesn't have a gun, they are less likely to shoot the owner to prevent themselves being shot.


In reality, Burglars getting into gun-battles with home-owners does not account for much violent crime. (burglary is typically a nonviolent crime, burglars would much rather invade an unoccupied home, regardless of whether the occupant is likely to be armed, and will frequently flee if they discover a home they are entering is occupied)

By far the vast majority of U.S. violent crime (including firearm homicides) is gang related or otherwise related to criminal-on-criminal violence. You can't really combat that by disarming the law-abiding citizens.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby LaserGuy » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:34 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:
sardia wrote:That doesn't seem particularly worth it for the customer. Is there something missing here? Why would anyone pay 15,000 dollars for a gun?


When no one else is armed, a silenced SMG, professional grade, without any police records of its existence? If you can't think of any uses for that, well...

Suffice it to say it's of great value (15k!) to organized criminals.


But most criminals are 1) not part of an organized crime syndicate and 2) are generally poor and uneducated. Setting the barrier for entry for guns at 15k probably means that 95% of criminals will not have the resources to buy a gun. Organized crime might still have them, but they're probably also not the people Joe Citizen needs to be concerned about as far as home invasions, say, are concerned. And they'll have them regardless of the price.

In reality, modern organized crime looks an awful lot more like a business than it does like a bunch of guys running around with guns. It's just that the products and services that they sell are illegal.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:20 pm UTC

Really? LaserGuy? You want to set the bar at 15K?
For what? For entry level? Entry into what?

Are there Citizens and Real Citizens?
One guy is, just, somebody.
Another guy is a Real Somebody?

Maybe I don't understand.
Why would you do that?

Keep the classes separated by Deadly Force?
It that a good plan? What class are you?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

johnie104
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby johnie104 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:58 am UTC

addams wrote:
johnie104 wrote:
addams wrote:What we might get is some self control that comes from adult behavior.
The people of the US are not too stupid to drive cars.
(to be fair, the cars of today are easy to drive)
The people of the US are not too stupid to have guns.


Are you then also of the opinion that heroin should be legal?

oh. Dear. That is not a question.
You wrote a statement.
Do I agree?

No. I may have agreed with you a few years ago. I don't, now.
The part about those AssHoles will not shoot unarmed animals.

...

We can not ban or control guns.
We can promote Self Control.

What good would it do? All the people with Self Control may as well not be armed.
What would the Private Voice of the armed and not dangerous, yet say


Well, see, your argument against gun control is, that you shouldn't ban guns, but instead promote self-control.
If you replace 'gun' with 'heroin' in that sentence then that is still the same argument.
The problem is that I don't trust my fellow man to have self-control, or at least, I don't trust them enough to trust they won't misuse guns/heroin.
This is why there are laws that regulate these kinds of things.

addams wrote:Shot by an angry mob or hung by the neck until dead by a bunch of amateurs?
That is not a tough choice for me. You?

What do you want to do?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Care to ellaborate (in a non-Shakespearian way if possible).

EdgarJPublius wrote:
johnie104 wrote:If you banned at the state-level, most people wouldn't buy guns anymore. Only the people that REALLY want guns and criminals would probably go to the effort of driving to another state and buying a weapon that is illegal to use in their home-state. So you would get less guns in the state, but criminals would still have the same amount of guns. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing. If a criminal knew while robbing a home that the owner doesn't have a gun, they are less likely to shoot the owner to prevent themselves being shot.


In reality, Burglars getting into gun-battles with home-owners does not account for much violent crime. (burglary is typically a nonviolent crime, burglars would much rather invade an unoccupied home, regardless of whether the occupant is likely to be armed, and will frequently flee if they discover a home they are entering is occupied)

By far the vast majority of U.S. violent crime (including firearm homicides) is gang related or otherwise related to criminal-on-criminal violence. You can't really combat that by disarming the law-abiding citizens.


Ok, fair enough. Do you have a source for this btw?

LaserGuy wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:
sardia wrote:That doesn't seem particularly worth it for the customer. Is there something missing here? Why would anyone pay 15,000 dollars for a gun?


When no one else is armed, a silenced SMG, professional grade, without any police records of its existence? If you can't think of any uses for that, well...

Suffice it to say it's of great value (15k!) to organized criminals.


But most criminals are 1) not part of an organized crime syndicate and 2) are generally poor and uneducated. Setting the barrier for entry for guns at 15k probably means that 95% of criminals will not have the resources to buy a gun. Organized crime might still have them, but they're probably also not the people Joe Citizen needs to be concerned about as far as home invasions, say, are concerned. And they'll have them regardless of the price.

In reality, modern organized crime looks an awful lot more like a business than it does like a bunch of guys running around with guns. It's just that the products and services that they sell are illegal.


I think I agree with this. Banning the legal sell of guns, will make it so fewer criminals will have guns. Not a 100% less, and the fraction of ordinary citizens that won't have a gun will decrease harder, but I do think their is a net-gain.
Signature removed because of it's blinding awesomeness.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:02 pm UTC

johnie104 wrote:Ok, fair enough. Do you have a source for this btw?


Thornberry, T. P et. al. 2004 'The Causes and Correlates Studies: Findings and Policy Implications' (3-9) wrote: Gang members—both male and female—accounted for the lion’s share of all delinquency. Although gang members were only 30 percent of the studied population, they were involved in 63 percent of all delinquent acts (excluding gang fights), 82 percent of serious delinquencies, 70 percent of drug sales, and 54 percent of all arrests


Thornberry, 2004 wrote:Denver male and female gang members accounted for approximately 80 percent of all serious and violent crime (excluding gang fights) committed by the sample. Further, over a 5-year period, these individuals committed the vast majority of crimes while they were gang members



'National Gang Threat Assessment, Emerging Trends'. U.S. National Gang Intelligence Center. 2011 wrote: Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others, according to NGIC analysis. Major cities and suburban areas experience the most gang-related violence. Local neighborhood-based gangs and drug crews continue to pose the most significant criminal threat in most communities. Aggressive recruitment of juveniles and immigrants, alliances and conflict between gangs, the release of incarcerated gang members from prison, advancements in technology and communication, and Mexican Drug trafficking organization (MDTO) involvement in drug distribution have resulted in gang expansion and violence in a number of jurisdictions.


NGIC 2011 wrote:Gang members also target military and law enforcement officials, facilities, and vehicles to obtain weapons, ammunition, body armor, police gear, badges, uniforms, and official identification.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:29 am UTC

johnie104 wrote:
addams wrote:
johnie104 wrote:
addams wrote:What we might get is some self control that comes from adult behavior.
The people of the US are not too stupid to drive cars.
(to be fair, the cars of today are easy to drive)
The people of the US are not too stupid to have guns.


Are you then also of the opinion that heroin should be legal?

oh. Dear. That is not a question.
You wrote a statement.
Do I agree?

No. I may have agreed with you a few years ago. I don't, now.
The part about those AssHoles will not shoot unarmed animals.

...

We can not ban or control guns.
We can promote Self Control.

What good would it do? All the people with Self Control may as well not be armed.
What would the Private Voice of the armed and not dangerous, yet say


Well, see, your argument against gun control is, that you shouldn't ban guns, but instead promote self-control.
If you replace 'gun' with 'heroin' in that sentence then that is still the same argument.
The problem is that I don't trust my fellow man to have self-control, or at least, I don't trust them enough to trust they won't misuse guns/heroin.
This is why there are laws that regulate these kinds of things.

addams wrote:Shot by an angry mob or hung by the neck until dead by a bunch of amateurs?
That is not a tough choice for me. You?

What do you want to do?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Care to ellaborate (in a non-Shakespearian way if possible).


The problem is that I don't trust my fellow man to have self-control, or at least, I don't trust them enough to trust they won't misuse guns/heroin.
This is why there are laws that regulate these kinds of things.

Your fellow man can be trustworthy.
It is, sort of, required to live in a modern world Peacefully.

Guns and Heroin are two very different things.
At this moment I trust other people to use heroin in ways that will not impact my well being.
If heroin were legal and at the local 7-11 it may have the same impact alcohol does on my life.

Guns are different.
When the population is armed with guns, it has an impact me in new and surprising ways, nearly everyday.
I am surprised by the reasonable and level headed ways people with authority behave.

A gun gives a person a sense of authority in their own lives.
It does not have that effect on me. Others say they must have a gun to feel safe and in control. Not me.

After people that want guns have guns, we can discuss the process of letting the guns go.
Like a child letting go of a pacifier. Our people will not be taking No Guns for an answer.

We can beat our fingers to stubs typing about how to control guns.
The American People will not be controlled by force from the outside.

I don't trust The People much, either. Yet; They want guns and our job is to support one another.
I would like to make the case in favor of self control. An armed person is not always a dangerous person.

[b][i]
addams wrote:Shot by an angry mob or hung by the neck until dead by a bunch of amateurs?
That is not a tough choice for me. You?

What do you want to do?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Care to ellaborate (in a non-Shakespearian way if possible).[/quote][/quote]

umm. You want me to restate? ok.
From my point of view, a quick and merciful death by bullet is better than some of the other ways humans kill humans.
For the victim guns may be better. For the medical staff it may be 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

For both the victims and for the medical staff, Self Control is best!
We will not run out of things for the medical staff to do when the gun fire slows down.

We may become the best nation in both treatment of and experience with gunshot wounds.
We, sort of, need something to be genuinely proud of as a nation.

Until our pride in our self control kicks in, we can be proud of how we face gunshot wounds.
Yeah! US! We can teach it on TV! How to do First Aid and Transport of victims.

It will be great! How proud will we have a right to be?
It will be great! We might stop shooting one another.
***EDIT****
Do you remember Public Education and Public Service Announcements?
I do.

In the community where I lived there were Public Service Announcements on BroadCast Media.
Several were about gun safety.
it was recommended, when a person was visiting with new aqainatiances, in their homes, "Ask about guns."
Ask about guns in the same tone and with the same urgency one might ask about toilet facilities.

"Do you have guns, here?" "Where are the guns?"
I have asked that question. I have been uncomfortable with the answer a few times. Not often.

Another concurrent announcement supported people in making arrangements outside a home with guns,
if people were not comfortable with the answer.

Yes. People might self segregate. Some.
People self segregate, now!

I have a more difficult time with that question, now; Than I did, then.
We seem to hear an awful lot about guns on TV.

I know people have guns. Have the American People become Paranoid?
The question, "Where is your gun?" is received better than the question, "Do you have a gun?"

I am ok with that. I suppose.
It MUST be ok to ask.

Of course, I Know we are each more at risk of gunshot if there are guns in the environment.
Do I have the right to ask? yes. Other Americans have the right to tell me to 'Fuck Off', too.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Mon Dec 16, 2013 4:05 pm UTC

Theoretically, banning all guns (if it were possible) would eventually make it more difficult for petty criminals to obtain guns.

Meanwhile, all the petty criminals who already have access to guns would slaughter everybody.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 16, 2013 4:25 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Theoretically, banning all guns (if it were possible) would eventually make it more difficult for petty criminals to obtain guns.

Meanwhile, all the petty criminals who already have access to guns would slaughter everybody.

The 2nd part isn't true. Petty criminals don't go around murdering people just because someone passed a law. Hell, if I passed a law that said you could murder any hobo you'd like, people aren't going to go out and murder hobos. All guns are merely a means to an ends. The surprise factor/location accounts for much more than anything else. Now if you want to argue that the lack of guns will lead to increased crime, then we can measure that.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Mon Dec 16, 2013 4:41 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Petty criminals don't go around murdering people just because someone passed a law.

Of course not. That's a terrific strawman.

sardia wrote:Now if you want to argue that the lack of guns will lead to increased crime, then we can measure that.

Precisely.

Take any city which has banned guns and compare its murder rate to similar cities which had not banned guns over the same timespan.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Dec 16, 2013 5:24 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Meanwhile, all the petty criminals who already have access to guns would slaughter everybody.


That's... not how it works in the real world. There are many countries in the world where firearms are banned, or nearly so, and you don't see spree killings by petty criminals like you're suggesting. Why does Japan, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, also have among its lowest homicide rates? If what you are saying were even remotely true, wouldn't you expect Japan to have a much higher homicide rate, than, say, the United States, where gun ownership is common?

Or maybe there are other factors, like say, demographics, culture and poverty, that have a much much bigger effect than gun control on crime, and the idea that disarming people would like to crime sprees is just a myth?


In other news, sheriffs in several states have said publicly that they will not be enforcing newly passed gun control laws. This to me is a very troubling development. The constitutionality of laws is tested by the courts, not decided unilaterally by law enforcement.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Mon Dec 16, 2013 5:51 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Meanwhile, all the petty criminals who already have access to guns would slaughter everybody.


That's... not how it works in the real world. There are many countries in the world where firearms are banned, or nearly so, and you don't see spree killings by petty criminals like you're suggesting. Why does Japan, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, also have among its lowest homicide rates? If what you are saying were even remotely true, wouldn't you expect Japan to have a much higher homicide rate, than, say, the United States, where gun ownership is common?

No, because:
  • Japan is four small islands and the US is forty-eight large contiguous states.
  • Non-gun-related crime is vastly different in Japan due to completely different demographics and culture.
  • Japan has a completely different approach to criminal justice.
  • Japanese criminals have never had widespread access to guns.
And there are a host of other reasons as well. If you want to compare two different scenarios, you need to be able to isolate your independent variable. "These two situations are exactly the same in all relevant points other than X, and so we can predict f(x)." I don't think there's a single gun-crime-related variable where you can say the US and Japan are at all similar.

Hence my example: since we're talking about the United States, let's look at individual jurisdictions within the United States which have instituted complete or partial gun bans, then compare their change-in-gun-violence before and after in comparison to similar jurisdictions which did not institute new gun control legislation.

The point is not that petty criminals would decide to begin killing indiscriminately. It's just that they'd have no deterrent to escalate confrontation if they knew their victims were unarmed.

LaserGuy wrote:In other news, sheriffs in several states have said publicly that they will not be enforcing newly passed gun control laws. This to me is a very troubling development. The constitutionality of laws is tested by the courts, not decided unilaterally by law enforcement.

Well, the revolutionary culture has persisted quite a while.

FLHerne
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:44 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby FLHerne » Mon Dec 16, 2013 5:52 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Take any city which has banned guns and compare its murder rate to similar cities which had not banned guns over the same timespan.
The catch here is that when only small areas are involved, it's really easy for criminals to obtain whatever weapons they want just by driving a few miles. A national-level ban requires smuggling guns through customs checks (or manufacturing them in secret), so the supply of illegal weapons will drop rapidly as they can't be easily replaced.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Gun Control

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Dec 16, 2013 5:57 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
sardia wrote:Petty criminals don't go around murdering people just because someone passed a law.

Of course not. That's a terrific strawman.

sardia wrote:Now if you want to argue that the lack of guns will lead to increased crime, then we can measure that.

Precisely.

Take any city which has banned guns and compare its murder rate to similar cities which had not banned guns over the same timespan.


http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168853287 ... rime-rates

article mentioned in the story:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby morriswalters » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:13 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Theoretically, banning all guns (if it were possible) would eventually make it more difficult for petty criminals to obtain guns.

Meanwhile, all the petty criminals who already have access to guns would slaughter everybody.
There is already a slaughter happening, 8000+ homicides committed in 2012 according to the uniform crime statistics and not counting justifiable homicides. Let's see, Police shooting criminals and law abiding citizens. Criminals shooting criminals and law abiding citizens. Families blasting away at each other. Children shooting other children in schools. And last but not least suicide by gun which the Harvard School Of Public Health says exceeded 19,000 in 2110. And given that there are almost as many guns as there are people in the US, the time when a ban would have been meaningful is long passed. And my guess would be that their will be no meaningful control.

LaserGuy wrote:In other news, sheriffs in several states have said publicly that they will not be enforcing newly passed gun control laws. This to me is a very troubling development. The constitutionality of laws is tested by the courts, not decided unilaterally by law enforcement.
Obviously you should visit here more often. I know it is popular to think the somehow law enforcement is different than the people they serve. They aren't. They have always chosen when and how to enforce the law. Most Sheriffs are elected and as such they serve at the will of their constituency, and push that constituency too hard and they find new Sheriffs, which makes it worse.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:51 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Meanwhile, all the petty criminals who already have access to guns would slaughter everybody.


That's... not how it works in the real world. There are many countries in the world where firearms are banned, or nearly so, and you don't see spree killings by petty criminals like you're suggesting. Why does Japan, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, also have among its lowest homicide rates? If what you are saying were even remotely true, wouldn't you expect Japan to have a much higher homicide rate, than, say, the United States, where gun ownership is common?

No, because:
  • Japan is four small islands and the US is forty-eight large contiguous states.
  • Non-gun-related crime is vastly different in Japan due to completely different demographics and culture.
  • Japan has a completely different approach to criminal justice.
  • Japanese criminals have never had widespread access to guns.
And there are a host of other reasons as well. If you want to compare two different scenarios, you need to be able to isolate your independent variable. "These two situations are exactly the same in all relevant points other than X, and so we can predict f(x)." I don't think there's a single gun-crime-related variable where you can say the US and Japan are at all similar.


Exactly. Which is why your original claim "Meanwhile, all the petty criminals who already have access to guns would slaughter everybody" is total bullshit. Gun control can work just fine. There are lots of places where this is the case. The dominant effects relating to crime have very little to do with gun control, and, consequently, the idea that criminals are going to be dramatically more brazen and dangerous in gun controlled areas is nonsense.

davidstarlingm wrote:The point is not that petty criminals would decide to begin killing indiscriminately. It's just that they'd have no deterrent to escalate confrontation if they knew their victims were unarmed.


There are several countries, notably the UK, where the police rarely carry guns, and despite that, police shootings are rare and gun crimes are low. Police officers in that country overwhelmingly (82%) don't want to be armed. The way you're talking, you'd think the country would be awash in gun crimes as criminals could be significantly better armed than law enforcement. It could be that criminals are, on the whole, less inclined to escalate to firearms in the first place. Again, the typical criminal is poor and uneducated. If guns are difficult or expensive to acquire and unnecessary for what they're trying to do, chances are they won't use one. That doesn't mean that they won't still commit the crime, all it means is that the element of deadly force is removed from the equation.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:33 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
sardia wrote:Now if you want to argue that the lack of guns will lead to increased crime, then we can measure that.

Precisely.

Take any city which has banned guns and compare its murder rate to similar cities which had not banned guns over the same timespan.


I'm afraid that method does not have a great deal of validity. It'd be a sample size of only two, so even if selected entirely at random, it is not necessarily a good representation. And usually, they are not selected at random.

You would want to select all(or at least, a substantial amount of randomly selected) cities that met a given criteria...and confounding factors are likely to be significant. Not least, what constitutes a "gun ban" varies wildly. Many localities ban some type of firearm, or have some restrictions on their use, but do so in largely varying ways. Generally, it's easier to use more objective metrics like "percentage of population that owns firearms", but the issue has become sufficiently politicized in some parts of the US that people may lie about those topics, limiting the value of some ways of gathering those statistics.

In general, it seems that the larger studies or metastudies with better collected datasets tend to find smaller results either for good or ill. It strikes me as likely that simple noise is likely larger than the effect of gun ownership, given the scale and number of other factors at play.

LaserGuy wrote:In other news, sheriffs in several states have said publicly that they will not be enforcing newly passed gun control laws. This to me is a very troubling development. The constitutionality of laws is tested by the courts, not decided unilaterally by law enforcement.


It's interesting...but on the other hand, I don't necessarily want the law to do things they know are unconstitutional just because a court hasn't stopped them yet. If anything, I'd like to see more restraint by law enforcement in other areas as well. I think it'd be very interesting if, say, police had refused to set up and enforce "free speach zones".

LaserGuy wrote:Exactly. Which is why your original claim "Meanwhile, all the petty criminals who already have access to guns would slaughter everybody" is total bullshit. Gun control can work just fine. There are lots of places where this is the case. The dominant effects relating to crime have very little to do with gun control, and, consequently, the idea that criminals are going to be dramatically more brazen and dangerous in gun controlled areas is nonsense.


Overall, probably. However, I observe that mass shooting almost invariably take place in areas where firearms are forbidden. The robber may not suddenly desire to murder because guns are banned, but people who desire carnage appear to select targets based on a perception of vulnerability.

Fortunately, these people are very few in number.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Dec 19, 2013 5:53 am UTC

All reasonable arguments by reasonable posters.

Do we still have a problem?
I think we do.

Self control, maturity and a sense of good will toward our fellow man
would do more to ease our suffering than all the gun laws ever written.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Choboman
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Choboman » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Overall, probably. However, I observe that mass shooting almost invariably take place in areas where firearms are forbidden. The robber may not suddenly desire to murder because guns are banned, but people who desire carnage appear to select targets based on a perception of vulnerability.

Fortunately, these people are very few in number.

I suspect that your conclusion may be backwards. Your statement seems to suggest that gun bans encourage gun violence. My personal opinion is the reverse - that gun violence encourages gun bans. So places with significant issues with poverty, income disparity and high population density [i.e. cities] often have problems with violence, leading politicians to respond with things like gun bans. The bans aren't completely effective at eliminating gun violence, so you still see shootings in those same areas as before the bans. That doesn't mean that the gun bans led to the violence; just that the bans failed to completely eliminate it. Also, changes like this don't occur in a controlled environment. It's likely that local economic conditions (which are constantly in flux) have a much greater impact on violent crime than gun laws.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:26 pm UTC

Choboman wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Overall, probably. However, I observe that mass shooting almost invariably take place in areas where firearms are forbidden. The robber may not suddenly desire to murder because guns are banned, but people who desire carnage appear to select targets based on a perception of vulnerability.

Fortunately, these people are very few in number.

I suspect that your conclusion may be backwards. Your statement seems to suggest that gun bans encourage gun violence. My personal opinion is the reverse - that gun violence encourages gun bans. So places with significant issues with poverty, income disparity and high population density [i.e. cities] often have problems with violence, leading politicians to respond with things like gun bans. The bans aren't completely effective at eliminating gun violence, so you still see shootings in those same areas as before the bans. That doesn't mean that the gun bans led to the violence; just that the bans failed to completely eliminate it. Also, changes like this don't occur in a controlled environment. It's likely that local economic conditions (which are constantly in flux) have a much greater impact on violent crime than gun laws.


These views are not exclusive, and if both are true, would indicate the presence of a self-perpetuating cycle.

However, there is the issue that schools do not uniformly ban guns, and thus, we have a pretty good control group in this case. Yet, schools that allow guns do not seem to have a problem with school shootings. Now sure, it's a low probability event, so this correlation could still arise by chance, but it definitely does not support the hypothesis that gun bans are helping at all.

In general gun violence, there are a number of factors, sure, but school shootings do not seem to share the same factors as general gun violence, exactly. For instance, gang and drug involvement are huge indicators for general gun violence(and indeed, violence in general), but for mass shootings, it seems to be almost exclusively a case of untreated mental illness. Poverty, likewise, is correlated with general violence, but does not seem to be a huge factor for mass shootings.

It would seem that to get meaningful data, you have to address mass shootings seperately from generalized violence, and that again seperately from suicide, since they do not entirely share risk factors and causes.

Choboman
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Choboman » Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:These views are not exclusive, and if both are true, would indicate the presence of a self-perpetuating cycle.

However, there is the issue that schools do not uniformly ban guns, and thus, we have a pretty good control group in this case. Yet, schools that allow guns do not seem to have a problem with school shootings. Now sure, it's a low probability event, so this correlation could still arise by chance, but it definitely does not support the hypothesis that gun bans are helping at all.

In general gun violence, there are a number of factors, sure, but school shootings do not seem to share the same factors as general gun violence, exactly. For instance, gang and drug involvement are huge indicators for general gun violence(and indeed, violence in general), but for mass shootings, it seems to be almost exclusively a case of untreated mental illness. Poverty, likewise, is correlated with general violence, but does not seem to be a huge factor for mass shootings.

It would seem that to get meaningful data, you have to address mass shootings seperately from generalized violence, and that again seperately from suicide, since they do not entirely share risk factors and causes.

I wasn't aware of schools that allow students to carry on the grounds. To be honest, it's hard for me to wrap my mind around that one. I vaguely remember what an irresponsible and trouble-making little shit I was as a teenager, and the idea of a thousand mini-me's packed into a building and all packing heat gives me shivers.

I would agree that general gun violence is a separate issue from mass shootings. And while mass shootings are certainly dramatic and attention-grabbing, in the bigger scheme they're not the real [statistically significant] problem.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests