More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[JoeWeber 2,299]

12 hours ago, billeisele said:

Joe - No.  We've been all over this subject, many times. You and everyone else know that there are multiple reasons for gun violence. The one some like to grab on to is the access to guns. It's convenient for them to ignore the other reasons. IMO, that's unfortunate. It's as if there's no solution to those problems. 

Statements like this one are why some here find it hard to take you seriously. Assuming, with confidence, that included in your "multiple reasons for gun violence" is mental illness how do you know that the easy availability of guns, the lionization of American gun culture by the Right, or even your own individual staunch support of guns like the AR-15 "platform" haven't contributed to what triggered some act of gun violence. You're right, oddly enough, when you make the argument that the problem is more complex than the guns alone. Too complex, apparently.

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

Be advised that referring to "gun violence" is on a par with using "the N word" conversationally.  It tells me too much about your perspective on the issue.

It is also equally offensive.

Nowadays there is a segment of society who think up ever more subtle ways to be offended.  Yesterday it was a trans woman on a beer can.  Today it is discussing gun violence.  Tomorrow - who knows?  I hear calling people "straight" or "cis" is starting to offend some of the more sensitive members of society.  We must all hew to 100% politically correct speech, lest we offend such people and kick off some new cancel culture war.

[Coreece 190]

On 7/11/2023 at 11:59 AM, billvon said:

the top states for gun death rates are very similar, also from the CDC.

Mississippi – 28.6.
Louisiana – 26.3.
Wyoming – 25.9.
Missouri – 23.9.
Alabama – 23.6.
Alaska – 23.5.

Note correlation to gun ownershop rates.  (From the RAND corporation)

Mississippi – 50% of adults live in a household with a gun.
Louisiana – 48%.
Wyoming – 59%.
Missouri – 48%.
Alabama – 50%.
Alaska – 59%.

For the other side of the equation, the LOWEST gun death rates:

Hawaii – 3.4 (8% of adults live in a household with a gun)
Massachusetts – 3.7 (10%)
New Jersey – 5 (8%)
Rhode Island – 5.1 (11%)
New York – 5.3 (14%)

Rates are a good if, for example,  you're just looking out for yourself and trying to find the safest place to live, tho you're more likely to look at the rates of a specific city or neighborhood rather than the entire state as a whole. The latter is often disregarded as it may not provide meaningful insights. (unless of course someone is trying to use it to make a biased political point on social media.)

However, when the goal is to address or alleviate the suffering of gun crime victims and their families, as well as prevent potential future victims/families, then you might have a different outlook.   It becomes apparent that stats about several deaths in low-populated areas hold little significance for the thousands of victims and families residing in lower rate/highly populated states/cities.  

And when you take the time to actually think about it and break it all down - the homicide rates alone in some of the neighborhoods within those states/cities are pushing 65 with an overall crime rate near 2000.  

Bottom line is that most people are "good" and it only takes a few criminals to wreak a "disproportionate" amount of havoc, if you will.

And btw, there are primarily 2 distinct categories of "gun deaths," both of which affect entirely different demographics.

 

[Coreece 190]

On 7/11/2023 at 2:30 PM, kallend said:

"More Guns Less Crime" (title of a silly book by John R. Lott aka Mary Rosh) doesn't appear to align with the facts.

I must've mentioned it at least a dozen times before how we've cut the crime rate in around half over the last 30 years.  And though crime has started trending upward over the last 5 years or so, it's nowhere near what it was in the 90s despite doubling the amount of guns.

Having said that, I don't believe the lower rate is due to having more guns.

And while crime is down overall, it's up dramatically in localized areas.

[billvon 2,400]

8 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I must've mentioned it at least a dozen times before how we've cut the crime rate in around half over the last 30 years. 

Agreed.  But gun violence - specifically total dead due to gun use and active shooter incidents - are up over the last 20.  That's the concern.

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gun-violence-mass-shootings-increase-united-states-data-uvalde-buffalo

[Coreece 190]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

23 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I must've mentioned it at least a dozen times before how we've cut the crime rate in around half over the last 30 years. 

Agreed.  But gun violence - specifically total dead due to gun use and active shooter incidents - are up over the last 20.  That's the concern.

Agreed, it's gained popularity ever since columbine in the 90s.

At the same time, I'm wondering how do those 200 or so incidents from your link over the last 20 years actually affect the overall numbers/rates we're talking about?

Edited July 18, 2023 by Coreece

[billvon 2,400]

3 minutes ago, Coreece said:

At the same time, I'm wondering how do those 200 or so incidents from your link over the last 20 years actually affect the overall numbers/rates we're talking about?

Since the link also listed overall death rates - yes.

[Coreece 190]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

8 minutes ago, Coreece said:

At the same time, I'm wondering how do those 200 or so incidents from your link over the last 20 years actually affect the overall numbers/rates we're talking about?

Since the link also listed overall death rates - yes.

Ya, since 2019 like I already said in the part that you selectively quoted out.

Besides, we've had all these guns way before that.  Something else dramatic must've happened in the last 5 years. . .

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, Coreece said:

Ya, since 2019 like I already said in the part that you selectively quoted out.

Besides, we've had all these guns way before that.  Something else dramatic must've happened in the last 5 years. . .

Indeed, like a slew of bullshit SC decisions. What is it with the gun huggers? Do you really think that the increase in the numbers of automobile crashes is a function of fewer slow down signs and has zero to do with the increased number of cars? 

[billvon 2,400]

42 minutes ago, Coreece said:

However, when the goal is to address or alleviate the suffering of gun crime victims and their families, as well as prevent potential future victims/families, then you might have a different outlook. 

If you are looking to address or alleviate the suffering of gun crime victims and their families, then you have to first figure out what works to reduce gun violence - and what increases it.  And what that data shows is that the rate of gun ownership is a strong driver of gun violence.

Quote

 It becomes apparent that stats about several deaths in low-populated areas hold little significance for the thousands of victims and families residing in lower rate/highly populated states/cities.

Agreed!  And since deaths/100,000 count people killed, not acres of land, that's the important statistic.

Quote

Bottom line is that most people are "good" and it only takes a few criminals to wreak a "disproportionate" amount of havoc, if you will.

Nope.  We have plenty of examples - even one here - where a 'good' person has a momentary lapse and turns into a mass murderer.  The availability of a gun makes that possible.  And the more people that have guns, the more often that can happen.

Hollywood would have you believe that people who commit gun violence guns have criminal records, lurk in shadows, look disreputable, were probably beaten as children and would be fairly easy to identify if lazy cops could be bothered to look for them.  But in reality the only solid characteristic that almost all such shooters share is that they are male. 

 

[billvon 2,400]

17 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Besides, we've had all these guns way before that.  Something else dramatic must've happened in the last 5 years. . .

No, we really haven't.   Per the The National Shooting Sports Foundation there are about 434 million firearms in civilian possession - and half of those have been purchased since 1991.  And with ~20 million guns a year being purchased, that will continue to grow fairly quickly.

The more guns, the more gun violence.

https://www.guns.com/news/2020/11/17/data-us-has-434-million-guns-20m-ars-150m-mags

https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/

[Coreece 190]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

The more guns, the more gun violence.

But again, we cut the gun homicide rate in half between 1994 and 2014, and it wasn't because of less guns since we nearly doubled them during that time.

How were we able to reduce the homicide rate during that time? 

Why were they killing more in 1994 than 2004?  Why are they killing more now than in 2019?

Edited July 18, 2023 by Coreece

[olofscience 422]

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

But again, we cut the gun homicide rate in half between 1994 and 2014, and it wasn't because of less guns since we nearly doubled them during that time.

How were we able to reduce the homicide rate during that time?

One theory? The phase-out of leaded gasoline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis

One main thing you miss: the decline in violent crime from the 1990s was GLOBAL (okay, mostly industrialised countries, but not isolated to the US). Including countries with already tough gun control.

Edited July 18, 2023 by olofscience

[billeisele 122]

11 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

What part of reducing the number of guns in the US by 30-50 million per year is hard to understand?

You asked and I answered not once but twice as of now. With that solution there would be no guns in the US in about eight years.

You really are disingenuous.

No you did not answer. Again, here it is:  Explain exactly how this would work. Use real numbers, costs, loss of jobs, economic impacts, what happens to otherwise law-abiding folks that don't comply, what happens when criminals keep them, and the anticipated impact on crime. Use real info, quote sources, show that you have an actual plan 

How can your plan be accomplished?

[Phil1111 911]

36 minutes ago, billeisele said:

No you did not answer. Again, here it is:  Explain exactly how this would work. Use real numbers, costs, loss of jobs, economic impacts, what happens to otherwise law-abiding folks that don't comply, what happens when criminals keep them, and the anticipated impact on crime. Use real info, quote sources, show that you have an actual plan 

How can your plan be accomplished?

Exactly the same remedy that Australia, the UK, Canada and other western countries have used. If you don't take the buyout you go to jail. Yes it will cost less than the cost of the current carnage. Yet still be in the hundreds of billions. In the long run be cost effective and cheaper than the current status quo.

I also believe that every responsible, sane, tested person can still own guns.Including handguns and AR-15s. But the restrictions and background checks would be that of a current FFL from ATF.

[winsor 186]

11 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Is the term “gun violence “ as offensive as people dying from gun violence?

Quote

Quote

I'm sure the demographics of who's pulling the triggers is entirely unimportant.

 

 

[billeisele 122]

11 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Re:  elected officials are bad.

I also get it:  Not All elected officials are bad.   Why do you continue to lump them all together?

Re:  I was talking about is the general population

Sure, you can find a small percentage of the D's that do not support any changes.  But, IMO they are so small as to be insignificant.  It is the GOP, across the board, that is standing in the way of progress.

Jerry Baumchen

Agree, not all are bad. You are the one saying that all GOP politicians do not support any changes. Why do you continue to lump them all together? It's just not true. 

Oregon's 114 passed with a vote of 50.7%. In Oregon, D is 34%, R is 25%, I is 5% and non-affiliated is 35%. The allegation that this is an R problem isn't supported by the vote in OR. Even if all the Ds voted for it (which is just a silly assumption) they needed some Rs and Is to get to 51%.

Peel back the onion on 114. It's interesting that the Oregon State Sheriffs' Assoc opposed it. “We recognize that we must address firearm violence,” said Shane Nelson, president of Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association. “But measure 114 is just not the answer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oregon#:~:text=Democrat >%3D 50%,Republican >%3D 30%

Look at OR Measure 5 in 2000 on requiring background checks on gun transfers. It passed with 61.8% vote. Clearly there were Rs supporting that.

The party leaders and extremes are using it as a hammer to beat on each other. There are moderates on both sides that agree that something should be done. Until the D and R argument stops, nothing will get done.

[wmw999 2,123]

Question, Winsor: what would be an acceptable term to use to avoid the g-word? I’m assuming it’s the g-word you’re objecting to, because violence is kind of a generic word. You were never as far as I can tell the type to use the n-word, so I don’t think it’s personal resentment over the change in who can use it  

Wendy P. 

[billeisele 122]

35 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Exactly the same remedy that Australia, the UK, Canada and other western countries have used. If you don't take the buyout you go to jail. Yes it will cost less than the cost of the current carnage. Yet still be in the hundreds of billions. In the long run be cost effective and cheaper than the current status quo.

I also believe that every responsible, sane, tested person can still own guns.Including handguns and AR-15s. But the restrictions and background checks would be that of a current FFL from ATF.

Great and thanks. We agree 100% on your last paragraph.

Where we differ is on the cost type stuff. It's impossible to put a value on each life that is lost, yet that is done all the time in civil trials. That makes it easy to say that it's worth it. But there are real costs.

I don't know what that total cost is but it's above 100 billion. There would have to be some way to manage that. The buy-out cost would be simple to estimate.  

The Australia effort was in 1997 and involved approximately 700,000 guns. It banned semi-auto rifles and shotguns and they paid market value for them. Using that model, in the US: ~400 million guns in private ownership.

From various sources, and the data differs: 30 million semi-auto rifles, 50 million semi-auto handguns, 20 million semi-auto shotguns. The number of semi-auto is hard to pin down but the exact number doesn't matter. I'm taking general numbers, the actual number of semi-auto could easily be 150 million.

Let's use 100 million semi-auto weapons in private hands. AUS only went after long guns, in the US that's ~50 million. Using that estimate and an average fair market value of $500, we're talking about $25 billion. Raise the FMV to $1,000 it's $50 billion. That supposedly solves the mass murder issue. But it doesn't.

Handguns are used in 65% of gun murders so it's also important to address those. That puts us in the $50 - $75 billion range for buy backs. Handguns are used in 65% of murders, rifles in 3%, shotguns 1%. If handguns are not addressed then not much will change. The next most common weapons are knives.

The estimated annual economic impact of the industry is $81 billion, guns and ammo.

That puts us somewhere north of $100 billion the first year in easily identifible costs. Add in the small businesses that close, lost jobs, tracking and destruction costs, government oversight costs, etc., and the figure jumps again.

A US collect and crush effort would be 143X bigger than what Australia did. The sheer volume is mangeble by recyclers but it's huge.

And no, for me it's not just about dollars, but I recognize that it's a real issue that would be raised to stop any progress towards that remedy. Yes, no doubt something needs to be done. I just don't think that will ever happen.

[normiss 622]

Anyone else remember driver education classes in high school where we watched the violent films from Ohio about what happens to human bodies in car crashes?

The goal was to get us to think more about our driving, understanding the risks and results, and to drive safer.

Maybe we should start gun safety / mass shooting preparedness classes in schools. Videos of the shootings and the bodies of children in the ER and the morgue. Show EVERYONE what actually happens to children when they are victims of insane gun violence. The war-like damage certain weapons inflict on the body would make quite an impression

The Emmett Till program?

Signal 30 - graphic driver education film.

 

[Phil1111 911]

9 minutes ago, normiss said:

Anyone else remember driver education classes in high school where we watched the violent films from Ohio about what happens to human bodies in car crashes?

The goal was to get us to think more about our driving, understanding the risks and results, and to drive safer.

Maybe we should start gun safety / mass shooting preparedness classes in schools. Videos of the shootings and the bodies of children in the ER and the morgue. Show EVERYONE what actually happens to children when they are victims of insane gun violence. The war-like damage certain weapons inflict on the body would make quite an impression

The Emmett Till program?

Signal 30 - graphic driver education film.

 

Agree. A public education program with advertising like tobacco use in other countries. A picture of an attractive Black, Brown, White child before the injury. Then pictures of disfigured faces, missing limbs, urostomy pouches attached to a child in a wheelchair, etc. Then the story of how gun violence brought this all about.

[Phil1111 911]

17 minutes ago, billeisele said:

... I just don't think that will ever happen.

It will happen but may take decades to overcome the resistance of die hard gun owners. Decades to change the courts and the constitution.

Until then the carnage will continue and the whole world will look upon the US with pity and disdain.

[billvon 2,400]

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

But again, we cut the gun homicide rate in half between 1994 and 2014 . . .

And now it is back to that level.

In 1994 (a peak in gun deaths, so the best year to cherrypick) there were 6.8 deaths per 100,000 people due to gun violence.  In 2021 it was 6.7.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

It will happen but may take decades to overcome the resistance of die hard gun owners. Decades to change the courts and the constitution.

Until then the carnage will continue and the whole world will look upon the US with pity and disdain.

I've been looking for responsible homes for my guns, I would jump at the chance to trade them for cash or booze.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

14 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Indeed, like a slew of bullshit SC decisions. What is it with the gun huggers? Do you really think that the increase in the numbers of automobile crashes is a function of fewer slow down signs and has zero to do with the increased number of cars? 

Hi Joe,

Easy; these are hard concepts to understand.

Jerry Baumchen