Gun Control and Mass Shootings
As usual the best argument in favor of gun control is reading the postings of gun nuts.
Your cherry picking is showing bro. You know why you chose the words violent crime and not gun violence in the above? Because whole violent crime is at a multi-decade low, gun violence has not decreased AT ALL since the late 90s. Which means a higher share of violent crime is gun based, which is exactly what we expect with an increase in gun circulation and ownership.
One side is posting facts and this is the other sides response? Who else would we listen to?
Not impossible but not very probable without changing a lot of minds first and for that to happen I think we’ll need to see a lot of societal changes first. It seems like support for gun control peaked back in the peaceful and tranquil happy days of the 50s. Then as social and political violence increased in the 60s that trend reversed and continued as crime, especially drug related violent crime, increased during the subsequent years. And I doubt the NRA is driving that scenario as much as responding to it. So while it’s obvious that if we eliminated guns, we’d get rid of a lot of societal violence and people would feel less societal unease, but that might be putting the cart before the horse in terms of how any substantive change will occur.
Not impossible but not very probable without changing a lot of minds first and for that to happen I think we’ll need to see a lot of societal changes first. It seems like support for gun control peaked back in the peaceful and tranquil happy days of the 50s. Then as social and political violence increased in the 60s that trend reversed and continued as crime, especially drug related violent crime, increased during the subsequent years. And I doubt the NRA is driving that scenario as much as responding to it. So while it’s obvious that if we eliminated guns, we’d get rid of a lot of societal violence and people would feel less societal unease, but that might be putting the cart before the horse in terms of how any substantive change will occur.
Over the past few years there has been an increase in funding for gun control advocates but it's only just starting to have even the slightest effect on anything. The NRA has controlled the legislation on gun laws for decades and is still by far the most influential party in Washington and the #1 reason why no laws have been passed at the federal level.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspxThat's the shift in public sentiment I was referring to. Short of that, I really doubt any of the other gun control policies some are advocating for and the NRA opposes will have a substantial impact on gun violence.
Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?
1959 Jul 23-28 - Yes, should be: 60%
2018 Oct 1-10 - Yes, should be: 28%
Sure, but that is one specific of a wider issue and has been made into a partisan issue that the right has won by sheer volume of messaging, to the point that it's now ingrained in the social conscience that anything that specifically talks about banning a type of gun is a breach of the constitution (which is absurd, but that's a slightly different argument).
In terms of stricter gun control in general, the attitude of the public is that the majority think we should have stricter laws and that has been the case for the entirety of those same 60 years. The fact that no stricter laws have been put in place is almost entirely down to the lobbying of the NRA and their propaganda of framing any sort of legislation as threatening constitutional rights.
In terms of stricter gun control in general, the attitude of the public is that the majority think we should have stricter laws and that has been the case for the entirety of those same 60 years. The fact that no stricter laws have been put in place is almost entirely down to the lobbying of the NRA and their propaganda of framing any sort of legislation as threatening constitutional rights.
Here's a thought experiment. Why does the 2A only protect your 'right' to small arms? Why are things like c4 explosives, belt fed machine guns, artillery cannons, stealth fighters, and low yield tactical nuclear weapons impossible for the public to get their hands on?
Could it possibly be that it's because they're too dangerous?
I wasn't talking about myself. I was talking about the previous conversation (the 10 or so posts previous to mine) that I wasn't a part of.
I think it protects are right to small arms because they are used to protect oneself where c4, cannons, fighter jets, etc aren't used to defend oneself.
Here's a thought experiment. Why does the 2A only protect your 'right' to small arms? Why are things like c4 explosives, belt fed machine guns, artillery cannons, stealth fighters, and low yield tactical nuclear weapons impossible for the public to get their hands on?
Could it possibly be that it's because they're too dangerous?
Could it possibly be that it's because they're too dangerous?
you have the right to defend yourself without a gun.
The only way i see these discussions being remotely productive is to divide it to two categories. The first is what should the rules/regulations ideally be. The second is dealing with the fact that there is already as many guns a people in circulation.
You can come up with a hypothetical and reasonable perspective on gun regulation but that probably won't resolve the issue of millions of guns already in circulation.
You can come up with a hypothetical and reasonable perspective on gun regulation but that probably won't resolve the issue of millions of guns already in circulation.
And if you're going to dredge up a bunch of data, see if you can find stats on how many crimes have been thwarted by guns. I saw some stat to the effect that the number of instances where an attempted rape/robbery/assault was prevented by the would-be victim using a gun was many times higher than the number of instances a person fired a gun in the act of a crime. I saw it on some right-wing site, and it may have been completely made up, but assessing the benefits of crime prevention that guns bring is crucial to a discussion on guns, and I think it's a something most people overlook when they're decrying the proliferation of guns in the US.
A mandatory gun buyback program would never work in the U.S. for a multitude of reasons.
I'll have to look. My guess is that it's probably very difficult to reliably measure something like that, but it would be interesting.
As a statement of my priors, I am skeptical that the number of crimes thwarted by guns can be high enough to justify the social costs of our current gun policies. I'm generally one for lots of data and very complex analyses, and I'm sure that gun control policy is subject to plenty of complexity. But it's also hard for me to get past charts like this:
(from Vox)
Or the obvious contrast between events like the shooting in Virginia Beach and stories I see from time to time about someone going on a knifing spree in the UK (with far fewer injuries/fatalities).
It's hard for me to imagine the benefits of our laws and culture with regard to guns justify the apparent costs.
As a statement of my priors, I am skeptical that the number of crimes thwarted by guns can be high enough to justify the social costs of our current gun policies. I'm generally one for lots of data and very complex analyses, and I'm sure that gun control policy is subject to plenty of complexity. But it's also hard for me to get past charts like this:
(from Vox)
Or the obvious contrast between events like the shooting in Virginia Beach and stories I see from time to time about someone going on a knifing spree in the UK (with far fewer injuries/fatalities).
It's hard for me to imagine the benefits of our laws and culture with regard to guns justify the apparent costs.
In 2013, gun deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".
So 2 out of every 3 gun deaths is a suicide, with a few more percent added in for accidents and justifiable homicide (self defense). Sources are listed here:
Suicides: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Homicides (not justified): https://web.archive.org/web/20150727...s/homicide.htm
Accidents and Justifiable homicides are cited in the same source.
There are certainly arguments to be made linking guns to more lethal suicide attempts but that falls much more in the mental health problem than a gun problem.
What is your definition for what an "Assault Rifle" is. Because mostly people use the term "Assault Rifle" to mean something that it doesn't. The military defines an assault rifle as an intermediate caliber rifle with a removable box magazine and select-fire capability (i.e. able to switch between semi-automatic and full-auto or burst-fire). So any weapon that can only fire semi auto (basically every handgun and most hunting rifles) are not assault rifles. Only weapons that are capable of firing fully automatic are assault rifles. And there are already extremely heavy restrictions on buying and owning automatic weapons in the US, and almost no crimes are committed with automatic weapons.
There is basically no evidence that shows that having magazine restrictions has any impact on the gun crime as a whole. The biggest problem would be the sheer number of magazines already in circulation, far higher than the number of firearms. It would be basically impossible to stop people from obtaining them if they really wanted to, or to collect them from people who didn't turn them in. It would also only matter in instances where the shooter fired more than 10 rounds, which by itself is an extremely rare event. The mass mass majority of shootings involve the suspect firing 3 times or less. And at the end of the day, shooters can just carry more magazines, the speed of a reload is pretty fast and it is very very rare that people attempt to disarm a shooter, even when he reloads or has a malfunction.
the actual future is going to have to be bio-metric guns. the NRA types are of course saying that is science fiction, but every cellphone has a finger print scanner on it now days, and the for the "cutting" edge ones fingerprint scanning is already old tech that they dont use anymore.
several states already have laws on the books that all guns sold must be bio-metric "safe" guns as soon as those guns are available, so gun manufactures are dragging their feet.
several states already have laws on the books that all guns sold must be bio-metric "safe" guns as soon as those guns are available, so gun manufactures are dragging their feet.
I just want people to lay out changes that they think would work and then give some evidence that shows it would work. The biggest problem I have in these kind of debates is the overwhelming amount of people who don't really know anything about what they are trying to legislate. They want laws for this and laws for that, but they don't even know what this and that are. That type of argument doesn't work for anything else and it shouldn't work in the discussion of firearms, regardless of how much people want to let their emotions control legislation.
Within the above sentence is the answer to the USA’s gun problem.
You socialist liberals are literally insane.
It is the 2nd amendment for a reason, number 2.
Answer me this, does the role does the individual prohibition of owning a gun in Iran, have anything to do with the authoritarian state they live in??
It is the 2nd amendment for a reason, number 2.
Answer me this, does the role does the individual prohibition of owning a gun in Iran, have anything to do with the authoritarian state they live in??
Because it doesn't matter, the entire notion of the noble group of ragtag militia dudes banding together to overthrow the corrupt government has already been tried, remember? Way back in 1861. Back then the rebels even had weapons parity with the government forces, including not just small arms but cannons, cavalry, generals, and even a navy. And they still lost.
Not to mention that that was a good thing because they were, if you recall, the bad guys. Fighting to preserve their 'right' to own other human beings wasn't really a good look.
Iran's authoritarian regime might have something to do with the US installing an even more authoritarian regime by force and then having that regime being overthrown.
I wasn't talking about myself. I was talking about the previous conversation (the 10 or so posts previous to mine) that I wasn't a part of.
I think it protects are right to small arms because they are used to protect oneself where c4, cannons, fighter jets, etc aren't used to defend oneself.
I think it protects are right to small arms because they are used to protect oneself where c4, cannons, fighter jets, etc aren't used to defend oneself.
And I believe the point of the right wing gun nuts is that the 2A isn't about just defending yourself from another individual, but also from the state. So if the state has things like c4, cannons, fighter jets and so forth then supposedly the 2A guarantees the right of the citizens to have weapons parity with that. But for some reason the only thing the NRA types fight to preserve is their ability to buy some pop guns that, if it ever came to a shooting war with government forces, would probably do more harm than good.
I mean, it's almost as though the right knows their entire argument pertaining to the 2A is bull****. But that can't be it, can it?
The 2A as a means to defend against tyranny was a short lived possibility in the later 1700s. Its a complete myth today.
This did make me chuckle. Well played if it's just a troll.
Those numbers are incredibly misleading.
In 2013, gun deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".
So 2 out of every 3 gun deaths is a suicide, with a few more percent added in for accidents and justifiable homicide (self defense).
In 2013, gun deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".
So 2 out of every 3 gun deaths is a suicide, with a few more percent added in for accidents and justifiable homicide (self defense).
(from gunpolicy.org)
(from gunpolicy.org)
(I couldn't figure out how to attach the country as a label)
Maybe I should restate my original point. It's not so much even just the trendlines on the chart, it's the fact that the US is such an enormous outlier which suggests to me that we have a problem and that our gun policies are part of it.
Throw the US out of that graph and there doesn’t seem to be a strong trend in your graph.
I don't think it's misleading, and you'll notice some of the followup conversation is about why I think suicides also matter, and why it's reasonable to expect that with fewer guns there would be fewer suicides, as also supported by the previous chart. However, if you just focus on civilian gun ownership vs homocide rates you do find a similar pattern, although it's a bit noisier, which I think is intuitive and not particularly problematic.
(from gunpolicy.org)
(from gunpolicy.org)
(I couldn't figure out how to attach the country as a label)
Maybe I should restate my original point. It's not so much even just the trendlines on the chart, it's the fact that the US is such an enormous outlier which suggests to me that we have a problem and that our gun policies are part of it.
(from gunpolicy.org)
(from gunpolicy.org)
(I couldn't figure out how to attach the country as a label)
Maybe I should restate my original point. It's not so much even just the trendlines on the chart, it's the fact that the US is such an enormous outlier which suggests to me that we have a problem and that our gun policies are part of it.
Also none of this comes to the heart of the "problem" if you even consider it a problem. You can't go back in time, so what policy changes can happen today that would have an impact in the US, given the number of firearms in civilian control? What laws can be passed, that aren't on the books already that could make a significant impact on the issue, and what proof is there that those measures would be effective and worth the cost? Just repeating there's a problem without offering possible solutions attached to some tangible evidence doesn't do anything.
Also, to constantly compare the US to other countries is not as relevant as other people like to make it out to be. Different countries have different histories and different cultures and to say that just because something works somewhere else means it would work in the US is a stretch.
Also none of this comes to the heart of the "problem" if you even consider it a problem. You can't go back in time, so what policy changes can happen today that would have an impact in the US, given the number of firearms in civilian control? What laws can be passed, that aren't on the books already that could make a significant impact on the issue, and what proof is there that those measures would be effective and worth the cost? Just repeating there's a problem without offering possible solutions attached to some tangible evidence doesn't do anything.
ban assault style rifles, magazines over 7-10 capacity, require 8-12 hours of safety training PER year with registration requiring disclosure of how the gun is safely stored, longer waiting periods for better background checks. also take a stance on opening gun owners up to liability for crimes/deaths committed with their weapons if they weren't stored safely
the actual future is going to have to be bio-metric guns. the NRA types are of course saying that is science fiction, but every cellphone has a finger print scanner on it now days, and the for the "cutting" edge ones fingerprint scanning is already old tech that they dont use anymore.
several states already have laws on the books that all guns sold must be bio-metric "safe" guns as soon as those guns are available, so gun manufactures are dragging their feet.
once they are available you just do a tiered buy back over the span of 5 or so years going from a reasonable price, to confiscate on sight and a fine.
the actual future is going to have to be bio-metric guns. the NRA types are of course saying that is science fiction, but every cellphone has a finger print scanner on it now days, and the for the "cutting" edge ones fingerprint scanning is already old tech that they dont use anymore.
several states already have laws on the books that all guns sold must be bio-metric "safe" guns as soon as those guns are available, so gun manufactures are dragging their feet.
once they are available you just do a tiered buy back over the span of 5 or so years going from a reasonable price, to confiscate on sight and a fine.
If you remove some of the most egregious outliers (including the US) then I think you can see a trend, but as I said it's pretty noisy, which doesn't surprise me. A better approach would include some other controls for relevant factors besides just the number of guns, but I don't have the time to turn this into a real research project right now. But the data is there if anyone wants to play with it.
The most obvious thing to want to control for is just economic development/prosperity, but I think that's what the original is doing, mostly.
Do fire extinguishers make gun combat safe with predictable outcomes?
I don't think it's misleading, and you'll notice some of the followup conversation is about why I think suicides also matter, and why it's reasonable to expect that with fewer guns there would be fewer suicides, as also supported by the previous chart. However, if you just focus on civilian gun ownership vs homocide rates you do find a similar pattern, although it's a bit noisier, which I think is intuitive and not particularly problematic.
...
...
Its quite clear that the more restrictive gun control laws as they currently exist in State and Local statutes occupy the counties/cities where the worst murder rates are -- to wit: Chicago, DC, NYC, LA, Baltimore and their metro areas.
Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders -- 25 Apr , 2017
Data
The number of murders for each county Excel file_2014 For the column FIPS_CTY, 777 is for Tribal Agencies’ data and 999 is State Police data. The data is originally from the FBI UCR and is available from the University of Michigan’s ICPSR. What the county and state codes number correspond to are provided here.
The number of murders for each county Excel file_2014 For the column FIPS_CTY, 777 is for Tribal Agencies’ data and 999 is State Police data. The data is originally from the FBI UCR and is available from the University of Michigan’s ICPSR. What the county and state codes number correspond to are provided here.
The Distribution of murders
The United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no murders, places where there are a few murders, and places where murders are very common.
In 2014, the most recent year that a county-level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders. 69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country.
The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 2% of counties contain 28% of the population and 51% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. But even within those counties the murders are very heavily concentrated in small areas.
Murders actually used to be even more concentrated. From 1977 to 2000, on average 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders.
The United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no murders, places where there are a few murders, and places where murders are very common.
In 2014, the most recent year that a county-level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders. 69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country.
The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 2% of counties contain 28% of the population and 51% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. But even within those counties the murders are very heavily concentrated in small areas.
Murders actually used to be even more concentrated. From 1977 to 2000, on average 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders.
Figure 1 illustrates how few counties have a significant number of murders. Figure 3 further illustrates that with a cumulative perspective. 54% of counties have zero murders, 69% have at most one murder, 76% have at most two murders, and so on. To put it differently, only the top four percent of the counties have 16 or more murders.
Spoiler:
And since we're posting "statistics" (in the form of charts and graphs)... let me post this one to compare to the other one in this post.
A nice map showing gun ownership on a county basis isn't readily available since no gun registry exists. However, I think this map is a workable stand-in. I believe most folks participating in this forum will be familiar with it -- 2016 Presidential Election Results by county. I propose that the probability of gun ownership is higher in the red indicated counties.
A nice map showing gun ownership on a county basis isn't readily available since no gun registry exists. However, I think this map is a workable stand-in. I believe most folks participating in this forum will be familiar with it -- 2016 Presidential Election Results by county. I propose that the probability of gun ownership is higher in the red indicated counties.
Spoiler:
If I squint really, really, hard I can see that the gun control crowd will say this data doesn't really prove anything and isn't very helpful.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE