When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If I want to carry my pistol out of the state, the only legal way that I can do it is to travel directly to a gun range out of state first, and then when returning, leave the gun range last before entering the state and going directly to my home or business. I know that people rely on FOPA, but if I am not traveling THROUGH another state it could be a problem.
this makes it really hard for you to go out and kill people.
Better understanding on how/when guns that were originally purchased legally vanish and enter a 'black market' domain. Provided they weren't smuggled here to begin with.
Some states have criminal storage laws (CA?) and it can be used to send reminders for stuff like this without the state overreaching and doing searches to confirm that these procedures are met. Not suggesting that searches like that should ever happen, but I can see people arguing that it should be done for public safety.
Do you think there needs to be a better way to track guns changing hands?
There are arguments for this, and arguments against this. As a private party (non dealer) in Ohio, I am under no such law to keep records of sales to other private parties. The ATF mandates laws for dealers, and if I understand correctly, non-dealers are only regulated by state laws.
Primary arguments for a comprehensive weapons tracking system are that it would make it easier to track the source of firearms used in crimes - the problem with this is if you're selling a gun to a known criminal, then there's really no need to leave something as pesky as a serial number on the weapon, lest the police track the firearm back to you, and if you're the criminal, then there's no need to leave the serial number in tact either, as then the gun becomes evidence of a robbery - you possess property stolen from someone who legally owned the firearm.
Primary arguments against such a tracking system are: If the government knows where all the guns are, then the primary method of preventing the government from taking those guns away (anonymity) no longer exists. There are far to many vocal minority groups out there who would much prefer that we gave up our guns, and a tracking system is an easy way to take guns away from those who have them, and criminalize those who are supposed to have them but don't.
As far as identifying a concealed weapon to law enforcement, as a concealed carry permit holder in my state, I'm only required to disclose that I'm carrying a concealed weapon if I'm directly contacted by LE officers. If I'm not carrying, I may simply ignore discussion about it. If I'm simply transporting, then the officer doesn't need to know about it.
There are arguments for this, and arguments against this. As a private party (non dealer) in Ohio, I am under no such law to keep records of sales to other private parties. The ATF mandates laws for dealers, and if I understand correctly, non-dealers are only regulated by state laws.
Primary arguments for a comprehensive weapons tracking system are that it would make it easier to track the source of firearms used in crimes - the problem with this is if you're selling a gun to a known criminal, then there's really no need to leave something as pesky as a serial number on the weapon, lest the police track the firearm back to you, and if you're the criminal, then there's no need to leave the serial number in tact either, as then the gun becomes evidence of a robbery - you possess property stolen from someone who legally owned the firearm.
Primary arguments against such a tracking system are: If the government knows where all the guns are, then the primary method of preventing the government from taking those guns away (anonymity) no longer exists. There are far to many vocal minority groups out there who would much prefer that we gave up our guns, and a tracking system is an easy way to take guns away from those who have them, and criminalize those who are supposed to have them but don't.
As far as identifying a concealed weapon to law enforcement, as a concealed carry permit holder in my state, I'm only required to disclose that I'm carrying a concealed weapon if I'm directly contacted by LE officers. If I'm not carrying, I may simply ignore discussion about it.
Would poscat.
I want to keep this going but I have a **** ton of studying to do. Looking forward to continuing!
I'm not against or for guns - neutral. They are needed by hunters, they are needed by some who feel threatened, they can also prevent abuse of power by government. BUT, arguing with statistics is simply childish
persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Again, to summarize Children's Hospital Research Institute in Philladelphia -
Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group.
Among children, the majority of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.
People who report “firearm access” are at twice the risk of homicide and more than three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to firearms
Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse.
Among suicide victims requiring hospital treatment, suicide attempts with a firearm are much more deadly than attempts by jumping or drug poisoning — 90 percent die compared to 34 percent and 2 percent respectively. About 90 percent of those that survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.
In states with increased gun availability, death rates from gunshots for children were higher than in states with less availability.
The vast majority of accidental firearm deaths among children are related to child access to firearms — either self-inflicted or at the hands of another child.
Studies have shown that states with CAP laws have a lower rate of unintentional death than states without CAP laws.
Domestic violence is more likely to turn deadly with a gun in the home. An abusive partner’s access to a firearm increases the risk of homicide eight-fold for women in physically abusive relationships.
Studies above are proper, scientific and well vetted for methodology and data sampling. Statistics knows all.
Owning guns makes people more likely to be injured or die from a gun related incident. Normally, I'm all for natural selection, but still - I don't want people to die just because they are misinformed or because of irresponsible adults around children.
As far as Constitution and gun regulations go - we have a contradicting narrative - gun ownership is protected just like the general welfare of all people. And one person's right to own guns may encroach on another person's welfare. Typically, one person's right end where another person's right begin. So what is the government to do here?
Constitution says "right of the people to keep and bear Arms. "Arms" (in context we are talking about) is mostly commonly defined as a "Weapons"- it doesn't say what arms, but no one is arguing that it should be ALL arms (an IED could be qualified as "arms"). Yet, it is generally accepted that for example a howitzer, which has the same principle as a handgun (device accelerating a projectile down the barrel through a chemical reaction resulting in rapid release of gasses). It is even defined as "a short gun for firing shells on high trajectories at low velocities." This is done in order to protect welfare of the people and not to let someone broadly encroach on other people's rights. What about guns (canons) capable of shooting nuclear loads?
Fun discussion, although i doubt anyone will ever get swayed by it.
I think it would be better if the above graph stratified results based on police shootings, self defense, and other things like when children get hold of a gun, or a gun is used in domestic violence.
From the first link:
Objectives. We examined the relationship between levels of household firearm ownership, as measured directly and by a proxy—the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm—and age-adjusted firearm homicide rates at the state level.
Methods. We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis of panel data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting Systems database on gun ownership and firearm homicide rates across all 50 states during 1981 to 2010. We determined fixed effects for year, accounted for clustering within states with generalized estimating equations, and controlled for potential state-level confounders.
Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.
Yeah, and you are more likely to be killed by a gun in a home when there is a gun in the home.
What's weird is that the same holds true for double ended ******.
I think it would be better if the above graph stratified results based on police shootings, self defense, and other things like when children get hold of a gun, or a gun is used in domestic violence.
Causation is important.
It would be interesting, but hardly any more important to the overall debate. Causation is a human pulling a trigger while the barrel is pointed at another human.
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
Also saying that 'statistics knows all' is kind of nonsensical. Statistics doesn't know anything or claim to.
Seriously, that's the best argument in the chamber?
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
Oh really, guns are linked to gun violence? That's amazing.
I know, it seems like a really big revelation to many. But then again, everyone thinks they are the John Wayne’s. Discrepancy between expectations and reality has a funny way of surprising people who hold to their beliefs in a presence of data to the contrary. Statistically, people who carry guns are much more likely to be shot during an argument, than in self-defense incident. Ironically, those carrying guns are also statistically more likely to engage in aggressive behavior.
Originally Posted by Monk
Yeah, and you are more likely to be killed by a gun in a home when there is a gun in the home.
Yup, plain and simple. Owning doesn't make one safer, does the opposite.
Originally Posted by Monk
What's weird is that the same holds true for double ended ******.
- I have about 20 jokes lined up on this one, will skip - too easy of a target.
I know, it seems like a really big revelation to many. But then again, everyone thinks they are the John Wayne’s. Discrepancy between expectations and reality has a funny way of surprising people who hold to their beliefs in a presence of data to the contrary. Statistically, people who carry guns are much more likely to be shot during an argument, than in self-defense incident. Ironically, those carrying guns are also statistically more likely to engage in aggressive behavior.
Yup, plain and simple. Owning doesn't make one safer, does the opposite.
And owning a refrigerator is linked to refrigerator-related deaths.
And owning flower pots is linked to flower pot-related deaths.
And owning water beds is linked to water bed-related deaths.
These are all descriptive, not prescriptive, statements.
I'm actually for 'smart' gun control, though I'm not exactly sure how that would be implemented or if it's even feasible. That said, if 80% of those increased deaths are from thwarted burglary attempts vs suicide or domestic violence then it flips the meaning on their head. Also, you said human pointing gun at another human and pulling trigger. What if the majority of those incidents is suicide. Alaska's pretty bleak. It is what it is; a counterpoint. Take it for what it is.
I work with statistics pretty often. Every time I've submitted a paper to a journal, the editor always asks for a full disclosure of how the analyses were run. Saying that it wasn't possible to figure out the context is a red flag. I think it's an alarming statistic and one that needs to be investigated further. If you want to successfully tackle gun violence and gun deaths, you need to figure out what's causing them otherwise any legislation is going to fall flat on its face.
Re: statistics knows all.
Yes. Anyone claiming to say that statistics have something to say either doesn't understand how analysis works or has an agenda. If you have an agenda, the smartest way to move forward is to disclose it and not hide beyond statistics and instead offer an analysis along with the rational for carrying out the analysis in the way that it was done.
One must make sure to not confuse causation with correlation.
Suggested fact: Higher gun ownership is correlated with higher gun deaths.
What we shouldn't assume is that higher gun ownership causes higher gun deaths as a single exclusive argument - because the opposite is also true - higher gun related deaths directly causes higher gun ownership.
Regarding the suicide numbers, this can certainly be valid, and I understand the point. My grandfather walked down to the basement, put a gun in his mouth, and pulled the trigger - nobody knows if he would have committed suicide if he didn't have a gun available - the fact is, he did commit suicide with a gun because a gun was available - had there been no gun available, then I can say with some certainty that he would not have attempted suicide with a gun. I would prefer to see "intentional gun homicides + accidental gun deaths vs. ownership" as that would probably be the most appropriate graph to argue against gun ownership. Intentional suicides should be ruled out, as well as any self-defense activities.
Colorado law enforcement and intelligence agencies did a study on the effects of legalized marijuana - they came up with a lot of statistics with regard to marijuana - among those statistics, they showed that since recreational marijuana was legalized, the number of automobile crashes where marijuana was a contributing factor more than doubled!! I was hoping for some actual useful data in that report, but the entire report was cherry picked like that. Can you believe it? When recreational marijuana was legalized, more people actually used it than when it was illegal. Shocking!! Hey, statistics knows all!!
I used to hear an oft-quoted statistic from my friends who enjoy wine: People who have a glass of red wine a day actually live longer!! They thought they had found an excuse to drink wine as it directly related to health. Yippee!!! The statistics say this is true, but the problem lies in the fact that there isn't actually causation. You see, when we investigate people drinking red wine and living longer, we must also examine the lifestyle choices of someone who can and who chooses to drink a glass of red wine every day - chances are those people aren't working in a coal mine.
Majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides.
Majority of gun homicides in the US are inner city gang ****, done with stolen/black market handguns.
Majority of violent crime in the US is not homicide.
Majority of crime in the US is non-violent.
Majority of people in the US are not criminals of any sort, even in the hood.
Keep in mind that we are talking about restricting a fundamental right based upon a grossly inflated figure that represents a tiny portion of criminal activity in the US. Murder is extremely rare. Murder with guns is even rarer. Most gun deaths in the US are suicides and suicide suffers from a massive substitution effect when you take away one method. People who want to kill themselves will still want to kill themselves even if they can't find a gun. Japan has a massive suicide rate compared to the US, all done without guns.
In the case of "assault weapons" they are almost completely absent from crime stats because rifles are barely ever used in crimes and even when they are, they usually aren't fancy expensive black rifles.
we need to track guns
This is stupid because the fundamental problem is one of enforcement.
The people who will comply with background check, transfer registration and ownership registration laws aren't important from a criminal justice perspective. They don't commit crimes and their guns won't be involved in crime unless they get stolen. Once a gun is stolen, either the cops know where it is (and can recover it) or they don't know where it is (and they can't). The thief isn't going to register the stolen gun under any circumstances, for reasons I would hope are obvious. It will just show up at a crime scene 5 or 10 years later.
The people and the guns you care about tracking aren't going to cooperate with any tracking system because the second they admit to going near a gun you can lock them in prison for 10-15 years. The vast majority of these guys already have serious records. Hell, in my experience, a lot of these guys will have active warrants half the time they are out of prison. Just finding them at all means they go to prison, let alone finding them with a gun. If the cops can't find a wanted criminal with a list of known addresses, how will it help to have a list of non-criminals who own guns?
11-16-2016, 02:13 PM
0
