More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

7 hours 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?

Hi Bill,

Your entire argument flies in the face of those countries that have stronger gun laws than the USA.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  As to how to accomplish it:  How about Measure 114 here in Oregon for starters?

[Phil1111 911]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

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

El Dorado rum was it?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

30 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

El Dorado rum was it?

Yep.

[billeisele 122]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Your entire argument flies in the face of those countries that have stronger gun laws than the USA.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  As to how to accomplish it:  How about Measure 114 here in Oregon for starters?

Jerry - In my reply to Phil is some data to consider, Post #3106. In short, Australia dealt with ~700,000 guns 25 years ago. We have ~100 million, that's 142X more. I didn't say it wasn't possible just improbable.

I hope M114 is adopted, bit IMO it's too soft. My reply to Wendy in Post #3073 gave a list of ideas that go much further than M114.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

36 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - In my reply to Phil is some data to consider, Post #3106. In short, Australia dealt with ~700,000 guns 25 years ago. We have ~100 million, that's 142X more. I didn't say it wasn't possible just improbable.

I hope M114 is adopted, bit IMO it's too soft. My reply to Wendy in Post #3073 gave a list of ideas that go much further than M114.

Hi Bill,

Every journey begins with the first step.

Jerry Baumchen

[Phil1111 911]

32 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Every journey begins with the first step.

Jerry Baumchen

3-year-old accidentally shoots, kills 1-year-old sister with unsecured gun, police in California say

50,000 American lives per year lost to gun violence at $9 million per life is $450 billion per year. So using billeisele's figures it would take only three months to pay for the program for the entire first year. I'd suggest a $100 million dollar bribe for each member of the USSC and its a done deal.

"The following estimates have been applied to the value of life. The estimates are either for one year of additional life or for the statistical value of a single life. US lives.

• $50,000 per year of quality life (the "dialysis standard",^[39] which had been a de facto international standard most private and government-run health insurance plans worldwide use to determine whether to cover a new medical procedure)^[40]
• $129,000 per year of quality life (an update to the "dialysis standard")^[41][40]
• $7.5 million (Federal Emergency Management Agency, Jul. 2020)^[5]
• $9.1 million (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010)^[42]
• $9.2 million (Department of Transportation, 2014)^[43]
• $9.6 million (Department of Transportation, Aug. 2016)^[44]"

[Coreece 190]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

21 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.

Ya, just keep on selectively quoting my posts and dodging the point/questions.  You're good at that.

[Coreece 190]

15 hours ago, billeisele said:

On 7/17/2023 at 7:24 PM, 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. . .

Never mind that.  I had this discussion with him like 10 years ago.  Back then he was saying that it would take GENERATIONS to get gun levels that low, but it's a start. Now he's saying 8 years, lmao.

And He never addressed the point wrt who cares about waiting generations when we already had cut the homicide rate in half between 1994 ans 2014 despite doubling the amount of guns.  We must've been doing something right.

And even if we were able to cut the amount of guns in half, we'd still be at  around 1994 numbers when the gun homicide rate was the highest, so why does he think anything would be better?

 

Having said that,  at 1994 numbers (200 million guns iirc) there is a possibility that we could've seen this rollercoaster of spikes in homicide rates every 20 years or so regardless of an increase in guns. (currently 400+ million)  Perhaps 200 million is the magic number, and getting below that might render some positive results?

But again, why bother when there are already proven programs in place, they just won't get the funding.  They rather just make it political and try to take guns away from their conservative boogie men, and garner votes in the process.

 

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Ya, just keep on selectively quoting my posts and dodging the point/questions.  You're good at that.

Sorry about the facts.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

8 hours ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - In my reply to Phil is some data to consider, Post #3106. In short, Australia dealt with ~700,000 guns 25 years ago. We have ~100 million, that's 142X more. I didn't say it wasn't possible just improbable.

I hope M114 is adopted, bit IMO it's too soft. My reply to Wendy in Post #3073 gave a list of ideas that go much further than M114.

Bill, are you  a practicing Christian? 

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

6 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, just keep on selectively quoting my posts and dodging the point/questions.  You're good at that.

Sorry about the facts.

I know you are.  Facts without insight. 

You say more guns, more gun violence  - and then illustrate that with facts about how 2021 had a lower (but near equal) homicide rate than in 1994 when we had 200 million less guns.  And then you deliberately ignore everything else in between that doesn't align with leftist talking points.

[kallend 1,623]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

I know you are.  Facts without insight. 

You say more guns, more gun violence  - and then illustrate that with facts about how 2021 had a lower (but near equal) homicide rate than in 1994 when we had 200 million less guns.  And then you deliberately ignore everything else in between that doesn't align with leftist talking points.

 

Disingenuous.

A state to state comparison of gun ownership vs homicides, and a developed nation to nation comparison, both  show a very clear correlation every year.  Year to year comparisons are confounded by other factors, such as population demographics changing with time.

[Phil1111 911]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

Disingenuous.

A state to state comparison of gun ownership vs homicides, and a developed nation to nation comparison, both  show a very clear correlation every year.  Year to year comparisons are confounded by other factors, such as population demographics changing with time.

Professor! Surely you could have come up with something about the " Facts without insight." part. You know that all of your points of reference relating to the underlying conditions that give rise to the facts of the matter. i.e. the "insight" that gives rise to the facts. Will just be dismissed as more "leftist talking points".

[billeisele 122]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Bill, are you  a practicing Christian? 

Interesting question and not 100% sure what qualifies as "practicing", so I can't say yes or no. So ...

Yes, I believe in God. I try to follow the law, do what is right, share what I have, and be a good person. I try to be tolerant, and less critical of others, and seek to understand the "other side" when differences exist. This isn't a religious saying but, On my honor I will do my best, means something to me but knowing that I'll never reach that goal.

I recognize that I often fail and that, IMO, it's difficult/impossible to manage all the conflicts between life and religion. This discussion could go on forever, best left for its own thread.

How about you?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Interesting question and not 100% sure what qualifies as "practicing", so I can't say yes or no. So ...

Yes, I believe in God. I try to follow the law, do what is right, share what I have, and be a good person. I try to be tolerant, and less critical of others, and seek to understand the "other side" when differences exist. This isn't a religious saying but, On my honor I will do my best, means something to me but knowing that I'll never reach that goal.

I recognize that I often fail and that, IMO, it's difficult/impossible to manage all the conflicts between life and religion. This discussion could go on forever, best left for its own thread.

How about you?

I don't believe in any Gods including the currently popular ones. I absolutely try to be tolerant of any and all of the lifestyle choices my fellow mammals make that don't impact me negatively if for no other reason than to do otherwise is a waste of time and energy. 

But I didn't ask if you believed in God I asked if you were a practicing Christian. What I mean by that is do the tenants of your faith dominantly inform your sense of morality, ethics, and politics? 

[winsor 186]

My point as to who is pulling the triggers was addressed in the Freakonomics movie:

They're a lot more polite about the demographics than I am likely to be.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,400]

6 hours ago, Coreece said:

You say more guns, more gun violence  - and then illustrate that with facts about how 2021 had a lower (but near equal) homicide rate than in 1994 when we had 200 million less guns. 

Ah yes that one cherrypicked year again.  

I can do you one better.  If you go from 2000 to 2021, both gun murder rates and gun suicide rates have doubled - and total number of guns has doubled in about the same time.  My cherrypicking is better.

Of course if you look ALL the data for the long term trend (from, say, the 1960's to today) the gun death rate and the suicide rate has been climbing fairly steadily - even though most of the rest of violent crimes (rape, battery) have gone down.

So we have most violent crimes dropping, with the exception of gun murders and gun suicides that have been climbing.  What do gun murders and gun suicides have in common?

[gowlerk 1,913]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

What do gun murders and gun suicides have in common?

They are caused by people. People kill people. What I don't get is why we don't want every nation to have thermonuclear weapons. After all, bombs don't kill people, nations kill people.

[millertime24 8]

Just popped into this thread to let you guys know it's very entertaining. Carry on.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 hours ago, millertime24 said:

Just popped into this thread to let you guys know it's very entertaining. Carry on.

Why thank you. Dare you say why we are so amusing?

[olofscience 422]

On 7/19/2023 at 11:28 AM, Coreece said:

then illustrate that with facts about how 2021 had a lower (but near equal) homicide rate than in 1994 when we had 200 million less guns

You sound like brent saying "if CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been, why is winter 2022 COLDER than summer 1998!?!?!"

He can't fit more than one variable in his mental temperature model, and you really should consider more than just number of guns in your analysis of homicide statistics.

Learn what a monotonic function is and realise that homicides are not monotonically increasing with guns because other variables exist. But additional analysis like trends, correlation coefficients, etc. will tease out the relationship.

[kallend 1,623]

The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) captured 3,251 firearms at airport security checkpoints within the first half of 2023, averaging 18 firearms a day, with over 92% of them being loaded. 

So much for allowing morons to own guns.

[Coreece 190]

On 7/22/2023 at 7:43 AM, olofscience said:

On 7/19/2023 at 6:28 AM, Coreece said:

then illustrate that with facts about how 2021 had a lower (but near equal) homicide rate than in 1994 when we had 200 million less guns

You sound like brent saying "if CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been, why is winter 2022 COLDER than summer 1998!?!?!"

He can't fit more than one variable in his mental temperature model, and you really should consider more than just number of guns in your analysis of homicide statistics.

Learn what a monotonic function is and realise that homicides are not monotonically increasing with guns because other variables exist. But additional analysis like trends, correlation coefficients, etc. will tease out the relationship.

IIRC, Bill's the one that made the comparison between those two specific years.  I was referencing the 50% reduction in violent/gun crime/homicides over a 20 year period that has been the subject of much research.  There are about 5 main reasons attributed to that decline, none of which were a reduction in guns.  

[olofscience 422]

6 hours ago, Coreece said:

I was referencing the 50% reduction in violent/gun crime/homicides over a 20 year period that has been the subject of much research.  There are about 5 main reasons attributed to that decline, none of which were a reduction in guns.  

Yet again, that 50% reduction was INTERNATIONAL and also happened in Europe and other developed countries which don't have guns.

There is more than one factor involved, so when crime reduces because of a factor that is not gun numbers all of a sudden gun numbers don't matter anymore?

Again, you're reasoning *exactly* like brent. CO2 is increasing but it will start getting colder as we approach winter. That doesn't mean CO2 suddenly has no effect - in this case, a reason that is not CO2, specifically the earth's axial tilt, causes the decrease in temperature in winter.

I still don't see how you're not getting this. I'm sure you can do two variables.

Edited August 4, 2023 by olofscience

[Coreece 190]

15 hours ago, olofscience said:

21 hours ago, Coreece said:

I was referencing the 50% reduction in violent/gun crime/homicides over a 20 year period that has been the subject of much research.  There are about 5 main reasons attributed to that decline, none of which were a reduction in guns.  

Yet again, that 50% reduction was INTERNATIONAL and also happened in Europe and other developed countries which don't have guns.

But not necessarily for the same reasons.  Things like violent crime Bill of 1994 and (proven) violence prevention programs wouldn't apply internationally, and serve as a practical framework for reducing gun crime in the U.S, today.

 

15 hours ago, olofscience said:

There is more than one factor involved

Exactly, but they are hardly ever the topic of discussion.  And when they're brought, people just tend to ignore it.  Nobody wants to talk about the success of the (Biden's) aforementioned violent crime bill in reducing crime.  The left has already admitted that it was a "mistake" given the "unintended consequence" of disproportionately incarcerating blacks. (tho Clinton warned about the consequences a week before signing it.)  And conservatives don't want to give Biden/Clinton credit for drastically reducing crime.

And again, it should be recognized that gun homicides, suicides, and active shooter incidents are influenced by a variety of factors and impact different demographics that call for distinct solutions. 

 

15 hours ago, olofscience said:

still don't see how you're not getting this.

I get that 0 guns = 0 gun deaths, thanks for the memo.

But let's say that we actually do start to reduce guns and cut the number in half, back to 80's & 90's numbers? (200 Million)  What makes you think gun crime is going to be any less than it was back then if we don't address the underlying social & economic factors?

What is the magic number of guns before we start seeing direct results?  100 million?  50 million? 1 million? 0?

How do you intend to achieve that goal? And if you acknowledge that it might not be feasible or effective, why prioritize it as the primary focus instead of concentrating our efforts on the practical (though incomplete) framework we already have, where we can invest our time/money/energy more efficiently?