538 researcher's discovery about guns

[gejohnston]

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.02e0ab415349

[american_ideals]

1. This is BS. Wrong. Gun laws reduce deaths and injuries

Listen to Vox's The Weeds on gun control.

Also, here is Josh Marshall ripping that op-ed to shreds.



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-poverty-of-data-journalism-and-the-irony-of-gun-control

[gejohnston]

3. Vox is

full of shit and Josh Marshall is an ideologue who uses the standard logical fallacies used by gun control activists. He doesn't rip shit. He has no data, no facts, no evidence. All he does is hand wave, argument by assertion, and ad hoc logical fallacies.

Public policy should always be based on facts, evidence, and data. Ideology and dogma have no place in public policy. It doesn't matter if it comes from the left or right.

Marshall assumes that just because UK and Australia doesn't have mass shootings that also means they don't have mass murders. The most "popular" means of mass murder in Australia happens to be arson. Either Marshall, or other gun control activists, seem to think that either mass murder by firearms is the only means or they frankly don't care about murder by other means. Frankly, I tend to think it is the latter.

Also, his statistics on gun ownership is inaccurate. His percentage of gun ownership is closer to New Zealand and France, but not the US or Canada.

[shanny]

103. This:

Public policy should always be based on facts, evidence, and data. Ideology and dogma have no place in public policy.

I'm all for it. Let's have the CDC do an exhaustive study and come up with actual facts and real solutions. Oh, wait....ideologues have forbidden it altogether.

The center's moratorium on gun violence research stems from an NRA-backed budget amendment passed in 1996. Obama ordered the agency to relaunch gun studies shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre, but his budget requests in 2014 and 2015—which would have dedicated $10 million to the issue—were refused by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The CDC still regards gun violence as so off-limits that it's not even listed under the Table of Contents section in its recently released index of research priorities. Throughout the 47-page report, the word "firearm" is only used four times: three in reference to youth violence and once in reference to suicide prevention.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/qbxnpm/the-cdc-just-released-a-gun-violence-study-that-doesnt-study-guns-122

And of course there is this:

When a car kills a person in the US, the details all go into a massive government database. It's called the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, and it records the number of deaths, the type of car, weather conditions, speed, seatbelt use, age, sex, seating position, and drug use of every single occupant—over 100 variables in total. Those numbers are the backbone of car safety standards. Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration started capturing that data in 1975, car deaths have fallen by 27 percent.

Still, car crashes remain a leading cause of death by injury in the America. In 2013, the most recent year for which data is available, cars killed 33,804 people.

In comparison, firearms killed 33,636 people. Yet no national databases exists for gun deaths.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/america-still-doesnt-good-data-guns/

Time for responsible gun owners to step up.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

106. Dickey Amendment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)
"...mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

IMNSHO it is entirely possible (and preferable) to scientifically study violence, and specifically gun violence, while neither advocating nor promoting gun control. If you are a CDC researcher with a bias tasked with such a study, it behooves you to recuse yourself.

It seems obvious to me that the problem here is twofold. For one, seniormost CDC positions during Democratic (generally pro-restriction administrations) probably favor a pro-"control" position close to the party's on guns. They therefore avoid the issue and since congress isn't funding specific work on it, no work has been done other than what was ordered in 2013. I feel they prefer using the issue politically to blame the lack of research on the Republicans. For two, during Republican admins, those senior CDC officials favor the Republican position and they don't require evidence in support of their beliefs.


If the restrictionists/banners weren't trying to blame everything on a weapon and solve the whole violence issue with a simple widely cast ban, progress could be made. The biggest problem you have is the assault weapon ban supporters. Rifles are used very seldom by murderers. Maybe there's a way to enhance BGCs for handguns. We won't get there by trying to ban rifles.


This:

In comparison, firearms killed 33,636 people. Yet no national databases exists for gun deaths.

I'm not seeing this. The FBI maintains info differentiating murders by weapon (i.e. - handgun, rifle, shotgun...)
If you want statistics on death in general: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

[gejohnston]

107. because the CDC

has a history of giving money to nonscientists to activists, like Author Kellermann, who do "advocacy research" who resist and fail any kind of peer review. The National Institute for Justice, under the DoJ, has been funding studies that follow the scientific method but gun control activists don't like the results.
20K are suicides, most of the remainder are gang members killing each other (and "collateral damage&quot . After that you have accidents, self defense, and the occasional spree killer.

The problem isn't "responsible gun owners", the problem is the demand for illegal drugs (or simply not keeping them illegal), dysfunctional urban planning, wealth inequality, political corruption.

[shanny]

108. citations please, or are these simply your opinions:

20K are suicides, most of the remainder are gang members killing each other (and "collateral damage". After that you have accidents, self defense, and the occasional spree killer.


The problem isn't "responsible gun owners", the problem is the demand for illegal drugs (or simply not keeping them illegal), dysfunctional urban planning, wealth inequality, political corruption.

As for responsible gun owners: they are ALL responsible, until they aren't.

[Straw Man]

109. Correction.

As for responsible gun owners: they are ALL responsible, until they aren't.

Absolutely false. People that own guns despite a felony history that bars them from legal ownership are NOT "responsible gun owners."

The old "they are until they aren't" meme is uncomfortably reminiscent of the concept of "precrime": see The Minority Report (film).

[gejohnston]

110. the CDC and FBI keep such statistics

much of it is in print forms. Then much of it is simply piecing data together from various sources. Some of it is simply reading some books on evolutionary psychology.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call a FOIDless People Nation or Outlaw members "responsible gun owners".

Here are a couple of secondary sources that use said statistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
https://www.npr.org/2017/09/30/554789675/report-finds-suicides-are-even-more-common-than-gun-homicides

Here is a bonus
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

[american_ideals]

2. Josh Marshall tearing up this op-ed

Libresco addresses specific reforms and various technical issues and tosses out a number of strawmen or disingenuously rhetorical points: “I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.” But what her article really shows is both the poverty of so-called “data journalism” as well as certain realities about gun restriction that too few of us are willing to truly contemplate or grapple with.

[gejohnston]

4. Does Marshall point out what those strawmen are?

Those are the only selling point. When you look at the objective studies by criminologists (peer-reviewed in criminology journals), not in-house publications without any peer review and not cited anywhere "studies".
1- Marshall's entire argument is based on "argument by assertion"
2- He ignores the fact that Australia had one mass shooting (using our definition) in the 30 years before and after the National Firearms Agreement and Port Author. There were 22 people killed in mass murder events before and 21 after in that 60-year span. Most of them by arson and other weapons. Crime in the UK, especially gun violence" was actually lower when there was no gun control at all.
3- He assumes that there is no gun regulations in the US. Chances are, he is completely ignorant of US gun laws (federal and state) let alone of those in Australian states (technically they have no federal gun control laws) and the UK.

She is right. Gun control, be it here or anywhere else, is entirely based on ideology and control. Marshall is full of shit. He has not seriously studied the issue his article clearly shows that.

[american_ideals]

5. Yes, Marshall shows how the dumb article is wrong and makes no sense.

[Decoy of Fenris]

6. Marshall flat out and unequivocally admits the findings in the article are correct.

"Libresco’s argument is based on her findings that no one of the much-discussed ‘common-sense’ reforms would alone drive a major reduction of firearms deaths. As far as it goes, that’s likely true. "

I have no idea how you equate that to "The dumb article is wrong" when Marshall himself agrees with it. Furthermore, Marshall admits that even the baseline "Common sense" gun laws that Libresco "poo-poos" are only the first steps on a path of incrementalism leading to larger ones, a sentiment that many on the Control side insists isn't true.

"All of the reforms Libresco poo-poos are necessary and important. But they are only first steps. If we think they are more than first steps or incremental, obvious regulations we’re fooling ourselves and actually undermining ourselves."


Seems to me the article you posted is a validation of most things that the RKBA folks say on a routine basis.

[american_ideals]

7. America needs a handgun BAN. And an assault rifle BAN.

Those measures would reduce crime. There is absolutely no question about those facts.

Oh and this 14-year old kid who got killed in a drive-by shooting in August?
http://wgntv.com/2017/08/06/14-year-old-boy-shot-killed-on-lower-west-side/
He'd be less likely to die when America bans handguns.

And this kid too. He's dead. By a gun. Less likely to die by guns when we have an appropriate gun ban.
http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/06/04/boy-10-shot-in-scripps-ranch/

[gejohnston]

8. no it wouldn't

There is no evidence to support such a claim. The entire argument is based on logical fallacies like post hoc ergo propter hoc and appeal to emotion and fear mongering.

Your first example, a drive-by shooting by drug gangs. The same people who make their money from selling substances that have been banned for over a century. Heroin kills more people than guns.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/merrylands-suffers-eighth-drive-by-shooting-in-seven-days/news-story/c1aaad4ef1d906e6dce6c5054bab1660
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mohammed-shamery-21-wounded-in-merrylands-driveby-shooting-20170906-gycdal.html
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/crime-court/machine-guns-drugs-inside-the-gold-coasts-secret-gun-factory/news-story/3d71bc6812d8d9b5f5958cc1ba255049

BTW, what is an "assault weapon"? It is a legal term that means anything a politician wants it to mean. The ARs used in San Bernideno were not "assault weapons" under California law. Target pistols commonly used in the Olympics are "assault weapons" under New York law.

[american_ideals]

9. That kid was killed by a handgun. We need a ban.

That is absolutely an appeal to emotion. Because I feel bad emotions when kids get killed by handguns.
Americans can have all the hunting rifles they want. We need a handgun ban.

(Also: I already cited the arguments, and the data. See above. A ban on handguns would reduce gun deaths. There is no question. See Australia. And don't cite debunked rightwing crap arguments. Australia is strong evidence.)

[gejohnston]

10. more people are saved with guns

than killed with them.

See Australia. And don't cite debunked rightwing crap arguments. Australia is strong evidence.

First, you don't know anything about Australian gun laws. Technically, they don't have any federal gun control laws. None of the states ban handguns. Also, the National Firearms Agreement banned semiautomatic and pump-action long guns. They confiscated registered guns from licensed gun owners, not drug gangs or biker gangs in Merilands who smuggle guns or simply make their own machine guns. Also, the drop in crime started BEFORE the NFA.
Just because the facts don't fit a favorite narrative, it doesn't make them "right wing" or "left wing" crap. This is not an echo chamber, there are three things that you need to win the battle of ideas here. Facts, evidence, and reason.
http://www.justfactsdaily.com/should-the-u-s-adopt-australias-strict-gun-laws/

[american_ideals]

12. Absolutely false. Gun bans REDUCE crime

Your pro gun talking point about guns being used to shoot other people with guns, somehow reducing shooting, is totally and ridiculously false. You should be embarrassed to parrot that NRA talking point lie.

On Australia you are also wrong. They banned guns. That reduced guns in the country. Now they have lower gun crime. FAR lower gun crime. That is a fact. See the two links I gave you above.

The nra and pro gun groups like to try to muddy the waters. But people who repeat nra talking points, I’m sorry to say, are complicit in killings like of that 10yr old above who shot himself and died. Guns for killing people (not hunting rifles) need to be banned in America. Period.

[sarisataka]

16. If it were true,

and it is a big IF, that gun bans would reduce (gun) crime would you find it an acceptable trade to see increases in non-gun crime; those victims being the people who successfully use guns in self defense?

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

[american_ideals]

37. Gun bans actually work

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

A huge international study of gun control finds strong evidence that it actually works

A 2016 study, published in the academic journal Epidemiologic Reviews, seeks to resolve this problem. It systematically reviewed the evidence from around the world on gun laws and gun violence, looking to see if the best studies come to similar conclusions. It was the first such study to look at the international research in this way.

"Across countries, instead of seeing an increase in the homicide rate, we saw a reduction,"

I'd argue that this misses the point - it cannot take into account long-term effects. But since you want data, I can give you some of that too.

So what do Santaella-Tenorio et al. conclude? First, and most importantly, that gun violence declined after countries pass a raft of gun laws at the same time: "The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths," the study finds.

[gejohnston]

40. here is a question,

why is it in a medical journal instead of a criminology or sociology journal?

[sarisataka]

47. You avoided the question

Assuming that an effective gun ban would likely reduce gun crime, the fate those who use guns in self-defense must be addressed. Those self-defense cases will likely become crime victims.
If the number of self-defense incidents is greater that the number of gun crimes, it is logical the reduction in gun crime will be more than offset by increase in crime in other categories resulting in an overall increase in crime.
Is such an increase acceptable?

[mikeysnot]

76. man your sniffing some powerful glue

go ahead and alert me, snowflake.

I don't give a shit.

[gejohnston]

77. No, I just believe in science,

facts, evidence, and reason and detest (actually hate) fabrication, "narratives", dogma, ideology, and logical fallacies.

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

Maybe you are the one sniffing some powerful glue or spray paint.

[mikeysnot]

78. No, sorry epic fail

gun on gun crime and protection does not PROVE guns saves lives, It just proves that guns are the problem not the solution,

Did you even read the paragraph you posted?

Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

But go ahead and enjoy gun nut fantasy island "logic".

enjoy the sniffing.

[gejohnston]

79. you missed the point

Actual defensive means shots fired. Out of self-defense uses, death is in the hundreds. Ten times that is the number wounded. No shots fired are all over the map and are often not reported to the police and certainly not in the media.
Your bolded comments are assumptions, not facts. Assumptions that may or may not be true.
BTW, all polls are based on extrapolation, the larger the sample size the smaller margin of error. Kleck polled 5000 people, five times the number of most poll samples.

[mikeysnot]

80. You do realize that this was from 2013....

and things have gotten waaaaayyyyyyyy worse.

Not sure what city you live in but Chicago now has had three years of concealed cary laws and it has not done

DICK, DIME ONE

to stop violence in my city and in fact guns crimes, gun shooting victims* have gone drastically up.

Oh and the new gun nut de jour is firing on the highway at each other at high speeds.

My fav of your post..

No shots fired are all over the map and are often not reported to the police and certainly not in the media.

Then how do you know they exist? Huh?

Welcome to fantasy island.

Guns saving lives, in peoples imagination.

No... You missed the point.





*Another point gun nuts leave out are the survivors, injured victiims and the fact that you only count if you die.... sad.

[gejohnston]

82. I'm quite well aware of the year

The problem with Chicago is criminals and gangbangers killing each other protecting their drug profits and easy access to long banned substances like heroin, meth, etc. I fail to see what gang warfare has to do with legal and licensed concealed carry. It does have everything to do with the GINI coefficient and your city government. Your city's problems are the result of incompetent and corrupt assholes you elect, not me.

Where I live is permitless carry, and the majority of people (including liberals) own guns. Our murders was a meth head stabbing another and a POS beating his kid to death. If we get rid of fracking, we will get rid of the vices that come with the oil field industry and our murder rate will drop in half.

[mikeysnot]

83. Wait..what? First of all I never blamed you for anything

and then you blame "Our city government" for lax gun laws in Indiana that results in straw purchases coming into the city and profiting off of gun proliferation in our city by criminals...

Good luck with that.

BTW what state do you live in?

[gejohnston]

84. You didn't read the article

about your city government's mutually beneficial relationships with the drug gangs. I suggest you read it. As for "lax gun laws in Indiana", it is complete horse shit just like the logical fallacies and the card stacking and well poisoning. There is zero evidence to support the claim and the politicians, many of which are criminals themselves, are lying sacks of shit. They tell that bullshit to distract the people from the fact that Chicago politicians (well shit, the whole state) are just as sleazy and corrupt as the days of Capone.
A street pistol can be purchased for as little as fifty bucks, why would anyone risk decades of prison for such a financial loss on each gun?

Me as in "the evil gun lobby" or those Wyoming hicks your politicians blame for your gang problem. I don't blame your city government for Indiana's laws. I blame your city government for being corrupt fucks that coddle and protect the gangs from the cops for their own benefit.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-chicago-aldermen-and-corruption-kass-1215-20161214-column.html

Not that Chicago is unique
https://nypost.com/2016/02/25/pro-gun-control-politician-sent-to-prison-for-gun-trafficking/
Do I think Yee is unique? No, I don't. You know the odd thing is? I have yet to see a gun control group condemn him. The only thing I saw, IIRC it was Cease Fire, that said that it was sad to "lose an important ally".

Your gangs, politicians, your school system that doesn't give two shit about graduating kids that can't read as long as the graft is passed out, are responsible for the murder problem, not Indiana, or anyone else.

[american_ideals]

87. Indiana's gun laws are to blame for crime in Chicago

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2017/10/31/report-1-5-guns-recovered-chicago-crimes-come-indiana/816399001/

Report: 1 of 5 guns recovered in Chicago crimes come from Indiana

Here's what it comes back to.

We. Need. A. Nationwide. Handgun. Ban.


Ban guns that are designed to kill people. Americans who live in cities - where we have to worry about our kids being shot every day - will thank you.

[gejohnston]

89. there is a propaganda technique called

card stacking, kind of like lying by omission. The Indy Star article is an example of it.
Read the disclaimer and the time to crime.
https://www.atf.gov/docs/163564-ilatfwebsite15pdf/download

The traces are not representative, and they are traced for any reason.

IOW, the argument is bullshit.

[american_ideals]

94. Handgun ban. YOU are helping get America's kids killed.

Handgun ban.
Indiana's guns get Chicago's kids killed. If you lived in Chicago, you would know.

[john657]

96. Oh great,

another one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. Bullshit. That claim is merely an article of faith, one easily demonstrated to be false:

https://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172182317

An awkward question that no one has yet asked

John Rosenthal runs Stop Handgun Violence:

http://www.stophandgunviolence.org/

and was interviewed last night (2 December) on WBZ radio's "Nightside"
- the podcast is available here:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/12/02/nightside-another-tragedy/

I was listening to the first hour last night, and was struck by something

At 13:40, Rosenthal says that he has helped to pass strong gun laws, and that Massachsetts
has the second lowest gun death rate in the country (Hawaii is lowest).
These are both true. What's also true is that two states with some of the laxest gun laws
in the US are immediately next to MA (New Hampshire and Vermont). You can drive
to New Hampshire from Boston in less than an hour, and Vermont in two (traffic permitting)

The host, Dan Rea, points out at 14:12 that Chicago has really tough gun laws. Rosenthal
replies that (paraphrasing) Illinois doesn't, and guns are easily accessable in bordering towns
and in next-door Indiana.

Which raises the 'awkward question' of the subject line:

Why does the same condition that occurs in Chicago - lax gun laws within easy driving
distance- not cause the same claimed effect in Massachusetts?

I was driving, so did not call in and ask.

Do you have an answer that *isn't* a rote recitation of 'antigun talking points'?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.


#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.

If so, I'd really like to see it...

[american_ideals]

93. Since this is old, I'll just say: you are helping get Americans killed.

Handgun ban.
Indiana's guns get Chicago's kids killed. If you lived in Chicago, you would know.

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. Rote recitation of talking points saves no Americans from getting killed...

...and helps enable Republican victories in purple areas.

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. 'Proof by assertion' is evidence of nothing:

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

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[3]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1] Modern politics contains many examples of proofs by assertion. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition.

[american_ideals]

86. Your arguments are flawed - more guns means more crime and death. It's simple.

As usual, data like you cite is pretty useless, because it's very limited.

Why is it limited? Because the NRA and gun manufacturers have lobbied Congress to restrict data. Because they are afraid of data.


And if you want to use this limited data anyway, here's a much better anecdote, which also accords with the commonsense of anyone who has carried a gun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die

Guns in America: For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die

[gejohnston]

90. card stacking and ad hoc fallacies

If you banned guns, the suicide rate would be the same, just more rope deaths. Also, most of the murders are criminals killing each other.
BTW, for each self-defense shooting, there are ten woundings and 10-100 "threat neutralized" with no shots fired.

Why is it limited? Because the NRA and gun manufacturers have lobbied Congress to restrict data. Because they are afraid of data.

That is actually a lie put out by the prohibition lobby and parroted by the lazy corporate media. The ban is on the CDC ADVOCATING, any paying nonscientists to do shill studies that fail peer review. Now those studies are funded out of Bloomberg's pocket. Research by honest researchers following the scientific method continues funded by the DoJ's NIJ, and are published in peer-reviewed criminology journals. The problem is that the Bradys of the world don't like the results.

Please explain how my logic is flawed? Specify the logical fallacy. The WaPo article took a press release from Bloomberg and did not do any research from the other side. IOW, he violated the journalist code of ethics (which is not uncommon)

[american_ideals]

95. Statistics show you are wrong. Handgun ban. YOU are helping get Americans killed.

You are part of the problem. I'm sorry to say it. When you die, if you have any creator, you will have to answer for keeping guns in America. Kids and adults get killed in America's cities every day.

Have you ever lived in Chicago's South Side? In DC? In Boston or Mattapan? New York? If not, how can you understand what those residents face? It's no surprise that residents of cities favor gun laws.

[oneshooter]

97. OK so you get your ban.

How are you going to collect and pay for these now banned weapons?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

98. Obviously this will have to wait for a Democratic controlled congress

Once the Rs have been relegated to the minority a law can be passed mandating that the states collect the guns through local PDs and sheriff's depts. Federal financing will follow along with a tax on any new firearm purchase to help defray the cost of the collection of the banned guns and compensation to their owners. This will work well until an election where another foreign assisted fraud puts a Republican majority back in congress to defund the program and bankrupt some parts of some state governments.

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Again, 'argument/proof by assertion' is not proof of anything:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction...

...It is also well known as rhetoric, because an assertion itself isn't really a proof of anything, or even a real argument - assertion only demonstrates that the person making the statement believes in it. An inability to provide anything other than an argument by assertion may be the result of brainwashing, basing ones belief on blind faith or ignorance as to what forms a proper argument. Those who argue by assertion often do think that they're making a real argument. They might simply not realise where they haven't provided a full argument. The point of constructive debate or discourse is to draw attention to this sort of thing, and for people to further develop and evolve their arguments in response. A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out.

A repeated argument by assertion can also take the form of non sequitur that requires little effort to make and is therefore often used to fatigue people who make actual arguments

If and when you decide to offer up something more substantial than talking points from a 'messaging guide'...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.


#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.

...we'll be glad to see it.

[oneshooter]

105. So you have yet to answer a simple question about the policy that you advocate. Why is that?

[Decoy of Fenris]

13. "I already cited the arguments, and the data." Where? I don't see anything.

Can you throw up a link or something? The only thing you've linked to are two random and unrelated news stories and an op-ed that supports everything the RKBA groups have been saying for years. I'd like to see your "data".

[american_ideals]

15. Listen to the weeds podcast I linked

Weeds podcast I linked has plenty of discussion on data showing gun reductions decrease gun crime. And as I have now discussed at length, despite the nra talking points impugning Australia s experience, its absolutely clear that in Australia, they reduced guns and gun crime went down. Shocker, huh?

Hey guess what else? There’s limited data on gun deaths in the US because the NRA has lobbied congress to restrict research on gun crime.

That should be enough. The nra wants to suppress data on guns. That means they know the data would be bad for them. So we know what the data look like. QED.

Also on top of the data that is available, did I mention how many kids get killed by guns every year?

[Decoy of Fenris]

17. You didn't link a Weeds podcast. You linked a pro-RKBA editorial in response to a pro-RKBA editorial

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-poverty-of-data-journalism-and-the-irony-of-gun-control


That's the only link you've sent. There's no data of actual value and the only mention of data that -is- there indirectly comes to the conclusion that the RKBA side is correct; "Common Sense" gun laws more than likely don't do anything.

Again, can you send a link to your "data"? Not a podcast or an editorial piece, those are worthless. I'd like a link to numeric points of data and facts.

[american_ideals]

18. Come on. The US needs a handgun ban.

Also care to respond to my point about the NRA lobbying to restrict gun data? For that reason alone, gun bans should not need to provide data - the NRA knows it would be bad for them.

[Decoy of Fenris]

24. There's nothing to respond to. You've offered nothing of substance.

You state "Gun bans should not need to provide data" and that renders your opinion invalid in the eyes of the law or any intellectually honest dialogue. Legislation is not, and should never be, dictated by emotion or mob rule; that is the way of fascism and anarchy. I dismiss your "argument" as a matter of course as everyone should; it has no place in reasonable and civil discourse.

You said you had posted data and facts. You have done neither. If you have either of such things, I would request you to post them to back up your assertions as doing so would make your claims more valid in the eyes of readers. I'd be happy to engage in an intelligent conversation about this subject, but that requires good faith from both parties, a faith you've yet to demonstrate.

In any case, I have to go to work. Enjoy your evening.

[american_ideals]

26. Handgun ban would save kids' lives

But on top of that, an intellectually honest counter argument to me would have read and responded to the segment I quoted on why data isn't the point.

Have a good evening!

[sarisataka]

27. By chance are you familiar with

the report PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE?
Maybe you can explain why this 2013 report is never mentioned by gun control advocates?

[american_ideals]

31. It's a good point

That article provides strong evidence for the way the NRA has limited our data, and gun control advocates should cite it more.

From that article:

Since the 1960s, a number of state and federal laws and regulations have been enacted (after NRA lobbying) that restrict government’s ability to collect and share information about gun sales, ownership, and possession, which has limited data collection and collation relevant to firearm violence prevention research.
...
As a result, the past 20 years have witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and effects of firearm violence.

From its summary:

The research agenda proposed in this report is intended as an initial—not a conclusive or all-encompassing—set of questions critical to developing the most effective policies to reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States.

So basically that report says we need more data (in America) because the NRA has lobbied the government to restrict data on guns. Because the NRA knows that data would make them look bad and support gun control arguments.

[sarisataka]

41. Unfortunately it is not a damning report

and refutes many of gun control's favorite talking points. Just a few selections:

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.

This speaks to your claim that banning certain guns will reduce crime

There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).

Gun control zealots are unwilling to accept any report that does not support pre-determined conclusions 100%. That is why it is ignored.

I fully support allowing the CDC to do unbiased research and let it reach whatever conclusion is supported by the data.

[ClarendonDem]

67. The majority of Americans are opposed to a handgun ban

And that's one of the few gun control laws that is actually unconstitutional, so would require repeal of the 2d Amendment.

[mikeysnot]

81. Yes you gotta wonder why

the gun industry wouldn't want to get all that free government data collected for their publicity.

Gee, I wonder, why?

I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, why they would not want the collection of this data?

Really simple, it does not back up what they are selling, and the only reason is the bottom line.

It would stop the gravy train of $$$$$ from fearful idiots buying the next must have killing machine.

With bump stocks, and silencers or suppressors or what ever the fuck they are calling them now.

BTW, I am a gun owner, my family are gun owners and LEO's.

Oh yeah and I am really good shot.

I just know what reality is and personal anecdotes about being law abiding and responsible is pure bullshit.

[american_ideals]

85. Thank you. Well put.

I'm a shooter too - of rifles. Sport shooting is one thing. Shooting guns designed to kill people is not fun - it's bad for America.

[Marengo]

88. What kind of rifles do you shoot, make and model, and in what capacity?

[yagotme]

92. I enjoy shooting my 1858 Zouave rifle (repro),

my cap and ball Colts (1858's, .36 and .45)(repro's, also), my repro Colt Walker, and my original Trapdoor .45-70. Am I making America bad???

"Shooting guns designed to kill people is not fun - it's bad for America." Your statement.

[oneshooter]

104. O these statements of your are"pure bullshit"?

BTW, I am a gun owner, my family are gun owners and LEO's.

Oh yeah and I am really good shot.

[mikeysnot]

112. project much?

don't even know why I bothered to respond to you...

[oneshooter]

113. Nope, never.

Just asking a question that you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer.

[mikeysnot]

114. and what question was that?

?

[oneshooter]

115. You are quotet as saying, in print

"BTW, I am a gun owner, my family are gun owners and LEO's.

Oh yeah and I am really good shot.

I just know what reality is and personal anecdotes about being law abiding and responsible is pure bullshit.

"BTW, I am a gun owner, my family are gun owners and LEO's.

Oh yeah and I am really good shot.

I just know what reality is and personal anecdotes about being law abiding and responsible is pure bullshit."

So the question is this. Having made one statement you then make another, one that should be called the "bullshit" as you do not believe that those "personal anecdotes" are otherwise.















'

[mikeysnot]

116. have someone explain it to you then.

[american_ideals]

19. But I'll humor you by quoting article in support of a handgun ban anyway.

Here's the relevant section of the article I linked.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-poverty-of-data-journalism-and-the-irony-of-gun-control

We have safety regulations on children’s toys to reduce the risk of a tiny number of children who choke or could choke on tiny toy parts. Whether this level of risk aversion is wise or paranoid is an interesting question. But there’s no question that we think about risk and remediation in a radically different way when it comes to firearms.

There is a literalism here and a myopia that is not intrinsic to data journalism but is pervasive within it, a failure to think beyond the numbers to the social implications of the numbers or – more arrestingly – to get lost in a fascinating tree and not see the forest. This myopia is bound up with the irony and tragedy of the gun control movement itself. It has been argued back into such marginal and often trivial reforms that they can be plausibly and even persuasively derided as simply not worth the effort.

[gejohnston]

22. more kids choke on small toys than get shot

and what regulations are there?

[american_ideals]

25. Moving the goalposts. Gun restrictions reduce gun crime. Period.

What about small toys? What about trampolines (NRA's usual whataboutism talking point when they're backed against a wall by stats).



But here's the real point.
Here's another kid killed by a gun:
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1299167.1364299917!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/stanlane27n-2-web.jpg

You have an opportunity to HELP PREVENT DEATHS like this. DEATHS OF KIDS SHOT BY GUNS. All you need to do is advocate for tighter gun laws. Why won't you do that?

[gejohnston]

30. because more people will be killed or mained.

I also believe in science.

[american_ideals]

21. And: links showing Australian gun laws reduced gun crime

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/
"Last year, on the 20th anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre, John Howard, the center-right leader whose government introduced and passed the legislation, said: “It is incontestable that gun-related homicides have fallen quite significantly in Australia, incontestable.” In the interview, he also cited a 74 percent decline in gun-involved suicide rates as evidence of the legislation working. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/10/03/how-australia-beat-the-gun-lobby-and-passed-gun-control/
"Still, many thousands of Australian lives have been saved in the past 21 years. "

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/asia/australia-gun-amnesty/index.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35048251
"The number of Australia's mass shootings dropped from 11 in the decade before 1996, to zero in the years since."
" the rates of homicide and suicide have also come down since 1996."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/04/australian-foreign-minister-offers-share-tough-gun-law-experience-u-s/730659001/

[gejohnston]

29. Yeah, OPs that didn't bother to do the research

The Australian government statistics my source cited trumps those. All of them repeat each other or take the claims by some gun control group at face value.
They also fall for the typical logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. According to the 15 peer review studies, there is no evidence gun laws had anything to with it. BTW, private gun ownership is higher in Australia today than then.

[american_ideals]

34. You asked for articles. I gave you six

Including one that explicitly explains why your WaPo cite is wrong. And that one I agree with - the WaPo article misses the forest for the trees.

I just posted the pictures of two kids killed by guns. We should ban guns to reduce those deaths.

[gejohnston]

36. no, I said facts, reason, and evidence

like proof of cause and effect, or actual statistics from the Australian government (and explain why New Zealand had the same situation even though they did nothing.)

[american_ideals]

39. You're still missing the forest for the trees: ban handguns to keep kids in cities from getting shot

As I've now explained twice, and Josh Marshall once.

But since you apparently can only have a discussion around data, I can give you data

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

A huge international study of gun control finds strong evidence that it actually works

A 2016 study, published in the academic journal Epidemiologic Reviews, seeks to resolve this problem. It systematically reviewed the evidence from around the world on gun laws and gun violence, looking to see if the best studies come to similar conclusions. It was the first such study to look at the international research in this way.

"Across countries, instead of seeing an increase in the homicide rate, we saw a reduction,"

I'd argue that this misses the point - it cannot take into account long-term effects. But since you want data, I can give you some of that too.

So what do Santaella-Tenorio et al. conclude? First, and most importantly, that gun violence declined after countries pass a raft of gun laws at the same time: "The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths," the study finds.

[gejohnston]

42. Actually,

most criminology studies, published in criminology journals instead of medical journals, say the opposite.

[american_ideals]

44. To be frank

Medical people know stats a lot better than criminologists, as a general rule. (Clinical and epidemiology studies use professional statisticians.)

[gejohnston]

46. ////

But they are not trained in the scientific method, and their methodology is bullshit.

[american_ideals]

23. Face facts: gun restrictions reduce gun crime. Of course they do.

Here's the Weeds link, also.
https://www.vox.com/2017/10/3/16411676/the-weeds-australia-america-gun-violence

[gejohnston]

33. Vox writers are barely literate

let alone capable of understanding the nuances of criminology.

[american_ideals]

35. Now you're being ridiculous. Handgun bans will help, and Vox is a great source.

Vox is one of the most in-depth, well-written, thoughtful sites on the modern internet. You're just being disingenous now.

[gejohnston]

38. no, I'm being totally serious

It is poorly written and moronic postmodernist drivel. May I suggest expanding your horizons?

[american_ideals]

43. Do some reading, think about the forest/trees argument

Read the data I linked, and all the sources. Look at the kids' pictures, the kids who are now dead because of guns.

Then take a look at these. And think about what you want to support.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[gejohnston]

45. not a fan of the NRA for various reasons,

but it isn't a call for violence. It is reaction to the illiberal left, like Antifa, violence. The opinions of three people I don't give a shit about is not convincing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. Your schtick is far from new- 'Proof by assertion' and 'Lovejoying'...

...AKA 'Think of The Children!' are timeworn antigun techniques:

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

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[3]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1] Modern politics contains many examples of proofs by assertion. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.[4]

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

"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?&quot is a cliché that evolved into a rhetorical tactic.[1][2][3] Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).[4][5][6] In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[1][2][3]

Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) argued that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027939977#post91

Ah, yes- the "saving innocents" claim. It's an old and time honored political technique:

[Straw Man]

48. Handguns.

Because I feel bad emotions when kids get killed by handguns. Americans can have all the hunting rifles they want. We need a handgun ban.

Absolutely. Because everyone knows that kids can't be killed with hunting rifles.

[ClarendonDem]

111. No, we don't

Not only is it a bad policy proposal, it is unconstitutional.

[american_ideals]

14. Hey. Ban all guns. Except hunting single shot rifles.

I don’t care about absolutely stupid quibbling about the definition of what gun is what. Guess what. We should ban all guns except hunting rifles - single shot hunting rifles. People can then quibble about assault rifle definitions when they get to see them at museums or licensed shooting ranges where guns can’t be taken off the premises.


Gaaa. This conversation is an infuriating repetition of pro gun talking points.

Hey. Guess what. Guns kill people. Like those two kids above. Lots of people. We need guns out of America.

[gejohnston]

20. Do people have the right to defend themselves?

As the article showed, using objective facts based on peer-reviewed social science, people use guns to prevent violence than to do violence.
"pro-gun talking points". You call objective facts and reason "talking points". Yet, you offer no facts nor evidence. That tells my I won. That is why your side is losing and a stone holding the party down.
Here is a question, did any gun control group condemn former CA senator Leland Yee? If they did, I missed it. All I saw was "we are saddened by losing an important ally". Yee wrote many of the gun control laws recently passed in California. He also pled guilty to weapons trafficking among other things. He was conspiring with his many friends in organized crime to smuggle machine guns into the US from the Phillippines.

I honestly don't believe most gun control activists believe gun laws will reduce crime or save lives. The leaders like Bloomberg and Yee frankly don't care about saving lives. It is about the culture war, authoritarian control, or trying to look tough on crime. Then there is Chicago.............
Where it is really about distracting the populous while having mutually beneficial relationships with drug gangs.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

[american_ideals]

28. False. Gun restrictions prevent crime.

As the article showed, using objective facts based on peer-reviewed social science, people use guns to prevent violence than to do violence.

As an actual earth scientist myself, I'm happy to argue with any article you might pull out that claims to show what you say. The weight of the evidence is against you. See my post above on Australia. This has now been widely studied across several countries.

And did you read my post above about the "poverty of data journalism" and "missing the forest for the trees"?

And the majority gun control activists live in cities, where they see kids get shot and killed with guns every year. Bloomberg and Obama live in cities where kids get shot by handguns. That's why they want to restrict guns.
Also, the pro-authoritarian group here is the NRA. I can cite the politico article quoting the political scientist saying NRA videos are as bad as the worst incitements to violence he's seen from authoritarian regimes.


You are on the wrong side of history. America's support of gun laws is a historical error. In a century citizens will look at people who advocate for more guns and think "why did those misguided souls advocate for weapons that killed people?"

[gejohnston]

32. Geology has what to do with criminology?

Obama and Bloomberg (Bloomberg is a racist) live in cities where drug gangs kill each other for profits. BTW Every country that have higher murder rates than we do all have stricter gun laws than the US. Again, heroin has been banned for over 100 years, yet kills 44K people a year.

I doubt the "political scientist" is a real scientist.
BTW, your logical fallacy is an appeal to unqualified authority.

Tell you what, open your mind and read the actual studies and see which ones follow the scientifc method.

[oneshooter]

50. Go ahead and ban them.

However the Fifth Amendment comes into play. "While the federal government has a constitutional right to "take" private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property, valued at the time of the takings. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property's good and bad attributes, would pay. The government does not have to pay a property owner's attorney's fees, however, unless a statute so provides."

And where would the several billion dollars come from?

And are you willing to go house to house searching for them, with no legal warrants?

[american_ideals]

57. Sorry. When toys are recalled, does the government pay for them? (Hint: no).

Recall the handguns. They're defective. They kill Americans.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. Gun prohibitionists do far more typing than voting, so no 'gun recall'

[american_ideals]

63. Just wait! Wait until GOP/NRA voter suppression is stopped

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. More "the tide has turned" and "we'll have gun control Real Soon Now!", eh?

Just keep wearing out those keyboards, gun controllers...

[american_ideals]

65. Gun fans: helping kids get killed every day in America. Need a handgun ban.

I live in an American city. Because handgun carry is legal, and because illegal handguns flood the city, my kids are at risk of getting killed every single day.

And any American that loves guns designed to kill people is complicit.
Keep single shot hunting weapons. Ban handguns and every other gun.

We need a handgun ban.

[yagotme]

66. And, an every other gun ban.

Then ban muzzle loaders. Or single shots with scopes. Or bayonet lugs. Or anything made after 1787. Think that covers it all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Apples and oranges

A recall is not a ban.
Lots of things can be used to kill.

[Straw Man]

49. Off the premises.

People can then quibble about assault rifle definitions when they get to see them at museums or licensed shooting ranges where guns can’t be taken off the premises.

Certainly no one with bad intentions would ever violate that rule and take a gun off the premises. No siree. They wouldn't dare.

[gejohnston]

11. post script,

read my edit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Let's be precise here

A "handgun ban" means that EVERY handgun (all capacities including revolvers, single shot, semi-auto and all calibers from .22 to .50) be rounded up and confiscated by the government. An action of this magnitude is unprecedented in history. I know millions of Jews were rounded up in Europe during the holocaust and likely thousands of young male children were rounded up a few millennia ago. This is a big country in size and population. Half of all the arms in private hands on earth are here in the US (over 300,000,000). I remember about 60% of those were handguns of some type. New guns cost on average several hundred dollars. My math says that (being very conservative) $300 x 180,000,000 = $54,000,000,000. That's what would need to be paid for the government to take private property. That number would probably be small compared to what you would need to pay for law enforcement to collect the arms of those not conforming to the law.

You also mention assault rifles. I infer that you mean rifles which qualify as assault weapons. Actual assault rifles (select fire type rifles) are defined as machine guns and covered under the NFA. I believe there might be 10 - 15 million of those here and probably would be valued at at least $1,000. That would include AR-15 styles, AKs, SKS-alikes... so that number may be way low. But going with another $15,000,000,000 in compensation pushes the total two thirds of the way to $100 billion. Add the cost of enforcement (including the cost housing those who break the new laws regarding the bans in prison) and I think the number is a substantial portion of the entire federal budget.

Now add in the black market activity which is sure to arise just like the speakeasys and bathtub gin of the '30s. Don't forget the violence that will come as a result the criminal production of and traffic in firearms.

Your entire concept is jumping from the pan to fire. Every other aspect of life in the US will suffer as a result. Any politicians and parties endorsing this will become unelectable and universally hated, if not for the measures themselves then for the consequences and costs.

Consider that guns don't cause violence any more than spoons cause diabetes.

To say you're barking up the wrong tree would an understatement by orders of magnitude.
Aside from all of that, people do have the natural right to defend themselves. In the US we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms. The US leads the free world in acknowledging personal rights and respecting individuals. What you suggest would be an incredible step backward. Feel free to work for a new Constitutional Convention and a different form of government but I'm just not seeing it as anything but a waste of time, money and effort.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

101. ITA.

[mikeysnot]

51. Dude you are wasting your time with these two.

There here just to waste it by arguing in circles.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Your interlocutor is just wasting their time, period- they do not have the votes to...

...achieve their dream.

[mikeysnot]

61. Asserting something as so....

by placing the word PERIOD in a sentence. Did you learn that from sean hannity?

F.O. done with your little fantasy boy game.

Enjoy

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Meh-petulant reactions from political fantasists and culture warriors carry no sting

BTW, I do not own a gun and haven't for years- your prejudices seem to have gotten hold of you.

As an aside, OG Dead Kennedys>Minutemen, who always struck me as 'some dudes that listened to the MC5
and erroneously believed they were just as good'

That said, I've got "We Jam Econo" on DVD and like it...

[SonofDonald]

52. I'm a gun owner, I've known others who own guns

Quite a few in fact, I also know quite a few who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

I don't know one person who has ever shot anyone else except for one law enforcement officer.

I worry about making a mistake so I don't carry a weapon even though I would have no problem getting a permit, I look at it as one less gun in the public domain.

I was attacked and stabbed in the chest by a total stranger twenty one years ago, there was no reason for it, he never said a word to me, I never said a word to him, I had my pistol locked up in my car at the time, I didn't think about getting it and shooting him, my only thought was getting to a hospital.

He stabbed me so hard it broke two ribs and cut another in half, cut into my spleen and nicked the sack around my heart, I decided I better get help for that first, I almost didn't make it.

I still won't carry a weapon, it would not have saved me from getting stabbed, it happened too fast, and what if I had passed out with a gun in my hand?, I could have ended up shooting someone not involved as there was a crowd nearby, then where would I be? It could have only made things worse.

Gun control works, sensible gun laws are the answer, sensible gun ownership is the answer, training for responsible gun ownership is the answer, limiting the amount and type of weapons one can own is the answer.

All the arguments in the world can not change the fact that something must be done to change our armed to the teeth society and the mindset that it's ok to own a large collection of guns with zero oversight, talking about it endlessly while never reaching a solution isn't working.

We need sensible gun ownership laws to be enacted and followed, nothing else will work, it should be obvious that the system we have is not working and needs to be changed.

PERIOD.

[gejohnston]

53. I respectfully disagree to some degree

Nobody bothers to explain what "sensible" means. It is a weasel propaganda term that means nothing. There is no evidence gun control works, at least out of the studies that follow the scientific method, not advocacy "research" that has a predetermined conclusion done by nonscientists and published in medical journals.
Before we make more "sensible laws", how about we amend the current five or six federal gun control laws sensible? Outside of culture war, it is an easy answer for complex issues. The reals solutions will piss on sacred cows and special interests. How can anyone seriously suggest gun control works when more people die of heroin overdose each year? Criminals and gang members, where most of the violence is, don't go to FFLs or gun shows. Several DoJ studies show this. That means the people affected are not the problem. When you factor in black market weapons from Eastern Europe, guns outnumber people in France and Germany. The numbers you see in Wikipedia etc. are the ones governments know about.
Most of our problem is in pockets of some cities. Outside of those areas, we are as safe as Germany or Denmark. These pockets have the same things in common as the most violent cities in the world, most of which aren't American (and all have stricter gun laws than we do.)
What are those?
Wealth inequality (it not only applies to countries but down to the zip code)
poor infrastructure
poverty
drug gangs
political corruption Instead of cleaning house at City Hall, Chicago can simply scapegoat downstate deer hunters and target shooters.

If we don't address those problems, we could have gun laws like USVI, Mexico, and Brazil and will get the same result they have. A lot was made about how Freddie Gray died, and rightfully so. But we never looked at how he lived. BTW, look up the correlation between environmental lead and violence.
The real solutions will cost a couple of trillion dollars and butcher sacred cows of both parties. Instead, the corrupt (Leland Yee and City of Chicago), authoritarian (Bloomberg and Trump before he decided to run) and culture warriors (TYT) would rather rant about "sensible gun laws" which will lead to new proposals because the last ones didn't work because of "loopholes" (see California every month).

As for your choice not to carry, what works for you.

[SonofDonald]

54. Respectfully that's ok, I don't mind, really, I don't.

Maybe next time...

[ClarendonDem]

68. I'm not opposed to the concept of "sensible" gun control laws

But the devil is in the details. What you might consider "sensible" someone else might consider unreasonable. For instance, you say "limiting the amount and type of weapons one can own" would be an answer. What type of weapons do you think are reasonable and which not? And not sure why limiting the number of weapons makes any difference. Owning 1 or 10 shouldn't matter.

[SonofDonald]

69. Didn't I already state what my thoughts are?

If you have the time to discuss the little details then maybe you should find someone who can put these ideas into use eh ?.

[ClarendonDem]

70. No

You proposed generalities about "sensible" gun control laws. Everyone I know favors the general concept of "sensible" gun control, but I find the disagreement appears when you start talking specifics. For instance, I support universal background checks and bump stock bans, but oppose any sort of firearm ban or magazine limits.

[SonofDonald]

71. Sorry about the prior reply but it seems

Anything I say about guns here has been used as a reason for others to get snarfy.

Background checks and bump stock bans are fine with me, but then I've already gone through a state patrol background check for a job I was training for, magazine capacity is a strange bird as you can limit it to 30 rounds for a "Sporting weapon" but then tape 4 together for 120 rounds or just have a pile of mags.

I own a Calico M100, a .22 caliber weapon with a tripod, collapsible stock, scope and lazer dot, they use 100 round clips, I have four of those, the weapon has no real use other than plinking due to the caliber, but it would be looked on as an assault weapon by most due to it's look.

I feel that you should have a reason to own a weapon other than the "it's my right" argument, I've owned a civilian version of the M-16, two Ruger mini 14's, an FN 308 and a Remington 308 VS, the civilian version of the marine sniper rifle, I still have the VS but sold the rest.

In reality I feel that an "Assault" style weapon has no use unless you hunt with it or target shoot, I've done both with mine but have not hunted in 22 years and I don't need to target shoot anymore as I'm pretty proficient with the weapons I still own, Iay take out my weapons once a year to look them over but that's it.

I have stated here before that I feel the more you handle a weapon that you don't use anymore the easier it is to rely upon it as a option in circumstances beyond your control, I will always own a weapon to protect my family but my first option is to call the police.

My last option is to arm myself, that will always be last for me, read the book "in the gravest extreme" by Massad Ayoob, written years ago it's a sobering account on why you should really think about using a gun as anything other than a last resort.

I don't mind discussing my thoughts on guns but you're about the first that hasn't gone the route of actually not seeming to have another agenda behind their questions......

[yagotme]

73. Yes, do call the police,

but sometimes they are too far away, or are on another call, and then it falls to you to protect your family. Waiting until the last moment to pull the gun from the safe, load it, etc., may be too little too late.

[SonofDonald]

74. It's not in a safe

You can tear my house apart and not find it, kids can't get at it, no one can run across it no matter what they do.

It's hidden but instantly recoverable, and it's always loaded and ready to use, an unloaded gun is just a piece of steel.

But it's still my last resort, there are three aluminum baseball bats in the house, four of the early thick aluminum Police mag lites, and a knife or two, bear spray and a few other items.

I'm not worried, I'm prepared.

The gun is my last resort but I have no problem using it if needed, I've been beaten on, stabbed, and looked at with malice in my time, these things no longer happen but I learned from them.

[yagotme]

75. "Well, a gun that's unloaded and cocked ain't worth nothin'"

R. J. Cogburn. One of my favorite movie lines.

[jimmy the one]

72. marginal improvements, or sickening americana status quo?

We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect sub-types of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

Current gun control efforts can only be expected to result in a marginal improvement over existing gun violence. Been saying that for decades, we gun control advocates have been. A ten percent improvement is better than doing nothing, as the gun lobby would have it.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

117. This thread is...

...comedy gold.

"Ban everything except single shot hunting rifles, then we'll ban them too."

Hahaha!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

118. It sure is

Been a long time.
Good to see you.

Take care...

[Puha Ekapi_2]

119. been busy in the real world

Learned some time ago that DU is best used for entertainment purposes

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

120. I'm not as well informed about what folks are talking about

It's educational as well for me.
As an Amish would say, "You be careful out among the English."

Be careful and be blessed.