Gun don't kill people, people kill people

[Kulindahr]

That's a red herring. Guns in the US are part of a problem with violence in America. If you look across the globe, you won't see the American brand of fear. In places like Africa and the Middle East, areas with guns are the areas with the most violence, rape and murders. In Canada and most of Europe, the relationship is the inverse, fewer guns and less violence.

In the U.S., the areas with the most guns per capita are the ones with the least violence.

Because that's a gun industry talking point that has little basis in reality. It's part of that "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun..." marketing ploy.

It's definite reality: criminals are happy to know where there are fewer guns.

And except when the bad guy with a gun shoots himself, the most effective way to stop him IS a good guy with a gun -- if it wasn't, police wouldn't carry them.

Gun control advocates make a mistake in bring up background checks after mass shooting events. Background checks are needed to reduce the incidence of people who have criminal histories- particularly domestic violence- and mental health histories from obtaining weapons. It's also an insult to our intelligence that one can be on a terrorist watch list or the no-fly list and still be able to buy a weapon.

But background checks don't reduce anything; most criminals get their guns illegally (or as is increasingly the case in California, make their own).

As for barring people on the terrorist on no-fly watch lists, that's unconstitutional: it's a denial of rights without due process. My brother the computer expert was on the no-fly list because some bureaucrat had him confused with someone else -- and that means that if such a list could be used to bar people from having weapons, then the government has just been handed an unrestricted power to take away guns from anyone for any reason. The Bill of Rights was enacted to protect us from government power, so the insult to intelligence is to propose government authrity that has no actual restriction.

Because of the push to expand the intent of the Second Amendment we have a big issue in that it is very difficult to remove guns from someone who is mentally ill and deemed dangerous to themselves and others. And with several States allowing guns to be legally taken into places that serve alcohol, we've reached the point where rational thought has abandoned us.

There is no "push to expand the intent of the Second Amendment"; according to Miller and before, the intent is that citizens may have military weapons, or weapons useful to the military. The only expansion was the COurt's move to bring in self-defense, but that's only because the Founders and Framers considered that right to be so obvious it didn't need an amendment to protect it.

But no intrusions on the Second are needed to deal with the issue; Congress need only exercise its Article I Section 8 authority for the organization and discipline of the militia. It would take a simple return to the militia system the Founders and Framers knew, where the members were neighbors and friends, and the officers knew the members -- and those members knew who wasn't "competent to arms", a category which included those we now call mentally ill, and could exclude them.

Ponder this: it's more difficult to vote in the US that it is to buy a gun. To vote, you have to register well in advance of an election, wait until your registration is processed and then when you show up to vote, you have to present identification. If you are a felon or you are deemed non compos mentis, you can lose your right to vote. The restrictions on gun purchase and gun ownership are much more lax.

Voting isn't an inherent right; the right to keep and bear arms is, and has been so recognized as far back as Cicero.

It's an idea that came from the Virginia Constitution- take a look at Jefferson's original draft:

Proposing and drafting are separate things.

Madison chose to lift that draft, so the reasons behind the Amendment as it stands are Madison's, not Jefferson's. Jefferson wasn't even there; he was overseas in France.

And take a look at the final version (before the 1971 addition):


You'll also find a pretty clear statement in his 8th annual address (1808):

In 1808 the states were seriously concerned about the very power they'd kicked out in order to retain their traditional rights -- Great Britain -- so the focus was on that purpose of the militia. It wasn't the main purpose, as is evident from both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

 

[Kulindahr]

^These clarifications on the militia question, as it relates to freemen bearing arms...are educational.

It's the background to the racist origins of the state militia interpretation of the Second Amendment and gun control: the whites of the South after the Civil War didn't want their former slaves to be armed, because being armed meant they had to be in practice treated as equal, not just on paper.

 

[Kulindahr]

To libertarians and conservatives, doing nothing is not a bad thing. That government is best which governs least. But revoking laws and regulations, increasing freedoms is better.

Once again you retreat from your position, which was that he'd done something.

 

[KaraBulut]

In the U.S., the areas with the most guns per capita are the ones with the least violence.

That's a well-crafted statement that I've heard gun advocates use. It distorts a set of complicated data that tries to combine property crime and violent crime and robbery to justify a conclusion. It's also doesn't distinguish between handguns and long guns when they know very well that handguns are more likely to be associated with violent crime and suicide.

The overall rate of violence crime in all of the US according to the FBI is 397.1 per 100,000 people. In Louisiana (lax gun laws), the rate is a whopping 566.1 per 100,00 people. In New York (strict gun laws), the rate is 376.2 per 100,000. Take the same data for robberies, Illinois (strict gun laws) has 139.3 robberies per 100,000 but South Carolina (lax gun laws) has 81.3 per 100,000. In other words, you're more likely be robbed in Illinois but you're more likely be to murdered in Louisiana.

If you look at the overall statistics, the areas with the most guns have the most gun deaths. The top 5 states for gun deaths per capita are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Wyoming and Montana. The bottom 5 states are Rhode Island, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.

But even these "low" states are well above the gun deaths in other countries: The average gun deaths in the US is 10.4 people per 100,000 people. The rate in the UK is 0.23 per 100,000. In Australia, it's 0.86 per 100,000 people.

The areas with the most guns also have the most suicides by gun.

It's definite reality: criminals are happy to know where there are fewer guns.

Unfortunately, the FBI stats didn't report on criminals' happiness.

And except when the bad guy with a gun shoots himself, the most effective way to stop him IS a good guy with a gun -- if it wasn't, police wouldn't carry them.

We just don't have enough good guys to staff everywhere that bad guys are.

I'd argue that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to prevent the bad guy from getting the gun.

But background checks don't reduce anything; most criminals get their guns illegally (or as is increasingly the case in California, make their own).

Which is why reducing the number of guns in circulation would also prevent bad guys from getting guns.

Background checks do prevent domestic violence according to research. I would also argue that if the obstructions that the gun lobby has put in place that prevent accurate linking of crimes, temporary restraining orders and mental health rulings to background checks might give us a better chance of preventing more gun deaths.

Voting isn't an inherent right; the right to keep and bear arms is...

This is a true in the US. It's why, for many years, a Black person could be prevented from voting via local laws but still could purchase guns. And it's worth noting that there are no multi-page threads on JUB forums advocating on voter rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's a well-crafted statement that I've heard gun advocates use. It distorts a set of complicated data that tries to combine property crime and violent crime and robbery to justify a conclusion. It's also doesn't distinguish between handguns and long guns when they know very well that handguns are more likely to be associated with violent crime and suicide.

The overall rate of violence crime in all of the US according to the FBI is 397.1 per 100,000 people. In Louisiana (lax gun laws), the rate is a whopping 566.1 per 100,00 people. In New York (strict gun laws), the rate is 376.2 per 100,000. Take the same data for robberies, Illinois (strict gun laws) has 139.3 robberies per 100,000 but South Carolina (lax gun laws) has 81.3 per 100,000. In other words, you're more likely be robbed in Illinois but you're more likely be to murdered in Louisiana.

If you look at the overall statistics, the areas with the most guns have the most gun deaths. The top 5 states for gun deaths per capita are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Wyoming and Montana. The bottom 5 states are Rhode Island, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.

I didn't say states. The highest violence rates are in urban areas, which is where gun ownership is lowest.

We just don't have enough good guys to staff everywhere that bad guys are.

Sure we do. If just 15% of the people were actually trained and carried, the odds are that any time a bad guy decides to get violent where there are people around there will be a good guy ready to respond.

I'd argue that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to prevent the bad guy from getting the gun.

Can't be done -- even Feinstein is becoming aware of this.

Which is why reducing the number of guns in circulation would also prevent bad guys from getting guns.

To this and the above: as police are learning in California, bad guys can't be prevented from getting guns -- they start manufacturing their own. For someone who knows what he's doing, turning out a semi-auto pistol is a matter of a few dozen hours using machines available at a Sears store; turning out a revolver is a lot simpler.

Background checks do prevent domestic violence according to research. I would also argue that if the obstructions that the gun lobby has put in place that prevent accurate linking of crimes, temporary restraining orders and mental health rulings to background checks might give us a better chance of preventing more gun deaths.

Those blocks have less to do with the "gun lobby" than they do with the Constitution: they're upholding the requirement of due process.

The insane aspect of this is that the Constitution provides a system for dealing with all the complaints about misuse of guns, but neither party is interested in the Constitution.

 

[MakeItTonite]

Which is why reducing the number of guns in circulation would also prevent bad guys from getting guns.

Through legislation? Okay. Still plenty of guns out there. Even with restrictions there will still be plenty more. Your solution is what?

 

[Pierresro]

48,672 people sho in the U.S. since 1st of January 2017 someone is shootng and killing see each case from children under 10 mass shootings even criminals nothing missing http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

[johaninsc]

Punctuation is your friend, lambdaboy


oh, sorry...I see you put a comma in 46,672

progress!!



baby steps...

 

[MakeItTonite]

If you don't want to own any firearms, that's fine. No one is twisting your arm. Now just leave everyone else be. Everyone else can make their own decision.

 

[gsdx]

If you don't want to own any firearms, that's fine. No one is twisting your arm. Now just leave everyone else be. Everyone else can make their own decision.

The idea is not to take away anyone's right to 'bear arms'. The idea is to take away (restrict, if you will), the 'arms' which can cause mass murder, and mass murderers make the conscious decision to buy those weapons to shoot dozens of innocent people. They certainly didn't buy them for squirrel hunting.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

It’s not really ones own decision anymore when the common theme is “I need a fire arm to protect myself”, so when more people get guns, that’s more people that you need “protection” from. Considering any given moment any given person with a gun can just pop off.

 

[Willie Boy]

Not only that, but the more people who have guns the greater chance for someone to overreact to a perceived threat with their gun. Before ever getting a gun the prospective buyer should be required to take an in depth gun safety course with the weapon, emphasizing when NOT to employ the weapon over how to fire. Even an untrained monkey can figure out how to fire a gun, but very few humans can figure out when its best not to start waving one around.

 

[KaraBulut]

I didn't say states. The highest violence rates are in urban areas, which is where gun ownership is lowest.

It's the same issue again no matter how you slice it- city vs state.

For example, in table 4 of the 2016 FBI statistics that I linked to earlier, you can see that violent crime in urban areas of the Northeast, where gun laws tend to be more restrictive, has been steadily decreasing. These Northeastern cities have much lower crime rates than cities in the South. You're more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Houston where gun laws are lax (578.2 crimes per 100,000 residents) than you are in New York where gun laws are restrictive (354.9 crimes per 100,000 residences). Even in high crime cities, it's the same trend- New Haven has a violent crime rate of 322.8 per 100,000 people but New Orleans has a rate of 558.8 per 100,000.

Source

One has to be very careful taking two statistics and inferring a correlation between the two. One very reputable researcher has correlated gun violence and violent crime to abortion rates- eighteen years after the Rowe decision, violent crimes decreased and they have continued to decrease since Rowe; areas with easier access to abortion have declining violent crime rates while areas that are restricting access to abortion have not seen the same rates of decline.

Now, before we get off on a discussion about abortion, that's not the point. The point is that Congress defunded research into gun violence- specifically gun violence- so we have incomplete data to make policy on (which was the goal of Congress' action). The focus on mass shooting events by both sides of the gun issue isn't helping- both sides need to agree to look the research and come up with ways to address the problem.

I'd argue that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to prevent the bad guy from getting the gun.

Can't be done -- even Feinstein is becoming aware of this.

I mentioned earlier that there are an increasing number of members of Congress who have personal experience with gun violence. Senator Feinstein is one of those members. She was at the San Francisco City Hall when Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk were shot and killed. She tends to be very rational on legislation and she does realize that allowing Tom Delay to block the renewal of the assault weapons law in the early 2000s was the turning point on a particular type of mass shooting. However, I think she also knows that handguns and suicides are really the issue that needs the most attention.

We just don't have enough good guys to staff everywhere that bad guys are.

Sure we do. If just 15% of the people were actually trained and carried, the odds are that any time a bad guy decides to get violent where there are people around there will be a good guy ready to respond.

Actually, that's not what the research shows. And to be clear- when I say "good guy", I'm talking about people who are specifically trained for these situations- law enforcement and military veterans, specifically.

There's two scenarios that we're talking about- one is a robbery/assault scenario and the other is an active shooter event. The probably of most people encountering either is statistically low.

In the scenario where someone encounters someone with a gun in an assault, having a gun doesn't change the outcome. Introducing a second gun into an assault scenario is likely to escalate the situation resulting in one or both parties will be shot.

In active shooter situations, experts do not encourage civilians to waste time with weapons unless they have been specifically trained for these scenarios. In research where people were confronted with a scenario where a shooter attacked a group of people who had weapons and training, the gun owners were unable to process the scenario in a timely manner and they consistently, instinctively froze then ran.

The only group who were able to respond in time were law enforcement people who were specifically trained on this scenario. And the consistent complaint from this law enforcement group was that when civilians possessed weapons in the scenario, law enforcement was unable to distinguish the "good shooter" from the "bad shooter" and they would not hesitate to shoot everyone without a police uniform.

The recommendation from the experts is designed to both take advantage of human instinct and is based upon research on survivors of mass shooting events: ADD- Avoid, Deny, Defend. Your best chance to survive an interaction with an armed person is to avoid confrontation and to get away.

 

[MakeItTonite]

The idea is not to take away anyone's right to 'bear arms'. The idea is to take away (restrict, if you will), the 'arms' which can cause mass murder, and mass murderers make the conscious decision to buy those weapons to shoot dozens of innocent people. They certainly didn't buy them for squirrel hunting.

Do you not hear yourself?

You're saying squirrel hunting 'arms' are acceptable but all other 'arms'-in quotation marks, no less-must be taken away? Brilliant. Why didn't anyone else ever think of that? But who gets to decide the who, what, when, where, why of it all? Certainly not you. You don't even live here.

What you people are really advocating for is a soft-ban and when that fails, an outright ban. You're really no different than, say, the anti-abortionists on that other side of the isle.

 

[Telstra]

It is that simple.
Nuclear bomb don't kill people but yet the NRA don't want other countries to have it.
But the NRA sell every Americans with tiny micro nuclear bomb (guns) ...

 

[gsdx]

Do you not hear yourself?

You're saying squirrel hunting 'arms' are acceptable but all other 'arms'-in quotation marks, no less-must be taken away?

That is not what I am saying at all. YOU are saying it.

 

[KaraBulut]

That is not what I am saying at all. YOU are saying it.

He's a member who has been here before under a different name. He's trolling you. There's an easy solution to that.

 

[MakeItTonite]

He's a member who has been here before under a different name. He's trolling you.

I thought I was just responding to a post.

Apparently we have very different ideas about what constitutes trolling. But so be it. It's your website.

 

[Kulindahr]

The idea is not to take away anyone's right to 'bear arms'. The idea is to take away (restrict, if you will), the 'arms' which can cause mass murder, and mass murderers make the conscious decision to buy those weapons to shoot dozens of innocent people. They certainly didn't buy them for squirrel hunting.

Of the two rifles shown in many photos from the Las Vegas shooting, one of them was a perfect weapon for squirrel hunting; the other was more appropriate for elk.

 

[Kulindahr]

It’s not really ones own decision anymore when the common theme is “I need a fire arm to protect myself”, so when more people get guns, that’s more people that you need “protection” from. Considering any given moment any given person with a gun can just pop off.

Fallacy.

If I didn't need protection from them before they got a gun, I don't need protection from them now.

The only logical possibility if your statement could hold is if somehow guns magically make people want to be a threat to others.