AND IF THE NRA WERE RIGHT ?

RandolphEsq

Jonny7 wrote: »

School shootings happen in the US because of many reasons, not just relatively easy access to guns.

Many of these reasons are deep social factors that cannot be solved with legislation

The easy access to fully automatic weapons and extended magazines (which have absolutely no social purpose) can be enacted upon and changed.

If the legislation passes, then school and mass shootings won't automatically stop, it will just mean that if someone does want to shoot up a lot of people it will be harder for them to do so.

Common sense.

I would just like for this point to be reiterated.

Sparks

RandolphEsq wrote: »

I would just like for this point to be reiterated.

Can we also reiterate the points that (a) there is no easy access to automatic firearms in the US and hasn't been since 1934; and (b) the worst mass shooting carried out by a single gunman in US history was Virginia Tech and the shooter there did not use high capacity magazines, he just had a backpack full of normal sized magazines -- i.e. a law banning high capacity magazines would not prevent a mass shooting, nor would it make one more difficult to carry out, nor would it limit the damage caused by one. All it would do is punish innocent people by confiscating their property, and give everyone else a false sense of security, thus allowing the problem to go unsolved until the next inevitable shooting.

FISMA

Sparks wrote: »

Can we also reiterate the points that (a) there is no easy access to automatic firearms in the US and hasn't been since 1934; and (b) the worst mass shooting carried out by a single gunman in US history was Virginia Tech and the shooter there did not use high capacity magazines, he just had a backpack full of normal sized magazines -- i.e. a law banning high capacity magazines would not prevent a mass shooting, nor would it make one more difficult to carry out, nor would it limit the damage caused by one. All it would do is punish innocent people by confiscating their property, and give everyone else a false sense of security, thus allowing the problem to go unsolved until the next inevitable shooting.

Can we also re-iterate that many of the politicians spouting the need for new gun laws refuse to enforce existing gun laws?

Can we also re-iterate that in almost every case off mass casualty in the last few decades, the shooter was known to be a psychotic or sociopath.

Can we also re-iterate that there is nothing in the recent congressional bill that dealt with mental health.

Reports are now coming in stating that the elder brother in the Boston bombing was reported to the FBI by a foreign government who requested that his background be "scrubbed."

According to these still early reports, the FBI reported back that he was clean.

Background checks...

SeanW

Besides, it has now been proven that you don't need guns to be a violent mass murder and mutilator. A homemade bomb with nails or ball bearings can cause as much death and/or destruction as a psychopath or jihadist wants to cause, and it will remain the case even if the government takes all the guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Sparks

FISMA wrote: »

Can we also re-iterate that many of the politicians spouting the need for new gun laws refuse to enforce existing gun laws?

Or to enact the gun control laws even the NRA was calling for after Columbine - for example, if I was a convicted felon in the US and attempted to buy a gun, I'd fail the background check and then be free to walk out of the store unarrested. Where's the sense in that? A person whose motives for buying a gun you can be reasonably suspicious of just walks off after failing a background check?

vetinari

I think in the long run, the recent failure of the background check bill will come back to haunt the NRA.
What they have going for themselves politically right now is an effective lobbying arm that intimidates politicians.

Gun control advocates have yet to reach the same level.
Failures to pass legislation that has 90% public support will ultimately drive more money into the gun control lobbies.
When you start seeing politicians lose primaries to gun control funded candidates then the talk around gun control will get a lot more serious than just background checks.

Also just to add, gun ownership in the states is declining.
In the 70s, half the population owned guns. It's now down to about a third.
The percentage of people in urban areas that own guns is probably lower again.

FISMA

vetinari wrote: »

Also just to add, gun ownership in the states is declining.
In the 70s, half the population owned guns. It's now down to about a third.

Source?

That's unbelievable. Ever since Obama got in during his first term, gun sales have been high. Since the events in CT they have broken all records.

2011 was a record year for background checks.

Over the last 10 years (from 2002 to 2011) there has been a 54.1 percent rise in the number of NICS checks and the increase hasn’t all taken place since 2008. In 2005 there were 8,952,945 NICS checks. In 2006 the number topped 10 million. In 2007 NICS checks pushed passed 11 million. In 2008 NICS checks passed 12 million, and then hit the 14 million mark in 2009. They increased slightly (4 percent) through 2011. (Same source as above.)

The country is almost literally sold out. Have a look at impactGuns.com. Their handgun page shows 36 pages of 64 guns, over 2000 handguns.

Now click on the "available items" checkbox and your choices go down to two pages.

Try and find an AR-15.

Again, the country is as close to being sold out as you could imagine.

You're going to have to prove your assertion that gun ownership is declining in the States.

Anyone see a Glock 21 or HK 45 for sale, in stock?

vetinari

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s

The people who own guns are buying more of them.
Existing gun owners who are worried Obama will come for their guns are buying all the guns.

Sparks

vetinari wrote: »

The people who own guns are buying more of them.
Existing gun owners who are worried Obama will come for their guns are buying all the guns.

That's a possibility; but the article you linked to discusses many more and makes it very clear that definitive figures on this are just not available.

vetinari

That's a bit specious Sparks.

The evidence that does exists supports the theory that gun ownership has declined.
If it continues to decline, it will hopefully spur more gun control action.

Sparks

It's not specious, it's just the facts - one specific piece of evidence supports the theory that gun ownership is declining, other pieces of evidence support the theory that it's increasing, and it's not clear which theory is correct.

vetinari

You're using false equivalence.
The bulk of studies on gun ownership has shown that it has declined.

Sparks

Actually, that article only talks about the results from one survey. It mentions others, but doesn't give results for any bar one other (the Gallup poll) which it says gives a higher figure for gun ownership and a more modest decline; but it doesn't actually give you figures so you can do a quantitative comparison.

This is why peer-reviewed research is what you should be reading and not articles or blog posts about that research -- because if you don't read the research itself, you're just getting what some reporter or pundit thought of the research, which isn't the same thing at all.

Manic Moran

Commentary from gun-owning Democrat on the recent loss at the Senate.

Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument | Kontradictions

It's long (Because she spends some effort supporting each point), but pretty good. Here's the Cliff's Notes to her 6 suggestions as to how to be more effective in the future.

1) Stop sending mixed messages: "Allow me this humble suggestion: The best way to convince the American public that you’re not interested in taking guns away is to stop talking about taking guns away. "

2) You Have To Understand What You’re Regulating: "New rule: If you don’t know how guns work, you don’t get to craft legislation about them. There is nothing so embarrassing as watching a Democratic politician who has never held a gun in their life attempt to talk about why and how they should be regulated."

3) Stop Using Children. "Most Americans know when they’re being emotionally played for political gain, and so do the senators who voted against the barrage of legislation that went down in flames this week. Until you can stop marching children around as your cause celeb for no apparent logical reason, and until you propose legislation that at least has something to do with protecting them, no one is going to listen."

4) Stop Pretending Background Checks Don’t Already Exist. "These figures speak for themselves. When the nation’s police force, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Justice Department aren’t on board, you might want to rethink your strategy."

5) Treat the NRA As What They Are: Other American Citizens. "I hope that one thing this latest loss has taught you is that you cannot advance the discussion on gun policy by treating the NRA as if they were something other than the citizens who intentionally pay for them to do exactly what they do. [...] Your opponent is not the corporate profits of Ruger or Beretta, it is the beliefs and ideas and the resulting money of other citizens just like yourself.

6) Don’t Forget About Us! "Gun policy is not really as partisan a debate as mainstream media would suggest. There are plenty of left-leaning citizens and Democratic voters who love our guns. [...] You cannot pretend that we don’t exist, and you cannot be surprised when we let our representatives know that we do not support gun control legislation."

NTM

vetinari

I think I disagree with all of those points.
What some gun owners seem to forget is that there are plenty of people who don't own guns.

Us non gun owners for the most part (based on people I know) aren't comfortable at the idea of concealed weapons.
We're not comfortable about weapons with large magazines either.
Currently, non gun owners don't prioritize gun control near as much as gun owners prioritize gun rights.
The only thing that will cause gun control bills to pass is if politicians are worried about voting against gun control.
Hopefully Bloomberg's organization and others like it will have the financial clout to impact primaries and instill some fear into congress.


There'll never be any compromise on this issue imo. Gun rights / gun control is so polarized that it's all about your side winning sad as that is.

FISMA

vetinari wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all
The people who own guns are buying more of them.

Vetinari,
Thanks for the link, however, your source is a survey and inconclusive. Quoting the article itself "Detailed data on gun ownership is scarce."

I doubt that the number of households with a gun has declined, especially given the increase in population over the same time period.

You claim a decrease of gun ownership from about half the population. Yet, the article also cites "national polls reporting rates" that are "52 percent" on the high side.

One major flaw in the analysis is that the article has not adjust for the increase in population. Half the population in 1970 is the same number of people as 1/3 the population today.

If 50% of homes had guns in 1970's and the same percentage had guns today, that's an increase of about 50,000,000 homes having guns.

Also, gun owners were not demonized in the 1970's the way they are today. Many gun owners in the States prefer anonymity and would not willfully respond yes to a survey. Check out the bias of response and the bias of non-response in sampling surveys to see how badly surveys can be skewed.

If you have any credible government, atf, ncis, or other data, please advise as it is a topic on which I would like to have more reliable definitive data.

Amerika

Right now gun control isn’t an issue most Americans think much about. Earlier this month, a Gallup poll asked what people thought the most pressing problems for the country were. The economy topped the list (with 24 percent support). Gun Control was tied in a four way split for seventh place along with immigration, education, and North Korea.

vetinari

Fisma, my last point on the gun ownership percentage.
Based on the existing data, gun ownership has declined as a percentage of the population.
Is it absolutely definitive? No, but it's certainly more likely than saying it hasn't declined.

Gun owners are not stigmatized. Look at Manic Moran's list of points.
They're all about pandering to gun owners. A gun ownership survey in the States is as likely to be honestly answered as any other survey. I find it interesting that you ask for more comprehensive information. Gun owners would be against any measure (national registry etc) that would give more accurate information.

Suryavarman

vetinari wrote: »

I think I disagree with all of those points.
What some gun owners seem to forget is that there are plenty of people who don't own guns.

And what gun control supporters seem to forget is that pretty much every single gun owner uses their gun in a responsible manner.

Us non gun owners for the most part (based on people I know) aren't comfortable at the idea of concealed weapons.

Then maybe you should be nice to people with concealed weapons. Then you shouldn't have anything to be uncomfortable about concealed weapons.

We're not comfortable about weapons with large magazines either.

Why?

vetinari

Then maybe you should be nice to people with concealed weapons. Then you shouldn't have anything to be uncomfortable about concealed weapons.

That reads as a half joke half threat. Hardly an opinion to change anyone's mind.
As I said, I don't think their is common ground on this topic. It's too polarized.
My hope is that eventually non gun owners will prioritize gun control laws enough for real action to be taken.

I'm sure that 99% of people use guns in a responsible manner. I'm not comfortable with the 1% using high capacity guns for killing sprees. Tbh, gun owners are fond of saying that you people who don't own guns don't know what they're talking about.
If you do own guns, you probably don't appreciate the initimidation factor that a gun can have. There's no other object that people carry around in our society that would allow you to so easily kill someone.

Sparks

vetinari wrote: »

Is it absolutely definitive? No, but it's certainly more likely than saying it hasn't declined.

I don't think the data supports a conclusion that strong.

Gun owners are not stigmatized.

Speaking as one, my personal experience strongly suggests that you are incorrect. I have not been accused personally of being mentally unstable or a latent murderer merely for possessing a car or a set of kitchen knives, but for representing my country internationally in an Olympic event, I have been.
"Stigmatized" seems a very appropriate term to me.

A gun ownership survey in the States is as likely to be honestly answered as any other survey.

as any other survey on contentious issues, I think you mean.

I find it interesting that you ask for more comprehensive information. Gun owners would be against any measure (national registry etc) that would give more accurate information.

(a) Not all gun owners - unless you've interviewed all of them.
(b) The reasoning behind the aversion to registration might be difficult to understand until you realise that any information like that stored by the federal government is by default stored in the public domain; as the recent publication of the names and addresses of handgun owners in the New York area showed. (And if you can't see the potential personal security problems with being put on a list like that, you've not thought through it carefully enough yet).
I've no doubt that there are some Ted Nugent lookalikes who think registration is a first step to confiscation (and frankly, some of the idealists on the far side of the fence would actually have that in mind and have stated so publicly), but most are probably just worried about being put on a Please Rob My House list...

Sparks

vetinari wrote: »

Us non gun owners for the most part (based on people I know) aren't comfortable at the idea of concealed weapons.

To answer that a bit more seriously, are you aware that the level of mandatory training and certification and licencing is far higher with concealed carry permits than with other firearms in the US?

We're not comfortable about weapons with large magazines either.

Which is an example of common sense not being a good guide to risk analysis. The worst shooting carried out by a lone shooter in US history didn't use large magazines, just lots of normal-sized ones.
Honestly, people who are worried by high-capacity magazines are as guilty of believing too much marketing nonsense as people who just have to buy the latest doo-dad from Kimber or Ruger or whomever.

Currently, non gun owners don't prioritize gun control near as much as gun owners prioritize gun rights.

Which makes sense - non gun owners have little to nothing to lose, while gun owners stand to lose their property, their sport, in some cases a source of food, and in 80,000-odd cases per year, a means of self-defence.

There'll never be any compromise on this issue imo. Gun rights / gun control is so polarized that it's all about your side winning sad as that is.

But that's not because of the issue; that's just how US politics has developed over the last few decades. And that's a reversible trend, if somewhat of a challange.

But to say there's no compromise possible is to ignore the rulings of SCOTUS in cases like Heller - where even Scalia, who's about as much of a right-wing troll as you can get on the bench, agrees that registration and licencing and gun control measures in general are compatible with the second amendment. It's a discussion about where you draw the lines, not whether or not lines should be drawn at all. And that's the definition of compromise.

Duck Soup

On the politics of getting through gun control legislation [or stopping it getting through], the most succinct explanation came from a Democrat politician who voted against the background checks.

He was asked how can politicians who need to get elected vote against the wishes of 90% of the entire electorate to have more stringent background checks.

His reply was "The 10% who are against it come out to vote."

In other words, not just vote, but vote for or against a candidate based on their stance on that specific issue.

Tighter gun control legislation will pass when politicians are more likely to lose their seat from opposing it than supporting it.

Amerika

I actually participated in the Quinnipiac University poll of 90% support that everyone is touting. The poll was only taken in Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Our poll question (PA’s was different from VA or NJ’s) was “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” As someone knowledgeable in the gun control debate, I inquired if by “all gun buyers” they also mean the transfer of guns to family members and friends (which are also technically considered “gun buyers”). The poll-taker said she was unable to answer any questions and my response should be based solely on how the question was presented. Therefore I answered “oppose.” I have to wonder how many Pennsylvanians would have answered “support” if they would have known if "gun buyers" also included transfers to family members and friends? Interesting to also note that approximately 64% of the polling done in PA was from what I consider urban or politically “blue” areas.

Also interesting to note that another question in the poll “Which of these do you think would do more to reduce gun violence in schools, having stricter gun laws or armed guards in schools?” isn’t getting much notice. In PA, the majority chose “armed guards in schools.” In NJ and VA, the question was “Do you favor or oppose placing an armed police officer in public schools in Virginia (or New Jersey)? In both instances the majority chose “favor.”

Amerika

Here is an explanation from someone who voted against background checks. What he says makes a lot of sense to me in that the government has no business monitoring constitutionally protected activity.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/17/mike-lee-why-i-voted-against-background-checks/2090793/

Dave!

Would background checks not be covered by the term "well regulated" as specified in the constitution?

Sparks

Dave! wrote: »

Would background checks not be covered by the term "well regulated" as specified in the constitution?

No, they're unrelated according to SCOTUS. However, the overall right covered by the second amendment is compatible with background checks (and registration and licencing and other gun control measures), also according to SCOTUS (see Heller).

Question remain over whether or not background checks should be mandatory in all circumstances (eg. inheritance or sales to friends/family), how are they done, what information is then kept in federal records (and how accessible is it under FOI), and who pays for it.

FISMA

Dave! wrote: »

Would background checks not be covered by the term "well regulated" as specified in the constitution?

Nope.

Well regulated = proper discipline and training.

Sparks

On the foot of another thread, I went off looking for comparative firearms statistics between the US and the EU (seems a fairer comparison than trying to scale up the numbers from Latvia to match the US). There aren't easy EU-wide sources for this, but if you tot up the numbers from the individual countries you can get good enough figures, even if you have to go back to 2006 to do so and in one or two cases use average rates per 100,000 and population estimates. But for back-of-an-envelope sketching, it's good enough. Here's what I get when I tot up the numbers and then scale them according to the EU/US population ratio:

Country|Population (million)|Gun Deaths|Gun Homicides|Total Homicides|Gun Suicides|Total Suicides
European Union|494.8|6002|1271|6085.5|4816|55410.9
EU @US size|305|3700|783|3751|2969|34156
United States|305|30896|12791|18573|16833|33300

So the EU and the US have about the same number of suicides per year (the US have slightly fewer, but it's a few percentage points and these numbers vary year on year). We know that the means of suicide is irrelevant from the point of preventing suicide -- ie. if someone is feeling suicidal you don't hide the razor blades and say job done, you get them help -- so the idea of throwing our hands up at the suicide figures from the US and saying they're an argument for better gun control is worse than nonsense, it's actually harmful because it encourages people to not deal with the problem. So discount suicide from the gun death statistics.

And now we've got homicides. Ignore the point that the definition of the term means confusion in the figures (shoot someone in genuine self-defence in the US and it still goes into the statistics as homicide but it wouldn't in most EU states), because this is the back of an envelope, and we see a massive disparity between the EU and US. The US homicide rate is five times the EU rate. The US DoJ says two thirds of violent crime in the US is down to gangs; take out that source and we're far more comparable (the US still has more homicides than the EU but now it's by 40% more rather than 400% more).

So, judging by the numbers at least, the US's real problem isn't guns; it's gangs. If that problem went away, EU and US mortality rates would be quite close.

FISMA

Sparks wrote: »

So, judging by the numbers at least, the US's real problem isn't guns; it's gangs. If that problem went away, EU and US mortality rates would be quite close.

There are topics that people do not want to discuss. It is far easier to blame "guns," instead.

No-one in the States wants to analyze gun deaths and violence based upon such demographics as race or multiculturalism.

If you think the NRA is a powerful lobbying group, consider the drug industry.

Fundamentally, America has a drug problem, legal and illegal.

100 Americans die every day because of overdoses.

Two out of every three gun deaths in the States was a suicide, most of which were depressed and/or on psychoactive drugs. [2010]

Almost all of the mass murders over the past few decades were committed by those know to be psychotic or a psychopath and on psychoactive drugs.

Many of the remaining 1/3 of deaths are related to the illegal drug trade.

Whenever you hear a statistic about the number of children dieing in the states because of guns, keep in mind that statistic includes gang bangers up to the day before their 18th birthday.

If you want to save lives, fix mental health. Mental health is a far bigger problem.