Braineack

iTrader: (62)

So you can't?


so it's only about the body count per incident? you're okay with murder/violence so long as it's only like able to kill like 1 or 2 people at most?

8 people were killed and 48 injured in less than 30 seconds on a London bridge in 2017. I heard it was Trump's rhetoric that inspired the drivers.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

oi, just ban guns, then import millions of terrorist into the country!


























I bet these acid attack survivors would love some universal background checks on legal purchased guns.

Skamba

Sigh. I don't think you understand how a discussion works. All you've said so far is 'muh guns are the pinnacle of freedom'. I give you a source of 130 experts using a validated framework of 25 questions, and yet you feel that your layperson opinion is equally valid, because there is some level of subjectivity involved. Even if you don't agree with every single point, the US is quite far away from the highest ranks. You've literally given me nothing that points to the contrary.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Finland, Norway, Switzerland and New Zealand are all among the top 20 worldwide in terms of firearms per capita. They are also at the very bottom of most lists of violent crime rate, homicide rate, etc.

So, guns clearly are not the root cause of gun violence.

Would instantly eliminating all privately owned firearms in the US decrease the homicide rate? Probably. But the number of firearm-related fatalities in the US is approximately 1/10 that of the number of motor-vehicle-related fatalities (about 1.2 per 1,000, vs 11.6 per 1,000, both 2017 statistics), and nobody is calling for common-sense car laws.

Skamba

There's literally a wikipedia page on Trump's speech and actions that were widely regarded to be racist. Each single item might be debatable, but if you have a pattern of debatable racist actions, odds are you are pretty racist.

Schroedinger

I think you need to slice it a little finer to understand it, I’ve spent a lot of time in all those countries. Those countries have mandatory military service and training, strict gun registration laws, limits on the types of guns that private citizens can own and things like ammo capacity, strict legal liability for owners of guns that are used in violent crime, etc. And yes, they seem less afflicted with the cultural outrage that us Americans all seem to be infected with these days. It’s not quite as simple as “they have guns and we have guns, so...”

And I’m tired of the guns/cars comparison. Cars are already heavily regulated. Most people can’t work or perform basic necessary life activities in the U.S. without a car, the same can’t be said of guns. If privately owned cars ceased to exist tomorrow, the entire economy would collapse. If privately owned guns ceased to exist tomorrow, the changes would be far less dramatic. You can’t have a risk/reward discussion if you don’t talk about reward.

And just to burn the strawman down, I’m not saying ban all guns, or anything close to it. Most people aren’t. I’m saying there have to be rational limits in place on what guns can be legally owned, and by whom.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Okay, so no you cant.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

If we regulated gun safety like we do vehicle safety standards, then we'd all be required to wear bulletproof armor when we go outside in public.

guns are guaranteed in the Constitution, cars aren't. Telsa can't even sell cars directly to the public without a gov't mandated dealer in some states -- to protect the consumer.

we already have those tons of those. Also: Shall Not Be Infringed.

Completely ban all guns in the US -- what are they going to do with the near 400 million guns owned by non-violent Constitutionally-protected-to-own-them citizens?

see also:




Guns are more deadly to the person wielding them, than to you and me. Because we have a mental health crisis in America.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's the thing about when people call for "rational limits" or "common-sense regulations..." We already have lots of 'em.

What would you consider a rational limit as per above?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Obviously you'd need to do one of two things:

1: Door to door searches of every home, car, office, etc., in the US, with confiscation, or
2: Wait a few hours for the next firearm-related murder, and then say "How could this have happened? We banned all guns!"

Skamba

Thanks for the proof that there is indeed a mental health crisis in the US. Well, in this thread at least.

Edit: A slightly more serious note. First you act outraged when someone thinks Trump is racist and you ask for supporting evidence. You then get shown that it is in fact quite a common point of view, and then you flat out deny that it's a pretty common point of view. I wonder what would happen if you'd hold yourself against the same standards you seem to hold everyone else. You literally call all liberals pedophiles, lol.

z31maniac

Because private corporations (dealers) have fought against it to protect their own interest.

Let's just go ahead and start conflating disease with gun violence and the Constitution as well.

Schroedinger

For me that line is drawn somewhere around pump-action shotguns, bolt-action rifles and revolvers. Since we like car comparisons, it should be at least as hard to own a gun as it is to get a drivers license. California has an eight round magazine limit, that seems perfectly sensible to me, IIRC mortality from handgun wounds is only around 10%. I could even get right with the idea that all semi-auto weapons should be NFA Class 3/Title 2, whether it's a AR or a .22 pistol. You're welcome to own it, but you'd better be prepared to prove that your *** is squeaky clean. Tranferring it from one owner to another is like re-titling a vehicle.

It is of note that I'm a gun owner who would be perfectly happy with pump-action shotguns, bolt-action rifles and revolvers. I think for any practical recreational or self-defense purpose, those tools would be enough. I have my Georgia CCW, and found it kind of amazing that as a part of that process you don't actually have to register your weapons. For you the "rational" line might be somewhere else. Part of our failing on this issue is believing that it’s black/white, at the expense of compromise and progress.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Do you think that would help?

There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion as to the underlying causes of homicide. Some people seem to believe that having access to firearms is the primary cause of firearm-related homicide. Canada, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Sweeden, New Zealand, etc., are all good examples of how this is untrue

Actually, so are El Salvador, Jamaica, Lesotho, etc. All of these countries have homicide rates many times those of the aforementioned, and yet much lower rates of civilian firearm ownership.

There's just no strong correlation between guns and murder rate. None. If you plot the data in the form of a scatter plot, it looks like noise.

z31maniac

I mean if it's good enough for Neil DeGrasse Tyson?



It's just insane the leaps people are making on both sides. On my Facebook, I made a post yesterday about reading El Paso shooter "manifesto" and how it was disturbing that people could think like that. One of my buddies from Portland, who is as far/hard left as it gets said this:

"The president calls Mexicans rapists, criminals, and drug dealers. He repeatedly speaks of an ongoing invasion of dangerous illegal immigrants. He rages that our safety and our very way of life is under threat from people who are different than us. He issues a constant, unending barrage of insults and fear tactics, whipping people in to literal frenzies.

Then his political party ensures easy, unfettered access to high powered weapons designed to kill as many people in as little time as possible.

He wasn’t insane or mentally ill. He was following marching orders."

To me, this seems to mean that he believes that Trump and the Republican party are LITERALLY calling for genocide against brown people from Central America (ignoring they aren't the same ethnic group, but I digress). I didn't even bother responding, because if someone truly believes that, nothing productive will come of any attempt at conversation.


I had another friend, here in Oklahoma, try to compare Chicago and the gang/drug related violence to the mass shootings. Which completely ignores that if you're dealing drugs at a park at 1:30 am, or doing "hoodrat stuff with your friends" there is a real chance something negative may happen. How that is compared to being murdered on your Saturday morning grocery trip to Wal-mart is beyond my feeble ability to comprehend.

Schroedinger

Joe, that's just not true. You may be able to find data sources to support that idea, but there are plenty that also refute it. You're a smart enough guy to know that 80% of the answer to a question lies in how you ask the question.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...uns-and-death/

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.



2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.



3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993.



4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.



5. A summary of the evidence on guns and violent death

This book chapter summarizes the scientific literature on the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths.

This is the first chapter in the book and provides and up-to-date and readable summary of the literature on the relationship between guns and death. It also adds to the literature by using the National Violent Death Reporting System data to show where (home or away) the shootings occurred. Suicides for all age groups and homicides for children and aging adults most often occurred in their own home.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearms and violence death in the United States. In: Webster DW, Vernick JS, eds. Reducing Gun Violence in America. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.



6. More guns = more homicides of police

This article examines homicide rates of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) from 1996 to 2010. Differences in rates of homicides of LEOs across states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in household gun ownership. In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states.

This article was cited by President Obama in a speech to a police association. This article will hopefully bring police further into the camp of those pushing for sensible gun laws.

Swedler DI, Simmons MM, Dominici F, Hemenway D. Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105:2042-48.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you really missed my point on vehicle safety.

We have outlawed drunk driving, yet everyone still drives drunk.
We have taken their licenses to drive, yet they still get behind the wheel.
We take them to court, then give them incredibly light sentences, or just community service -- even in cases of fatalities. (I've had a friend run over and killed by a truck driver who violated his hours limit, drove through the night, and fell asleep at the wheel -- he was given 5 years in year and only served partial )

In order to protect our citizens from these criminals, the government mandates safety standards: like seatbelt laws, and pedestrian-impact regulations.

So again, if we were to treat gun safety laws like we do the automotive industry we'd require people to wear armor outside, and basically shrug off violations/deaths from guns as no big deal.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's pretty much exactly what "no strong correlation" means, which is what I said.

There is a lot of evidence to support a link between smoking and lung caner, but very little evidence to refute it. Thus, smoking and cancer are strongly correlated.

If there is a lot of evidence to support a link between firearms ownership and homicide rates, but also a lot of evidence which refutes that claim, then the two are not strongly correlated.

Schroedinger

https://www.responsibility.org/blog/...ic-fatalities/

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you still missed the point...