And we also have more mass shootings. Maybe there is no connection but that doesn’t mean there isn’t either. When we can’t put everything on the table, especially facts, then what does that say about us?
The point here being:
Say we pass UBGC’s… And other Vegas happens. Are you going to put your hands on your hips and say “aww shucks, didn’t catch that one…”
No.
There will be 3 or 4 more “solid policy proposals”.
And then when one of those gets through and another Orlando happens… So on and so forth.
That we don’t care about:
Obviously.
Maybe they should fund a big CDC study and let egg heads figure it out… some kind of indy study… It would be a better use of $$ then a dumb wall that doesnt work
I would like to see data that shows this to be true? Particularly data that controls for population size.
What happens when you control for gang violence?
In countries with strict gun control did violence drop as a result or did it simply shift to something else? How much of the increase (assuming it exists) relates to the influx of immigrants (illegal and legal) from Central and South American nations that have higher violent crime rates than America?
There are a lot of factors here.
Let’s say it says “more guns mean more violence with guns”.
What then?
Honest question.
Side bar: I believe Harvard and other places have done studies, and I know I’ve used a UN study to troll the shit out of some euro posters who hate on American gun policy in the past. But the UN study was survey based and violence in general, not just gun violence.
I’m trolling a bit at this point because obviously there will be more mass shootings in the country with as many privately held guns as citizens, and doesn’t have anywhere near a national culture like that of other States in the world. Of course there will be more “gun violence”, but does adding “gun” in front of violence, and then working on gun ownership solve any problems?
And inner-city youth slaughter each other at such alarming rates (after NOT passing BGC’s, many of these guns bought via straw purchase, also a massive felony). Maybe if we (yes myself included) actually did more than pay lip service to these places, and worked on helping them help themselves, we could start to fix “violence” problems elsewhere via the lesson learned there?
The argument of “criminals don’t follow laws” has a few holes in it, and gun rights people use it all the time. The biggest hole is: no shit. Which makes it an intellectually dishonest argument from a policy standpoint in most cases. Sometimes it holds water. But the point of it is really to say: “a lot of the restrictions you want, are already in place. What the hell else do you want to do?”
I believe most mass shooting stats don’t include gang violence.
I think we know that the murder rate in the US is higher than western European nations as well as Australia, Japan and S. Korea.
Something to consider is that Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership yet doesn’t have a murder rate that’s even close the US nor the same number of mass shootings.
So these countries have fewer murders and fewer mass shootings.
Same rape rates as we have at a tenth the population though…
Our culture is not really comparable to theirs in any real sense.
Similar to Japan, they have a fairly homogeneous population that is significantly smaller than ours.
How much of our violence is socioeconomic based and environmental? How much does culture matter?
That’s my point. As Americans we need to look at the facts. We own a lot of guns. We want to continue owning guns. We may have something that could be called a gun culture. We also murder one another at a much higher rate than any other westernized nation.
If people are OK with all of that then fine, we will have to live with that reality, but if something about that reality is bothersome then we need to actually examine it all and be prepared to face some ugly truths.
We may need to think about trying to make some changes on a cultural level. Someone brought up the Paris attacks. They were done by people who, though born in Belgium, were outsiders culturally to France. The people doing the mass shootings here are not all outsiders.
It’s not intellectually dishonest. The point is, people are asking for laws to defend against law breakers while such laws will only hurt the law-abiding. The actual dishonesty is coming from those who attempt to take advantage of duh feels after shootings and (further) restrict our right to arms.
They’re different from, say, laws prohibiting theft. Only…thieves…are negatively effected by laws prohibiting…theft. Don’t commit theft? You won’t be punished. I would wager that a greater percentage of thefts involve the use of the thief’s hands than the percentage of murders that involve any non-bodily weapon. Let’s cut off everyone’s hands to cut down on theft.
1 Like
How do they “hurt.”
I don’t think anyone is “okay” with it.
Fine. I don’t think that examination is going to be in good faith by too many people, and if it is, isn’t possible in the 4 days between an event happens and bills are introduced into congress.
The other problem is there is no way to empirically prove the benefits of civilian gun ownership. Mom’s Demand Xanax tried pushing the “there is no such thing as a good guy with a gun” narrative. That’s objectively false. However many, many, many of the benefits of gun usage are based on self reporting, which isn’t reliable.
I have a friend who, while at a stop on the Pike in NY, chased off would be people breaking into his truck simply by lifting his shirt to show his firearm. They ran, and yelled fuck you, got in and drove away. I have zero reason to not believe him, he’s not a liar and has no delusions of grandeur. But he could be full of shit.
There is unintended consequences of every policy, and in the argument above with TB he’s convinced he knows they would all be immaterial (or more the positives that aren’t quantifiable would out weight them). I don’t have that kind of faith in not only humans, but our legislation. Maybe it’s due to spending too much time in tax, or maybe I don’t believe in my ability to forecast the future enough, but I’m not ready to jump into anything without something more than “because dude, libertarians are the sucks. I just know it will work out the way I want it to”.
In America?
We’d likely need one in the first place… We have like 6,500 or really none at all.
One that did nothing wrong in the first place now has to change their life due to the actions of another best case.
One that did nothing wrong now can’t have access to something, and neither can their children, because someone else did something wrong, worst case.
I think the deeper question is why we kill each other at such a high rate.
I didn’t think this was the case.
Are they lower per capita? We have Cities that are larger than these countries. I think that’s a factor. Japan, for example, culturally has become very passive since WWII. I think that’s another factor.
Okay, so I think that tells us it’s not the rate of gun ownership or the number of guns that’s the issue, right?
I think these are important questions. Maryland is closing in on if not has passed 300 murders this year. I don’t think that has anything at all to do with gun ownership in MD, which has pretty restrictive gun laws compared to other states.
How does that “hurt?” It hurts feelings?
Bingo.
This is the problem to solve.
And while we’re working on it, people can draft legislation to prevent firearms sales to the “dangerous” and “crazy” but if it isn’t very specific and corruption proof, they’ll be wasting there time.
Agreed.
By taking away an effective means of defense that can equalize people despite physical differences.
Let’s try it this way:
When we changed our laws on drunk driving, did we make the punishments harsh and change safety features in cars? Did we make it harder for people to buy beer? Did we “ban” vodka?
We did the first two. Moved the age to 21 and basically ruin the short term life of those that are caught, even if they have not caused any damage or loss of life.
Most states require licensing to purchase/own/carry a firearm, or some combination of the above (these often cost real money to most people). We have BGC’s on most purchases, and in some states ALL of them. Some states ban certain types of rifles even. How many hopes should Jamal Jones have to jump through to buy a rifle so he can run 3 gun because of the actions of other people? When is enough hoops? When is enough petitioning your state, and paying them, to own a damn rifle?