Some facts about guns in the US

[sculptor]

Just as people can become mentally ill, so to can our society become mentally ill, and then contaminate it's citizens with mental illness.
The key concept would be alienation.
If we have an overly tightassed society that fosters alienation, and an entertainment media that favors showing mass shootings over common human bodies: Is the outcome a surprise?
One possibility would be totally free national health care including psychological counseling.
Or, censoring the media with a semblance of sanity and humanity
I am sure that there are other means of compensating for society's ills.
Your thoughts?
.................
Until I was drafted into the military, I had never associated with people of different intellectual, educational or ethnic backgrounds---quite an eye opener for me---learning to respect people of different strengths and weaknesses, some of whom were illiterate. And, that union of differences fostered a deeper appreciation for my fellows, and dispelled most alienation.
(I did, however, go completely flipping insane while in the army eventually settling into a fugue state before recovering.---introspective people have an inherent inability to adapt to that sort of life, but something happened along the way that fundamentally changed my outlook on life ---all ended well, however, when I accidentally volunteered myself into strat-com and was back to being comfortable among a collection of my peers)

Still, I think that compulsory universal military training could(would?) be a great societal equalizer.

 

[sculptor]

in conclusion:
More regulation is not and will not be the cure, but should rather be seen as just one more symptom of the illness.

 

[iceaura]

It's like the time Iceaura went off on people for thinking that just maybe it was a bad idea to leave guns in the hands of some of the most dangerous convicted criminals in our society

That's actually, deliberately, Fox News level, dishonest. A type specimen of bad faith in argument. Why do you post like that on this issue?

What is it about this issue that renders people incapable reason and sense at their ordinary operating levels? It really is a "both sides" issue - the only one I know of in American politics - and that's kind of strange, if you think about it.

Our newly elected senator has a concealed carry permit. She is also a light colonel in the national guard.

Now that she's safely elected, is it OK to take a look at her closet-full of wingnut conspiracy theories and bizarre political views? Obviously that can't happen before handing her a six year term in the highest deliberative political body on the planet, but she's safely in now - time to ask her a few questions, if only for our own entertainment. The Palin/Bachmann role is vacant.

Somewhere in here we really need to decide if we are a society/polity of equals, or a polarized society of the haves and have nots

We decided that when we re-elected Reagan.

There are reasonable reforms that can be enacted that will not unduly interfere with law abiding use of firearms.

Let's say "responsible" rather than "law abiding", for logic reasons.

Essentially everyone agrees with that - including a large majority of NRA members, and an overwhelming majority of gun owners. They agree not only in principle, but in many specific details, with the views and proposals of most people opposed to gun ownership and favoring its stern regulation - -

Why do so many gun owners want to pretend it's an all or nothing proposition?

? Why do you single out gun owners, there?

More regulation is not and will not be the cure, but should rather be seen as just one more symptom of the illness.

Community enforcement of community standards for responsibility in firearms management is not a symptom of anything but sanity. Whether or not they "cure" the amok teenager problem is a subsidiary issue (amok being a traditional Malaysian term for violently flipping out and killing a bunch of people- this kind of stuff is not unique to US society or similar)

 

[sculptor]

What do you think causes feelings of alienation?

 

[tali89]

"School shootings are awful, but the idea that banning guns is going to somehow prevent tragic events like this from happening is not really getting to the root of the problems."

Because this, apparently, is where the discussion must stay.

The roots of the problems? Right.

for a=0 to ∞

if a=a then print "but the idea that banning guns is going to somehow prevent tragic events like this from happening is not really getting to the root of the problems"

next a

Does the day end in "y"?

When I look at left-wingers who advocate gun control, I notice a common theme. They refuse to address the root causes of violence in our society, instead fixating on the symptom by restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Case in point: You just waved off the observation that we should be address the causes of violent behaviour, rather than restricting rights in order to obtain a false sense of security.

I'm a big fan of judging people by what they do, rather than what they say, and I've noticed that the left-wingers who wring their hands about victims of gun violence don't actually contribute anything to improve the situation. They don't study to be a doctor so that they can treat gun shot wounds, or donate to families who have experienced gun violence. They aren't organising any community events to teach gun owners responsible behaviours. Instead, they merely demand that someone, anyone, take the guns away. They are quite happy for other people to make sacrifices for their own peace of mind, but when it comes time for them to do likewise, they scuttle back under their rock. This speaks volumes to me. Left-wingers who advocate gun control don't actually care about the well-being of anyone, they just care about *control*. They don't have a sense of empowerment and individuality, so they will be damned if anyone else will.

There is another element at play, though. The left-wingers I've met usually are unemployed, slavishly obedient to a left-wing education system, or proponents of drug use. As such, they tend to lack self-discipline and emotional control. Therefore they are engaging in projection when they treat every other law abiding, gun owning citizen as a ticking time bomb.

 

[Rako]

Essentially everyone agrees with that - including a large majority of NRA members, and an overwhelming majority of gun owners. They agree not only in principle, but in many specific details, with the views and proposals of most people opposed to gun ownership and favoring its stern regulation - - ? Why do you single out gun owners, there?

No. Gallup shows consistently the past year only about 1/3 of Americans want more gun control, and as Pew Research found the vast majority of them hold a flat earth view that gun murder is up, when in fact it has plummeted 54% the past 21 years and is at a profound low.

For those of us in the sciences, gun control is interesting because the core metric, gun murders, is presumed to be up by a large segment of the population, and in fact has plunged to a near century low.

And re the prior discussion on the Washington State shooting, the father is a reservation police officer and thanks to legislation Feinstein and Pelosi supported nationally and thanks to legislation Cuomo and Bloomberg supported for example in NY, exempt from safe storage and magazine limits even for their personal owned firearms

 

[Randwolf]

And re the prior discussion on the Washington State shooting, the father is a reservation police officer and thanks to legislation Feinstein and Pelosi supported nationally and thanks to legislation Cuomo and Bloomberg supported for example in NY, exempt from safe storage and magazine limits even for their personal owned firearms

This is the kind of absurdity that is... Well, absurd. "We are responsible gun owners, so we shouldn't have to be responsible about it..."

 

[Rako]

Yes, those are things one encounters in a correlation analysis, ice: heterogeneity and random variance.

However, a number of studies indicate that the presence of guns in the home correlates with homicide and suicide. I haven't looked in too much depth, but here are several such studies:

In fact if you control out felon, parolee, multiple arrest, gang member "gun owning homes" the remaining gun owning homes are about 17% safer from violence victimization than unarmed homes. We know from 25 jurisdictional studies (eg: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm ) that between 87% to 93% of US murder victims are gang members, drug dealers, persons on parole for violent crimes or persons with (usually multiple) arrests.

And the fact is Hemenway did not only fail to control for that he failed to look at same region same demographic juristicuons like sober non-advocacy demographers do when looking at an issue. When you do that you get pictures like Maryland and Virginia. Those two states are used by demographers looking at many issues because they are same region, with very close average education, income and other demos. Maryland gets an "A" from brady gun control advocacy group and Virginia gets a a "d" to an "F." Virginia has an estimated 3 times as many guns, in an estimated 20% more homes, and 31 TIMES the number of civilian carry permits. Maryland has 50% more murder, and 40 more violent crime overall.

Hemenway also failed to take African American population into account. The sad fact is the African American male population in the cohort 17-35 years old is 3% of the US population but commits 53% of US murder. To leave that out of the studies makes the studies specious

When you actually look at the facts and figures, it isn't hard to understand why so many feminists push for tighter gun control measures.

Actually women in general and the further left you go in the demographic the more pronounced it gets, believe gun murder is up. Pew and Yale cultural cognition both found about 97% of Democrat identifying women don't know US gun murder has profoundly plummeted and most believe it is up.

 

[Rako]

This is the kind of absurdity that is... Well, absurd. "We are responsible gun owners, so we shouldn't have to be responsible about it..."

How is it absurd? Gun control advocates favor exempting cops from all kinds of gun control, including safe storage laws. There are 20 posts in the past few weeks about the Washington state shooting -- which was a cop's gun.

 

[Rako]

Glib acceptance of bad - even terrible - statistical reasoning in support of bad laws loudly promoted as addressing "the carnage of gun ownership...

Precisely. What we have is something like 800 gun murders of non criminals per year, similar numbers of accidental deaths (and gun ownership appears to be there with pool ownership, bike/skateboard riding), and of the 20,000 gun suicides, not 20,000 because of guns, but between 150 to 400 can be argued to occur if all guns were removed, since the majority would occur anyway (Australia self inflicted opioid deaths, a massive amount of which are likely suicides ruled as accident absent positive evidence of suicide intent) went up 450% since their gun control).

In fact if you are not in a gang, a felon, or already a criminal, your risk of being murdered in the US is lower than Canada, Australia or the developed nation mean. A lot of that is due to the half million to three million crimes prevented by gun owners each year.

 

[pjdude1219]

Our newly elected senator has a concealed carry permit. She is also a light colonel in the national guard.
.....
I'm with the Swiss-----every responsible adult should have mandatory military training, and military grade weapons, and free access to ranges to keep the skillset intact.
.........
Complete national healthcare could also spot developing mental problems early.
Somewhere in here we really need to decide if we are a society/polity of equals, or a polarized society of the haves and have nots.
I would prefer the former, but a clear understanding of the latter would clear up a lot of confusion.

you do realize the swiss have tightened up their laws and your no longer allowed to keep your assualt rifle at home once your out of the militsary?

 

[iceaura]

When I look at left-wingers who advocate gun control, I notice a common theme. They refuse to address the root causes of violence in our society,

You have to be kidding. Leftwingers have made an entire political identity out of focusing on the root causes of violence and other bad behavior in US society. It's one of the obsessions of the left. They've been mocked for it, abused for it, lost elections over it, been marginalized and sequestered away from major media for it, for generations now. It's their easiest identifying characteristic.

Actually women in general and the further left you go in the demographic the more pronounced it gets, believe gun murder is up

That's false. The people most likely to think violent crime is rising in the US are the farther rightwing electorate. It's one of the first arguments we hear from the wingnuts, for gun ownership.

In fact if you are not in a gang, a felon, or already a criminal, your risk of being murdered in the US is lower than Canada, Australia or the developed nation mean

Not if you are female. That's half the population.
Here's some numbers for single-victim incidents alone: http://www.vpc.org/press/1409wmmw.htm

Glib acceptance of bad - even terrible - statistical reasoning in support of bad laws loudly promoted as addressing "the carnage of gun ownership...
Precisely. What we have is something like 800 gun murders of non criminals per year,

Like I said - this is one of the few, perhaps the only, genuinely "both sides are equivalently bad" issues in American politics.

 

[sculptor]

you do realize the swiss have tightened up their laws and your no longer allowed to keep your assualt rifle at home once your out of the militsary?

You are wrong about that.

 

[billvon]

In fact if you control out felon, parolee, multiple arrest, gang member "gun owning homes" the remaining gun owning homes are about 17% safer from violence victimization than unarmed homes.

And if you "controlled out" the unarmed home deaths from suicide, felons, domestic violence and gang members, what would the numbers say then?

The above is a good example of how you can get the stats to say basically whatever you want.

 

[pjdude1219]

You are wrong about that.

sadly i'm not. while you are correct in that they are still allowed to have a gun. they are no longer given ammunition for it. it also should be noted that unlike in the US your access to guns in switzerland is taken away if you act irresponsibly unlike here where you have gun advocates of your self defending irresponsibility. so relying on swiss to bolster your argument just doesn't work.

 

[sculptor]

Let's just back up here a bit.
You posted:

you do realize the swiss have tightened up their laws and your no longer allowed to keep your assualt rifle at home once your out of the militsary?

So, I posted:

You are wrong about that.

and now, you are trying to change the goal post by switching to:

sadly i'm not. while you are correct in that they are still allowed to have a gun. they are no longer given ammunition for it

Yeh, I knew that the swiss gvmt decided in 2008 to have the 50 rounds previously supplied returned and stored in an armory.
However, nothing precludes a mentally sound law abiding citizen from buying the same ammunition, and storing it at home.

So, You now admit that they can keep the weapons, and now you know that they can buy and have the ammunition.
Little has changed in the procedure, and nothing has changed in the outcome.

................
With unhurried mandatory military training, and compulsory service, it's fairly easy to weed out the nutjobs.
Now, if they could just train officers to read maps, they could stop accidentally invading liechtenstein

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

When I look at left-wingers who advocate gun control, I notice a common theme. They refuse to address the root causes of violence in our society, instead fixating on the symptom by restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Case in point: You just waved off the observation that we should be address the causes of violent behaviour, rather than restricting rights in order to obtain a false sense of security.

I'm a big fan of judging people by what they do, rather than what they say, and I've noticed that the left-wingers who wring their hands about victims of gun violence don't actually contribute anything to improve the situation. They don't study to be a doctor so that they can treat gun shot wounds, or donate to families who have experienced gun violence. They aren't organising any community events to teach gun owners responsible behaviours. Instead, they merely demand that someone, anyone, take the guns away. They are quite happy for other people to make sacrifices for their own peace of mind, but when it comes time for them to do likewise, they scuttle back under their rock. This speaks volumes to me. Left-wingers who advocate gun control don't actually care about the well-being of anyone, they just care about *control*. They don't have a sense of empowerment and individuality, so they will be damned if anyone else will.

There is another element at play, though. The left-wingers I've met usually are unemployed, slavishly obedient to a left-wing education system, or proponents of drug use. As such, they tend to lack self-discipline and emotional control. Therefore they are engaging in projection when they treat every other law abiding, gun owning citizen as a ticking time bomb.

Are you here to participate in the discussion?

Or are you just here to insult and abuse people with your gross and offensive stereotypes and mislabeling?

This is the second time you have gone out of your way to try to offend others in this thread. Make sure it is the last time. While I understand nuances about gun "control" appear to obviously pass you by, I would strongly recommend you cease and desist in such offensive stereotyping. There are many "left wingers" in this thread who are fighting for no gun-control and increased gun rights. Just as there are many who identify as "ring wing" who are unemployed, received an educated from what you inanely labeled as a "left-wing education system" and who also use drugs (One of your former "right wing" Presidents would easily qualify for two that you just stereotyped all "left-wing" as being).

So cut it out.

 

[iceaura]

No. Gallup shows consistently the past year only about 1/3 of Americans want more gun control,

That's different from your original claim, which was this:

There are reasonable reforms that can be enacted that will not unduly interfere with law abiding use of firearms.

This illustrates the central political situation in the US: a large majority of citizens in basic agreement over what regulations and responsibilities they would like to see attached to gun ownership: most of these people are opposed or somewhat opposed to enactment of these regulations and enforcement of these responsibilities.

and as Pew Research found the vast majority of them hold a flat earth view that gun murder is up, when in fact it has plummeted 54% the past 21 years and is at a profound low.

The majority of all Americans, especially gun owners and NRA members and the like, think gun murders are up - protection against a supposedly increasing prevalence of violence in America is the main reason given for handgun purchases and "self defense" arguments. Exaggerating the threat of violence sells guns.

 

[sculptor]

Would anyone care to define the difference between a slug and a bullet?
Different regulations for different areas allow "shotgun season" but many "shotguns" have rifled barrels for "slugs"
so technically, they ain't "guns" no more, but rather 20 or 12 gauge rifles. Which are still "shotguns" but nobody would fire shot through a rifled barrel---would they?. Alternately, many years ago, I had bought bullets for a '22 which did have shot in them.
Semantics?
If a 22 caliber rifle fires shot, then is it currently a "shotgun"?
How about if it is a 30 caliber rifle? If shot is once fired through the barrel, then is it a 30 caliber shotgun?

Regulations make for some damned confusing categorizing.

 

[Bells]

Let's just back up here a bit.
You posted:

So, I posted:


and now, you are trying to change the goal post by switching to:


Yeh, I knew that the swiss gvmt decided in 2008 to have the 50 rounds previously supplied returned and stored in an armory.
However, nothing precludes a mentally sound law abiding citizen from buying the same ammunition, and storing it at home.

So, You now admit that they can keep the weapons, and now you know that they can buy and have the ammunition.
Little has changed in the procedure, and nothing has changed in the outcome.

................
With unhurried mandatory military training, and compulsory service, it's fairly easy to weed out the nutjobs.
Now, if they could just train officers to read maps, they could stop accidentally invading liechtenstein

You are missing one essential factor with gun ownership in Switzerland when compared to the US. In Switzerland, those with military weapons in the home are not allowed to use it for self protection or to protect their home and family and gun ownership is tightly regulated.

Not to mention the fact that ownership of firearms in Switzerland is tightly controlled and monitored. They have to be registered and approved, and all transactions have to go through this process, be they private sales or ones from a store. They have a national registry. They have constant checks. It isn't seen as a "right", but as an essential item for State security by way of a militia armed forces. Self protection does not even enter into the equation. And no, you cannot legally walk around with a loaded gun, like you can in the US, unless you have a permit which is usually given to those who need it for their course of employment. Even the members of the serving militia cannot travel or walk around with a loaded gun without special permits and permission to do so.

And the reason for the restrictions and for the militia no longer being allowed to take ammunition home with them is because of public safety. There have been too many mass shootings and domestic shootings in the past.

Prof Killias was a supporter of the 2011 referendum initiative to keep all militia firearms in a central arsenal - because, he says, of the evidence provided by recent statistics.


"Forty-three per cent of homicides are domestic related and 90% of those homicides are carried out with guns," he says.

"But over the last 20 years, now that the majority of soldiers don't have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun violence and a dramatic decrease in gun-related suicides. Today we see maybe 200 gun suicides per year and it used to be 400, 20 years ago. "​

Which is why it is always amusing to see NRA types refer to Switzerland as the prime example of guns in society, and no restrictions and sheer number of guns owned by the public. Yet these very NRA type act with revulsion and hysteria at the very mention of the very systems Switzerland has in place to control who can and cannot own a gun and how they can own it and for what purposes.

•Nearly every male in Switzerland goes through firearm training at the age of 20.
•Swiss males are allowed to keep their firearms after the end of their military service at age 30. The fully automatic weapons must be converted to semi automatic before they can keep them as civilians.
•Switzerland has universal gun registration on gun ownership.
•Switzerland has universal background checks on all gun purchases.
•Switzerland requires universal reporting of firearm transactions, whether commercial or private transfer of ownership.
•Switzerland's carry laws are highly regulated and very restricted. Other than militia members transporting their firearms on their way to militia training, very few people are allowed to actually carry firearms. And they cannot be loaded.
•Despite the militia requirement in Switzerland, the rate of gun ownership (by percentage) in the United States is much higher than in Switzerland.
•Males between 20 and 30 years of age are required to own firearms in Switzerland because they are the nation's well regulated milita. Switzerland has no standing army. It is their civilian militia (much like the intent of the American 2nd amendment) that defends their nation against foreign aggression.
•The vast majority of militia members are not even allowed to store ammo at home. And for the 2000 or so--that's right only 2000--militia members who do have ammo, it is sealed and inspected regularly.
•Switzerland's gun violence rate is fourth highest in the world. Surprised?


In reality, and perhaps ironically, and to the chagrin of the NRA, Switzerland is a fine model for the intent of the American Constitution's 2nd Amendment. They have a well-regulated militia instead of a standing army. They have universal background checks and universal licensing. They require firearm training before a gun can be owned. They have near total restrictions on the purchase and use of ammunition. In fact, they regulate and restrict much more than America does. Interesting.

​