United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze(nature.com)
nature.com
United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03882-w
336 comments
Another way I've seen statistics misused when advocating for gun control is bringing up the high number of "mass shootings" any time an event makes the news. The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school. I'm not trying to imply that gang shootings are acceptable, but it's misleading to lump them in with school shootings to push the "think about the children" angle.
The vast majority of gun violence of all types, suicides, gang murders, mass shootings, domestic violence etc. are committed with hand guns. Hand gun ownership popularity is at a high in the US across many demographics.
But assault rifle bans are the most popular form of gun control, probably because of the popularity of hand guns.
But assault rifle bans are the most popular form of gun control, probably because of the popularity of hand guns.
I think it's because it's easier to divide and conquer with 'big scary assault rifles meant for the battlefield' - it helps gather some people who are in the middle, and agree with Heller in that people should be able to defend themselves especially at home... if you say assault rifle bad - no one needs one to hunt with - you get some people nodding...
so it's easier to pass and claim a victory lap.
I saw a definition recently that said assault rifle bans.. any rifle with at least one 'military type accessory' - that wording is part of the charade. I'm guessing a forward grip, maybe a red dot would be in that?
Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho.
so maybe 'because of the popularity of hand guns' is that in a way, in that people in the middle want them.. I think some people will read that as in 'the popularity' is causing lots of shootings and that makes gun control popular.
maybe. all situations are different not an exhaustive suggestion(s) thought processes atm. ymmv.
so it's easier to pass and claim a victory lap.
I saw a definition recently that said assault rifle bans.. any rifle with at least one 'military type accessory' - that wording is part of the charade. I'm guessing a forward grip, maybe a red dot would be in that?
Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho.
so maybe 'because of the popularity of hand guns' is that in a way, in that people in the middle want them.. I think some people will read that as in 'the popularity' is causing lots of shootings and that makes gun control popular.
maybe. all situations are different not an exhaustive suggestion(s) thought processes atm. ymmv.
> Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho.
Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? Maybe it is and I just haven't been exposed to it. For me, I'd feel more nervous with someone with deteriorating memory and eyesight handling a lethal weapon next door.
Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? Maybe it is and I just haven't been exposed to it. For me, I'd feel more nervous with someone with deteriorating memory and eyesight handling a lethal weapon next door.
> Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves?
I don't think the way to reason about this is based on "serious fire power" vs some other kind of weapon that you feel is more acceptable. All guns can be lethal.
If grandma feels unsafe, she might get a gun. I can understand how older people might want firepower when they know they can't physically fend off an attacker.
If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun?
Most gun controls make the weapon less safe. It's similar to how people think sharp knives are more dangerous, but they're actually much safer than dull knives.
The way to think about it is that the round is doing most of the work. The gun is just a delivery system for the round, and besides fully automatic weapons, every other weapon choice is about safety, accuracy, and reliability.
A "Short Barrel Rifle" or "Short Barrel Shotgun" is easier to operate, and therefore more safe than a non-NFA rifle. They were regulated to make people feel better, not to add safety. The velocity of NFA SBRs is actually lower than the velocity of a bullet leaving a non-NFA 16" barrel.
A silencer is not silent, it's just hearing protection, but also requires an NFA tax stamp. They don't sound like they do in the movies, and there's no mistaking it's a gunshot.
Expandable stocks and foregrips are scary looking, but the whole point of them is to gain accuracy, which makes the gun safer. These are usually legal, but there are silly regulations around these too.
Larger magazines allow you to focus on your threat instead of counting your bullets. For now, these are legal, but banning magazines with large capacity is a common talking point.
The reason all of these items look scary is because we see military with them. But even in the military, they're not to make the guns more lethal. The whole point is operational safety.
If you don't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun, that's actually a more defensible position. If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.
I don't think the way to reason about this is based on "serious fire power" vs some other kind of weapon that you feel is more acceptable. All guns can be lethal.
If grandma feels unsafe, she might get a gun. I can understand how older people might want firepower when they know they can't physically fend off an attacker.
If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun?
Most gun controls make the weapon less safe. It's similar to how people think sharp knives are more dangerous, but they're actually much safer than dull knives.
The way to think about it is that the round is doing most of the work. The gun is just a delivery system for the round, and besides fully automatic weapons, every other weapon choice is about safety, accuracy, and reliability.
A "Short Barrel Rifle" or "Short Barrel Shotgun" is easier to operate, and therefore more safe than a non-NFA rifle. They were regulated to make people feel better, not to add safety. The velocity of NFA SBRs is actually lower than the velocity of a bullet leaving a non-NFA 16" barrel.
A silencer is not silent, it's just hearing protection, but also requires an NFA tax stamp. They don't sound like they do in the movies, and there's no mistaking it's a gunshot.
Expandable stocks and foregrips are scary looking, but the whole point of them is to gain accuracy, which makes the gun safer. These are usually legal, but there are silly regulations around these too.
Larger magazines allow you to focus on your threat instead of counting your bullets. For now, these are legal, but banning magazines with large capacity is a common talking point.
The reason all of these items look scary is because we see military with them. But even in the military, they're not to make the guns more lethal. The whole point is operational safety.
If you don't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun, that's actually a more defensible position. If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.
> If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun?
The idea that any gun would have made my grandma more safe is ludicrous to me. Giving my grandmother a gun would have either made her less safe, or way way less safe.
> If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.
She was allowed to have one, but the only attachment that would have improved her safety is no gun.
The idea that any gun would have made my grandma more safe is ludicrous to me. Giving my grandmother a gun would have either made her less safe, or way way less safe.
> If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.
She was allowed to have one, but the only attachment that would have improved her safety is no gun.
I suppose it depends on what type of grandma you have :)
Maybe with training, your grandma could enjoy plinking targets and also be safer in her home?
There are grandmas that love hunting and spending time at the range.
It'd be nice to live in a world where nobody ever commits acts of violence. Unfortunately, we banned violence long ago, and it seems that criminals are still doing it anyway. The next best thing we can do is be prepared.
Maybe with training, your grandma could enjoy plinking targets and also be safer in her home?
There are grandmas that love hunting and spending time at the range.
It'd be nice to live in a world where nobody ever commits acts of violence. Unfortunately, we banned violence long ago, and it seems that criminals are still doing it anyway. The next best thing we can do is be prepared.
Then again, comparing New World statistics to Europe ans Asia, it seems pretty clear that personal gun ownership isn't the only option for staying alive.
Which gun ownership stats are you using for Europe? IIRC there's a ton of unregistered literally military guns lying around over there from the various wars.
Guns don't go bad, after all.
(And if you count things like the Holodomor, Holocaust, Cambodian Genocide etc as murder, I think the correlation between 'murder rate' and 'civilian gun ownership rate' takes a decidedly different slope)
Guns don't go bad, after all.
(And if you count things like the Holodomor, Holocaust, Cambodian Genocide etc as murder, I think the correlation between 'murder rate' and 'civilian gun ownership rate' takes a decidedly different slope)
We can not compare America to Europe or Asia - there are too many differing factors.
A lot of people want to compare because money or gdp is similar or whatever - but they are all totally different.
I'd love to have the same kind of social safety nets that many Euro countries have, I think much of the US violence in related to the lack of stability in families that is a reflection of financial insecurities honestly.
Other things like the value of the drug markets here, and the quick access of Latin countries to here ( https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-america-is-the-worlds-... ) - make a huge difference. comparing stats about any other place is just apples and oranges.
A lot of people want to compare because money or gdp is similar or whatever - but they are all totally different.
I'd love to have the same kind of social safety nets that many Euro countries have, I think much of the US violence in related to the lack of stability in families that is a reflection of financial insecurities honestly.
Other things like the value of the drug markets here, and the quick access of Latin countries to here ( https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-america-is-the-worlds-... ) - make a huge difference. comparing stats about any other place is just apples and oranges.
You know your grandmother better than I, so I have little doubt that you may be right. Certainly there are plenty of senior citizens that do not have the physical or and mental abilities to properly wield a weapon. I'd like to think that all of those are well taken care of with others protecting them in one way or another.
I have about a dozen grandmas in my neighborhood that are all physically and mentally doing very well. They don't need walkers or wheelchairs. some still work, some run businesses. They garden, the go out. Every single one of them can wield a shovel or a firearm if need be.
Sadly there is advice out there that puts them in more danger in a similar way that you describe with yours - I've heard popular advice repeated like 'you need a revolver that don't jam' - best thing is 'a double barrel 12 ga shotgun' - quite frankly I think that is terrible advice for most of them.
For many with the kind of physical limitations in our area, something like a GSG-16 .22 , a Mossberg 715 Pistol .22 , even a Walther Arms Uzi Tactical Rifle Semi-Auto .22 - these things would be easier to use, less fear of recoil, easier to keep on target of bad guys and less chance of inuring self, or bystanders / neighbors..
yet some of the GC ideas would limit access to exactly these kinds of safer features all in the name fear mongering 'military assault accessories' -
the grandma next door would be less safe being forced not to have access to these options and instead forced to use something will less control and options. That's simply truth.
again, it may not be true for every grandma in the world, but a majority of them (that are not bedridden / incapacitated etc), I think so.
I have about a dozen grandmas in my neighborhood that are all physically and mentally doing very well. They don't need walkers or wheelchairs. some still work, some run businesses. They garden, the go out. Every single one of them can wield a shovel or a firearm if need be.
Sadly there is advice out there that puts them in more danger in a similar way that you describe with yours - I've heard popular advice repeated like 'you need a revolver that don't jam' - best thing is 'a double barrel 12 ga shotgun' - quite frankly I think that is terrible advice for most of them.
For many with the kind of physical limitations in our area, something like a GSG-16 .22 , a Mossberg 715 Pistol .22 , even a Walther Arms Uzi Tactical Rifle Semi-Auto .22 - these things would be easier to use, less fear of recoil, easier to keep on target of bad guys and less chance of inuring self, or bystanders / neighbors..
yet some of the GC ideas would limit access to exactly these kinds of safer features all in the name fear mongering 'military assault accessories' -
the grandma next door would be less safe being forced not to have access to these options and instead forced to use something will less control and options. That's simply truth.
again, it may not be true for every grandma in the world, but a majority of them (that are not bedridden / incapacitated etc), I think so.
a mag full of 22 win mag is not really 'serious firepower' - I mean it is, but I think people would consider like a SCAR or M60 to be serious - and lots of people chuckle at someone using '22'...
I think it depends on where you live, and how valuable you are in terms of theft and attractiveness.
For examples - the super rich in Miami probably need more security than the richer in Beverly Hills. If you are attractive / sexy in Miami you are probably not more in danger than if you are that sexy in like St Louis or Newark NJ / Detriot.
There was a country girl in the news a couple years back, she was young and very pretty. The whole town knew her husband had died / had a funeral - a couple weeks later she needed firearms to stop bad things happening at her house.
I've been in Nashville (TN) and the suburbs of it for many years, and I will say that you won't need weapons everyday, but the crime, especially with violent younger people is increasing at a rate that is kind of shocking. We have multiple armed robberies all around us. Last week someone put a knife to a convenience store customer;s throat in order to rob the gas station.
People and places are being robbed left and right around here these days - and many of them get extra violent without reason. Some have been caught on door cams lately. With the 'gentrification' that certain places are bringing - it's not going to get any better.
I spent more than a decade working the nightshift downtown. It was during those times it became clear to me, when you need help, if you have time to call the cops - it will take a long time for them to get to you.
My neighbor who is grandma age has had her house attempted to be broken into multiple times throughout the years. Partially because it is off the main road enough to be secluded for privacy in attacks.
People around her are busting into cars, jacking mail from mailboxes a lot.. that is not usually violent, but when you catch these people doing these things, sometimes they pop off with all kinds of crazy, sometimes with stolen guns.
I don't know what it's like in the part of the world you are in, but around here it's not everyday you in the thick of it - not like SE DC was in the 80s.. but everyday there is lots of crime all around us (like within a 1/2 mile and lots within 5 miles) - it's just a matter of time before you are in a normal place at a bad time.
Hopefully you can run / drive away and maybe just use a pepper spray and whistle.. but the criminals around here have really stepped up the violence and guns the past few years. There are signs it's getting worse. I would suggest the possible need for weaponry during the daylight hours is much more often now than it was a decade ago I'd say only those who worked at night needed to really be extra aware of surroundings and such.
I think it depends on where you live, and how valuable you are in terms of theft and attractiveness.
For examples - the super rich in Miami probably need more security than the richer in Beverly Hills. If you are attractive / sexy in Miami you are probably not more in danger than if you are that sexy in like St Louis or Newark NJ / Detriot.
There was a country girl in the news a couple years back, she was young and very pretty. The whole town knew her husband had died / had a funeral - a couple weeks later she needed firearms to stop bad things happening at her house.
I've been in Nashville (TN) and the suburbs of it for many years, and I will say that you won't need weapons everyday, but the crime, especially with violent younger people is increasing at a rate that is kind of shocking. We have multiple armed robberies all around us. Last week someone put a knife to a convenience store customer;s throat in order to rob the gas station.
People and places are being robbed left and right around here these days - and many of them get extra violent without reason. Some have been caught on door cams lately. With the 'gentrification' that certain places are bringing - it's not going to get any better.
I spent more than a decade working the nightshift downtown. It was during those times it became clear to me, when you need help, if you have time to call the cops - it will take a long time for them to get to you.
My neighbor who is grandma age has had her house attempted to be broken into multiple times throughout the years. Partially because it is off the main road enough to be secluded for privacy in attacks.
People around her are busting into cars, jacking mail from mailboxes a lot.. that is not usually violent, but when you catch these people doing these things, sometimes they pop off with all kinds of crazy, sometimes with stolen guns.
I don't know what it's like in the part of the world you are in, but around here it's not everyday you in the thick of it - not like SE DC was in the 80s.. but everyday there is lots of crime all around us (like within a 1/2 mile and lots within 5 miles) - it's just a matter of time before you are in a normal place at a bad time.
Hopefully you can run / drive away and maybe just use a pepper spray and whistle.. but the criminals around here have really stepped up the violence and guns the past few years. There are signs it's getting worse. I would suggest the possible need for weaponry during the daylight hours is much more often now than it was a decade ago I'd say only those who worked at night needed to really be extra aware of surroundings and such.
lots of people chuckle at someone using '22'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ron...
I had not known that, appreciate the reference. Indeed I think a 22 or 22 win mag is probably good for most grandma situations - it could certainly stop a couple of bad guys that are not wearing plate armor.. easy to control recoil, so they won't be afraid of it going off, and they can focus on sending multiple rounds towards targets to stop them.
From what I've seen in the news and videos most of violent criminals around here have been tshirts and hoodies, generally 1 -4 people, although the group of kids that took a musician out recently over a van I think was 5 maybe 6 at once. 30 rounds of 22 would be better than trying to swat them with a heavy purse.
If your threat was high value target, or some kind of state entity, I would not count on a 22 to be the best choice. Some people have suggested winter coats and layers of cloth can impede a 22, maybe if it's hollow.. for grandmas in Minnesota and such I'd probably suggest training with and getting used to something that can run critical duty or critical defense ammo through it instead maybe.
Most of my older neighbors would do well with any low recoil round if the platform was easy to handle.
Which is one reason this assault style banning talk bothers me so much. It literally makes them more dangerous and puts them in more danger by regulation, which is not silly.
It gives the strong criminals an advantage and the weaker citizens a disadvantage in life threatening situations.
again, not an expert, doctor, lawyer, etc.. just been doing some research and trying to share some things I have found that may be surprising for those who have not. There is certainly more to know, ymmv.
From what I've seen in the news and videos most of violent criminals around here have been tshirts and hoodies, generally 1 -4 people, although the group of kids that took a musician out recently over a van I think was 5 maybe 6 at once. 30 rounds of 22 would be better than trying to swat them with a heavy purse.
If your threat was high value target, or some kind of state entity, I would not count on a 22 to be the best choice. Some people have suggested winter coats and layers of cloth can impede a 22, maybe if it's hollow.. for grandmas in Minnesota and such I'd probably suggest training with and getting used to something that can run critical duty or critical defense ammo through it instead maybe.
Most of my older neighbors would do well with any low recoil round if the platform was easy to handle.
Which is one reason this assault style banning talk bothers me so much. It literally makes them more dangerous and puts them in more danger by regulation, which is not silly.
It gives the strong criminals an advantage and the weaker citizens a disadvantage in life threatening situations.
again, not an expert, doctor, lawyer, etc.. just been doing some research and trying to share some things I have found that may be surprising for those who have not. There is certainly more to know, ymmv.
An "M16" shoots a 22 caliber bullet. Its called a 223, but its a 22 caliber diameter bullet.
What's the plan for when grandma develops dementia? The paranoia will make her unwilling to part with her beloved firearm...do we just wait until she murders a family member or home health aid?
That seems like a much more important question than bickering over precisely which firearm grandma should have as she slides into dementia.
https://khn.org/news/dementia-and-gun-safety-when-should-agi...
That seems like a much more important question than bickering over precisely which firearm grandma should have as she slides into dementia.
https://khn.org/news/dementia-and-gun-safety-when-should-agi...
I agree we need more plans for dementia, Alzheimer's and similar mental and physical defunks.. with guns and other rights as well.
There will likely come a point when people need to step in and take control of elderly people's finances, weapons, other possession, choices for nutrition and healthcare, all that.
There are people at many ages that are stripped of their rights for different reasons. I hope the world exposes more of these concerns. I recently helped with a site for exposing some people who used the law for taking over people's stuff - family pushed through a busy judge, took over her house and bank accounts, made her broke after a couple years then disappeared. She was left to the state to care for with no money, no house, everything - and she was quite capable of planning her future and retirement, but it was all taken.
I think there are many people who have had rights taken from them in unfair ways. In same cases states are moving to restore voting and gun rights who have served their time and such.
At the same time we need more tests for proving that people are mentally and physically fit enough to wield weapons, cars, and other things safely.
In some of those cases it may make sense to have special teams show elderly people how to use different weapons and different cars should the need arise. In other cases it could be deemed that they should not drive or try to defend themselves.
I'd like to think our society will take care of these older people so they never need to worry about transportation or fighting. We need to make a lot of changes for the future if this is to be however. Right now our society is set to leave a lot of old people to languish without good care and safety - and most just look the other way as they suffer.
There will likely come a point when people need to step in and take control of elderly people's finances, weapons, other possession, choices for nutrition and healthcare, all that.
There are people at many ages that are stripped of their rights for different reasons. I hope the world exposes more of these concerns. I recently helped with a site for exposing some people who used the law for taking over people's stuff - family pushed through a busy judge, took over her house and bank accounts, made her broke after a couple years then disappeared. She was left to the state to care for with no money, no house, everything - and she was quite capable of planning her future and retirement, but it was all taken.
I think there are many people who have had rights taken from them in unfair ways. In same cases states are moving to restore voting and gun rights who have served their time and such.
At the same time we need more tests for proving that people are mentally and physically fit enough to wield weapons, cars, and other things safely.
In some of those cases it may make sense to have special teams show elderly people how to use different weapons and different cars should the need arise. In other cases it could be deemed that they should not drive or try to defend themselves.
I'd like to think our society will take care of these older people so they never need to worry about transportation or fighting. We need to make a lot of changes for the future if this is to be however. Right now our society is set to leave a lot of old people to languish without good care and safety - and most just look the other way as they suffer.
>probably because of the popularity of hand guns.
I think it's more that most of those advocating for these rifle bans have limited or no experience with any firearm, let a lone rifles. Most of these things just look scary to people who are unfamiliar with them, even though they'd be functionally equivalent to rifles with wooden stocks and wooden foregrips.
Edit: clarifying word
I think it's more that most of those advocating for these rifle bans have limited or no experience with any firearm, let a lone rifles. Most of these things just look scary to people who are unfamiliar with them, even though they'd be functionally equivalent to rifles with wooden stocks and wooden foregrips.
Edit: clarifying word
Agreed. A 9 MM rifle vs a 9 MM pistol both semiautomatic the main difference is accuracy and thats due to barrel length. You wont magically get bullets out faster.
I feel like anybody wanting to pass gun laws in congress should take basic firearms courses. It takes a lot for me to be in the range as a newcomer and just shoot. I am convinced the issue isnt guns its the culture / mental state of the person with the gun.
Worse yet you are disarming people who had a better chance against criminals who have access to worse weapons and will likely go for those.
I feel like anybody wanting to pass gun laws in congress should take basic firearms courses. It takes a lot for me to be in the range as a newcomer and just shoot. I am convinced the issue isnt guns its the culture / mental state of the person with the gun.
Worse yet you are disarming people who had a better chance against criminals who have access to worse weapons and will likely go for those.
This is literally untrue. 9mm ammo comes out of a longer barrel at higher velocity than out of a shorter.
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
Velocity isn't really what you care about though. I understand the point you're trying to make, but that table really points out that the type of the round you're using has a greater effect on velocity than the barrel length itself. The linked muzzle energy plot, which is what you really care about, shows this quite well, where we stay fairly stable for all tested rounds and fall off significantly at barrel lengths shorter than 7".
Muzzle energy is defined as the bullet's kinetic energy upon exit, which is proportional to the square of velocity, which means barrel length necessarily affects muzzle energy more than muzzle velocity.
From quick Google searches, 9mm pistol barrels are around 4-5 inches long, 9mm rifles around 16". This has a major impact on muzzle velocity, and an even greater impact on muzzle energy.
From quick Google searches, 9mm pistol barrels are around 4-5 inches long, 9mm rifles around 16". This has a major impact on muzzle velocity, and an even greater impact on muzzle energy.
But it's still reliant on trigger pull. How quickly you shoot rounds is roughly similar, depending on the reset trigger of the gun. In some cases you get more rounds out quicker from a pistol, they might not have the same velocity or accuracy however.
Edit: In other words I'm talking about rate of bullets fired per second, and not how fast they leave the clip / magazine which is what you're talking about.
Edit: In other words I'm talking about rate of bullets fired per second, and not how fast they leave the clip / magazine which is what you're talking about.
It’s a common contention of the gun advocacy community that it’s ignorance that drives awb, but that flies in the face of the evidence that veterans are disproportionately represented in elected officials, police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation & its a subject that is easily researchable.
I think it’s more likely that the people who are politically motivated around this issue represent the extremes and that leads to weird compromises.
I think it’s more likely that the people who are politically motivated around this issue represent the extremes and that leads to weird compromises.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. Veterans generally don't support more gun control (I am one), but you're right that political motivations can cause weird bedfellows. Anyway, I wasn't really talking about politicians as it were ... more the general public.
Right. The point that gets missed is that the contention is often less about the nuances of any particular firearm's capabilities and more about the common intentions of their use. EVERY gun is violent in the hands of someone trying to commit violence. Yet, mass shooters (who kill people in a particularly cruel manner, randomly, and that which is difficult for the average person to guard against) gravitate to assault rifles, for whatever reason. So people want them banned. Will that stop mass killings, from a functional perspective? Probably not. But it does remove a step in the psychic progression from normalcy to a massacre. Since the whole problem is a dysfunction of our collective processing of the lives we face, maybe the disruption to that flow a ban would represent is enough. Some say we're afraid of the big scary rifle; I say, sure, and a mass shooter feels empowered by it.
As an addendum, I have to imagine that GRAs enjoy this debate, because as long as we're stuck on it, we don't have to talk about how access to handguns increases the successful suicide attempt rate.
As an addendum, I have to imagine that GRAs enjoy this debate, because as long as we're stuck on it, we don't have to talk about how access to handguns increases the successful suicide attempt rate.
mass shooters... gravitate to assault rifles
We have different definitions of mass shooters. I assume you advocate strongly, with great investments of time, energy, and money, to alleviate the ones I would say you're including erroneously, yes?
Slick reply, but a mocking, obsequious attempt to brush the definitions aside changes nothing: the parent comment is correct.
> We have different definitions of mass shooters.
You're almost certainly talking about high profile shooting incidents with broad media coverage, that drive what is essentially a moral panic.
Parent comment is referring to incidents where 3+ people get shot, which often do not make the national and international media, and are predominately carried out with handguns.
The shootings last August that got a lot of attention are a great example. Couple of back-to-back mass shooting incidents in TX and Ohio got a lot of press... even though just the week before something like 34 people got shot in Chicago over the course of 2 days; hardly a word in the press outside of Chi-town.
> We have different definitions of mass shooters.
You're almost certainly talking about high profile shooting incidents with broad media coverage, that drive what is essentially a moral panic.
Parent comment is referring to incidents where 3+ people get shot, which often do not make the national and international media, and are predominately carried out with handguns.
The shootings last August that got a lot of attention are a great example. Couple of back-to-back mass shooting incidents in TX and Ohio got a lot of press... even though just the week before something like 34 people got shot in Chicago over the course of 2 days; hardly a word in the press outside of Chi-town.
You're mistaken, as I was simply trying to draw attention to the fact that the motivations, and therefore salves, for a) a mass shooter who enters a soft target and kills strangers indiscriminately, and b) a "mass shooter" who knows his target and catches innocents in the crossfire, differ substantially.
You group the two in order to dilute the focus of anti-gun violence advocacy, but you're given away by how little you care about instances of the latter definition otherwise. If "mental healthcare" is your panacea, it won't help non-suicide handgun violence. You know that, and I know that, and it's then perplexing why you would think we wouldn't notice.
You group the two in order to dilute the focus of anti-gun violence advocacy, but you're given away by how little you care about instances of the latter definition otherwise. If "mental healthcare" is your panacea, it won't help non-suicide handgun violence. You know that, and I know that, and it's then perplexing why you would think we wouldn't notice.
when "police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation" - they could have their own protection interest in mind more than yours.
When they choose to carry 'high capacity magazines', SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) - and other weaponry, it is understood these things help them be safer...
If grandma is not allowed to be safer because random bad guy - you have to wonder, or should maybe.
When they choose to carry 'high capacity magazines', SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) - and other weaponry, it is understood these things help them be safer...
If grandma is not allowed to be safer because random bad guy - you have to wonder, or should maybe.
> SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo)
It's not that bad.
The easy way is to find an SBR you want to buy, file Form 4 for $200, wait for a few months, then take receipt of your NFA item.
Or if you want to do a conversion from an existing rifle, file Form 1 (also $200) and get short barrel. The disadvantage is that you've then created an NFA weapon, so you'd have to be more careful how you handle transfer and sale.
If you don't want an NFA SBR, well, AR-15s can be pistols. Pistols can be short. Pistols can't have buttstocks, but there are legal products that are not "intended" to be used as stocks. They happen to look just like a stock, but they're totally intended to be used as an arm brace. If you do use one as a buttstock, that's not how it was intended to be used, but it is legal to do so. This approach is so popular that ATF has issued letters saying it's not illegal.
Here's most of what you need to know: http://preparedgunowners.com/2017/04/27/atf-reverses-opinion...
It's not mentioned in the article, but pistols cannot have a forward grip, as that would make them "Any Other Weapon", which is NFA. If you have a forward grip but don't have the tax stamp, you'll go to prison. Keep in mind you can start down the AR-15 pistol route, then later get your Form 1 tax stamp to convert it into a rifle by attaching a stock.
This is all quite ridiculous, but that's the law.
It's not that bad.
The easy way is to find an SBR you want to buy, file Form 4 for $200, wait for a few months, then take receipt of your NFA item.
Or if you want to do a conversion from an existing rifle, file Form 1 (also $200) and get short barrel. The disadvantage is that you've then created an NFA weapon, so you'd have to be more careful how you handle transfer and sale.
If you don't want an NFA SBR, well, AR-15s can be pistols. Pistols can be short. Pistols can't have buttstocks, but there are legal products that are not "intended" to be used as stocks. They happen to look just like a stock, but they're totally intended to be used as an arm brace. If you do use one as a buttstock, that's not how it was intended to be used, but it is legal to do so. This approach is so popular that ATF has issued letters saying it's not illegal.
Here's most of what you need to know: http://preparedgunowners.com/2017/04/27/atf-reverses-opinion...
It's not mentioned in the article, but pistols cannot have a forward grip, as that would make them "Any Other Weapon", which is NFA. If you have a forward grip but don't have the tax stamp, you'll go to prison. Keep in mind you can start down the AR-15 pistol route, then later get your Form 1 tax stamp to convert it into a rifle by attaching a stock.
This is all quite ridiculous, but that's the law.
> If you have a forward grip but don't have the tax stamp, you'll go to prison.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this applies even if the grip isn't attached, or is attached to another gun. All depends on how friendly the ATF is feeling...
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this applies even if the grip isn't attached, or is attached to another gun. All depends on how friendly the ATF is feeling...
Yeah, sometimes. There's an ATF concept called "constructive possession" which means if you have all the parts, you're in a legal grey area. If the ATF thinks you have the intent to assemble an unlawful weapon, and you have constructive possession, then you might be a criminal.
I think it's unlikely (but possible) a case would be brought against you for just having the grip, and I'm not sure if that's ever actually happened. As opposed to if you had all the parts to make a machine gun, where there could only be one use for those parts.
Also interesting, drilling the extra hole in your AR-15 lower so that it could some day accept an auto-sear is a serious felony, even if you don't own the auto-sear.
I'm fascinated by how insane these rules are after I learned that I can't legally own or operate a firearm because I'm a medical marijuana user. If cannabis ever gets unscheduled, I'd like to build a little arsenal.
I think it's unlikely (but possible) a case would be brought against you for just having the grip, and I'm not sure if that's ever actually happened. As opposed to if you had all the parts to make a machine gun, where there could only be one use for those parts.
Also interesting, drilling the extra hole in your AR-15 lower so that it could some day accept an auto-sear is a serious felony, even if you don't own the auto-sear.
I'm fascinated by how insane these rules are after I learned that I can't legally own or operate a firearm because I'm a medical marijuana user. If cannabis ever gets unscheduled, I'd like to build a little arsenal.
Twice now “grandma” has been employed as a reason assault rifles should be legal. Come on, this has nothing to do with a fictional grandmother with a scopes rifle. It’s like some talking point gone awry.
I mentioned large capacity magazines, forward grips, and a red dot sight. Not 'scopes' - which could mean many things, but I believe are more often referring to 4x,10, 16, etc magnified scopes that are more often used for long range hunting..
My point was that some of the 'assault rifle bans' are trying to stop simple things like a grip addon, a collapsible stock, an over 10rd magazine - any one of those things could make the whole thing illegal..
and I would want grandma to have access to those things, all of them. It would make her, and her neighbors safer.
This is not fictional in any way shape or form.
Not too long ago a grandma near me went to take the shooting class with a 38 revolver.. it hurt her wrists after a few shots and everyone quickly realized she would not be able to perform the amount of firing to do the practice and the test with one.
If she had been given a police issue SBR MP5 with muzzle break, forward grip, collapsible stock, laser and red dot - she would be able to plink accurately all day long.
These things they want to ban are actually safety features - but people can't see that.
I may have to make a few grandma videos to show this maybe.
My point was that some of the 'assault rifle bans' are trying to stop simple things like a grip addon, a collapsible stock, an over 10rd magazine - any one of those things could make the whole thing illegal..
and I would want grandma to have access to those things, all of them. It would make her, and her neighbors safer.
This is not fictional in any way shape or form.
Not too long ago a grandma near me went to take the shooting class with a 38 revolver.. it hurt her wrists after a few shots and everyone quickly realized she would not be able to perform the amount of firing to do the practice and the test with one.
If she had been given a police issue SBR MP5 with muzzle break, forward grip, collapsible stock, laser and red dot - she would be able to plink accurately all day long.
These things they want to ban are actually safety features - but people can't see that.
I may have to make a few grandma videos to show this maybe.
ikt(2)
A scoped rifle? vs. assault rifle? I mean, sometimes these concepts are combined, but generally a modern military-style rifle has iron sights or at most a reflex sight.
I think your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding.
I think your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding.
Not only that, support for banning hand guns has collapsed: https://news.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun.... In 1959, 60% of people favored a handgun ban, to 36% opposed. By 2011 that had flipped to 73% opposed and just 26% in favor.
People focus on rifles, which are responsible for relatively few deaths, because banning handguns is wildly unpopular. (Heck Kamala Harris owns a handgun.)
People focus on rifles, which are responsible for relatively few deaths, because banning handguns is wildly unpopular. (Heck Kamala Harris owns a handgun.)
Rifles have none of the legitimate uses that gun advocates go on about so its a low reward but 0 loss situation to ban them.
Unless someone is proposing you need to defend your house against a zombie invasion.
Unless someone is proposing you need to defend your house against a zombie invasion.
? The majority of hunting is performed with rifles, though shotguns and pistols do have roles. This includes semi-automatic rifles.
A big fraction of serious marksmanship is done with rifles, including multiple formats that depend upon semi-automatic rifles.
There are many collectors of curios & relics of military and sporting history, which are overwhelmingly rifles.
My brother kills trapped raccoons on his property with a rifle instead of drowning them because he feels it is more humane.
There's a ton of legitimate sporting use, some defense use, and they are used much, much less in crime than handguns.
A big fraction of serious marksmanship is done with rifles, including multiple formats that depend upon semi-automatic rifles.
There are many collectors of curios & relics of military and sporting history, which are overwhelmingly rifles.
My brother kills trapped raccoons on his property with a rifle instead of drowning them because he feels it is more humane.
There's a ton of legitimate sporting use, some defense use, and they are used much, much less in crime than handguns.
Is this a super low effort troll?
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with finding food.
The tinfoil hat interpretation is that rifles are far more effective in both battlefield (full barrel) and urban warfare (carbines) than sidearms, and confiscating them removes the last chance any populace has against its own government. Such that it's in the interest of despotic regimes to do so.
Private ownership of battle rifles (c.f. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq insurgency) are pretty much the only (valid) defense against the "Lol you think you can fight a war against an adversary with drones and nukes?" argument.
Private ownership of battle rifles (c.f. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq insurgency) are pretty much the only (valid) defense against the "Lol you think you can fight a war against an adversary with drones and nukes?" argument.
> The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school.
I think the difference is gang shootings typically take place in rough neighborhoods. When you enter a high crime area you're aware of an elevated risk. Innocent bystanders do get killed but it's probably a much lower percentage than the gang members. As horrible as it is, gangs are somewhat consenting to this level of violence by initiating it.
Terrorism and mass shootings are horrific because they typically take place in previously safe areas and claim almost exclusively innocent bystanders.
If you have children in school, they now practice "Code Red" drills where they lock the classroom and hide to simulate an active shooter.
Wether your pro or anti-gun no one wants the reality we have now where kids grow up with this kind of fear.
While the number of deaths from terrorism are far lower, the fear is probably far higher because kids grow up thinking/knowing it could happen anywhere.
I think for this reason people focus more on these mass shootings and how to prevent them.
I think the difference is gang shootings typically take place in rough neighborhoods. When you enter a high crime area you're aware of an elevated risk. Innocent bystanders do get killed but it's probably a much lower percentage than the gang members. As horrible as it is, gangs are somewhat consenting to this level of violence by initiating it.
Terrorism and mass shootings are horrific because they typically take place in previously safe areas and claim almost exclusively innocent bystanders.
If you have children in school, they now practice "Code Red" drills where they lock the classroom and hide to simulate an active shooter.
Wether your pro or anti-gun no one wants the reality we have now where kids grow up with this kind of fear.
While the number of deaths from terrorism are far lower, the fear is probably far higher because kids grow up thinking/knowing it could happen anywhere.
I think for this reason people focus more on these mass shootings and how to prevent them.
>Wether your pro or anti-gun no one wants the reality we have now where kids grow up with this kind of fear.
The level of fear instilled into the population is wildly disconnected from the realities of risk and we've known this for decades. Whether it's the security theater at the airport, modern day duck-and-cover, or whatever the 6pm news is scaring old people with this week; the line of reasoning that goes something like "we taught people to fear risk X, the way to alleviate the fear is to reduce the likelihood of X" is the most asinine bullshit in the world.
The level of fear instilled into the population is wildly disconnected from the realities of risk and we've known this for decades. Whether it's the security theater at the airport, modern day duck-and-cover, or whatever the 6pm news is scaring old people with this week; the line of reasoning that goes something like "we taught people to fear risk X, the way to alleviate the fear is to reduce the likelihood of X" is the most asinine bullshit in the world.
Totally agree.
The way to alleviate the fear is through education and turning off the dramatic, need FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) to sell things, "news".
The way to alleviate the fear is through education and turning off the dramatic, need FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) to sell things, "news".
> "we taught people to fear risk X, the way to alleviate the fear is to reduce the likelihood of X" is the most asinine bullshit in the world.
The US was a scary place after 9/11. I'm sure a lot of money was wasted in domestic security that didn't do anything, but I'm glad we made an effort to reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attacks rather than just reinforcing how incredibly rare they are.
We can't stop terrorism or mass shootings but we should try to make it as difficult as possible even if they are rare events.
The US was a scary place after 9/11. I'm sure a lot of money was wasted in domestic security that didn't do anything, but I'm glad we made an effort to reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attacks rather than just reinforcing how incredibly rare they are.
We can't stop terrorism or mass shootings but we should try to make it as difficult as possible even if they are rare events.
The Post 9/11 security theater is not a good model to follow, and to compare your plans for gun control to that in any sort of positive association is a good reason for any person who has the slightest of care toward civil liberties to just flat out ignore you.
I'm not using it as a model of perfection, but rather saying at least we did something. Sure, it wasn't perfect and we could have done way better, but imagine if we had done nothing but told people how rare terrorist attacks are each time they happened. There's a ton of room in between those two extremes to try to make a positive change.
> As horrible as it is, gangs are somewhat consenting to this level of violence by initiating it.
I'm going to preface this by saying I have no opinion on gun control.
Gang members don't live in neighborhoods inhabited exclusively by other gang members (I doubt they make up the majority in any neighborhood). The people who live in these neighborhoods never consented to this, and it's much harder for them to move than to avoid public areas so imho gang violence is just as bad if not worst than any other type of shooting.
I'm going to preface this by saying I have no opinion on gun control.
Gang members don't live in neighborhoods inhabited exclusively by other gang members (I doubt they make up the majority in any neighborhood). The people who live in these neighborhoods never consented to this, and it's much harder for them to move than to avoid public areas so imho gang violence is just as bad if not worst than any other type of shooting.
One thing I don't get is Mother Jones excludes shootings that result from domestic violence, drug deals and gang activity.
Probably because those shootings are probably in high gun control areas like Chicago, NJ, CA where laws are strictest, so it shows that gun control doesn't really work to stop those, and those deaths are usually the result overwhelmingly of handguns, not AR-15's or "assault style rifles" which are just semi-automatic rifles that look militaristic and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. In this case, the numbers don't help their agenda.
The most effective forms of gun control should be focused on guns used in the majority of crime, which are handguns, but that's not the discussion that's being had because the gun debate is media driven, which is centered around mass shootings (greater shock factor, better ratings), which statistically are the rarest and of least concern by numbers (I think gun death/homicides by rifle < 300 even including mass shootings). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
AR-15s are also very popular because they're a platform you can take an AR-15 lower, and or buy a cheap one and build up slowly over time until you have a very nice and accurate rifle. They look militaristic because their metal exterior but when people say they're identical functionally to hunting rifles, they're not lying when it comes to the part that handles firing the bullet.
I'll also leave people with this: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1138520780042465280
The most effective forms of gun control should be focused on guns used in the majority of crime, which are handguns, but that's not the discussion that's being had because the gun debate is media driven, which is centered around mass shootings (greater shock factor, better ratings), which statistically are the rarest and of least concern by numbers (I think gun death/homicides by rifle < 300 even including mass shootings). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
AR-15s are also very popular because they're a platform you can take an AR-15 lower, and or buy a cheap one and build up slowly over time until you have a very nice and accurate rifle. They look militaristic because their metal exterior but when people say they're identical functionally to hunting rifles, they're not lying when it comes to the part that handles firing the bullet.
I'll also leave people with this: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1138520780042465280
I'm really tired of this argument that people are irrationally afraid of black rifles and simply don't understand the machines they're purporting to regulate. These are devices that were designed to be field stripped by 18 year olds in a jungle. They're not that complicated.
The Mini-14 (for example) has a wooden stock, and looks like something out of Little House On The Prairie, in part because it was brought to market at a time where the M-16, a descendant of the Stoner AR-15 design, had acquired a reputation for dreadful unreliability. In an urban environment, it's just as problematic as an AR-15; what's your point?
Another almost perfectly unhelpful argument is the irrationality of assault weapons bans. This is the Nelson Muntz of firearms regulations argument. The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine. It was the 2A crowd, and particularly the NRA, that fought off gun control advocates to the absurd position they occupy now. It's not some article of faith among gun control advocates that grips and barrel shrouds are actually important. The NRA is the reason we ended up here, and now they're telling us to stop hitting ourselves.
Also, another example of a firearm with a wood stock? The AK-47.
The Mini-14 (for example) has a wooden stock, and looks like something out of Little House On The Prairie, in part because it was brought to market at a time where the M-16, a descendant of the Stoner AR-15 design, had acquired a reputation for dreadful unreliability. In an urban environment, it's just as problematic as an AR-15; what's your point?
Another almost perfectly unhelpful argument is the irrationality of assault weapons bans. This is the Nelson Muntz of firearms regulations argument. The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine. It was the 2A crowd, and particularly the NRA, that fought off gun control advocates to the absurd position they occupy now. It's not some article of faith among gun control advocates that grips and barrel shrouds are actually important. The NRA is the reason we ended up here, and now they're telling us to stop hitting ourselves.
Also, another example of a firearm with a wood stock? The AK-47.
> The Mini-14 (for example) has a wooden stock, and looks like something out of Little House On The Prairie, in part because it was brought to market at a time where the M-16, a descendant of the Stoner AR-15 design, had acquired a reputation for dreadful unreliability. In an urban environment, it's just as problematic as an AR-15; what's your point?
That you don't see pictures of the Mini-14 on the evening news as an exemplar of something to be prohibited when they're trying to drum up support for new laws.
> The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine.
Which is to say the significant majority of all rifles. So straight forward but not sane, because it would be enormous overreach rather than anything that could actually pass or survive judicial review.
But then the compromise is inherently ridiculous because there is no meaningful distinction to be made between an ordinary hunting rifle and a "military" rifle, and instead of accepting that they proceeded to insist on meaningless distinctions.
That you don't see pictures of the Mini-14 on the evening news as an exemplar of something to be prohibited when they're trying to drum up support for new laws.
> The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine.
Which is to say the significant majority of all rifles. So straight forward but not sane, because it would be enormous overreach rather than anything that could actually pass or survive judicial review.
But then the compromise is inherently ridiculous because there is no meaningful distinction to be made between an ordinary hunting rifle and a "military" rifle, and instead of accepting that they proceeded to insist on meaningless distinctions.
> Which is to say the significant majority of all rifles. So straight forward but not sane, because it would be enormous overreach rather than anything that could actually pass or survive judicial review.
I'm amused that this is an actual argument. "We're not idiots who don't understand guns, if we had our way we would have had a ban for an overreaching category of firearms!"
I'm amused that this is an actual argument. "We're not idiots who don't understand guns, if we had our way we would have had a ban for an overreaching category of firearms!"
It's easy to win arguments when you make them up yourself to knock down. That comment is responding to and inaccurately paraphrasing me. I'm right here. I suggest you rebut something I actually said.
Not inaccurate:
> The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine.
> The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine.
It's interesting to see you write as if the very words in your quotation aren't there to compare with how you paraphrased them. A bold choice!
Being truthful is not bold. Or maybe it is from your standpoint.
If you don't think that the category of semiautomatic longguns that have detachable magazines is not overreaching, then more power to you. Sorry, I mean bless your heart as they might say in the South.
If you don't think that the category of semiautomatic longguns that have detachable magazines is not overreaching, then more power to you. Sorry, I mean bless your heart as they might say in the South.
> This is the Nelson Muntz of firearms regulations argument. The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine. It was the 2A crowd, and particularly the NRA, that fought off gun control advocates to the absurd position they occupy now.
This is a fair point. I think people underestimate the degree to which 2A advocates are playing from a position of strength. People here in Maryland probably don’t know that semi-automatic rifles remain completely legal notwithstanding the 2013 “ban.”
That raises the question though: presumably, gun control advocates were maneuvered onto this hard-to-defend ground be for reasons. Presumably, nobody could gin up enough support to take away semi-automatic hunting rifles from Minnesota Democrats.
This is a fair point. I think people underestimate the degree to which 2A advocates are playing from a position of strength. People here in Maryland probably don’t know that semi-automatic rifles remain completely legal notwithstanding the 2013 “ban.”
That raises the question though: presumably, gun control advocates were maneuvered onto this hard-to-defend ground be for reasons. Presumably, nobody could gin up enough support to take away semi-automatic hunting rifles from Minnesota Democrats.
I think a federal ban on semi-automatic rifles is a ridiculous, overreaching, and counterproductive goal. Hunters in Minnesota already require licenses; should Minnesota choose, those licenses should suffice to ensure access to semi-automatic rifles. I don't care what color those rifles are, but Minnesota might care about their magazine sizes. Montana might opt out of firearms regulation entirely; that also seems like a perfectly cromulent experiment to run in the laboratories of democracy.
> The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine.
The last time I saw you in a discussion like this, I asked you for a source and all you could give me was a draft bill with a few guns banned by name. No general ban on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. I think you're wrong on this. You should stop repeating this unless you can back it up.
The last time I saw you in a discussion like this, I asked you for a source and all you could give me was a draft bill with a few guns banned by name. No general ban on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. I think you're wrong on this. You should stop repeating this unless you can back it up.
I appreciate the attempt at a mic-drop here, but I actually responded to your comment with a link to a bill that was not merely "a few guns banned by name". Maybe you missed it; my response came a day or two after you wrote your comment. I'll hold on to my argument, thanks.
This is what you linked to:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/386...
Were you thinking of something else? Because I really don't see how it supports your argument.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/386...
Were you thinking of something else? Because I really don't see how it supports your argument.
You've just linked to a bill that effectively allows the attorney general to designate any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine an "assault weapon". There's not a barrel shroud to be found in it.
It's an I-Know-It-When-I-See-It standard that would not have survived legal challenge with carveouts for Jimmy's squirrel rifle and grandpappy's hunting rifle. Sure, it's not feature tests, but it's not any more rational. If the intent was to ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, that law does not do that. If you believe that this law is "sane and straightforward," what rational basis is there for banning some semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines while leaving others available at the whim of the Attorney General?
I was going to type out a rebuttal to this, because I think you're mischaracterizing a straightforward and somewhat technical proposal. But I realize that's besides the point. You don't like this proposal, which is fine. But you had no footing to make the argument that it didn't exist at all, or that it didn't back up my argument. Concede that, and I'm happy to keep discussing.
I wouldn't like proposals that banned semiautomatic weapons with detachable or high capacity fixed magazines, either, but I'd concede that such proposals make a rational distinction in potentially dangerous functionality. My problem specifically with this proposal as well as subsequent ones that include feature tests and the like is that they fail to make any rational distinction.
You're entitled to your opinion that the bill in question is a "sane and straightforward" approach in contrast to subsequent proposals that aren't because of irrational feature tests. I just don't think that's a defensible one. Giving the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury wide latitude to say "this semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine is ok but this other one isn't" is just as arbitrary as later feature tests. And if anything, this proposal is worse public policy: one administration could add every eligible semi-automatic rifle to the list and the next one could make the list empty.
Either ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines or don't. Maybe exempt rimfire from any ban or don't. If there's a rational distinction beyond that to be made, make it.
You're entitled to your opinion that the bill in question is a "sane and straightforward" approach in contrast to subsequent proposals that aren't because of irrational feature tests. I just don't think that's a defensible one. Giving the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury wide latitude to say "this semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine is ok but this other one isn't" is just as arbitrary as later feature tests. And if anything, this proposal is worse public policy: one administration could add every eligible semi-automatic rifle to the list and the next one could make the list empty.
Either ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines or don't. Maybe exempt rimfire from any ban or don't. If there's a rational distinction beyond that to be made, make it.
Instead of replying with a bunch of counter arguments to some random person on HN, why don't you make a proposal?
What is your idea? How should guns be regulated in America.
I'm fucking tired of this same "we need to do something" argument all the time, with nobody ever actually saying anything at all.
Like no shit, something should be done.
You got a idea? What is it?
What is your idea? How should guns be regulated in America.
I'm fucking tired of this same "we need to do something" argument all the time, with nobody ever actually saying anything at all.
Like no shit, something should be done.
You got a idea? What is it?
I don't know why you think this would be difficult to respond to. Obviously, I think that states should be allowed to enact and administer laws that require licensure for possession of semi-automatic long guns.
Ultimately, you are agruing for DRM. Note that the State Separtment is _still_ (after the court loss) trying to claim ITAR on firearm CAD's.
Our ability to print guns will only improve. Hand waving it away as something you dont think matters wont change it.
Our ability to print guns will only improve. Hand waving it away as something you dont think matters wont change it.
Our ability to print everything will only improve. If you're an an-cap, there's a coherent argument to be made here, but if not, your argument proves too much.
You are arguing for two classes of people; those with access to general purpose computing, and those without.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
An AK-47 is a fully automatic rifle.
People argue AR-15 are "fully semi-automatic rifles" which is an oxymoron or "assault style" or that AR stands for "assault rifle". This is the level of ignorance and misinformation in the debate I'm addressing.
An Assault or Automatic rifle can fire multiple round bursts and an AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon (like a standard Glock pistol). You conflate it with an M-16, just like every other ignorant person. An M-16 fires multi round bursts, an AR-15 is single trigger pull, single bullet fire, just like any other rifle a citizen can legally purchase without a special license including the wood stock hunting rifle with a scope that hunters would use to drop a large buck, bear, or boar (which are often larger caliber in those cases). AR-15's are heavily modifiable, easy to repair, reliable, and use the same 5.56 NATO ammo so the ammo is cheap and can be bought surplus. If they were in anyway similar to an M-16 in anyway that mattered (meaning they can fire multiple bullets in a single trigger pull), you'd get a nice raid from the ATF. The AR-15, just like a semi-automatic pistol or hunting rifle requires you to pull the trigger again for each bullet you want to fire. The argument here singling out this gun because its popular with everyone, including crazy people doesn't make a bit of difference in making anyone safe if someone buys another semi-automatic rifle and does the same thing, or just carries two pistols (as was the case at VA Tech).
Again, these are laws nitpicking over a gun that is a rifle, when rifles account for < 4% of gun deaths in a country where gun violence isn't the major cause of death and stabbings/homicide and mass murders and bombings and shootings are still massive problems in other western countries with outright gun bans. It's not a rational application of our time and attention for the best effect and preventing unwanted death and homicide. Your argument is driven by media sensationalism, that is profit and ratings driven, real gun policy requires dealing with the boring every day pistol and criminal violence, and the underlying causes of violence and crime. The people saying no one needs guns have armed guards and security personnel and can afford to live in very safe upper crust neighborhoods or regions like Martha's Vineyard or in penthouses with door men, or gated communities. They live in San Francisco, not Oakland, they live in NYC or downtown Manhattan, not Camden, NJ. They can walk to a police station, they're not 30 minutes drive from the local county sheriff. It's the height of privileged people dictating policy for an environment they're isolated and protected themselves from. It's okay if they ban guns because it doesn't truly effect them in any meaningful way. Unless they're on the receiving end like the HK government, in which case its probably best for you you keep the average citizen disarmed.
People argue AR-15 are "fully semi-automatic rifles" which is an oxymoron or "assault style" or that AR stands for "assault rifle". This is the level of ignorance and misinformation in the debate I'm addressing.
An Assault or Automatic rifle can fire multiple round bursts and an AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon (like a standard Glock pistol). You conflate it with an M-16, just like every other ignorant person. An M-16 fires multi round bursts, an AR-15 is single trigger pull, single bullet fire, just like any other rifle a citizen can legally purchase without a special license including the wood stock hunting rifle with a scope that hunters would use to drop a large buck, bear, or boar (which are often larger caliber in those cases). AR-15's are heavily modifiable, easy to repair, reliable, and use the same 5.56 NATO ammo so the ammo is cheap and can be bought surplus. If they were in anyway similar to an M-16 in anyway that mattered (meaning they can fire multiple bullets in a single trigger pull), you'd get a nice raid from the ATF. The AR-15, just like a semi-automatic pistol or hunting rifle requires you to pull the trigger again for each bullet you want to fire. The argument here singling out this gun because its popular with everyone, including crazy people doesn't make a bit of difference in making anyone safe if someone buys another semi-automatic rifle and does the same thing, or just carries two pistols (as was the case at VA Tech).
Again, these are laws nitpicking over a gun that is a rifle, when rifles account for < 4% of gun deaths in a country where gun violence isn't the major cause of death and stabbings/homicide and mass murders and bombings and shootings are still massive problems in other western countries with outright gun bans. It's not a rational application of our time and attention for the best effect and preventing unwanted death and homicide. Your argument is driven by media sensationalism, that is profit and ratings driven, real gun policy requires dealing with the boring every day pistol and criminal violence, and the underlying causes of violence and crime. The people saying no one needs guns have armed guards and security personnel and can afford to live in very safe upper crust neighborhoods or regions like Martha's Vineyard or in penthouses with door men, or gated communities. They live in San Francisco, not Oakland, they live in NYC or downtown Manhattan, not Camden, NJ. They can walk to a police station, they're not 30 minutes drive from the local county sheriff. It's the height of privileged people dictating policy for an environment they're isolated and protected themselves from. It's okay if they ban guns because it doesn't truly effect them in any meaningful way. Unless they're on the receiving end like the HK government, in which case its probably best for you you keep the average citizen disarmed.
Erm, the post your responding to distinguishes, correctly between an ar-15 and m-16. You're attempting to correct someone who, by all accounts, appears to know more about firearms than you do.
It's also simply false that the only differentiating factor of "danger" to a weapon is whether or not it is semi or fully automatic. If an ar-15 were no more dangerous than a Glock pistol, you wouldn't need an ar-15 to defend from the onslaught of wild hogs.
Or in other words: pick one, either at style rifles are superior for self defense, or they're non more dangerous than a pistol. You can't have it both ways.
It's also simply false that the only differentiating factor of "danger" to a weapon is whether or not it is semi or fully automatic. If an ar-15 were no more dangerous than a Glock pistol, you wouldn't need an ar-15 to defend from the onslaught of wild hogs.
Or in other words: pick one, either at style rifles are superior for self defense, or they're non more dangerous than a pistol. You can't have it both ways.
He doesn't tho, he compares an AR-15 to an AK-47 and says an AR-15 is designed to broken down in the jungle (that's the M-16, which was what was used in Vietnam, they conflated the two, trying to disingenuously frame AR-15's as a war weapon used by the military).
Rifles are superior for self defense at a distance. So in the "wild hog" scenario, best to pick them off from a tree, or before they get close. In a more realistic case, shooting someone coming at you from across your yard (especially if you have a large yard or live close to wilderness). But if wild hogs aren't your concern, but assailants coming across your yard that are armed: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/homeowner-shoots-kills-men-...
Any closer than that you're probably better off with a shot gun for home defense, unless...you're defense needs are different or you're concerned about multiple assailants, which case a pistol might be better.
Pistols are more apt for shooting and more easily handled in a close quarter environment, where accuracy isn't difficult to achieve and you need to move the gun quickly, so an assailant that is close to you. They're also easier to conceal and carry with you. That's when you'd want a Glock, with hollow points which would do far more that 5.56 ammo since the caliber on even a 9mm much less a 45 is significantly larger. The tip of a 5.56 bullet isn't much larger than a .22 so to say its more dangerous, unless you count velocity, but unless you're wearing body armor, a 9mm or .45 pistol would be worse. It's why police generally carry pistols, and honestly, if you're worried about the "active shooter" in a building, pistols are just as much and have been as much of a threat, to say nothing of what most gun homicides are caused by.
Rifles are superior for self defense at a distance. So in the "wild hog" scenario, best to pick them off from a tree, or before they get close. In a more realistic case, shooting someone coming at you from across your yard (especially if you have a large yard or live close to wilderness). But if wild hogs aren't your concern, but assailants coming across your yard that are armed: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/homeowner-shoots-kills-men-...
Any closer than that you're probably better off with a shot gun for home defense, unless...you're defense needs are different or you're concerned about multiple assailants, which case a pistol might be better.
Pistols are more apt for shooting and more easily handled in a close quarter environment, where accuracy isn't difficult to achieve and you need to move the gun quickly, so an assailant that is close to you. They're also easier to conceal and carry with you. That's when you'd want a Glock, with hollow points which would do far more that 5.56 ammo since the caliber on even a 9mm much less a 45 is significantly larger. The tip of a 5.56 bullet isn't much larger than a .22 so to say its more dangerous, unless you count velocity, but unless you're wearing body armor, a 9mm or .45 pistol would be worse. It's why police generally carry pistols, and honestly, if you're worried about the "active shooter" in a building, pistols are just as much and have been as much of a threat, to say nothing of what most gun homicides are caused by.
> He doesn't tho, he compares an AR-15 to an AK-47
No, he points out that an AK-47 has a wooden stock.
> that's the M-16, which was what was used in Vietnam, they conflated the two, trying to disingenuously frame AR-15's as a war weapon used by the military
The M16 is an AR-15. Like, it's the same platform, it's just that the M16 variant is automatic and uses nato rounds. The AR-15 was designed to be broken down in the jungle in vietnam, which is why the US army adopted it under the designation M16. This isn't really controversial[0], "The M16 rifle is a family of military rifles adapted from the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle for the United States military." But before it was designated the M16, the US Army procured standard, automatic, AR-15s. Early M16 and early AR-15s are practically identical, and early M16s were stamped as AR-15s, so yes, in the early 60s, the US military absolutely used AR-15s as a war weapon.
So yes, he's exactly right, and demonstrably better educated on firearm history than you are.
Its again worth noting that an AR-15 has a higher muzzle velocity, stopping power, and range than any handgun you'd be able to fire accurately. It's also easier to hit things with a rifle than with a handgun, not that it's particularly hard with a handgun, it's just much, much easier with a rifle. So I'll just reiterate, your argument that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than a Glock is nonsense. They absolutely are. They're meant to be, a Glock is a tool for self defense, an AR-15 is a marginally dumbed down military tool.
> unless you count velocity
Yes, the fact that you aren't counting velocity is strange. A single bullet from an AR-15 will knock you over. The same isn't true for your average 9mm.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
No, he points out that an AK-47 has a wooden stock.
> that's the M-16, which was what was used in Vietnam, they conflated the two, trying to disingenuously frame AR-15's as a war weapon used by the military
The M16 is an AR-15. Like, it's the same platform, it's just that the M16 variant is automatic and uses nato rounds. The AR-15 was designed to be broken down in the jungle in vietnam, which is why the US army adopted it under the designation M16. This isn't really controversial[0], "The M16 rifle is a family of military rifles adapted from the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle for the United States military." But before it was designated the M16, the US Army procured standard, automatic, AR-15s. Early M16 and early AR-15s are practically identical, and early M16s were stamped as AR-15s, so yes, in the early 60s, the US military absolutely used AR-15s as a war weapon.
So yes, he's exactly right, and demonstrably better educated on firearm history than you are.
Its again worth noting that an AR-15 has a higher muzzle velocity, stopping power, and range than any handgun you'd be able to fire accurately. It's also easier to hit things with a rifle than with a handgun, not that it's particularly hard with a handgun, it's just much, much easier with a rifle. So I'll just reiterate, your argument that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than a Glock is nonsense. They absolutely are. They're meant to be, a Glock is a tool for self defense, an AR-15 is a marginally dumbed down military tool.
> unless you count velocity
Yes, the fact that you aren't counting velocity is strange. A single bullet from an AR-15 will knock you over. The same isn't true for your average 9mm.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
Well the velocity argument is a factor of it being a rifle, thus can hold a larger charge and are designed to because the bullets need to go further without losing accuracy due to gravity and air resistance, etc. This is a something it has in common with any hunting rifle. Yes you can knock someone down, certain hollow points can do that too.
Yes, we all know the AR-15's are made by the same people and 90% similar, but the part that matters, the part the ATF cares about, the part that makes it ready for military use or an assault weapon is whether its automatic or not. Take that away and its no more capable for military use then any other hunting rifle. You say its designed to broken down and repaired in the wilderness, that doesn't make it inherently more deadly or more military/assault style. So is a Glock, having a simple, reliable mechanism that's easily repaired and doesn't break down is a good feature to have, it doesn't make it militaristic, its a design a hunter would want who will spend days or weeks at a time in the wilderness (watch Meat Eater), or a safety feature as gun failures lead to accidental discharges, which is a factor on the range. It's not the first thing to be designed based on a need in the military, that applicability to civilians (like GPS) being designed to be easy to repair. The thing that makes an M16 militaristic is automatic fire, which a soldier needs for suppressing fire or hitting an enemy with multiple shots. Everything else you described is a feature of any other rifle. It's like saying a Humvee shouldn't be driven by civilians because the military uses Humvees and some have turrets (which are removed in the civilian version), when every other feature of the Humvee can be found in other civilian SUVs (just as every other feature of the AR-15 exists in other civilian use rifles). The aspects of the gun you're complaining about exist in other rifles that are not military rifles.
Yes, we all know the AR-15's are made by the same people and 90% similar, but the part that matters, the part the ATF cares about, the part that makes it ready for military use or an assault weapon is whether its automatic or not. Take that away and its no more capable for military use then any other hunting rifle. You say its designed to broken down and repaired in the wilderness, that doesn't make it inherently more deadly or more military/assault style. So is a Glock, having a simple, reliable mechanism that's easily repaired and doesn't break down is a good feature to have, it doesn't make it militaristic, its a design a hunter would want who will spend days or weeks at a time in the wilderness (watch Meat Eater), or a safety feature as gun failures lead to accidental discharges, which is a factor on the range. It's not the first thing to be designed based on a need in the military, that applicability to civilians (like GPS) being designed to be easy to repair. The thing that makes an M16 militaristic is automatic fire, which a soldier needs for suppressing fire or hitting an enemy with multiple shots. Everything else you described is a feature of any other rifle. It's like saying a Humvee shouldn't be driven by civilians because the military uses Humvees and some have turrets (which are removed in the civilian version), when every other feature of the Humvee can be found in other civilian SUVs (just as every other feature of the AR-15 exists in other civilian use rifles). The aspects of the gun you're complaining about exist in other rifles that are not military rifles.
I think if you take any serious time digging into this you'll find that people who actually use tactical rifles in military operations do not attach the same significance to fully automatic fire that you're alleging they do. There's a reason that military carbines are selective fire, that many selective fire weapons do 3-round burst instead of fully automatic, and that most combat operations are performed exclusively using semi-automatic fire.
The simple fact is that MSRs are tactical military weapons; that's what the AR-15 was designed to be as well. "MSR" is an Orwellian term. It's proponents believe that citizens should have unregulated access to military weapons, but lack the courage needed to make that argument forthrightly to the public.
I don't know what Humvees have to do with anything. I suppose you could be concerned that military vehicles might tear up the streets? Who knows: despite the fact that Scalia himself, in the text of Heller, affirmed the right of states to regulate military weapons, states have in reality almost total authority to regulate vehicles, and almost none to regulate firearms.
(I don't think semi-automatic rifles are going anywhere; they're too useful for hog and coyote hunting. I'm not an advocate for a national "ban" on really any firearm, or really any national firearm policy at all. Let Montana regulate how it wants to.)
The simple fact is that MSRs are tactical military weapons; that's what the AR-15 was designed to be as well. "MSR" is an Orwellian term. It's proponents believe that citizens should have unregulated access to military weapons, but lack the courage needed to make that argument forthrightly to the public.
I don't know what Humvees have to do with anything. I suppose you could be concerned that military vehicles might tear up the streets? Who knows: despite the fact that Scalia himself, in the text of Heller, affirmed the right of states to regulate military weapons, states have in reality almost total authority to regulate vehicles, and almost none to regulate firearms.
(I don't think semi-automatic rifles are going anywhere; they're too useful for hog and coyote hunting. I'm not an advocate for a national "ban" on really any firearm, or really any national firearm policy at all. Let Montana regulate how it wants to.)
They don't except for cover and move exercises. Then the automatic fire and burst mode features are great for suppression tactics.
But again, what are you going to make illegal about the AR-15 that doesn't also apply to hunting rifles, specifically much big game hunting rifles that are far deadlier (higher velocity rounds, higher caliber).
You're demonizing because of its history and it looks the same but its feature set is identical to that of any other legal civilian use rifle, other than maybe clip size (which clips are probably the easiest part to make yourself), there isn't much about it that you could write a law for that wouldn't apply to every other rifle society finds acceptable or give the "mass shooter" the same advantage. Hence the Humvee vs SUV argument. Its the same as arguing Humvees are made for the military, so the civilian models should be banned even though they removed every feature (like the armor and turrets) that don't exist in any other civilian model SUV that is legal. It's the same rational, if you wanted to ban Humvees cause someone did bad things with them under the argument its a military style vehicle, any thing you "banned" would also lump in the other civilian SUVs with the same features. If you banned the AR-15 someone would just make another rifle tomorrow, that was just different enough with a different model number, the danger would still be there, and as discussed that danger isn't even significant compared the gun violence done with hand guns so people's obsession with it irrational on all fronts because they're hung up on the "looks like a military gun" aspect of it.
We're talking about writing a law here, and setting policy. What's the policy you're going to write that takes away a killer's ability to do anything they couldn't do with another rifle?
If were me, and I don't think it matters, but lets say I had to write a law tomorrow "gun to my head", pun intended. I would make only bolt action rifles available to civilians for the purposes of hunting without any special license, it doesn't do much, but it does create a higher barrier without much practice and training to be effective at harming a high number of individuals in a short window. Then I would make semi-automatic weapons available to civilians who got a permit similar to CCW training, where you have to go through a day or two's worth of safety and legal use training, get a full background check, etc, but once you're licensed you can buy as many semi automatic rifles you desire, you'd be required to secure the weapons under lock when in storage, anyone can fire your rifle as long as they're in the presence of a licensed individual who owns the weapon (so if a friend wants to fire it at the range, that's fine) and the training needs to be affordable and accessible (similar to CCW) so that we're not creating a class of haves and have nots where only the very privileged can own one, simply the ones wanting to put in the time and training. And I don't try to single out an AR-15 as anything silly like a "military style assault weapons" that's not any different from any other semi-automatic rifle available on the market.
But again, what are you going to make illegal about the AR-15 that doesn't also apply to hunting rifles, specifically much big game hunting rifles that are far deadlier (higher velocity rounds, higher caliber).
You're demonizing because of its history and it looks the same but its feature set is identical to that of any other legal civilian use rifle, other than maybe clip size (which clips are probably the easiest part to make yourself), there isn't much about it that you could write a law for that wouldn't apply to every other rifle society finds acceptable or give the "mass shooter" the same advantage. Hence the Humvee vs SUV argument. Its the same as arguing Humvees are made for the military, so the civilian models should be banned even though they removed every feature (like the armor and turrets) that don't exist in any other civilian model SUV that is legal. It's the same rational, if you wanted to ban Humvees cause someone did bad things with them under the argument its a military style vehicle, any thing you "banned" would also lump in the other civilian SUVs with the same features. If you banned the AR-15 someone would just make another rifle tomorrow, that was just different enough with a different model number, the danger would still be there, and as discussed that danger isn't even significant compared the gun violence done with hand guns so people's obsession with it irrational on all fronts because they're hung up on the "looks like a military gun" aspect of it.
We're talking about writing a law here, and setting policy. What's the policy you're going to write that takes away a killer's ability to do anything they couldn't do with another rifle?
If were me, and I don't think it matters, but lets say I had to write a law tomorrow "gun to my head", pun intended. I would make only bolt action rifles available to civilians for the purposes of hunting without any special license, it doesn't do much, but it does create a higher barrier without much practice and training to be effective at harming a high number of individuals in a short window. Then I would make semi-automatic weapons available to civilians who got a permit similar to CCW training, where you have to go through a day or two's worth of safety and legal use training, get a full background check, etc, but once you're licensed you can buy as many semi automatic rifles you desire, you'd be required to secure the weapons under lock when in storage, anyone can fire your rifle as long as they're in the presence of a licensed individual who owns the weapon (so if a friend wants to fire it at the range, that's fine) and the training needs to be affordable and accessible (similar to CCW) so that we're not creating a class of haves and have nots where only the very privileged can own one, simply the ones wanting to put in the time and training. And I don't try to single out an AR-15 as anything silly like a "military style assault weapons" that's not any different from any other semi-automatic rifle available on the market.
> I'm really tired of this argument that people are irrationally afraid of black rifles and simply don't understand the machines they're purporting to regulate.
Given that more people are killed with hands and feet than are killed with rifles of any kind, "assault" or otherwise, yes, it's an irrational fear.
Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
For 2018, the numbers are:
Rifles: 297 Hands and feet: 672.
Given that more people are killed with hands and feet than are killed with rifles of any kind, "assault" or otherwise, yes, it's an irrational fear.
Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
For 2018, the numbers are:
Rifles: 297 Hands and feet: 672.
Do you think people advocating gun control haven't considered these numbers? Heart disease kills more people than crime of all sorts. We still generally want police departments.
Is there some book or FAQ these arguments all get sourced from? They always seem to be the same ones. At this point, I'm not even annoyed that people disagree with me about firearms, but just that their arguments are so boring.
Is there some book or FAQ these arguments all get sourced from? They always seem to be the same ones. At this point, I'm not even annoyed that people disagree with me about firearms, but just that their arguments are so boring.
It seems a bit dubious to ban something that has legitimate uses and isn't even on the "leaderboard" in the murder category.
If you believe handguns should be banned, it is at least somewhat logically consistent of a position. But if you ban something that is a fringe edge-case in the statistics, we know a priori it will be minimally effective at best, and at worst those murders will be performed by other, more convenient means.
If you believe handguns should be banned, it is at least somewhat logically consistent of a position. But if you ban something that is a fringe edge-case in the statistics, we know a priori it will be minimally effective at best, and at worst those murders will be performed by other, more convenient means.
You can't feel the arguments from the gun-control crowd are any less boring than your arguments, right? It's been the same shit for ages.
The whole debate is boring, crazy that we keep delving into it.
The whole debate is boring, crazy that we keep delving into it.
Considering that even some firearm maximalists don't appear to understand the history of the weapon they're defending or that of the FAWB, I dispute how "boring" my argument is.
By the same argument police departments don't respond in the two minutes it takes for a violent incident to take place, even more so the further outside a city center you are. So even though fires don't happen often, you still keep a fire extinguisher, the same argument is used for home defense.
> Do you think people advocating gun control haven't considered these numbers?
I think the overwhelming majority of them are ignorant of them, yes. Do you have data that shows otherwise? If so, perhaps you should present it.
> but just that their arguments are so boring.
Calling a fact "boring" is not a refutation of it.
I think the overwhelming majority of them are ignorant of them, yes. Do you have data that shows otherwise? If so, perhaps you should present it.
> but just that their arguments are so boring.
Calling a fact "boring" is not a refutation of it.
For those who are curious.
All firearms: 10,265
All firearms: 10,265
>and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks.
Yeah, this. It's sort of developed into a moral panic because so many in the media grow up in urban centers on the east coast and don't have much contact with firearms. The reporting becomes pretty tainted, and in some cases hilariously inaccurate.
Yeah, this. It's sort of developed into a moral panic because so many in the media grow up in urban centers on the east coast and don't have much contact with firearms. The reporting becomes pretty tainted, and in some cases hilariously inaccurate.
The majority of people live in urban centers.
One of the biggest difficulties in modern America is bridging the urban/rural divide:
My father, living in a rural area, purchased a shotgun for home defense -- when 911 was accidentally dialed, the sheriff's response time was roughly 30 minutes. Their primary political concerns revolve around taxes and regulation. Sometimes a bear walks through the neighbor's yard.
At our house in the city, on the other hand, I can throw five burritos and hit five other residences. I can't imagine firing that same shotgun in our house, as our windows and our neighbor's windows are in direct opposition. Police response times are quick, but we have people camping in the bushes across the street, a car break-in thrice a decade, and the occasional heroin addict passed out in the park, needle still in his arm.
These are two entirely different modalities of living, and we are trying to apply federal law to both. The second amendment is essential to our democracy, but it is increasingly difficult to argue with the growing calls to address gun violence as a public health threat. Nobody wants to get shot, everyone wants to live free and out from under the thumb of a tyrannical government. We can find a way.
One of the biggest difficulties in modern America is bridging the urban/rural divide:
My father, living in a rural area, purchased a shotgun for home defense -- when 911 was accidentally dialed, the sheriff's response time was roughly 30 minutes. Their primary political concerns revolve around taxes and regulation. Sometimes a bear walks through the neighbor's yard.
At our house in the city, on the other hand, I can throw five burritos and hit five other residences. I can't imagine firing that same shotgun in our house, as our windows and our neighbor's windows are in direct opposition. Police response times are quick, but we have people camping in the bushes across the street, a car break-in thrice a decade, and the occasional heroin addict passed out in the park, needle still in his arm.
These are two entirely different modalities of living, and we are trying to apply federal law to both. The second amendment is essential to our democracy, but it is increasingly difficult to argue with the growing calls to address gun violence as a public health threat. Nobody wants to get shot, everyone wants to live free and out from under the thumb of a tyrannical government. We can find a way.
Virginia had. Lot of success with limiting the number of purhases per month to cut back on strawman purchases. It made a statistical drop in gun violence. To truly combat that or mass shootings we need to address the why, not the how. And that isn't better psych car and red flag laws. Psychologists admit freely they can't distinguish between those who will harm people in mass shootings and the multitude of others with similar personalities. It has to be about asking what in our society prompts people to harm themselves or others and reducing those stressors. Again, why, not how or who.
A shotgun is actually pretty reasonable Urban defense, particularly with lead shot that isn't too large.
Rifles are a big no no though. They can carry very far and overpenetrate.
Rifles are a big no no though. They can carry very far and overpenetrate.
I've been contemplating bear spray to fill that role. Deployed in the confines of our home, it would put both us and any assailant in a world of hurt, but nobody has to die (and, if turned against us, we might suffer far less).
Even bird shot, fired from within our house, could easily kill our nearest neighbors. They're less than 10m away, and separated only by plate glass. The buckshot that my father has selected for home defense could easily reach them through their interior walls. I've already dealt with enough death in life.
Even bird shot, fired from within our house, could easily kill our nearest neighbors. They're less than 10m away, and separated only by plate glass. The buckshot that my father has selected for home defense could easily reach them through their interior walls. I've already dealt with enough death in life.
If the assailant is armed, they can still fire at you. It won't really work. If a criminal can shoot back or attack after getting shot, especially one that is high, mace isn't going to do it, just ask law enforcement. Criminals will always have access to guns despite the law.
[deleted]
Probably need some evidence to back up your claims about their motivation.
Gun control on the state level will not stop the flow of guns across state borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. Speaking as a gun owner.
Gun control on the state level will not stop the flow of guns across state borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. Speaking as a gun owner.
Here's the trouble with that argument:
> Gun control on the national level will not stop the flow of guns across national borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.
People smuggle drugs into this country at scale. The same people who are among the most likely perpetrators of homicides. If prohibiting possession has no effect and prohibiting importation is similarly ineffective then it's hard to see how a national prohibition would do much more than a state one.
> Gun control on the national level will not stop the flow of guns across national borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.
People smuggle drugs into this country at scale. The same people who are among the most likely perpetrators of homicides. If prohibiting possession has no effect and prohibiting importation is similarly ineffective then it's hard to see how a national prohibition would do much more than a state one.
We have open borders between states and mostly controlled borders between countries. Regardless, the guns flow out of the US, not into it.
The "controlled borders" between the US and its neighbors are each more than a thousand miles across, and I'm led to believe that most of those in favor of gun control are sour on the effectiveness of securing them with a wall or other such measures.
Moreover, contraband flows toward the places where it's prohibited. If certain firearms went from not prohibited to prohibited then they would flow in rather than out.
And I'm not saying a national ban would have no effect, only that it would have a similar effect to a state-level ban -- regular people would follow the law, and then you might get e.g. fewer firearms suicides (but more non-firearms suicides). But if you expect gangs to stop arming themselves because of "borders" or national law, just look at Mexico.
Moreover, contraband flows toward the places where it's prohibited. If certain firearms went from not prohibited to prohibited then they would flow in rather than out.
And I'm not saying a national ban would have no effect, only that it would have a similar effect to a state-level ban -- regular people would follow the law, and then you might get e.g. fewer firearms suicides (but more non-firearms suicides). But if you expect gangs to stop arming themselves because of "borders" or national law, just look at Mexico.
The demand would drop and so would gun manufacturing. There would be less guns on the street and more effective securing/training of legal guns/owners.
Clearly there is a spectrum of choices that can be made, some more effective than others. As mentioned, state borders have effectively zero restriction in movement and should be taken in context with any criticism of local gun laws.
Clearly there is a spectrum of choices that can be made, some more effective than others. As mentioned, state borders have effectively zero restriction in movement and should be taken in context with any criticism of local gun laws.
Why would there be less guns on the street? Aren't the vast majority of those illegally obtained anyways? IMO the more likely response would be that all the guns that were previously stolen/criminally obtained legal guns would become fully automatic since there's no reason not to at that point. (Manufacturing cost difference is basically nil, and if you're already smuggling an illegal rifle might as well make it automatic)
Guns aren't exactly rocket science to make, and the plans are available online. Good guns, reliable guns, safe guns? Not so much, but why would the criminals in question care?
Guns aren't exactly rocket science to make, and the plans are available online. Good guns, reliable guns, safe guns? Not so much, but why would the criminals in question care?
You’ve forgotten the single most important factor. When it comes to intentional deaths by firearm, mass shootings target white children at a much higher per capita number. If white teenagers were getting killed by gun murders at even the rate of black kids killed by cops we’d have a national ban.
See the fact California started heavily restricting gun ownership once black people started exercising their Second Amendment rights (and that happened under a Republican government)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
under a Republican government
It passed the Assembly in a bipartisan manner, but the governor was a republican (Reagan). It was also introduced by a republican (Mulford).
I didn't mean to excuse the Democrats who supported it, they were racist opportunists, I merely wanted to point out the CA Republican party dropped its principled support for 2nd Amendment Rights as soon as the people they would be protecting didn't look White like them.
I didn't mean to excuse the Democrats who supported it, they were racist opportunists, I merely wanted to point out the CA Republican party dropped its principled support for 2nd Amendment Rights as soon as the people they would be protecting didn't look White like them.
It passed the Assembly in a bipartisan manner
> so your attempt to make it a partisan thing is confusing.
I said it bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans supported it. But it's more intesting to me and many others that Republicans supported gun control, because Democratic support is a given. I wasn't aiming to say either party acted better in this specific case.
I said it bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans supported it. But it's more intesting to me and many others that Republicans supported gun control, because Democratic support is a given. I wasn't aiming to say either party acted better in this specific case.
It’s fairly straight forward, Republicans have traditionally been anti gun control. But when push came to shove they abandoned that position when it meant allowing black men to be armed.
That said the GOP was much less strident in their gun worship back then generally.
That said the GOP was much less strident in their gun worship back then generally.
Name one gun control measure opposed by CA Republican assembly members or senators that term. One.
CA Republicans of that era were not anti gun control.
CA Republicans of that era were not anti gun control.
Bill Gates' graphic isn't compelling except in the case of some cancer and traffic accidents. Most heart disease, almost all Alzheimer's, most cancer, etc. are just various ways that old people die. You're going to have to die in some manner, so reducing Stroke deaths is just going to mean more Heart Disease deaths a few years later on a person who got to live a full life.
Traffic accidents, earlier cancers, suicides, etc. take people who had much more quality life to be lived.
Traffic accidents, earlier cancers, suicides, etc. take people who had much more quality life to be lived.
Even if you exclude "natural causes" the point is still there. Terrorism is ludicrously over-represented in the media, even compared to homicide. Homicide is half as likely as suicide but the media has it reversed. Drug overdose is preventable in ~100% of cases and kills three times more people than homicide but it's completely ignored.
Why is gang violence somehow more acceptable than "regular" violence? Minors are victims of "gang violence" too.
And TBH, I don't really give a shit about the age of the victims. It's the same result, a life ended prematurely by someone else. While you can make an argument that and adult who died by gun violence got more of a chance at life than child who died from the same, you can't really say that the crime is any different.
Murder is murder. Against a child, against an 40-something, and against an elderly person. What is taken away remains the same. Trying to make the murder of children worse only serves to decrease the severity of murder of an elderly person.
And TBH, I don't really give a shit about the age of the victims. It's the same result, a life ended prematurely by someone else. While you can make an argument that and adult who died by gun violence got more of a chance at life than child who died from the same, you can't really say that the crime is any different.
Murder is murder. Against a child, against an 40-something, and against an elderly person. What is taken away remains the same. Trying to make the murder of children worse only serves to decrease the severity of murder of an elderly person.
I’m sure a lot of children are directly and indirectly affected by gang violence.
Are you saying that if all mass shootings were only caused by gang violence than people not in gangs shouldn’t be concerned about potentially helping reduce them?
Are you saying that if all mass shootings were only caused by gang violence than people not in gangs shouldn’t be concerned about potentially helping reduce them?
They get lumped in because they are real mass shootings where tons of people die, but if you explain it as gang violence, it will be immediately ignored as something black/hispanic people do.
Banning research funding is a decidedly more political act. One that people don’t have the opportunity to cut through.
Also as an aside your point about existing data not correlating with homicide rates is particularly non compelling because it doesn’t normalize for firearm kind (handguns are more likely to be used in homicides than other forms of firearm) nor victim type (firearm ownership is massively correlated with domestic murders) statistical collection bias (the Las Vegas mass shooting was not included in national homicide statistics) or the massive scale difference of the US vs the rest of the world (we have a lot more murders of all type).
But here is the thing bad data is _easier_ to manipulate. Every good actor should be cheering expanded research into this issue because it gives all of us a better framework to reason from.
Also as an aside your point about existing data not correlating with homicide rates is particularly non compelling because it doesn’t normalize for firearm kind (handguns are more likely to be used in homicides than other forms of firearm) nor victim type (firearm ownership is massively correlated with domestic murders) statistical collection bias (the Las Vegas mass shooting was not included in national homicide statistics) or the massive scale difference of the US vs the rest of the world (we have a lot more murders of all type).
But here is the thing bad data is _easier_ to manipulate. Every good actor should be cheering expanded research into this issue because it gives all of us a better framework to reason from.
The subject "gun violence" seems like it has inherent presuppositions. Research on violence in the generic seems far more neutral.
Moreover, there hasn't been a ban on research on the subject of gun violence - it is simply that this is the first time money specifically for research on that topic has been allocated.
Moreover, there hasn't been a ban on research on the subject of gun violence - it is simply that this is the first time money specifically for research on that topic has been allocated.
> Banning research funding is a decidedly more political act.
Possibly but not probably. Once a situation becomes politically interesting any action or inaction could potentially be the more political act.
If only highly political actors are asking for more research then doing nothing is simply fiscal prudence and not an especially political act. I expect a lot of research on violence has already been conducted and the answers to any questions are probably already known. I don't normally see people in this debate saying 'we don't know X', they say 'we know X' and someone else says 'that is true but misleading/not important enough to justify Y/think of the children', etc.
Possibly but not probably. Once a situation becomes politically interesting any action or inaction could potentially be the more political act.
If only highly political actors are asking for more research then doing nothing is simply fiscal prudence and not an especially political act. I expect a lot of research on violence has already been conducted and the answers to any questions are probably already known. I don't normally see people in this debate saying 'we don't know X', they say 'we know X' and someone else says 'that is true but misleading/not important enough to justify Y/think of the children', etc.
We weren’t “doing nothing”. We were actively discouraging research.
Imagine if there was an initiative to research the use of cryptography in crimes, because obviously cryptography does have an impact on public safety. Also, as you know, there's powerful people that would love to see encryption regulated in ways that aren't in the public interest.
That's how gun people feel about researching gun violence.
That's how gun people feel about researching gun violence.
For anyone reading along at home: Gun rights do not derive from the Constitution, they derive from the natural right of a being to protect itself. The second amendment is codifed there to attempt to limit the power of the government to take away that right. Despite what you may have been told it is not a collective right (there's no such thing), it is an individual right. Just like every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
You give the individual too much credit. If the majority wanted to take away your guns, they would. The majority also can take away your right to self-determine, that's the entire basis of law and criminal punishment. If laws were based on fundamental moral truth they wouldn't change, and yet laws change all the time, that's one of the fundamental strengths of the US constitution (because time often shows laws to be unjust).
That's true, but only so because democracy is the best option we have, i.e., it is the "least bad".
But many people (including myself) don't believe in the concept of "natural rights". I accept that rights only exist if they are granted to you and protected under law. Therefore, my rights to own guns is in fact derived from the Constitution.
While you're certainly welcome to that opinion, it's incompatible with the origins and philosophy of the US Constitution at the very least. Your rights still exist even if someone hasn't told you they do.
> For example, one of the new tactics gun control advocates have adopted is lumping homicides and suicides together into “gun deaths” even though the policy implications of the two things are quite different.
That's assuming that the reason for lumping them together is an attempt to justify policy.
One counter argument to gun control seems to be that gun ownership is a way to preserve liberty and defend the home. It has been repeatedly and consistently found that gun ownership leads to an increase in gun related injuries and deaths for the owners - which undermines those arguments about liberty and home defence, regardless of the type of injury or death.
It's hard to defend anything or have liberty when you're dead.
That's assuming that the reason for lumping them together is an attempt to justify policy.
One counter argument to gun control seems to be that gun ownership is a way to preserve liberty and defend the home. It has been repeatedly and consistently found that gun ownership leads to an increase in gun related injuries and deaths for the owners - which undermines those arguments about liberty and home defence, regardless of the type of injury or death.
It's hard to defend anything or have liberty when you're dead.
I think people have the right to kill themselves if they want. It's not in the same category as involuntarily losing your life through someone else's deliberate action.
Ok! Is there perhaps a less messy way to do it than a gun?
Also I think people, particularly men, seem to think they're pretty immune to mental illness or fits of emotion. That's another belief that lacks a basis. Whether you die because you had a bad month or because a toddler found your gun, or your partner was angry at you, you'll still be dead.
Also I think people, particularly men, seem to think they're pretty immune to mental illness or fits of emotion. That's another belief that lacks a basis. Whether you die because you had a bad month or because a toddler found your gun, or your partner was angry at you, you'll still be dead.
> Ok! Is there perhaps a less messy way to do it than a gun?
Of course. And maybe we should encourage people to pursue those alternatives if they're sure in their decision, and maybe take some time to contemplate whether it's what they really want before doing something they can't undo.
But we need to do that anyway, because even without a gun, someone may have a rope on hand, or a bottle of pills. We need to address the underlying issue, not nerf the world because we couldn't be bothered to solve it right.
Of course. And maybe we should encourage people to pursue those alternatives if they're sure in their decision, and maybe take some time to contemplate whether it's what they really want before doing something they can't undo.
But we need to do that anyway, because even without a gun, someone may have a rope on hand, or a bottle of pills. We need to address the underlying issue, not nerf the world because we couldn't be bothered to solve it right.
Neither rope nor pills are as easy to use, fast, or as lethal as death by gun. Pills particularly are a really bad example. People mess it up all the time. Pills and rope have the added bonus of not being as lethal in other situations either. Pills and rope: 1, guns: 0
Unless pills and rope are never fatal, that doesn't really matter, because we still need to solve it for the times that they are. And if we do then it doesn't matter how fatal the method is because there is no longer an attempt.
That's not a particularly compelling argument. It suggests we should never attempt to solve any problem, because other smaller problems will continue to exist and we need to solve them to.
That's not the argument at all. Rather it's that if you address the root cause, which you need to do anyway, then you don't need to worry about mitigations.
If your house has a gas leak and someone says "don't turn on the light, it's dangerous" then even if they're right, the real solution is to do something about the gas leak, not to sit in darkness and do nothing while your house is full of gas. And once the gas is out of your house there is no reason not to turn on the light.
If your house has a gas leak and someone says "don't turn on the light, it's dangerous" then even if they're right, the real solution is to do something about the gas leak, not to sit in darkness and do nothing while your house is full of gas. And once the gas is out of your house there is no reason not to turn on the light.
Metaphors are unhelpful.
First of all, here's the US CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicideTechnicalP...
Page 12 says "Reduce access to lethal means among persons at risk of suicide"
Here's the World Health Organisation: https://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/suicide/q7/...
> At the population level, restricting access to means of self-harm (such as pesticides, firearms, high places) is recommended.
> Strength of recommendation: STRONG
> Quality of the evidence: MODERATE
> Collaboration between health and other relevant sectors should be established and the community should be involved actively to find locally feasible ways to implement interventions at the population level to reduce access to means of suicide to decrease deaths from suicide, suicide attempts and acts of self-harm.
> Strength of recommendation: STRONG
> Quality of the evidence: MODERATE
If you have tens of thousands of people dying each year from one method of suicide you need to reduce access to that method while you're putting in place other stuff to reduce suicidality in the population.
The reducing access to means and methods is equivalent in your metaphor to "as you're leaving this gas filled house do not strike any matches".
In your analogy "doing something about the gas leak" (fixing suicidality across a population) is something that takes years of concerted effort across national and local government agencies, see the linked CDC report above for examples.
By not reducing access to means and methods you're saying you're content for people to die a painful death in gas explosions because you think the gas leaks should be fixed quicker, even though everyone who knows anything about gas leaks is telling that's not how it works.
First of all, here's the US CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicideTechnicalP...
Page 12 says "Reduce access to lethal means among persons at risk of suicide"
Here's the World Health Organisation: https://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/suicide/q7/...
> At the population level, restricting access to means of self-harm (such as pesticides, firearms, high places) is recommended.
> Strength of recommendation: STRONG
> Quality of the evidence: MODERATE
> Collaboration between health and other relevant sectors should be established and the community should be involved actively to find locally feasible ways to implement interventions at the population level to reduce access to means of suicide to decrease deaths from suicide, suicide attempts and acts of self-harm.
> Strength of recommendation: STRONG
> Quality of the evidence: MODERATE
If you have tens of thousands of people dying each year from one method of suicide you need to reduce access to that method while you're putting in place other stuff to reduce suicidality in the population.
The reducing access to means and methods is equivalent in your metaphor to "as you're leaving this gas filled house do not strike any matches".
In your analogy "doing something about the gas leak" (fixing suicidality across a population) is something that takes years of concerted effort across national and local government agencies, see the linked CDC report above for examples.
By not reducing access to means and methods you're saying you're content for people to die a painful death in gas explosions because you think the gas leaks should be fixed quicker, even though everyone who knows anything about gas leaks is telling that's not how it works.
> Page 12 says "Reduce access to lethal means among persons at risk of suicide"
Yes of course. People on psychiatric hold shouldn't have access to firearms any more than they should have access to cutlery or shoelaces.
> The reducing access to means and methods is equivalent in your metaphor to "as you're leaving this gas filled house do not strike any matches".
Leaving the house is equivalent to a psychiatric hold.
> If you have tens of thousands of people dying each year from one method of suicide you need to reduce access to that method while you're putting in place other stuff to reduce suicidality in the population.
We already do this for anyone known to be at immediate risk, the problem is in accurately identifying who that is.
There is also a real risk that if you do things like condition voluntary outpatient psychiatric treatment on losing access to firearms, that would deter people who own firearms from seeking treatment. Then the choice isn't between treatment and firearms or treatment and no firearms, it's between firearms and treatment or firearms and no treatment.
> In your analogy "doing something about the gas leak" (fixing suicidality across a population) is something that takes years of concerted effort across national and local government agencies, see the linked CDC report above for examples.
Which is, nonetheless, still the only real solution.
What are you suggesting that we do? Declare a state of emergency and confiscate all firearms, but then give them back in a few years once we better address the root causes of suicide? Considering that firearms are used in about half of US suicide deaths and some non-zero number those would only switch to another method, that seems rather extreme for a temporary solution that would solve less than half of the problem, even if it wasn't politically infeasible.
And spending time fighting over that instead of starting to address the root causes right now means that the same number of people die in the short term (as we do nothing but argue) and more die in the long term because it's that much longer before a real solution that addresses the problem independent of method is actually implemented.
We know that there is a large contingent of people who oppose restricting firearms, but who is it in opposition to getting underway with this "concerted effort across national and local government agencies" right away?
Yes of course. People on psychiatric hold shouldn't have access to firearms any more than they should have access to cutlery or shoelaces.
> The reducing access to means and methods is equivalent in your metaphor to "as you're leaving this gas filled house do not strike any matches".
Leaving the house is equivalent to a psychiatric hold.
> If you have tens of thousands of people dying each year from one method of suicide you need to reduce access to that method while you're putting in place other stuff to reduce suicidality in the population.
We already do this for anyone known to be at immediate risk, the problem is in accurately identifying who that is.
There is also a real risk that if you do things like condition voluntary outpatient psychiatric treatment on losing access to firearms, that would deter people who own firearms from seeking treatment. Then the choice isn't between treatment and firearms or treatment and no firearms, it's between firearms and treatment or firearms and no treatment.
> In your analogy "doing something about the gas leak" (fixing suicidality across a population) is something that takes years of concerted effort across national and local government agencies, see the linked CDC report above for examples.
Which is, nonetheless, still the only real solution.
What are you suggesting that we do? Declare a state of emergency and confiscate all firearms, but then give them back in a few years once we better address the root causes of suicide? Considering that firearms are used in about half of US suicide deaths and some non-zero number those would only switch to another method, that seems rather extreme for a temporary solution that would solve less than half of the problem, even if it wasn't politically infeasible.
And spending time fighting over that instead of starting to address the root causes right now means that the same number of people die in the short term (as we do nothing but argue) and more die in the long term because it's that much longer before a real solution that addresses the problem independent of method is actually implemented.
We know that there is a large contingent of people who oppose restricting firearms, but who is it in opposition to getting underway with this "concerted effort across national and local government agencies" right away?
Luckily for gun control advocates the rate of firearm injuries also sharply increases for households that own guns, too. So while yeah, there may be other issues with mental health, gun training, domestic violence etc, you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those.
> So while yeah, there may be other issues with mental health, gun training, domestic violence etc, you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those.
The thing about statistics is that they have causes. More people having guns causes more criminals to be shot (or, better yet, deterred), but also more accidents. But those are two different things, one good and one bad, so why don't we work to reduce the bad and keep the good instead of losing both?
We know that much of the bad is caused by poor safety training and by teenagers, so why not add firearms safety training to the school curriculum? How many accidental deaths would be prevented by a semester of "always assume it's loaded and don't point the barrel at anything you wouldn't want to shoot"?
We know that gun safes and range practice reduce accidents, so why not institute some tax incentives? These things may cost less than requiring additional law enforcement and much less than accidental shootings.
And soon you have a net positive instead of a net negative. (Though your original claim did fail to account for the deterrent effect on crime. Which is hard to measure since it's area-wide rather than per-household given that criminals know local culture but not which individual households are armed, but just measuring the households with firearms against those without fails to account for it at all.)
The thing about statistics is that they have causes. More people having guns causes more criminals to be shot (or, better yet, deterred), but also more accidents. But those are two different things, one good and one bad, so why don't we work to reduce the bad and keep the good instead of losing both?
We know that much of the bad is caused by poor safety training and by teenagers, so why not add firearms safety training to the school curriculum? How many accidental deaths would be prevented by a semester of "always assume it's loaded and don't point the barrel at anything you wouldn't want to shoot"?
We know that gun safes and range practice reduce accidents, so why not institute some tax incentives? These things may cost less than requiring additional law enforcement and much less than accidental shootings.
And soon you have a net positive instead of a net negative. (Though your original claim did fail to account for the deterrent effect on crime. Which is hard to measure since it's area-wide rather than per-household given that criminals know local culture but not which individual households are armed, but just measuring the households with firearms against those without fails to account for it at all.)
> The thing about statistics is that they have causes. More people having guns causes more criminals to be shot (or, better yet, deterred), but also more accidents.
Actually, people tend to more often die of homicide if they own a gun.
Actually, people tend to more often die of homicide if they own a gun.
> Luckily for gun control advocates the rate of firearm injuries also sharply increases for households that own guns, too.
Uh, ... wow. "Luckily?"
> you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those.
There may be better ways to reduce these than trying to remove the guns, though-- ways that mitigate and reduce harm and that don't impact personal liberties or the beneficial aspects of firearms.
Uh, ... wow. "Luckily?"
> you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those.
There may be better ways to reduce these than trying to remove the guns, though-- ways that mitigate and reduce harm and that don't impact personal liberties or the beneficial aspects of firearms.
> Uh, ... wow. "Luckily?"
That is what one would say if they were grateful for the deaths, isn't it? Isn't it just a bonus that it happens to The Other?
That is what one would say if they were grateful for the deaths, isn't it? Isn't it just a bonus that it happens to The Other?
Gun ownership decreases liberty via death.
> We need to address the underlying issue
Reducing access to means and methods is one of the most important suicide prevention measures we can take. It's a key part of any national suicide prevention strategy.
> because even without a gun, someone may have a rope on hand, or a bottle of pills.
People tend to have a preferred method, and method substitution takes years. But assume they do instantly switch from using a gun to using some other method: that's still beneficial, because they've switched from something that's very lethal to something that's probably less lethal.
Reducing access to means and methods is one of the most important suicide prevention measures we can take. It's a key part of any national suicide prevention strategy.
> because even without a gun, someone may have a rope on hand, or a bottle of pills.
People tend to have a preferred method, and method substitution takes years. But assume they do instantly switch from using a gun to using some other method: that's still beneficial, because they've switched from something that's very lethal to something that's probably less lethal.
So we should curb people's rights to self defense because some people might hurt themselves with the tools involved? You can apply a similar line of reasoning to the banning of fast food and cars. Why should the people be held to the standard of their least common denominator?
Personally I see it the opposite way: America's infatuation with guns reflects a world where your fellow citizens are wild animals to be fended off with lethal threat, and your government is run by dangerous criminals ready to take you and your freedom by brute force. This is a world built upon the lowest common denominator of civilization.
That's a fair take. However, history shows us that, for every nation, the probability of those two statements becoming true approaches 1 as time progresses. The fact remains that there exist criminals in society who would harm my family and I for personal gain or pleasure if they had the chance, and I would like to have the means to defend myself from them.
> your government is run by dangerous criminals ready to take you and your freedom by brute force.
Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny.
Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years.
Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny.
Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years.
Our track record of defeating armed insurgencies is miserable. You’re also overlooking the nature of waging war on your own people. The military will follow a tyrannical dictator, until it doesn’t. In Bangladesh, for example, Pakistan killed hundreds of thousands of disarmed Bangladeshis. Thanks to smuggled arms from India, Bangladesh was able to put up some sort of resistance. Eventually, Bangladeshi members of the Pakistani military defected. Bangladesh could never have defeated the military with individual arms alone, but had they not been able to start a war they may have been brought into submission before pushing the military past the breaking point.
I'm not only hearing you say "maybe" a lot about the effectiveness of gun ownership, but also that wars against internal foes are wildly unpopular, and that the military may decide to stop supporting the government. Agreed on all counts.
Consider this though, we have repeatedly conducted studies that show bringing a gun into your house increases the chance of gun death.
Maybe, perhaps, given the chance, gun ownership will help stave off tyranny.
Consider this though, we have repeatedly conducted studies that show bringing a gun into your house increases the chance of gun death.
Maybe, perhaps, given the chance, gun ownership will help stave off tyranny.
Oh boy, wait until you see the stats about what car ownership does to you and your families chances of dying in an automobile accident!
Can't wait to argue with all the car owners that say owning a car will help protect them against crime and car accidents, as well.
> Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny.
Tyranny generally doesn't come overnight. There are plenty of things you can ask soldiers to do that they'll feel uncomfortable about but still do it, and then in eighteen months when it's time to reenlist they decline. A decade later you've got only zealots.
> Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years.
Because we sure handed it to those Iraqis, and the Vietnamese before that.
Counter-insurgency is hard. Having planes and nukes doesn't help you when the bridges and cities are friendly assets. Morale is low when you're fighting your own people. You can't guard every military resource with hundreds of soldiers, but that means the one guarded by twenty can be overrun by a hundred civilians if they're armed.
And it only takes one bullet to kill Hitler.
Tyranny generally doesn't come overnight. There are plenty of things you can ask soldiers to do that they'll feel uncomfortable about but still do it, and then in eighteen months when it's time to reenlist they decline. A decade later you've got only zealots.
> Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years.
Because we sure handed it to those Iraqis, and the Vietnamese before that.
Counter-insurgency is hard. Having planes and nukes doesn't help you when the bridges and cities are friendly assets. Morale is low when you're fighting your own people. You can't guard every military resource with hundreds of soldiers, but that means the one guarded by twenty can be overrun by a hundred civilians if they're armed.
And it only takes one bullet to kill Hitler.
So what I'm hearing you say is that you feel an american insurgency will be effective and persistent. Where is the confederacy?
You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time. But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms. I think if you did a poll today you'd find that the pro-slavery contingent is well below the threshold.
> You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time.
If I recall correctly they both lost and lost their rights - whether we consider those rights the right to own slaves or leave the union.
> But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms.
Not true. "The accidental guerilla" by David Kilcullen is a great book on this idea. I'm wondering though for what reason you feel the confederates felt less strongly than gun owners do today.
If I recall correctly they both lost and lost their rights - whether we consider those rights the right to own slaves or leave the union.
> But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms.
Not true. "The accidental guerilla" by David Kilcullen is a great book on this idea. I'm wondering though for what reason you feel the confederates felt less strongly than gun owners do today.
You mean losing to insurgencies for years?
Are you talking about the wars where for example maybe conservatively 100000 Iraqis have died while about 5000 coalition troops have? Is that how you see winning going down for american gun owners, too?
Winning is not about body counts; it's about reaching your strategic objectives.
What strategic objective do you see american gun owners achieving against the american military?
Preserving their rights.
[deleted]
> So we should curb people's rights to self defense because some people might hurt themselves with the tools involved?
Guns don't help with that goal. Having a gun makes you more likely to die of gunshot wounds, either self-inflicted or by others.
Guns don't help with that goal. Having a gun makes you more likely to die of gunshot wounds, either self-inflicted or by others.
That depends entirely on you and your family's level of responsibility around firearms. Unless you act like an idiot with regards to guns, you are unlikely to be accidentally injured by them. That is what I mean by 'least common denominator': people shouldn't be denied firearms because certain people can't be responsible with them.
Awesome. Sounds like you're in favour of reasonable gun control via strict license requirements and tests. You know - to make sure irresponsible idiots don't get them.
We agree.
We agree.
Sort of. I don't believe its the government's job (nor position) to protect idiots from themselves, so I would not support such regulations.
I dunno, maybe this is a super controversial opinion but I think it may be harmful to categorize a bunch of people who commit suicide as idiots. Particularly given that those people in America are more and more often veterans and men.
I also think that by some tragic circumstance or another a lot of those mentally ill people have no friends or family to support them. I'm happy to pay the government to care for those "idiots", to be frank.
What do you think?
I also think that by some tragic circumstance or another a lot of those mentally ill people have no friends or family to support them. I'm happy to pay the government to care for those "idiots", to be frank.
What do you think?
Note that I said 'accidentally injured' in my original comment; obviously suicide is a different matter entirely. This might actually be a controversial opinion, but I believe people who want to end their lives have a right to do so.
Barring that, we already have measures in place (e.g. involuntary hospitalization) for the acutely suicidal. For others, why stop at taking away their guns? Take away their kitchen knives, Tylenol, and spare rope while you're at it. Hell, throw them in a padded cell so they aren't tempted to visit any bridges or tall buildings. Taking away guns doesn't treat the actual problem.
Barring that, we already have measures in place (e.g. involuntary hospitalization) for the acutely suicidal. For others, why stop at taking away their guns? Take away their kitchen knives, Tylenol, and spare rope while you're at it. Hell, throw them in a padded cell so they aren't tempted to visit any bridges or tall buildings. Taking away guns doesn't treat the actual problem.
Agreed on all counts
According to this page:
https://www.who.int/gho/mental_health/suicide_rates/en/
Suicide rates are: 21.1/100k for US males 17.4/100k for Australian males
Guess you aren't paying enough?
Suicide rates are: 21.1/100k for US males 17.4/100k for Australian males
Guess you aren't paying enough?
You're right, we should increase support for mental health services.
Similarly, having a syringe in your house correlates to increased death risk by opioid poisoning, so... ban syringes?
Imagine if you bought a syringe into your house to prevent syringe related deaths.
Imagine if you bought a strawman into your comment. Or maybe we don't have to imagine.
How many people do you know who brought a gun into their house solely for protection against someone with a gun?
How many people do you know who brought a gun into their house solely for protection against someone with a gun?
How many people do you know that would be pleased to learn owning a gun actually makes their family more prone to dying of gunshot wounds? It is not possible to have liberty when you are dead.
The same amount that should laugh off "learning" that percentage of black population makes their family more prone to dying of gunshot wounds.
Except if we're trying to identify demographic issues, poverty and gender both explain the correlation better than race.
The correlation between guns and gun violence and injuries undermines any claim that owning a gun increases liberty or enables self-defence.
The correlation between guns and gun violence and injuries undermines any claim that owning a gun increases liberty or enables self-defence.
You've made that claim several times on this thread alone but have yet to provide any supporting reference.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15522849
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8371731
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8485675
How many references will be sufficient evidence?
How many references will be sufficient evidence?
None that you merely googled for. I'm looking for content that actually supports your specific claim.
1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use.
2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey."
3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC).
4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago.
5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously?
So, no, none of those is "evidence" of anything. Now, how many of those were you previously familiar with vs just googling on "gun death home study
1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use.
2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey."
3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC).
4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago.
5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously?
So, no, none of those is "evidence" of anything. Now, how many of those were you previously familiar with vs just googling on "gun death home study
> None that you merely googled for. I'm looking for content that actually supports your specific claim.
Ok. How do you want me to look for the data?
> 1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use.
It's not just a survey.
> 2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey."
Oversampling doesn't invalidate studies. Are you annoyed they acknowledged it? A less rigorous study wouldn't.
> 3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC).
What neutral groups do you think are studying this stuff? The CDC? Well, they can start now.
> 4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago. > > 5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously?
Could you help me understand what you'd consider "evidence", considering you won't accept articles from peer-reviewed journals. Why does suicide or homicide have to happen "in-home" for it to be valid?
I'll provide more references if you can explain exactly what evidence would satisfy you. Otherwise it seems like a waste of time on my part.
Ok. How do you want me to look for the data?
> 1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use.
It's not just a survey.
> 2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey."
Oversampling doesn't invalidate studies. Are you annoyed they acknowledged it? A less rigorous study wouldn't.
> 3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC).
What neutral groups do you think are studying this stuff? The CDC? Well, they can start now.
> 4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago. > > 5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously?
Could you help me understand what you'd consider "evidence", considering you won't accept articles from peer-reviewed journals. Why does suicide or homicide have to happen "in-home" for it to be valid?
I'll provide more references if you can explain exactly what evidence would satisfy you. Otherwise it seems like a waste of time on my part.
> It has been repeatedly and consistently found that gun ownership leads to an increase in gun related injuries and deaths for the owners
This supposed factoid is frequently repeated in these sorts of discussions about gun-related data, but I have never been presented with convincing findings that support the thrust of this argument. Is this more true for guns than any other object? Is there such a strong casual relationship between proximity and firearms and subsequent injuries and deaths to overcome the other aspects of the discussion?
Every time it comes to actual hard-hitting facts, this argument seems to fall apart. Perhaps you can help me understand its basis better?
This supposed factoid is frequently repeated in these sorts of discussions about gun-related data, but I have never been presented with convincing findings that support the thrust of this argument. Is this more true for guns than any other object? Is there such a strong casual relationship between proximity and firearms and subsequent injuries and deaths to overcome the other aspects of the discussion?
Every time it comes to actual hard-hitting facts, this argument seems to fall apart. Perhaps you can help me understand its basis better?
> Is this more true for guns than any other object? Is there such a strong casual relationship between proximity and firearms and subsequent injuries and deaths to overcome the other aspects of the discussion?
What other aspect of the discussion do you feel undermines the point that owning a gun actually measurably reduces personal liberty via death? What hard hitting facts do you think are missing here?
What other aspect of the discussion do you feel undermines the point that owning a gun actually measurably reduces personal liberty via death? What hard hitting facts do you think are missing here?
1) As best I can tell, owning a gun doesn't increase the risk of becoming a victim of violence.
2) Many decisions in life come with risks: the decision to own a car or swimming pool puts you much closer to the most frequent causes of death for people under the age of 35. But people make rational decisions to do these things anyway and then mitigate the risks in ways that they see fit.
2) Many decisions in life come with risks: the decision to own a car or swimming pool puts you much closer to the most frequent causes of death for people under the age of 35. But people make rational decisions to do these things anyway and then mitigate the risks in ways that they see fit.
Neither of these undermine the point that liberty and self-defence are actually lowered by gun ownership.
Care to prove that point?
Numerous studies and meta-analyses have shown that gun ownership, even when controlled for other factors, produces an increase of gun deaths in a household of 3x. What would be sufficient proof to satisfy you of this fact?
Having perused the EveryTown material on this topic, which I (perhaps wrongly) assume contains the most convincing material, I see that a major critique of this methodology remains unanswered: that the increased risk of completed suicide is so tightly coupled with military servitude that the role of guns cannot be convincingly established in either the univariate or multivariate analysis.
What do you say to this?
What do you say to this?
Are you talking about this everytown, which again proclaims the 3x risk of gun deaths?
https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/
https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/
> a major critique of this methodology remains unanswered: that the increased risk of completed suicide is so tightly coupled with military servitude that the role of guns cannot be convincingly established in either the univariate or multivariate analysis.
> What do you say to this?
> What do you say to this?
I say this supposedly major critique isn't represented in the data. The everytown article you seem to be mentioning recommends tighter gun controls.
I'm just going to note that in the responses, there are people saying that gun control advocates are abusing statistics when they ignore gang violence ("because it happens in high gun control areas") and when they include it ("because they can't tell the difference between a hand gun and assault rifle"), and of course it's not like you're being totally honest either: actual public health researchers who aren't some dude on medium repeatedly come to the opposite conclusion [0].
[0]: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...
[0]: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...
I'm not sure how the link support your point.
GP claims that there is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide. That's a list of studies and meta-studies that directly refute that claim.
The Medium article covers why using that correlation to assume causation is a problem, using other experimental variables that were shown to have a correlation with homicides.
No it doesn't. Because there are other studies that back up the causal relationship. He's taken one that shows a clear correlation and explained why that's not enough to craft policy from, and that's true. But studies that show cross time correlation between homicide and gun ownership also exist.
It might not be the only cause, but it being a cause makes sense: another poster showed a news story of a man who had killed 3 black kids who were trying to break into his house. Had he not had a gun, it's unlikely anyone would have died (most home intrusions, even with armed assailants, don't end up killing anyone). Guns provide means for homicide that basically no other tool provides.
It might not be the only cause, but it being a cause makes sense: another poster showed a news story of a man who had killed 3 black kids who were trying to break into his house. Had he not had a gun, it's unlikely anyone would have died (most home intrusions, even with armed assailants, don't end up killing anyone). Guns provide means for homicide that basically no other tool provides.
> But studies that show cross time correlation between homicide and gun ownership also exist.
So do you believe we could apply that criteria with all of the other correlated variables with firearm homicide from the AJPH article, concluding that they cause firearm homicide?
Do you suppose those intruders would have preferred being cut to death? Why or why not?
So do you believe we could apply that criteria with all of the other correlated variables with firearm homicide from the AJPH article, concluding that they cause firearm homicide?
Do you suppose those intruders would have preferred being cut to death? Why or why not?
That Medium post isn't arguing in good faith either. He criticizes a bunch of graphs on Vox or Mother Jones, but doesn't bother engaging with any actual academic research. The news websites may be imprecise, but their underlying point isn't wrong.[1]
Similarly, if I were to argue that anti-gun control people deliberately argue in good faith, I wouldn't use a random Hacker News commenter as evidence, but would instead point to the fact that John Lott fabricated survey evidence[2].
[1]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130304061928/http:/www.cse.uns...
Similarly, if I were to argue that anti-gun control people deliberately argue in good faith, I wouldn't use a random Hacker News commenter as evidence, but would instead point to the fact that John Lott fabricated survey evidence[2].
[1]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130304061928/http:/www.cse.uns...
>>gun rights derive from the Constitution.
For me, I would say that the 2nd amendment reflects the natural right to self defense that all humans have.
For me, I would say that the 2nd amendment reflects the natural right to self defense that all humans have.
Yes -- gun rights do not "derive from the Constitution", the Constitution codifies natural rights -- and that goes far beyond self defense.
The entire 2nd Amendment claim is hotly debated, of course.
Chief Justice Warren Burger’s epic rant:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo
There’s also an excellent episode about the Second Amendment on WNYC.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radio...
When people tell you the Constitution is clear about gun ownership and that it’s settled, they are lying.
Chief Justice Warren Burger’s epic rant:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo
There’s also an excellent episode about the Second Amendment on WNYC.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radio...
When people tell you the Constitution is clear about gun ownership and that it’s settled, they are lying.
The scope of the second amendment is surely debatable. But Burger’s “epic rant” expresses a view of the second amendment that’s not only rejected by Heller, but was wrong from inception. The idea of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right is irreconcilable with the text: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm. See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html. Reading the contemporaneous works of the Founders leaves little doubt that the second amendment protects the collective right to self determination through the individual right to own weapons of war:
> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
I’m not sure if the “collective rights” view is as shoddy as “penumbras,” but it’s surely more offensive to the Constitution to read a right out of it than to read rights into it.
> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
I’m not sure if the “collective rights” view is as shoddy as “penumbras,” but it’s surely more offensive to the Constitution to read a right out of it than to read rights into it.
Justice Stevens has a better write up in the Atlantic about his issues with the Heller verdict.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...
I do agree that Heller is sort of a strange re-contextualization that seems to arise because nobody really wants to deal with citizens owning the full gamut of modern military arms even if that's the natural implication of the 2nd's wording.
Steven's essay isn't easy for me to buy into in multiple respects. Like even his starting premises are basically implying that the Revolutionary was prosecuted by a bunch of criminals who, horror of horrors, stockpiled weapons in theirs homes and churches, which, as much as I dislike the modern Tea Party BS, has also long been lionized as part of America's national identity.
Steven's essay isn't easy for me to buy into in multiple respects. Like even his starting premises are basically implying that the Revolutionary was prosecuted by a bunch of criminals who, horror of horrors, stockpiled weapons in theirs homes and churches, which, as much as I dislike the modern Tea Party BS, has also long been lionized as part of America's national identity.
A lot of ink has been spilled on Heller, but here's my two cents on why I don't find Stevens' reasoning compelling.
> Point 1: "When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia."
A lot of precedent that was on the books when Stevens joined the Supreme Court in 1975 was wrong. At that time, the Supreme Court had gutted federalism using the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Fillburn. 20 years later, Lopez started getting things back on track. It wasn't until the 1990s that New York v. United States and Printz gave teeth to the Tenth Amendment. There is hope yet of undoing some of the damage wrought on contractual freedoms by FDR's unconstitutional threats of court packing.
> Point 2: "Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home."
These regulations aren't actually inconsistent with the Second Amendment being an individual right. Note first that Stevens is engaged in a bit of a motte-and-bailey argument. The general proposition of his argument is that the Second Amendment is an individual right. But he's recycling arguments from Heller, where the dissent took a narrower tack: urban areas present unique challenges that may justify burdening Second Amendment rights. The latter argument is obviously narrower and easier to defend than the more general one. Second, the laws he cites, such as regulations on gun powder storage, can be justified as neutral as to gun rights. Wooden cities at the time were highly flammable and it made sense to regulate gun powder storage for fire reasons. That may be justifiable, even if it has an incidental effect on second amendment rights. But that doesn't mean that, in 1789 Boston, a gun ban--a direct attack on second amendment rights--would've been considered acceptable.
> Point 3: "Until Heller, the invalidity of Second Amendment–based objections to firearms regulations had been uncontroversial."
For that point, he cites 20th-century legislation. That tells us nothing about what the Second Amendment means. Lots of unconstitutional laws were enacted with minor opposition at the time.
> Point 4: "So well settled was the issue that, speaking on the PBS NewsHour in 1991, the retired Chief Justice Warren Burger described the National Rifle Association’s lobbying in support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in these terms: “One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
Again, this just means the Supreme Court believed in its incorrect precedent, until it didn't. It doesn't tell us anything about what the Second Amendment means. What Madison wrote in Federalist #46, however, does: https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
> Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
He criticizes European governments for being "afraid to trust the people with arms." He's clearly talking about armed citizens. He also conceives of those armed citizens organizing at the local level to overthrow the national government. But in his conception, the militia is BYOG (bring-your-own-gun). The right to bear arms doesn't attach to the militia itself. It attaches to "the people," who may then be organized into militias.
> Point 1: "When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia."
A lot of precedent that was on the books when Stevens joined the Supreme Court in 1975 was wrong. At that time, the Supreme Court had gutted federalism using the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Fillburn. 20 years later, Lopez started getting things back on track. It wasn't until the 1990s that New York v. United States and Printz gave teeth to the Tenth Amendment. There is hope yet of undoing some of the damage wrought on contractual freedoms by FDR's unconstitutional threats of court packing.
> Point 2: "Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home."
These regulations aren't actually inconsistent with the Second Amendment being an individual right. Note first that Stevens is engaged in a bit of a motte-and-bailey argument. The general proposition of his argument is that the Second Amendment is an individual right. But he's recycling arguments from Heller, where the dissent took a narrower tack: urban areas present unique challenges that may justify burdening Second Amendment rights. The latter argument is obviously narrower and easier to defend than the more general one. Second, the laws he cites, such as regulations on gun powder storage, can be justified as neutral as to gun rights. Wooden cities at the time were highly flammable and it made sense to regulate gun powder storage for fire reasons. That may be justifiable, even if it has an incidental effect on second amendment rights. But that doesn't mean that, in 1789 Boston, a gun ban--a direct attack on second amendment rights--would've been considered acceptable.
> Point 3: "Until Heller, the invalidity of Second Amendment–based objections to firearms regulations had been uncontroversial."
For that point, he cites 20th-century legislation. That tells us nothing about what the Second Amendment means. Lots of unconstitutional laws were enacted with minor opposition at the time.
> Point 4: "So well settled was the issue that, speaking on the PBS NewsHour in 1991, the retired Chief Justice Warren Burger described the National Rifle Association’s lobbying in support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in these terms: “One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
Again, this just means the Supreme Court believed in its incorrect precedent, until it didn't. It doesn't tell us anything about what the Second Amendment means. What Madison wrote in Federalist #46, however, does: https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
> Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
He criticizes European governments for being "afraid to trust the people with arms." He's clearly talking about armed citizens. He also conceives of those armed citizens organizing at the local level to overthrow the national government. But in his conception, the militia is BYOG (bring-your-own-gun). The right to bear arms doesn't attach to the militia itself. It attaches to "the people," who may then be organized into militias.
The meaning of amendment itself is plain enough that many who argue for certain interpretations seem to be doing so in bad faith. As for why it has rarely mattered, at the very least until it was for-sure incorporated it had a much more limited importance at the national level since states could pretty much do absolutely whatever they felt like.
In any case, the militia clause is clearly an explanation and/or justification for what follows. It's the "why" they decided to include the amendment, and could just as soon say "because bats have wings," for how much bearing it has on the other clauses. Though I do agree the whole thing has way too many commas.
In any case, the militia clause is clearly an explanation and/or justification for what follows. It's the "why" they decided to include the amendment, and could just as soon say "because bats have wings," for how much bearing it has on the other clauses. Though I do agree the whole thing has way too many commas.
pstuart(1)
I’m a little confused on your overall point here - are you saying that it’s only good to reduce gun homicides, not suicides?
It seems like the point is that different policies would affect suicides versus homicides, so grouping them into one category is not as useful as if they were separate.
It's just a weirdly nitpicky place to decide to start the conversation, just to state something that's already going to be obvious to anyone researching the subject, something that sure as heck seems to be coming from a place of not wanting the research to be done at all.
A better way of stating the point without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and thereby losing sight of the underlying need for further research, would be to say something like the following:
"This is great news. I hope the studies account for x,y, and z, and I look forward to their publication. I also look forward to supporting the legislation this research may make possible and to the safety benefits that stand to be gained. Anyone have any links for ways I can effectively pressure my local legislator and ask them to support even more funding in the future?" That way it's not ambiguous whether the research is supported. If, on the other hand, people just don't want more research, we would all benefit from having that clearly stated at the outset as well.
A better way of stating the point without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and thereby losing sight of the underlying need for further research, would be to say something like the following:
"This is great news. I hope the studies account for x,y, and z, and I look forward to their publication. I also look forward to supporting the legislation this research may make possible and to the safety benefits that stand to be gained. Anyone have any links for ways I can effectively pressure my local legislator and ask them to support even more funding in the future?" That way it's not ambiguous whether the research is supported. If, on the other hand, people just don't want more research, we would all benefit from having that clearly stated at the outset as well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think the poster is saying they don't like that some people conflate gun deaths with gun murders and use that as a justification for gun control.
Both can be independently valid justifications for gun control without involving any conflation of one for the other.
(I know that you're just elaborating on what the poster is saying rather than expressing your own views, so treat this as a reply to their comment rather than yours.)
(I know that you're just elaborating on what the poster is saying rather than expressing your own views, so treat this as a reply to their comment rather than yours.)
The OP’s argument is basically completely irrelevant to the actual point. If we banned any research that could be misinterpreted or abused because they are on political issues, we’d might as well ban all research...at the very least, research on climate change, vaccinations, health effects of pollution, research on deaths due to obesity, causes of obesity should be banned immediately. But if we go back a few centuries it gets a lot worse, because almost all science today, especially that which went against what the church believed, should have been banned by this logic.
That being said, the OP’s specific point is also really bad. If gun control leads to reduced deaths, but the reduced deaths are entirely due to reduced suicides (they’re not...but hypothetically), that would still be an argument in favor of gun control, not against.
It may not be a good solution to reducing the mass murder of toddlers, but hey, we won’t know that until we actually do the research on it. Which is the whole point.
That being said, the OP’s specific point is also really bad. If gun control leads to reduced deaths, but the reduced deaths are entirely due to reduced suicides (they’re not...but hypothetically), that would still be an argument in favor of gun control, not against.
It may not be a good solution to reducing the mass murder of toddlers, but hey, we won’t know that until we actually do the research on it. Which is the whole point.
> Suicides accounting for the large majority of “gun deaths,” but bans on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines will have little effect on suicides. Likely red flag laws as well.
At the risk of sounding grim, if you're looking to commit suicide, a 12-gauge shotgun (very common for bird hunting) is probably your best bet. Nobody's looking to ban those.
At the risk of sounding grim, if you're looking to commit suicide, a 12-gauge shotgun (very common for bird hunting) is probably your best bet. Nobody's looking to ban those.
It’s actually likely an inverse relationship to this. Suicides are more likely to be successful where guns are prevalent compared to where they are hard to get. Meanwhile homicides are rare so no matter what tool you have access to you can get it done.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
To be clear, I agree with that assessment. My point is that banning standard capacity magazines and semiautomatic rifles will have little effect on suicide rates, since they aren't a very good choice for committing suicide in the first place.
The US and UK suicide rates are extremely comparable, and the UK has far fewer firearms. Let's not even touch on Japan.
No they aren’t. Most recent data suggests that the US has twice the suicide rate of the U.K.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide...
Japan & Korea are interesting _because_ they are outliers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide...
Japan & Korea are interesting _because_ they are outliers.
The US suicide rate per the CDC is 14/100k (2017). The UK suicide rate is 11/100k per the office of National statistics (2018).
I'm not sure why the Wikipedia page dramatically disagrees with the UK's own stats.
I'm not sure why the Wikipedia page dramatically disagrees with the UK's own stats.
The Wikipedia page uses WHO data, which is age-standardised. It's unclear if this explains the entire difference.
The WHO explanation is here: https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr... and their data is here: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDEASDR?lang=en
The WHO explanation is here: https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr... and their data is here: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDEASDR?lang=en
According your source in 2016 the US suicide rate was 13.7 per 100,000 people. The UK was 7.6, so about half.
But, France was 12.1 and Ireland 10.9, not much less than the US. I don't think we can conclude from this data that access to firearms accounts for all or even most of the difference.
But, France was 12.1 and Ireland 10.9, not much less than the US. I don't think we can conclude from this data that access to firearms accounts for all or even most of the difference.
Even then there is 15% chance of failure. Best option is a really tall building in the middle of a city far away from a body of water. That way there is less chance of your corpse being eaten by crawfish and crabs and birds.
There are two ways to reduce suicide - reduce the reasons to commit suicide, and increase the difficulty of committing suicide. As someone who views suicide as a bad choice - possibly the worst choice someone can make - I think the overall goal reducing suicide is good. But I don't think increasing the difficulty of suicide is the way to go about it.
Imagine a prison, where every prisoner is held within solitary confinement - no contact with others at all. A lot of prisoners commit suicide each year, and the warden needs to reduce this. Is putting every prisoner on suicide watch - removing shoelaces, toilet paper, strong sheets, anything that a prisoner could use to kill themselves - a moral option? After all, it would reduce suicide - sure, the desire for suicide might go up, but no one would be able to act on it, so suicides would go down! But to me... That's just prolonging torture, and that's NOT ok.
We've all got life sentences in this prison, and there's no hope of parole. I personally find life here on Earth to be great! But I can't support preventing people in worse situations from finding a way out. And when you reduce suicide by taking away a way out, instead of providing a better way...
Imagine a prison, where every prisoner is held within solitary confinement - no contact with others at all. A lot of prisoners commit suicide each year, and the warden needs to reduce this. Is putting every prisoner on suicide watch - removing shoelaces, toilet paper, strong sheets, anything that a prisoner could use to kill themselves - a moral option? After all, it would reduce suicide - sure, the desire for suicide might go up, but no one would be able to act on it, so suicides would go down! But to me... That's just prolonging torture, and that's NOT ok.
We've all got life sentences in this prison, and there's no hope of parole. I personally find life here on Earth to be great! But I can't support preventing people in worse situations from finding a way out. And when you reduce suicide by taking away a way out, instead of providing a better way...
While it is true that different gun policies may impact certain types of guns more than others, it is also true that widespread availability of firearms results in more fatal suicides. No conversation about gun violence can ignore the very significant role firearms play in suicide deaths.
Do you think emphasizing all-cause mortality is questionable in fields where that metric is used? I think these metrics can be better for scientific NPOV because they don't presuppose so much.
science or anything else humans do can be skewed. Saying things like 'we should do gun research because it can be skewed', well that's just a way to avoid it.
too late to edit, I meant to say "we should not do gun research ..."
Also, not all gun suicides should be prevented. My friend's grandfather was dying of Parkinson's and had a very horrible and unpleasant 3-6 months ahead of him. He blew his head to pieces with a gun. It was a massive quality of life improvement for him. Nobody in the family was really that upset -- they were glad that he didn't have to suffer, and he took care to do it in a way that none of his family had to discover the gruesome scene.
My stomach churned just reading that. If you want to make a point about death with dignity, consider some wording other than "he blew his head to pieces with a gun".
>gun rights derive from the Constitution
Many people conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.
Many people conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.
This is a horse that has been beaten to death. It’s well established what militia means.
Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
So we should be confiscating guns on one's 45th birthday? Probably not all that effective, but it's a start I guess.
Alternatively, you can just repeal the second amendment. I’m unsure why anti-gun advocates don’t just argue this. The constitution can be changed. Justice Stevens argued this in an op-ed: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opin...
“In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Blaming the NRA is popular, but people leave out that the academic tide turned against the 1960s view as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html
> There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns. See also: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm.
If you look at what the Framers contemporaneously wrote about guns and the militia, it’s almost impossible to deny that the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that able-bodied men would have access to fire arms in order to form militias, to not only combat foreign enemies but potentially domestic ones. Any sort of gun control that undermines that purpose cannot be squared with the second amendment, and we are slowly but surely rediscovering that understanding.
> There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns. See also: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm.
If you look at what the Framers contemporaneously wrote about guns and the militia, it’s almost impossible to deny that the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that able-bodied men would have access to fire arms in order to form militias, to not only combat foreign enemies but potentially domestic ones. Any sort of gun control that undermines that purpose cannot be squared with the second amendment, and we are slowly but surely rediscovering that understanding.
There’s more in the Atlantic version of the article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...
“ Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home. Boston, Philadelphia, and New York—the three largest cities in America at that time—all imposed restrictions on the firing of guns in the city limits. Boston enacted a law in 1746 prohibiting the “discharge” of any gun or pistol that was later revived in 1778; ”
“ Boston’s gunpowder law imposed a 10-pound fine on any person who took any loaded firearm into any dwelling house or barn within the town. Most, if not all, of those regulations would violate the Second Amendment as it was construed in the 5–4 decision that Justice Antonin Scalia ”
During colonial times we did not have a large standing army and relied on state militias.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-congress-off...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...
“ Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home. Boston, Philadelphia, and New York—the three largest cities in America at that time—all imposed restrictions on the firing of guns in the city limits. Boston enacted a law in 1746 prohibiting the “discharge” of any gun or pistol that was later revived in 1778; ”
“ Boston’s gunpowder law imposed a 10-pound fine on any person who took any loaded firearm into any dwelling house or barn within the town. Most, if not all, of those regulations would violate the Second Amendment as it was construed in the 5–4 decision that Justice Antonin Scalia ”
During colonial times we did not have a large standing army and relied on state militias.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-congress-off...
> Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home.
None of the Bill of Rights applied to the states until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, after which it was held to be "incorporated to the states". State and local laws from the colonial period are not relevant.
During the same period, several states had established churches, but I see no one arguing that the First Amendment still permits that.
None of the Bill of Rights applied to the states until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, after which it was held to be "incorporated to the states". State and local laws from the colonial period are not relevant.
During the same period, several states had established churches, but I see no one arguing that the First Amendment still permits that.
It’s surprising that Justice Stevens didn’t understand that when he wrote it in May of this year.
Is it possible that he did and you’re missing something?
Is it possible that he did and you’re missing something?
Justice Stevens is the outlier here. The majority of the court agrees with me, not him.
We still have laws against firing guns in the city. Posessing is a different manner.
Gun advocates should clear up confusion by lobbying for an amendment that redefines militia to encompass a wider age range.
Or we can acknowledge that passing constitutional amendments in the 21st century requires amount of political capital that it is no longer possible to attain in our system. Insisting that we interpret the status quo as favoring one's preferred ideology, and that one's ideological opponents must seek reform through an for-all-practical-purposes impossible mechanism is just a different way of expressing routine ideological preferences.
Or we can acknowledge that passing constitutional amendments in the 21st century requires amount of political capital that it is no longer possible to attain in our system. Insisting that we interpret the status quo as favoring one's preferred ideology, and that one's ideological opponents must seek reform through an for-all-practical-purposes impossible mechanism is just a different way of expressing routine ideological preferences.
Your second point is backward. The Constitution is a compromise between various ideological preferences. If it’s impossible to achieve sufficient consensus to change the bargain by amending the Constitution, that means you can’t change the bargain. You can’t subvert the requirement of a strong consensus for amendment by way of mechanisms (legislation, judicial interpretation) that require lower levels of consensus.
That artificially constrains the entirety of gun control to the question of constitutional amendments, and confusedly insists that other constitutionally valid reforms (e.g. congressional and state legislation, court rulings) would be 'subverting' that process. Which is deeply confused for reasons I certainly hope I don't have to explain out loud in a serious conversation.
Congress has drifted from the institutional norm of resorting to constitutional amendments for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of gun control. Insisting that an extremely difficult channel for reform is the only valid way to seek reform begs the question in favor of a deeply disputed interpretation of the second amendment, and disingenuously insists that other channels of reform aren't on the table, for reasons that have yet to be explained.
Congress has drifted from the institutional norm of resorting to constitutional amendments for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of gun control. Insisting that an extremely difficult channel for reform is the only valid way to seek reform begs the question in favor of a deeply disputed interpretation of the second amendment, and disingenuously insists that other channels of reform aren't on the table, for reasons that have yet to be explained.
>Or we can acknowledge that passing constitutional amendments in the 21st century requires amount of political capital that it is no longer possible to attain in our system.
Why is this? What, concretely, has changed? Note that Constitutional amendments are supposed to be difficult to pass.
Why is this? What, concretely, has changed? Note that Constitutional amendments are supposed to be difficult to pass.
you should definitely try that.
For the record, it's impossible under our current system and political reality. The process to repeal an amendment requires more than three population centers on the east and west coast, and the rest of the country isn't going to roll over for you.
For the record, it's impossible under our current system and political reality. The process to repeal an amendment requires more than three population centers on the east and west coast, and the rest of the country isn't going to roll over for you.
You can certainly try to do that.
You quote the militia act, but congress doesn't get to define the words of the constitution through ordinary legislation. If it worked that way then they could just as easily pass a law defining "arms" as only muskets, "speech" as only spoken words, and "unreasonable search" as only a search conducted without reasonable suspicion.
Please take a moment to listen to the 2008 Heller vs DC decision: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...
You might change your mind.
You might change your mind.
>Pulitzer Prize-winning American historian Joseph Ellis criticized Scalia's Heller decision as political agenda disguised as originalist principles: "If Heller reads like a prolonged exercise in legalistic legerdemain, ... that is because Scalia's preordained outcome forced him to perform three challenging tasks: to show that the words of the Second Amendment do not mean what they say; to ignore the historical conditions his originalist doctrine purportedly required him to emphasize; and to obscure the radical implications of rejecting completely the accumulated wisdom of his predecessors on the court."
A void criticism. Translates to nothing of substance. Interesting in the context of that recording; Ellis (a proven liar who claimed to have been a platoon leader in Vietnam) really has nothing to say.
No. “Well regulated” in the context of the 2A means in good working condition. The militia, which is every male between the ages of 18 and 45, shoukd have a working weapon. Legal “regulations” has nothing to do with it.
anigbrowl(1)
>>“Well regulated” in the context of the 2A means in good working condition.
This is the first time I'm hearing of this "good working condition" definition.
This is the first time I'm hearing of this "good working condition" definition.
Definitions and case law surrounding 200 year old text aren't immediately intuitive from the layman's reading.
Maybe you don't understand what a prefatory clause is?
But it's a good talking point.
Meaning what? The SCOTUS has ruled several times that the individual right to bear arms is separate from the "militia" statement and both are covered in the 2A.
Why is the phrase "well-regulated militia" in there then? Is it just fluff that can be ignored?
Eugene Volokh has done a pretty thorough study of this: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
> The Second Amendment is widely seen as quite unusual, because it has a justification clause as well as an operative clause. Professor Volokh points out that this structure was actually quite commonplace in American constitutions of the Framing era: State Bills of Rights contained justification clauses for many of the rights they secured. Looking at these state provisions, he suggests, can shed light on how the similarly structured Second Amendment should be interpreted. In particular, the provisions show that constitutional rights will often -- and for good reason -- be written in ways that are to some extent overinclusive and to some extent underinclusive with respect to their stated justifications.
> The Second Amendment is widely seen as quite unusual, because it has a justification clause as well as an operative clause. Professor Volokh points out that this structure was actually quite commonplace in American constitutions of the Framing era: State Bills of Rights contained justification clauses for many of the rights they secured. Looking at these state provisions, he suggests, can shed light on how the similarly structured Second Amendment should be interpreted. In particular, the provisions show that constitutional rights will often -- and for good reason -- be written in ways that are to some extent overinclusive and to some extent underinclusive with respect to their stated justifications.
Well, you can read the Supreme Court opinion to find out exactly why: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opi...
In short, the clause is there as a justification/motivation, and not a precondition, for the right to bear arms.
In short, the clause is there as a justification/motivation, and not a precondition, for the right to bear arms.
ryeights gave a cite below, but consider this:
If the First Amendment had been written as "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed", you would argue, what, exactly?
That only the legislature had the right to books?
That only "well-educated" people had the right to books?
No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, because that would be a tortured interpretation of the language.
If the First Amendment had been written as "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed", you would argue, what, exactly?
That only the legislature had the right to books?
That only "well-educated" people had the right to books?
No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, because that would be a tortured interpretation of the language.
This is a really weird argument, considering that the First Amendment is emphatically not written as such, and that's what this debate is about: maybe there's a reason why such a phrase appears in 2A but not in 1A, or maybe there's none, but you're begging the question.
If the first amendment was written that way I think we shouldn't just ignore the phrase "well-educated". Otherwise you can choose to ignore other sections too. Either all words have meaning or they don't. You can't pick and choose.
Is pornography uncopyrightable because it's not a "science or useful art"? (I.8.8)
No. You are confusing patent law with copyright law. And first amendment law with copyright.
I don't think that compares.
I feel like gun fans are trying to have it both ways.
Why are semi-automatic rifles common targets for gun control advocates? Well, they make the news. So maybe people need to recognize that handguns are far more deadly. But wait: We don't want those banned either because we like them for self defense. So keeping the public ignorant so we can operate in an infinite "well, actually.." loop is preferable.
But I can see why this research is scary: someone should take a close look at the impact mass shootings have on our social fabric compared to say, random violence. Sandy Hook Shooting claimed the lives of 28 people, most of them children. But afterwards, there's been multiple suicides from the parents of their kids. In no small part because of nutty conspiracy theories that they're all crisis actors. Or, again touching on Sandy Hook, why was Adam Lanzas mother, an NRA-trained gun owner and enthusiast, permitting her troubled son access to dangerous firearms while knowlingly letting his mental health go untreated. Again, I'm not a member of the club, but I'd love for a sociologist to explore and understand gunowner's reasoning around stuff like that.
Why are semi-automatic rifles common targets for gun control advocates? Well, they make the news. So maybe people need to recognize that handguns are far more deadly. But wait: We don't want those banned either because we like them for self defense. So keeping the public ignorant so we can operate in an infinite "well, actually.." loop is preferable.
But I can see why this research is scary: someone should take a close look at the impact mass shootings have on our social fabric compared to say, random violence. Sandy Hook Shooting claimed the lives of 28 people, most of them children. But afterwards, there's been multiple suicides from the parents of their kids. In no small part because of nutty conspiracy theories that they're all crisis actors. Or, again touching on Sandy Hook, why was Adam Lanzas mother, an NRA-trained gun owner and enthusiast, permitting her troubled son access to dangerous firearms while knowlingly letting his mental health go untreated. Again, I'm not a member of the club, but I'd love for a sociologist to explore and understand gunowner's reasoning around stuff like that.
I think you have common ground with many in “the club” with your comment on the sociology of the situation.
I think this is a situation where the quantitative research gets most of the attention, but the root cause of the problem will be hidden deep in the qualitative research.
Premeditated mass murder is not a simple crime of opportunity. There are some difficult social issues that are driving people to want to take these actions.
I think this is a situation where the quantitative research gets most of the attention, but the root cause of the problem will be hidden deep in the qualitative research.
Premeditated mass murder is not a simple crime of opportunity. There are some difficult social issues that are driving people to want to take these actions.
>I’d also point out that, at the end of the day, gun rights derive from the Constitution. Gun control is therefore not merely a policy choice to be made based on facts and data.
That it was written in the Constitution (which also counted black people as three fifths of a person and failed to enshrine voting rights) should not reduce the value the facts and data to "mere" status.
You are right about the statistics, though.
That it was written in the Constitution (which also counted black people as three fifths of a person and failed to enshrine voting rights) should not reduce the value the facts and data to "mere" status.
You are right about the statistics, though.
[deleted]
While I am an opponent of gun control I will be glad to see this change go into effect. Ethical research shouldn't be constrained by politics, and the optics of the policy weren't great anyway...
The CDC has a history of anti gun bias. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/...
They also have a history of anti malaria bias.
Public health agency finds that guns kill people, recommends fewer guns, news at 11
Public health agency finds that guns kill people, recommends fewer guns, news at 11
cars kill thousands of kids, recommend fewer cars
swimming pools kill a thousand, recommend banning swimming pools
drugs kill a thousand, make drugs illegal with huge jail terms. wait, that doesn't work.
why are there thousands of kids handling guns fine without accidents in rural areas and thousands getting killed by a few hundred in urban areas.
it's much more complex than just fewer guns, no private pool ownership, etc.
why are there thousands of kids handling guns fine without accidents in rural areas and thousands getting killed by a few hundred in urban areas.
it's much more complex than just fewer guns, no private pool ownership, etc.
Cars are heavily regulated. They have a visible registration plate on them, with a unique number associated to the owner. Operating one requires to be a license given after a test on both theory and operation. They need to be insured. All these are actually enforced by police.
If you are arguing for all this to be equally applied to guns (as would be fairly rational) then congratulation, you are pro-gun control.
If you are arguing for all this to be equally applied to guns (as would be fairly rational) then congratulation, you are pro-gun control.
no - not at all - you are moving the goalposts from deaths of children and inanimate things that 'cause them' - to "all these things people have to do to drive cars" - that makes it even worse actually.. if you apply all that stuff to gun control - you see that there are still plenty of deaths caused by them, and plenty of people getting them, and using them illegally.
the point was banning a thing because a few people use it improperly is not the way to go with something so important as guns - which are more important than cars.. maybe, maybe not with drugs depending on health conditions, certainly more important than swimming pools.
we already have more gun control than is needed, what we need is more education and more resources.
the point was banning a thing because a few people use it improperly is not the way to go with something so important as guns - which are more important than cars.. maybe, maybe not with drugs depending on health conditions, certainly more important than swimming pools.
we already have more gun control than is needed, what we need is more education and more resources.
It's a pretty blatant false equivalency, after all cars are designed for transportation and only happen to be deadly weapons, whereas guns have no other purpose but to put holes in things. That said I'm cool with banning personal automobile ownership too. Two friends have died from them. I'd take the train for the rest of my life to undo that.
it's certainly not going to be equal 100 100, but from my personal experiences it's something that jumps out as a similar type of tool / misuse / ban possible / restrict.
I have been seriously injured due to a large truck being misused, and calling for a ban of all cars would be one thing, saying that restrictions to that only 4 cylinder vehicle are available to citizens with other requirements could be a thing. I think lots in America would laugh at not being able to own an 8 cyl for example, only military or civil servants.
I'd like to go more into that, but I think to be more honest and equal about the rest of you comment, need to move to that more.
"guns have no other purpose but to put holes in things" - it's easy to point to this, and it's kind of true, but it's not really true.
many guns are made and sold and used just for skeet shooting or hunting (yes technically that's putting holes in things) and similar.
However most guns in America are used as a deterrant. Guards at courthouses, armored car guards, citizens with guns, etc. Every day hundreds of thousands of times a day, guns are used as a deterrent. The deter rapes and robberies and complete tyranny, and invasion every day.
Without them we would certainly have more rapes, robberies and murders.
In a fictional world of tradeoffs, I might take trains vs cars to bring some people back from the grave as well. I am sorry you have lost friends that way.
With that in mind, I also consider that without guns more people that we know and care for might have also met early ends. I have witnessed many semi-violent situations that only de-escalated because there was immediate threat of people with guns changing the situation, sometimes it was cops arriving to a scene, other times it was not.
I have been seriously injured due to a large truck being misused, and calling for a ban of all cars would be one thing, saying that restrictions to that only 4 cylinder vehicle are available to citizens with other requirements could be a thing. I think lots in America would laugh at not being able to own an 8 cyl for example, only military or civil servants.
I'd like to go more into that, but I think to be more honest and equal about the rest of you comment, need to move to that more.
"guns have no other purpose but to put holes in things" - it's easy to point to this, and it's kind of true, but it's not really true.
many guns are made and sold and used just for skeet shooting or hunting (yes technically that's putting holes in things) and similar.
However most guns in America are used as a deterrant. Guards at courthouses, armored car guards, citizens with guns, etc. Every day hundreds of thousands of times a day, guns are used as a deterrent. The deter rapes and robberies and complete tyranny, and invasion every day.
Without them we would certainly have more rapes, robberies and murders.
In a fictional world of tradeoffs, I might take trains vs cars to bring some people back from the grave as well. I am sorry you have lost friends that way.
With that in mind, I also consider that without guns more people that we know and care for might have also met early ends. I have witnessed many semi-violent situations that only de-escalated because there was immediate threat of people with guns changing the situation, sometimes it was cops arriving to a scene, other times it was not.
The CDC is way ahead of you
https://www.cdc.gov/features/healthyswimming/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...
https://www.cdc.gov/features/healthyswimming/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...
I think it's great they are helping to educate about safer ways to engage with swimming sports and driving.
They could do the same with guns.. but I guess we instead rely on the NRA, NSSF, and a few others.. some hunter's education classes that some places offer and the very few schools that teach these things.
I do not see the CDC recommending less pools, or less cars, unlike their 'conclusion that less guns would mean less kid problems' - so maybe they are way ahead of themselves.
I am all for more education the better, and as it would not affect me personally - ban swimming pools, get a special license to have more than 10 gallons of water, and if someone breaks one of the top 4 bullet points from the CDC on safe swimming, then make them a felon and take away other rights.
Won't bother me, and it will make the world a safer place for many kids.
/not-serious, don't take it too seriously, just sayin' for thoughts sake
They could do the same with guns.. but I guess we instead rely on the NRA, NSSF, and a few others.. some hunter's education classes that some places offer and the very few schools that teach these things.
I do not see the CDC recommending less pools, or less cars, unlike their 'conclusion that less guns would mean less kid problems' - so maybe they are way ahead of themselves.
I am all for more education the better, and as it would not affect me personally - ban swimming pools, get a special license to have more than 10 gallons of water, and if someone breaks one of the top 4 bullet points from the CDC on safe swimming, then make them a felon and take away other rights.
Won't bother me, and it will make the world a safer place for many kids.
/not-serious, don't take it too seriously, just sayin' for thoughts sake
Neither cars nor swimming pools are weapons designed to kill. Nor are most drugs.
>The fact that guns are “designed to kill people,” while swimming pools aren’t, is beside the point. Such word games can be played both ways: A gun is designed to save your life when no other tool will do the job. Swimming pools are just for fun.
(Sam Harris)
(Sam Harris)
How is malaria comparable to guns? Is malaria in the Constitution? Does Americans have a malaria culture?
The point is they both harm people; so it's no great surprise for a public health agency to have concerns about them.
Gun use is overwhelmingly defensive.
citation needed
(1995) Kleck & Gertz estimates of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year: https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed%20Resistance%20to%20C...
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people...
>In fact, Cook told The Washington Post that the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. The Post notes that "a more reasonable estimate" of self-defense gun uses equals about 100,000 annually, according to the NCVS data.
>In fact, Cook told The Washington Post that the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. The Post notes that "a more reasonable estimate" of self-defense gun uses equals about 100,000 annually, according to the NCVS data.
I don't understand how people believing in alien abductions can be used to criticize gun ownership.
It's solid numerology. Like if you add up all the ASCII values for Bill Gates III, you get 666.
/s
/s
They're both beliefs that are unsupported by evidence:
https://psmag.com/news/keeping-a-gun-at-home-can-mean-a-high...
https://slate.com/technology/2015/01/good-guy-with-a-gun-myt...
https://psmag.com/news/keeping-a-gun-at-home-can-mean-a-high...
https://slate.com/technology/2015/01/good-guy-with-a-gun-myt...
Two numbers are similar. Obviously they must both be fictitious. Such a sound argument of the highest caliber.
Or maybe it was just money laundering for an ad hominem.
Or maybe it was just money laundering for an ad hominem.
There's a better estimate right there in the second sentence.
There's an even better estimate in a response to your comment: (1997) 1.5M https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
(1997) 1.5M https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
If it did, im sure there would be plenty opining about the wonderful benefits of malaria, how it stops government tyranny from invading the swamps of our forefathers, and how you can always rely on it to dissuade thieves and criminals.
I'm not sure I trust this author to report accurately:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/02/24/lets-be-ve...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/12/03/yes-the-ov...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/02/24/lets-be-ve...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/12/03/yes-the-ov...
On the other hand, shouldn’t the Center for Disease Control spend its time and focus on things that could reasonably be argued fall under the heading of “disease control”? By all means, gun violence research should be conducted by, say, the Department of Justice.
Like many policies in the US at this stage, the goal appears not to be good governance but simply “pwning the other side”.
Like many policies in the US at this stage, the goal appears not to be good governance but simply “pwning the other side”.
Quote from this website [1]
=====
“Gun violence is America’s most preventable disease. I say that because it’s almost entirely preventable and the numbers of people affected are so high.”
[1] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence
=====
“Gun violence is America’s most preventable disease. I say that because it’s almost entirely preventable and the numbers of people affected are so high.”
Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA
University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine
[1] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence
You're quoting someone who clearly has innumeracy issues and no business practicing medicine.
Type II diabetes kills 1.5 MM people annually ( if Judy were to get out a calculator, she would find that this is a smidgen lower than the "so high" 14k gun homicides per annum ), is an actual disease, and is nearly completely preventable.
If Judy Schaechter, MD doesn't know this, then it calls into question her ability to practice medicine.
Incidentally, the medical errors caused by medical staff who can't do basic math, as Judy clearly cannot, kills another quarter million annually in the US.
Type II diabetes kills 1.5 MM people annually ( if Judy were to get out a calculator, she would find that this is a smidgen lower than the "so high" 14k gun homicides per annum ), is an actual disease, and is nearly completely preventable.
If Judy Schaechter, MD doesn't know this, then it calls into question her ability to practice medicine.
Incidentally, the medical errors caused by medical staff who can't do basic math, as Judy clearly cannot, kills another quarter million annually in the US.
Perhaps gun suicides are preventable, but murder has been a disease that humans will likely always suffer from. We did it long before we had firearms, and we'll still be doing it when we all have blaster rifles.
You could say a similar thing about car accidents. Does that make car accidents a disease?
Regardless of whether you classify it as a disease, the CDC does in fact track and research car accident deaths and injuries: https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...
Additionally there are two federal agencies (NHTSB and NTSB) that regulate the various elements of vehicular safety at the national level, on top of state DMVs and transportation departments. By comparison, the federal BATFE is basically hamstrung on firearms regulation, and outside a few States so are its state level equivalents.
Additionally there are two federal agencies (NHTSB and NTSB) that regulate the various elements of vehicular safety at the national level, on top of state DMVs and transportation departments. By comparison, the federal BATFE is basically hamstrung on firearms regulation, and outside a few States so are its state level equivalents.
Additionally, CDC funds and publishes research of motor vehicle safety[1].
Their seat belts topic is a good example: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/pubs.html
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
Their seat belts topic is a good example: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/pubs.html
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
I also like to see what is the argument for treating gun violence as disease but not car accidents.
They also are experts in the study of epidemics broadly which many people have noted mass shootings look like.
Similarly gun violence encompasses suicide and domestic abuse which clearly fall into the expertise of the NiH
Similarly gun violence encompasses suicide and domestic abuse which clearly fall into the expertise of the NiH
The u.s. government has a history of departments performing work that would not seem to logically fit with their stated intention or primary focus. I don't think that alone implies a misuse of authority. For example, the secret service is in charge of protecting government officials but is also tasked with investigating forgery.
This could be a reasonable argument. Unfortunately it is not the one used by CDC officials. They are literally saying gun violence is a disease.
>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the leading national public health institute of the United States. The CDC is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Its main goal is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and internationally.
Gun violence is definitely a public health issue.
Gun violence is definitely a public health issue.
It's dismaying in the comment section to see people who are seemingly unaware of the Dickey Amendment straight up defending it. The Dickey Amendment banned the CDC from funding any research that may be used to advocate or promote gun control. And it was lobbied for by (who would've guessed) the NRA.
Pretty much all medical associations have called for the amendment's repeal. It's had a stifling effect on research into gun violence since 1996 because most research in this area is funded by the federal government.
This is nothing but good news and a blow to groups who want to stifle public knowledge to protect their own interests.
Pretty much all medical associations have called for the amendment's repeal. It's had a stifling effect on research into gun violence since 1996 because most research in this area is funded by the federal government.
This is nothing but good news and a blow to groups who want to stifle public knowledge to protect their own interests.
Slightly related but I come from a country where guns are pretty much illegal and you need to go through a ton of background check etc to even get a 6 bullet pistol. Yet my country has a severe gun violence shooting problem because of illegal guns being manufactured at home as well as imported from neighbouring countries. Another similar example is Mexico with less than 2% legal gun ownership and only a single gun shop and yet they have mass gun related crimes.
If one were to look at US or Switzerland, huge majority of the gun deaths (60% if I remember right) are from suicide and another 15% if law enforcement). Gang related crimes happen using handguns and not ar15 etc.
[deleted]
Jamwinner(1)
But only $25 million
That’s actually a huge number given the clout and lack of nuance of the gun lobby.
Man fuck the government. I ain't free until I can purchase a fully automatic AK with grenade launcher attachment and the finest kush this side of the Rocky's at Walmart.
Honest research on gun violence can't help but find some inconvenient statistics, so I'm somewhat surprised anyone in the current political environment would be interested in lifting this freeze.
Measuring homicides versus “gun deaths” also changes whether there is an observed correlation between gun ownership rates and “gun death”/homicide rates: https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a... (there is no correlation for homicides; there is a moderate correlation for suicides). So, for example, whether you research homicides or “gun deaths”/“gun violence” is already a politically significant choice that will alter the results.
So yes, more research and more data is always good. But this data will get twisted and abused for political grandstanding. People need to be prepared to cut through that.
I’d also point out that, at the end of the day, gun rights derive from the Constitution. Gun control is therefore not merely a policy choice to be made based on facts and data. In fact, there are lots of areas where we are quite reasonably sensitive to research efforts being misused for political ends.