|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Will there ever be effective gun control in the USA?
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mere Nick: Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.
Still it's really high compared with other Western countries. It's not even a gradual difference, there's a very big gap there.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The thing is, gun violence has become so much more common in America, as has the personal possession of large arsenals.
Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.
Frankly, I don't care what your figures say. Figures lie when liers figure. You clearly don't live in the gun-afflicted street shooting, gang banger environment that I can find all around my neck of the woods, just outside my own green, bourgeois enclave. Moreover, mass shootings have increased dramatically. Unwell people can't kill nearly as many persons when wielding a knife as they can when armed with a gun, and especially with the sort of weapons so readily procurable in America. The Justice Dept figures emphasise that homicides are largely committed with guns, and your own part of the country has the highest rate of gun violence.
[ 19. September 2013, 15:03: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.
Still it's really high compared with other Western countries. It's not even a gradual difference, there's a very big gap there.
Regardless of statistical trends, America has a huge gun violence problem that is not shared by other developed countries. More "American exceptionalism" and cynical, unregulated capitalism.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.
Still it's really high compared with other Western countries. It's not even a gradual difference, there's a very big gap there.
It is dropping while gun availability is increasing, if anything, based upon every state now having concealed carry. So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns. We kill because we decide to kill. Over the past couple of decades fewer and fewer people have been giving the consent of their minds to that act.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mere Nick: So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns.
I'm not really interested in the reasons why you kill here. I'm just looking at plain evidence:
Countries that have strict gun control → few fun deaths
Countries that have no gun control → many gun deaths
Hence, if you want to avoid gun deaths, impose strict gun control.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.
Still it's really high compared with other Western countries. It's not even a gradual difference, there's a very big gap there.
It is dropping while gun availability is increasing, if anything, based upon every state now having concealed carry. So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns. We kill because we decide to kill. Over the past couple of decades fewer and fewer people have been giving the consent of their minds to that act.
And for those who still do, we have gun control.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick: So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns.
I'm not really interested in the reasons why you kill here. I'm just looking at plain evidence:
Countries that have strict gun control → few fun deaths
Countries that have no gun control → many gun deaths
Hence, if you want to avoid gun deaths, impose strict gun control.
Um, Mexico?
Very strict gun control; lots of gun deaths. Are they merely the exception that proves the rule, or is there something else at work here?
To my mind it's not so much "gun control" (the existence of laws and policies) as it is "gun availability" (how easy is it--or not--to get a gun).
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns. We kill because we decide to kill.
But it's much much easier to kill if you have a gun. In order to kill with a non-projectile weapon you have to close.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Magic Wand: Um, Mexico?
Mexican gun laws are complex. While certain types of firearms are restricted to the police and military, the right to keep certain arms is anchored in the Constitution. Either way, gun control isn't just about laws, it's also about effective control on the streets. So, I don't think you can easily classify this country as "very strict gun control".
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Magic Wand: Um, Mexico?
Mexican gun laws are complex. While certain types of firearms are restricted to the police and military, the right to keep certain arms is anchored in the Constitution. Either way, gun control isn't just about laws, it's also about effective control on the streets. So, I don't think you can easily classify this country as "very strict gun control".
Well, that's just it. We could enact sweeping gun control legislation tomorrow, and the effect on mitigating gun violence would be minimal to non-existent. The vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated with weapons that aren't legally owned in the first place. The gun violence perpetrated with legally owned weapons would perhaps decline over time by the fraction of people who are prepared to commit violence with a gun, but don't currently own a gun and would be deterred by the lack of legally available weapons. That's a non-zero number, but I can't imagine that it's very large at all.
In which case, if our goal is to actually reduce the number of deaths by gun violence in the United States, what can be done? The general answer is to transform society so that motivations to commit violence with guns no longer exist. Leaving that aside for the moment, it would seems to me that the most effective solution would be to remove the guns from the people who have them now. Which sounds nice in principle, but, as I mentioned above, would be very dicey in practice. And of course you'd also have to staunch the flow of imported weapons that would commence immediately, something that we've utterly failed with in terms of imported drugs.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
The vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated with weapons that aren't legally owned in the first place.
I think last time it turned out that the vast majority of gun violence (in the USA) was committed by guns that were legally owned in the first place, and the second, third, penultimate...
The number that were legally owned in the last place was slightly more dubious (more or less hinging on technicalities-there does appear to be a funny dance with the definition of legally owned).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
For what it's worth here's a graph
wikipedia* or the last change.
*you can source trace from there.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Magic Wand:We could enact sweeping gun control legislation tomorrow, and the effect on mitigating gun violence would be minimal to non-existent.
Many European countries show that it can be done.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
The vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated with weapons that aren't legally owned in the first place.
I think last time it turned out that the vast majority of gun violence (in the USA) was committed by guns that were legally owned in the first place, and the second, third, penultimate...
The number that were legally owned in the last place was slightly more dubious (more or less hinging on technicalities-there does appear to be a funny dance with the definition of legally owned).
Well, virtually all guns are legally owned in the first place, save perhaps for ones that are manufactured in the basements of felons.
But the point is that they weren't legally owned by the people who committed crimes with them in the vast majority of cases.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Magic Wand:We could enact sweeping gun control legislation tomorrow, and the effect on mitigating gun violence would be minimal to non-existent.
Many European countries show that it can be done.
Did these European countries simply pass legislation, or did they also remove most guns from public ownership? How was that done? Would you propose the same method for removing guns from Americans? Do you think this would work?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Magic Wand: Did these European countries simply pass legislation, or did they also remove most guns from public ownership? How was that done? Would you propose the same method for removing guns from Americans? Do you think this would work?
I don't know what would work. Probably a combination of a number of things: tighter gun laws, effective control on the streets, and transforming society so that motivations to commit crimes lesson. In which proportion and correlation these measures should be implemented is a politician's choice, not mine. But if I may make a suggestion: start by passing the proposed legislation on background checks, and work from there.
In all Western countries that manage to have low numbers of gun killings, tighter laws are a part of the package.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
There still remains this funny dance where some use the definition of legal to say that those given by a family member or otherwise brought in a way that was identical to a legal transfer* are illegal.
Then (the same people) argue against any action to suggest making those responsible for that last transfer as pointless as "the gun's used in crime are all illegal".
[I.E once you use a loose definition of illegally obtained then basic gun control** can make a massive difference]
*e.g. where the Colorado anti-gun campaigner brought out of state.
** I.E while still having high gun use.
[ 19. September 2013, 18:13: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
About Mexico, it shares a very large border with the US. Were do you thing the guns they have come from?
In the US there is a similar problem. A state can enact stricter gun control laws but you just have to drive to a nearby state to get easier access to guns.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Magic Wand: Did these European countries simply pass legislation, or did they also remove most guns from public ownership? How was that done? Would you propose the same method for removing guns from Americans? Do you think this would work?
I don't know what would work. Probably a combination of a number of things: tighter gun laws, effective control on the streets, and transforming society so that motivations to commit crimes lesson. In which proportion and correlation these measures should be implemented is a politician's choice, not mine. But if I may make a suggestion: start by passing the proposed legislation on background checks, and work from there.
In all Western countries that manage to have low numbers of gun killings, tighter laws are a part of the package.
I agree with you about transforming society in that the only thing that will keep people from murdering others is for the would-be murderers to have a change of heart.
Let's take your Brazil, for example. According to this article
[quote]In Brazil they almost banned guns. Since 2003, the country has come close to fitting that description. Only police, people in high-risk professions are eligible to receive gun permits. Anyone caught carrying a weapon without a permit faces up to four years on prison.
But Brazil also tops the global list for gun murders.
According to a 2011 study by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, 34,678 people were murdered by firearms in Brazil in 2008, compared to 34,147 in 2007. The numbers for both years represent a homicide-by-firearm rate of 18 per 100,000 inhabitants - more than five times higher than the US rate.[/url]
Stricter gun laws, but easily trumped by the desire for blood.
We tried Prohibition here from 1919 to 1933. It was a boon to organized crime. Same with our drug laws, and it would be the same with gun laws that you appear to want us to have. All you really do when you outlaw things that people want is change the seller and bring in unforeseen and undesirable consequences.
[ 19. September 2013, 21:28: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mere Nick: Let's take your Brazil, for example. According to this article
If you've read the article, it is saying that stricter gun laws in Brazil since 2003 brought gun deaths down. Exactly what I'm arguing.
Brazil's laws aren't nearly strict enough, however. In 2005 there was a referendum here trying to forbid the sale of firearms. Sadly, it failed. That's one of the reasons why crime rate is still quite high.
And in any case, even if Brazil would have strict gun laws with high crime, this would only show that stricter gun control laws aren't sufficient for reducing gun deaths. No-one is arguing with that, I also think that more things are needed than laws. But I do think that strict laws are necessary.
quote:
Mere Nick: We tried Prohibition here from 1919 to 1933. It was a boon to organized crime. Same with our drug laws, and it would be the same with gun laws that you appear to want us to have. All you really do when you outlaw things that people want is change the seller and bring in unforeseen and undesirable consequences.
Firearms aren't the same as alcohol. We have had firearm Prohibition for a long time here in Europe, and it's working really well.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I find myself asking, which countries of the world would the USA aspire to be compared with?
Then I remember that it's the best damn fucking country in the world and it doesn't matter, it will always be the best.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: I find myself asking, which countries of the world would the USA aspire to be compared with?
Yeah, being better than Brazil when it comes to gun deaths isn't exactly high praise.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Perhaps if we just wait long enough, the gun nuts will kill each other off, and there will just be normal people left and we can get on with enacting effective gun control.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The rest of us would be quite happy with anything that slowed the rate of gun-smuggling into other countries, particularly Mexico and Canada.
Shoot each other in your country - OK by me...well, at least, you consented to the situation.
Why should we be forced to adopt your peculiar ideas? Every gun-owner I know around here is pretty firm on the ideas of licensing, training and control of one's weapon, and very scornful of the pathological addiction to flame-spewing fake-orgasmic* devices shown south of the border.
*I'm echoing the author Stephen King, who has the same disdain. Mainers have somewhat better sense.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The rest of us would be quite happy with anything that slowed the rate of gun-smuggling into other countries, particularly Mexico and Canada.
Shoot each other in your country - OK by me...well, at least, you consented to the situation.
Why should we be forced to adopt your peculiar ideas? Every gun-owner I know around here is pretty firm on the ideas of licensing, training and control of one's weapon, and very scornful of the pathological addiction to flame-spewing fake-orgasmic* devices shown south of the border.
*I'm echoing the author Stephen King, who has the same disdain. Mainers have somewhat better sense.
I did NOT consent to this situation. A group of my fellow legislators has targeted me and others for impeachment because we voted for repeal of my state's "Stand Your Ground" law. Allegedly we are traitors to the U.S. Constitution.
Alas, we were also outvoted. My only hope lies in the fact that the vote was close.
I want every single gun sale registered -- gun shows, trunk sales, parent-to-child transfer of a firearm in the family since the War of 1812, you name it.
I want nobody except police and military and paramilitary to have the right to concealed carry.
I want soldiers to have to turn in their service weapons when their tours of duty end.
I want anyone with a firearm permit of any kind to be checked out for arrests, accidents involving drink, and MI at least every two years, one would be better, before their firearm permits can be renewed.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, I'm certainly aware that the USA is not culturally uniform.
It was actually reading about Cascadia, while in Cascadia, that pointed me to a book from the 1980s called The Nine Nations of North America. I've got vague plans to read it at some point, even though it's several decades old the general idea seems plausible.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mere Nick:[qb] Let's take your Brazil, for example. According to this article
If you've read the article, it is saying that stricter gun laws in Brazil since 2003 brought gun deaths down. Exactly what I'm arguing.
34,147 in 2007, 34,678 in 2008, over 36,000 in 2010.
quote:
Brazil's laws aren't nearly strict enough, however. In 2005 there was a referendum here trying to forbid the sale of firearms. Sadly, it failed. That's one of the reasons why crime rate is still quite high.
The reason the crime rate is so high is because people choose to commit crimes.
quote:
We have had firearm Prohibition for a long time here in Europe, and it's working really well.
When I look at gun ownership rates of European countries and also at their murder rates I don't see a correlation and I'd also be interested in seeing murder rates of countries there before and after their various gun restrictions. In the US, the gun death rate is falling while our gun laws are liberalizing to where all 50 states have concealed carry. So, to say more guns means more gun deaths is a claim that does not appear to be true.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It was actually reading about Cascadia, while in Cascadia, that pointed me to a book from the 1980s called The Nine Nations of North America. I've got vague plans to read it at some point, even though it's several decades old the general idea seems plausible.
Just nine? He's short by maybe even more than a few.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
34,147 in 2007, 34,678 in 2008, over 36,000 in 2010.
And 51000 in 2003 which would be the before case*.
(though also according to the same it's increasing gun use in the police, which strikes me as a bit risky, but arguably could help)
*I don't quite know if the methodology is the same, so there may be some correction to match it. And 2003 was the peak/2008 the trough so there may be regression to the mean/correlation but no causation etc...
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
34,147 in 2007, 34,678 in 2008, over 36,000 in 2010.
And 51000 in 2003 which would be the before case*.
(though also according to the same it's increasing gun use in the police, which strikes me as a bit risky, but arguably could help)
*I don't quite know if the methodology is the same, so there may be some correction to match it. And 2003 was the peak/2008 the trough so there may be regression to the mean/correlation but no causation etc...
I find 39,300 for 2003.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Exactly what I'm arguing. ... 34,147 in 2007, 34,678 in 2008, over 36,000 in 2010.
...
Does the arguing take into account the growth of the population?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mere Nick: 34,147 in 2007, 34,678 in 2008, over 36,000 in 2010.
I'm sorry, I'm not really interested in your juggling with goalposts here. Gun laws in Brazil aren't exactly strict. There was a referendum in 2005 calling for tighter gun laws, and it lost.
quote:
Mere Nick: So, to say more guns means more gun deaths is a claim that does not appear to be true.
The US has many more guns than Europe.
The US has many more gun deaths than Europe.
Surely there are more factors involved than stricter laws; no-one is denying that. But all your number juggling can't take away this truth.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But all your number juggling can't take away this truth.
The truth is that we kill more than most European countries because we choose to do it. It is also true that our gun homicide rates are dropping while laws regarding possessing guns in public have liberalized. It is also very doubtful that politicians protected by taxpayer-funded armed guards will be listened to by very many people when those politicians try to disarm the general public that pays their salaries.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mere Nick: The truth is that we kill more than most European countries because we choose to do it.
True, but the fact that you have a lot of guns lying around, and speak about them in a way that gives way to a 'gun culture' doesn't help.
(Note: I realize that not all people in the US are like this.)
quote:
Nick: It is also very doubtful that politicians protected by taxpayer-funded armed guards will be listened to by very many people when those politicians try to disarm the general public that pays their salaries.
I agree that it's going to be a difficult process in the US. I won't be the one to outline this process for you, but legislating background checks (something a majority of people in the US already approves of) could be a first step.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... The truth is that we kill more than most European countries because we choose to do it. ...
The truth is we take drugs because we choose to.
The truth is that people drink and drive because they choose to.
The truth is that terrorists attack the USA because they choose to.
Are all of these statements ... true?
The truth is that there are wars on terror, drugs, and drunk driving because people chose to have them, and there is no war on gun violence because they choose not to have one. This is just another example of the "human nature, whaddya gonna do" argument for doing nothing.
The truth is that people also choose to do nothing about gun violence. Choose to not care, choose to give up, choose to believe that this particular issue, and this issue alone, is an intractable and irreducible problem. Choose to believe that it's not worth trying to save even one life, not worth taking even one baby step towards "a more perfect union" where people don't kill themselves or others so often.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
And 51000 in 2003 which would be the before case*.
*[disclaimer which turned out to be useful]
I find 39,300 for 2003.
Could be.
Now with more time to review noticed I was giving total homicide (which is of course different).
I was distracted by the numbers longing in the right proportion to the homicide rate in state capitals.
But something odd is clearly happening, as Mere Nick's link describes gun crime halving in the cities (it doesn't show that) but doubling in the North (to net null effect).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Welcome to capitalism in America. Yet, if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to see effective gun control laws enacted, one might think that they could express their collective will in the face of the cynical lobbying of the NRA. What will it take? Will it ever happen?
My bold. Not likely, given your qualifier.
However, if do-gooder types want to make themselves feel better by adding even more regulations to an already nearly incomprehensibly regulated industry it might get traction sometime as there seems no shortage of people who want laws, any kind of laws, regardless of their lack of efficacy and unintended consequences (you know: minor things like disarming honest competent gun owners leaving the bad guys armed).
Given the choice between what we have now and a society dominated by those types give me the former anyday.
And BTW: it might be useful if you'd share with us what new controls you would like to have in place, and how they would help. TIA.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
... honest competent gun owners ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Honest competent gun owners shoot people too. They die by suicide. Their children and their playmates die accidentally. George Zimmermann was an honest, competent gun owner on "Neighbourhood Watch" and he shot his neighbour. There is no guarantee that an "honest competent gun owner" will demonstrate good judgment and shoot accurately in every situation. Even police officers miss their target or shoot the wrong person on a regular basis - in the shooting at the Empire State Building last summer, the "bad guy" killed one person, the police killed the "bad guy", and the police shot and wounded nine other people FTW.
Look at automobile safety: we've long known that while driver training and skill are important, passive safety measures save lives even when drivers screw up. Anti-lock brakes work even if the driver floors the brake pedal. Air bags or automatic seatbelts protect people who forget to buckle up. Driving is much, much safer than it was even a generation ago, not through labelling people as "good drivers" or "bad drivers" but by doing things that help everyone be a SAFER driver.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
What Soror Magna said.
In addition, neither "honesty" nor "competence" are well-defined conditions. Most of us would no doubt describe ourselves as "honest," but are we completely honest about everything, and in all situations?
Human beings aren't even capable of this; our emotions and faulty judgment lead us to assorted small dishonesties every day, and the one person we're most often dishonest to and about is ourselves. "Oh, my cataract surgery isn't scheduled until next month, and my night vision is crap, but I really, really want to go Event X tomorrow evening; I can manage night driving this one time."
It's barely a step to this: "Oh, that tremor in my hands is getting more noticeable, but I can still handle my gun."
Neither honesty nor competence are permanent conditions. Age, illness, and even some prescription medications can work changes on us that affect both competence and judgment.
People given permits to own and/or carry firearms should be required (A) to practice under official observation with them on a regular basis; and (B) to be re-tested at intervals at least as frequently as we get our eyes tested for driving license renewal.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Also agreeing.
Here's the thing about automobiles: we allow them and use them, despite knowing they're capable of killing, because of the benefits they provide. And we do lots of things to minimise the risks of death or injury.
Not only is the USA not even close to doing things to minimise the risks of death or injury from guns, it's allowing them in situations where there's no demonstrable benefit.
Australia didn't ban guns. But it kept them on the farms and in the shooting ranges. And put them into locked cabinets kept separate from the ammunition. And banned the KINDS of guns that farmers and sports shooters didn't need.
Sure, we DO still have some illegal guns out on the streets and in the hands of gangs. But they are still more difficult for them to get hold of, because there isn't such a ready supply of legal guns for them to swipe.
[ 22. September 2013, 01:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
to Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (and I'm still waiting for you other three ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) for Something Anything* which would be both effective and achievable ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ):
it might be useful if you'd share with us what new controls you would like to have in place, and how they would help. TIA.
This is a genuine request. I've been reading these threads for over a decade and have yet to see anyone present** suggestions (quite a few ill-thought knee-jerk half-measures though) which would feasibly address the reality of over 200 millions guns extant in the USA.
(And if you don't hear back from me soon it is because I am preparing to tomorrow put my kayak in the Missouri River at Kaw Point in KCMO to paddle to Coopers Landing near Columbia. Lewis and Clark RULE.
Wish you were here.)
* Long Live Todd Rundgren ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
** Someone could almost begin to get the impression its more about winding up. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Well the 'ideal' outcome we want is:
Guns not used to commit crimes & any plus points of gun ownership kept (hunting, firing range, no net loss to self defense).
As such a now 'illegal' gun kept safely and with the intent to use responsibly is not a immediate problem. The problem is (a)if they get transferred to (violent) criminals (via theft or just giving or selling), (b)or if they are already owned by (violent) criminals. (c)Or if they turn violent (e.g. a crime of passion or breakdown).
(regarding b)
The guns belonging to violent criminals aren't much use if they are kept hidden.
If they are used they are as likely to be caught and taken out of circulation as they are now, potentially more so with heavier control as they will now stand out (but regardless no less).
In short, if nothing can be done we just end up with the status quo, which will slowly improve*.
(regarding c)
At the moment it is (as has been shown) relatively easy for someone (mwaspy) on the verge of breakdown to build a stockpile of guns without it flagging. According to pro-gun posters a fair proportion of this is more a symptom than actually making them more effective, but in any case a limit of one gun a year or some other forms of restraint would probably allow them to be spotted far earlier (or make them delay their crime, again giving more chance of them slipping up). There would have to be some compromise, but any inconveniences would be far worse to the wannabe criminal than the law-abiding citizen.
[That still leaves crimes of passion to deal with]
(regarding a)
The first transfer to look at is from shop/gun shows (21% of illegal guns)
As demonstrated in the wake of the mass shootings it has also been shown that license checking in shops can be patchy, this is of obvious benefit to criminals with a known record and no benefit to l-a-c (yes they may be breaking the law, but you don't not put locks on your door because burglars are breaking the law).
So having much reduced this avenue, although of course if we want our L-A-C to have a gun, then our apparently law-abiding-criminals will also have one.
The next transfer to look at is that from friends/family (38%).
They are clearly not being responsible with their guns, either knowingly or unknowingly giving them to criminals. They should be held to account.
At the moment there is no such mechanism if the police suspect (and as in much of the case the transfer was legal, not much they can do).
Our previous register, says that they have a gun, if they can't show it they have some explaining (which may reveal fraud on the part of the 'seller'). If they are systematically arming their criminal friends this will be picked up and can be investigated (maybe there was a good reason). If the friend gets caught with the gun that's consistent with one they had, again your in a much better position.
Theft and Burglary (9%).
The previous rule should apply, you have to explain how you were such a fuckwit that you lost your gun. Hopefully this should encourage due care.
In any case this will be of benefit, as a gun that's stolen or taken off your body is of course a negative effect to self-defence.
The remaining 24%, Fences and Dealers are of course dealt with by the previous steps, they get their guns from somewhere.
That still leaves 6% 'other', with a massive dent in the normal sources these routes should stand out.
[ 22. September 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
OK, I'm in a Hell-call anyway, so I can be perplexed in a way that may annoy just about everyone. So be it.
All of the following assume that guns are valid for hunting, for varmint control, for target shooting and similar practises that are not harmful to humans:
Why does any Christian need a gun with the view of injuring or killing someone?
Why, in the self-proclaimed Most Christian Nation on Earth, does anyone, especially the Christians, value the idea of possessing assault weapons/machine guns/other weapons designed for the maximum rate of fire?
And why is there near-hysteria among so many of the population about the mere concept of something as basic as background checks, given that many, if not most, agree that certain people should be discouraged from having guns?
Help me out here. I do not understand why, among people who are frantically fearful of very minor health threats, there is such a fascination with increasing the death rate (which is the only purpose of having guns*).
Quoting Morf Morford
quote:
But this student who took offense at even the imagined ‘control’ of guns (and dropped the class about a week later) made me realize that the issue quite possibly was never guns or their ‘control’ but a deliberate, almost distraught confusion bordering on delirium.
which brought me to this post.
* opening paragraph proviso
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
A personal anecdote which, to me, illustrates what's at issue here.
One evening last week, I was waiting in a store's carpark, with heavy shopping, for my son to pick me up. He called (shouldn't have while driving) to say he was nearly with me, only a minute.
And, about a minute later, a car that looked, in the dark, like my son's, pulled into the car park, didnt bother with a bay. I went over, tapped on a window - he always locks the doors in that area. I saw movement in the front, him unlocking? Opened a rear door and threw my bags in.
A voice from the front - not my son's - 'What are you doing?!
The guy was scared stiff, and understandably. This was South London, and by no means the safest of areas. I apologised, took my bags out, explained the mistake, apologised again and retreated embarrassed. A moment later my son arrived.
As I say, I had terrified that guy. It was a stupid but innocent mistake, but if we had gun culture, many ordinary people carrying, and laws to match, maybe 'stand your ground', would I be here to post this now?
Here is the piece that got me thinking about this today.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
So sick of the endless gun violence in America.
Yes, as a most people, I assume. But do you believe that gun control will change this? Does criminals care about gun control? What do you think about Chicago? The windy city has the strictest gun control laws in the US, yet (or perhaps therefore) has the most gun violence.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
One might paraphrase, with no less plausibility:
The windy city has the most gun violence in the US, yet (or perhaps therefore) has the strictest gun control laws.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
k-mann: What do you think about Chicago? The windy city has the strictest gun control laws in the US, yet (or perhaps therefore) has the most gun violence.
I guess this shows that it isn't enough to have strict gun laws in one city.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
As for the point that criminals will always get guns if they want them, yes indeed. Criminals in the UK do that and sometimes they shoot people. More often than not, each other. That's as nothing to the indiscriminate carnage you get from accidental, misguided or emotional use of firearms when the whole population has barely-restricted access to the bloody things.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
Of course to 'accidental, misguided or emotional' you can add 'pathological'.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns. We kill because we decide to kill.
But it's much much easier to kill if you have a gun. In order to kill with a non-projectile weapon you have to close.
And if you don't have access to a gun, you can't do something stupid with a gun.
Like accidentally killing your grandchild who you mistake for an intruder. Or, deep in depression, killing yourself and/or someone else. Or not storing the gun safely enough to keep a curious child from finding it.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
