Can we talk civilly about guns?

[Gaius46]

No, pro active would be doing something about the fact that the neighborhood is shitty.
Buying a gun is simply adding to the shittiness.

Except of course that one person makes little difference and neighborhoods don’t go from shitty to good overnight. That’s a long term solution - at best - but you still the short term problem of personal safety.


And it isn’t restricted to just shitty neighborhoods though the need may be greater there. People break into nice homes in nice neighborhoods too.

 

[Goshin]

Except of course that one person makes little difference and neighborhoods don’t go from shitty to good overnight. That’s a long term solution - at best - but you still the short term problem of personal safety.


And it isn’t restricted to just shitty neighborhoods though the need may be greater there. People break into nice homes in nice neighborhoods too.

Quite a lot actually. That's where the money and the good stuff is.

 

[NWRatCon]

I think this is a point on which you and I are just not going to see eye-to-eye.

On this we can agree.

But, the true black swan event was Oklahoma City, not Las Vegas. All of those other mass shootings led inexorably to Las Vegas. Unfortunately, it was quite predictable, and indeed predicted, even expected. "Mass shootings occur worldwide but are a particular problem in the United States. Despite being home to only 5% of the world’s population, roughly 31% of the world’s mass shootings have occurred in the United States.1 As of 2015, a mass shooting resulting in the death of four or more people occurred approximately every 12.5 days."

Mass Shootings: The Role of the Media in Promoting Generalized Imitation (NCBI)​

As a public policy issue, I believe we should focus our efforts on those circumstances that are most dangerous to the public.
Instead, we ignore the obvious, and perseverate about things of far less significance. In my view, we can, and should, make firearm possession at least as safe as driving a car, or even flying private aircraft.

 

[ttwtt78640]

On this we can agree.

But, the true black swan event was Oklahoma City, not Las Vegas. All of those other mass shootings led inexorably to Las Vegas. Unfortunately, it was quite predictable, and indeed predicted, even expected. "Mass shootings occur worldwide but are a particular problem in the United States. Despite being home to only 5% of the world’s population, roughly 31% of the world’s mass shootings have occurred in the United States.1 As of 2015, a mass shooting resulting in the death of four or more people occurred approximately every 12.5 days."

Mass Shootings: The Role of the Media in Promoting Generalized Imitation (NCBI)​

As a public policy issue, I believe we should focus our efforts on those circumstances that are most dangerous to the public.
Instead, we ignore the obvious, and perseverate about things of far less significance. In my view, we can, and should, make firearm possession at least as safe as driving a car, or even flying private aircraft.

That (bolded above) is the all too typical call to convert our 2A rights into mere state issued privileges. That is not part of a serious discussion of (or “think about”) the topic.

I'm not interested in extremist views or partisan pontificating, but a serious think about the topic.

 

[Goshin]

On this we can agree.

But, the true black swan event was Oklahoma City, not Las Vegas. All of those other mass shootings led inexorably to Las Vegas. Unfortunately, it was quite predictable, and indeed predicted, even expected. "Mass shootings occur worldwide but are a particular problem in the United States. Despite being home to only 5% of the world’s population, roughly 31% of the world’s mass shootings have occurred in the United States.1 As of 2015, a mass shooting resulting in the death of four or more people occurred approximately every 12.5 days."

Mass Shootings: The Role of the Media in Promoting Generalized Imitation (NCBI)​

As a public policy issue, I believe we should focus our efforts on those circumstances that are most dangerous to the public.
Instead, we ignore the obvious, and perseverate about things of far less significance. In my view, we can, and should, make firearm possession at least as safe as driving a car, or even flying private aircraft.

A lot of those "mass shootings" are gang or drug related, or involve personal grudges against specific people. In my opinion, this is different from someone who goes to a certain place with intent to just randomly kill as many people as possible with little or no regard for who he targets.

OKC was a black swan event, granted... but so was Vegas. Vegas was a "perfect storm" of very unusual conditions and circumstances involving a rich guy who did not seem to fit the profile of mass shooter in most ways, who engaged in long-term planning of a highly sophisticated nature rarely seen in such incidents. Thus far no one has duplicated this event or succeeded in a similar attack, and it isn't because bump stocks are now illegal.

The role of the media in promoting copy-cats is a good point, and one which needs to be seriously looked at. Many of these shooters are motivated by the massive news coverage given to prior murderers, and seek to beat their body count or do something even more heinous.

I'm sure you're aware that you can buy a car and keep it on your own land and drive it on your own land, without license, tags, or insurance.

 

[NWRatCon]

A lot of those "mass shootings" are gang or drug related, or involve personal grudges against specific people. In my opinion, this is different from someone who goes to a certain place with intent to just randomly kill as many people as possible with little or no regard for who he targets.

I agree. I don't intend this thread to be limited to one issue. We should discuss gang violence, too. How about the fact that most illegal weapons in Chicago come from Indiana?

OKC was a black swan event, granted... but so was Vegas. Vegas was a "perfect storm" of very unusual conditions and circumstances involving a rich guy who did not seem to fit the profile of mass shooter in most ways, who engaged in long-term planning of a highly sophisticated nature rarely seen in such incidents. Thus far no one has duplicated this event or succeeded in a similar attack, and it isn't because bump stocks are now illegal.

What constitutes "duplicate"? Many mass shooters plan in detail their assaults. That's how they accomplish mass casualties. Pulse Nightclub, Columbine... I feel like we're talking around the point rather than addressing it. How similar does it have to be to be relevant? How many casualties?

The role of the media in promoting copy-cats is a good point, and one which needs to be seriously looked at. Many of these shooters are motivated by the massive news coverage given to prior murderers, and seek to beat their body count or do something even more heinous.

I agree. It's a very complicated consideration. Let's discuss it.

I'm sure you're aware that you can buy a car and keep it on your own land and drive it on your own land, without license, tags, or insurance.

Ironically, very. (I used to represent the State Patrol.) I feel very similarly about the distinction between possession at home and carriage in public - they raise vastly different policy considerations. As do handguns, long guns, rates of fire and magazine capacity.

 

[NWRatCon]

That (bolded above) is the all too typical call to convert our 2A rights into mere state issued privileges. That is not part of a serious discussion of (or “think about”) the topic.

You completely miss the point. Of course it's part of the discussion. How can it not be? At what point does carnage not have public policy implications? Unless, of course, you're saying you're an absolutist and not interested in thinking about it. Are you?

 

[ttwtt78640]

You completely miss the point. Of course it's part of the discussion. How can it not be? At what point does carnage not have public policy implications? Unless, of course, you're saying you're an absolutist and not interested in thinking about it. Are you?

Repealing (or ignoring) the 2A in order to make owning or carrying a gun into a mere state issued privilege is definitely an extreme (and likely partisan) position.

To assert that keeping (what’s left of) our 2A rights is “an absolutist” position makes this entire thread a joke.

 

[NWRatCon]

Repealing (or ignoring) the 2A in order to make owning or carrying a gun into a mere state issued privilege is definitely an extreme (and likely partisan) position.

To assert that keeping (what’s left of) our 2A rights is “an absolutist” position makes this entire thread a joke.

The thread is not a joke. I'm not sure what your posts are, but they're not developed enough to be serious. This is not a thread "about the second amendment", it's about guns.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The thread is not a joke. I'm not sure what your posts are, but they're not developed enough to be serious.

You started out asserting that extremist and partisan positions were not welcome, then resorted to posting exactly that. Now you have crossed the line into becoming some sort of self-appointed thread boss. HAND

 

[NWRatCon]

You started out asserting that extremist and partisan positions were not welcome, then resorted to posting exactly that. Now you have crossed the line into becoming some sort of self-appointed thread boss. HAND

You're the one way over the line, my friend. I'm the thread starter. I identified the subject matter. I expressed a desire regarding public policy. Your interpretation is barely relevant to the topic at hand. It's only tangentially related to my comment, outside of your head, as far as I can tell.

Nothing I posted is a partisan rant or absolutist. I question your judgment on the matter. If you'd like to excuse yourself from participation I won't be offended.

 

[RF667799]

The thread is not a joke. I'm not sure what your posts are, but they're not developed enough to be serious. This is not a thread "about the second amendment", it's about guns.

You want to exclude the political peripherals?

 

[soylentgreen]

Except of course that one person makes little difference and neighborhoods don’t go from shitty to good overnight. That’s a long term solution - at best - but you still the short term problem of personal safety.


And it isn’t restricted to just shitty neighborhoods though the need may be greater there. People break into nice homes in nice neighborhoods too.

The part in bold is your problem. It is americas problem as well. Americans have a shitty understanding of the concept of individualism' it would appear to be along the lines of I am ok I have a gun. so **** everyone else.

The very idea that you are one person and will make little difference is why you need a gun instead of having a community that actually cares about the community.

 

[NWRatCon]

The very idea that you are one person and will make little difference is why you need a gun instead of having a community that actually cares about the community.

This is getting into the social aspects of guns in society. In the military there is the concept of a "force multiplier": "In military science, force multiplication or a force multiplier is a factor or a combination of factors that gives personnel or weapons (or other hardware) the ability to accomplish greater feats than without it." Wikipedia.

On an individual basis, a firearm is a "force multiplier" - the proverbial "good guy with a gun". For a community, it may have the opposite effect - one person with a gun can disrupt multiple people without them - the armed robber, the domestic abuser, the gang enforcer, the mass shooter.

What you are touching on, tangentially, is the concept of a militia, actually - a group of citizens, with appropriate arms, to protect the community. But you are emphasizing the more important aspect - the nature of any community is the effort its members put into it. Some towns/areas are run down because the individuals within it do not invest effort into upkeep (there may be many reasons for that). Others are well-kept because its members make an effort or investment to make it so - street cleaning, trash collection, etc. A "neighborhood watch" is often far more effective in keeping a community safe than an armed individual.

 

[NWRatCon]

A lot of those "mass shootings" are gang or drug related, or involve personal grudges against specific people. In my opinion, this is different from someone who goes to a certain place with intent to just randomly kill as many people as possible with little or no regard for who he targets.

I wanted to dig a little deeper into this issue. I did not intend this thread to be about one aspect of guns/gun in culture, as too many of the threads in the gun forum tend to. Rather, I started it here to maintain a higher-level view, more dispassionate approach.

As noted, I agree, a lot of "mass shootings" (using the indicia of multiple targets/victims in the 4-person range) are drug or domestic violence triggered - the proverbial "drive by shootings" or "going postal" events. What facilitates their destructiveness, of course, is the subject of this thread: the gun.

In the musical "West Side Story", the gangs were armed with clubs and knives. The introduction of a firearm is a major turning point in the story. That was then.

Today, most gang members get an early introduction to firearms in maintaining territory. Why is that? Because a bad guy with a gun is far more effective as a disruptor. Put a group of "gang bangers" into a vehicle and you have a potent mobile weapon system. Unfortunately, their usage tends to be indiscriminate.

Similarly, a domestic abuser armed with a gun is much more dangerous - lethal - than the ne'er-do-well in the sleeveless undershirt. The same with the co-worker with a grudge.

What each of these scenarios have in common - and with the mass casualty events - is not motivation, but means. It's the gun that makes the difference between a visit to a hospital or the morgue.

My focus is often, as here, the effect of firearms in the situation, and as a public policy issue. My interest is not discussion of the Second Amendment pro or con. The ubiquity of firearms in the public sphere is the public policy interest at play here.

Which brings me back to the central issue - what are the fundamental characteristics of guns that make them an issue in and of themselves. (A gun is a tool for putting a projectile on a target.)

The most common use of a firearm in our society is as a means of effectuating a suicide, the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S. Guns & Suicide (Harvard public health). "Far more people kill themselves with a firearm each year than are murdered with one." Almost two to one, in many years, but not recently. Indeed, "Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) Moreover, guns are an irreversible solution to what is often a passing crisis. Suicidal individuals who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have time to reconsider their actions or summon help. With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back."

The same is true in many of the public shooting scenarios listed above - the drive-by, the domestic abuser, the disgruntled employee, or the sociopath.

 

[NWRatCon]

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. (Pew Research)​

More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2020 than in any other year on record, according to recently published statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That included a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides. Despite the increase in such fatalities, the rate of gun deaths – a statistic that accounts for the nation’s growing population – remains below the levels of earlier years.

There are at least two aspects of that statement that bear focus. 1) Despite the increase in gun ownership, the rate of gun deaths has gone down. (I have a couple of thoughts on that, too.) 2) The number of gun-related deaths, however, continue to rise, and have remained high for decades. ("In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400).")

"Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) U.S. murders in 2020 – 19,384 out of 24,576 – involved a firearm. That marked the highest percentage since at least 1968, the earliest year for which the CDC has online records. A little over half (53%) of all suicides in 2020 – 24,292 out of 45,979 – involved a gun, a percentage that has generally remained stable in recent years.

How has the number of U.S. gun deaths changed over time?​

The 45,222 total gun deaths in 2020 were by far the most on record, representing a 14% increase from the year before, a 25% increase from five years earlier and a 43% increase from a decade prior.

Gun murders, in particular, have climbed sharply in recent years. The 19,384 gun murders that took place in 2020 were the most since at least 1968, exceeding the previous peak of 18,253 recorded by the CDC in 1993."

 

[ttwtt78640]

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. (Pew Research)​

More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2020 than in any other year on record, according to recently published statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That included a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides. Despite the increase in such fatalities, the rate of gun deaths – a statistic that accounts for the nation’s growing population – remains below the levels of earlier years.

There are at least two aspects of that statement that bear focus. 1) Despite the increase in gun ownership, the rate of gun deaths has gone down. (I have a couple of thoughts on that, too.) 2) The number of gun-related deaths, however, continue to rise, and have remained high for decades. ("In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400).")

"Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) U.S. murders in 2020 – 19,384 out of 24,576 – involved a firearm. That marked the highest percentage since at least 1968, the earliest year for which the CDC has online records. A little over half (53%) of all suicides in 2020 – 24,292 out of 45,979 – involved a gun, a percentage that has generally remained stable in recent years.

How has the number of U.S. gun deaths changed over time?​

The 45,222 total gun deaths in 2020 were by far the most on record, representing a 14% increase from the year before, a 25% increase from five years earlier and a 43% increase from a decade prior.

Gun murders, in particular, have climbed sharply in recent years. The 19,384 gun murders that took place in 2020 were the most since at least 1968, exceeding the previous peak of 18,253 recorded by the CDC in 1993."

US gun murders increased by 6.2% from 1993 to 2020, but the US population increased by 26.5% from 1993 to 2020. That means the US gun murders per capita rate significantly decreased between 1993 and 2020.

Chart of the Day: More Guns, Less Gun Violence Between 1993 and 2013

The chart above was inspired by a similar one featured by Max Ehrenfreund in his recent Wonkblog post titled “We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.” In contrast to the widely embraced narrative, perpetuated by liberal politicians and the media, that gun...

www.aei.org

That is why gun control advocates try to ignore longer term gun murders per capita trends (but they will use them when shorter term increases occur) in the US and will focus instead on comparing the US “gun death” rates to those of other countries.

Gun Violence in America

Gun violence in America is at a crisis point. Every day, 125 people are killed from guns and more than twice as many are shot and wounded.

everytownresearch.org

 

[Gaius46]

The part in bold is your problem. It is americas problem as well. Americans have a shitty understanding of the concept of individualism' it would appear to be along the lines of I am ok I have a gun. so **** everyone else.

The very idea that you are one person and will make little difference is why you need a gun instead of having a community that actually cares about the community.

Show me cases ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where normal everyday people who have families and jobs routinely make a significant difference in society - routinely enough and big enough that they can quickly and easily change the makeup of their neighborhood and thus use it as a practical plan to deal with their home security needs - and I might grant that you have a point.

But you can’t. Because it isn’t reality.

I’m responsible for my family’s safety. If I lived in a bad neighborhood and it was even remotely possible that I could put together an effort to quickly turn my neighborhood into a nice place to live where worrying about people breaking in in the middle of the night was a thing of the past I would do it. It has benefits beyond simple security. But it’s a bullshit romantic notion and doesn’t reflect the real world.

 

[NWRatCon]

US gun murders increased by 6.2% from 1993 to 2020, but the US population increased by 26.5% from 1993 to 2020. That means the US gun murders per capita rate significantly decreased between 1993 and 2020.

Chart of the Day: More Guns, Less Gun Violence Between 1993 and 2013

The chart above was inspired by a similar one featured by Max Ehrenfreund in his recent Wonkblog post titled “We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.” In contrast to the widely embraced narrative, perpetuated by liberal politicians and the media, that gun...

www.aei.org

That is why gun control advocates try to ignore longer term gun murders per capita trends (but they will use them when shorter term increases occur) in the US and will focus instead on comparing the US “gun death” rates to those of other countries.

Gun Violence in America

Gun violence in America is at a crisis point. Every day, 125 people are killed from guns and more than twice as many are shot and wounded.

everytownresearch.org

Point one: I made that same observation: "There are at least two aspects of that statement that bear focus. 1) Despite the increase in gun ownership, the rate of gun deaths has gone down. (I have a couple of thoughts on that, too.)" Point two: the rate of gun deaths in the US eclipses all developed nations combined, as your citation demonstrates. The US compares favorably only with th Brazil. On gun violence, the United States is an outlier (IHME).

The overall number of guns in the US exceeds the population, but is possessed by a shrinking minority. The overall number of gun owners has risen more slowly than the population. Most gun deaths only involve the use of one firearm, so the excess possession is usually only relevant in the flow of illegal arms and in the severity of mass casualty events.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Point one: I made that same observation: "There are at least two aspects of that statement that bear focus. 1) Despite the increase in gun ownership, the rate of gun deaths has gone down. (I have a couple of thoughts on that, too.)" Point two: the rate of gun deaths in the US eclipses all developed nations combined, as your citation demonstrates. The US compares favorably only with th Brazil. On gun violence, the United States is an outlier (IHME).

The overall number of guns in the US exceeds the population, but is possessed by a shrinking minority. Most gun deaths only involve the use of one firearm, so the excess possession is usually only relevant in the flow of illegal arms and in mass casualty events.

You ignored my larger point which was the decrease in US per capita “gun murder” rate from 1993 to 2020. You noted that US “gun murders” had increased from 1993 to 2020 by 6.2%, but totally ignored the fact that the US population had increased by 26.5% during that time period. While the number of US “gun murders” had increased from 1993 to 2020 the per capita rate of US “gun murders” had decreased from 1993 to 2020.

 

[NWRatCon]

Show me cases ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where normal everyday people who have families and jobs routinely make a significant difference in society - routinely enough and big enough that they can quickly and easily change the makeup of their neighborhood and thus use it as a practical plan to deal with their home security needs - and I might grant that you have a point.

But you can’t. Because it isn’t reality.

I’m responsible for my family’s safety. If I lived in a bad neighborhood and it was even remotely possible that I could put together an effort to quickly turn my neighborhood into a nice place to live where worrying about people breaking in in the middle of the night was a thing of the past I would do it. It has benefits beyond simple security. But it’s a bullshit romantic notion and doesn’t reflect the real world.

No, it's not bullshit. It's beyond the scope of this thread, but the examples of individuals making a huge impact on their local community are legion. Entire sections of newspapers and annual collections in magazines are devoted to them. You're not correct on this point

 

[NWRatCon]

You ignored my larger point which was the decrease in US per capita “gun murder” rate from 1993 to 2020. You noted that US “gun murders” had increased from 1993 to 2020 by 6.2%, but totally ignored the fact that the US population had increased by 26.5% during that time period. While the number of US “gun murders” had increased from 1993 to 2020 the per capita rate of US “gun murders” had decreased from 1993 to 2020.

No, you're ignoring what was written in your zeal to disagree. The better analysis, I would submit, would be charting the level of gun violence to the number of gun owners. I haven't done it, but I would suspect that it would indicate that, relatively speaking, today's gun owners are a more violent lot than their predecessors.

 

[noonereal]

There are lots of types of guns...they shoot lots of types of projectiles, and have numerous uses.

The use is very individual. I dont see any point in arguing or bickering over what is or isnt a weapon of war because frankly...every weapon can be employed in a wartime scenario. SOME weapons are specifically designed for target shooting...which is a very popular sport. Long range precision shooting is fun, requires a ton of skill, and once you get your equipment doesnt require a lot of cost since you typically dont churn through ammo. We currently have around 9 million people a year in the US alone thay participate in competitive shooting events.

Some are just good ol plinking guns. Around 30 million people a year in the US engage in regular target shooting outings. Others are bought for hunting. numebrs Ive seen on that run around 40 million licensed hunters in a given year.

A lot of guns are manufactured for sporting purposes...black powder rifles, black powder pistols. Black powder shooting is unregulated...the guns arent even classified as a 'firearm'...and there are millions that target shoot, engage in cowboy action shooting, and hunting activities annually.

If I was a betting man, I'd say about 60% of gun owners felt the need to buy one and let them sit in their storage areas and rarely use them. Some bought them for home defense. Some bought them for personal defense. Some bought them because they hear people talk about banning them and say screw it...Im getting one before they ban em.

I think the numbers of gun owners and firearms are extremely low compared to what is reported. I'd bet money that the numbers are around 170 million law abiding citizen gun owners that own them responsibly.

All guns are designed for slaughter. Period. This is simple fact.
That some have been adapted for tge training of slaughter is of no consequence.

 

[noonereal]

Show me cases ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where normal everyday people who have families and jobs routinely make a significant difference in society - routinely enough and big enough that they can quickly and easily change the makeup of their neighborhood and thus use it as a practical plan to deal with their home security needs - and I might grant that you have a point.

But you can’t. Because it isn’t reality.

I’m responsible for my family’s safety. If I lived in a bad neighborhood and it was even remotely possible that I could put together an effort to quickly turn my neighborhood into a nice place to live where worrying about people breaking in in the middle of the night was a thing of the past I would do it. It has benefits beyond simple security. But it’s a bullshit romantic notion and doesn’t reflect the real world.

Guns do not provide home security. That argument is bullshit. The numbers speak for themselves.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, you're ignoring what was written in your zeal to disagree.

Nope. This is “what was written”:

Gun murders, in particular, have climbed sharply in recent years. The 19,384 gun murders that took place in 2020 were the most since at least 1968, exceeding the previous peak of 18,253 recorded by the CDC in 1993."

The better analysis, I would submit, would be charting the level of gun violence to the number of gun owners. I haven't done it, but I would suspect that it would indicate that, relatively speaking, today's gun owners are a more violent lot than their predecessors.

You cant get an accurate count of illegally owned (aka possessed) guns. It’s obvious to most that gun ownership rates are higher in rural areas, but “gun crime” is higher in urban areas - making it doubtful (at best) the number of (self-described) gun owners is a even a correlated factor.