Guns in America

[jacob]

https://i0.wp.com/www.lostrepublic.us/b ... upWMeA.png
World map of homicide mortality (# per year per 100k) divided at the state/amt level.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... te-red.svg
Same but averaged over countries.

Perspective:
Traffic mortality in the US is ~16.
Diabetes mortality in the US is ~24 (state numbers)
Cancer mortality in the US is ~175+

[Campitor]

And again, if you and others want to hang your hat on the Bundys as justification for widespread and unlimited arming of our populace, just know many Americans will fail to appreciate any reasonable connection, much less value, to that.

My take on RJ's words in regards to Bundy was different that your perception NB. I took it as an example of how armed civilians, regardless the poor justification for the use of force against government, were able to give armed Federal Agents pause in the execution of their duties. It's proof that armed civilians can prevent Government seizure of items or rights that a sizable group of civilians put significant value on. Having said that, I believe Bundy has no more right to graze his cattle on that land than I have the right to build an amusement park on it without due process and permitting.

[BRUTE]

And I would like you to tell those kids from Parkland making their voices heard they "sound like Creationists when they talk about something they don't understand but have really strong feelings for. not even wrong, just not fit for the adult table."

emotional brute says:

again, there is no problem, only emotional outrage. 28 deaths per year might be tragic, but nothing compared to car deaths, overdoses, diabetes deaths, cardiac arrest, unfastened furniture falling on top of humans, parents accidentally drowning their human children, and so on. even among gun deaths, active shooter scenarios are a rounding error.

empathizing brute says:

brute understands that innocent human deaths, especially of cute white children, gets humans riled up. brute would also prefer that, all else being equal, those children were alive. but all else is not equal. there have been no proposals of gun legislation that would actually prevent many of these active shooter scenarios.

many of the active shooters were already theoretically prevented by existing legislation but failed on a logistical/administrative level, e.g. the church shooting recently or this one. the FBI had been warned numerous times, but failed to pass on information to the relevant field offices and agents. this was a failure not of legislation, but of implementation.

emotional brute says:

it sounds nice to say that a human life is priceless, but it's not true. humans trade risk of death against other tradeoffs all the time - by driving cars, working construction, smoking, eating sugar, crossing the road.

if the tradeoff is 28 innocent lives vs. denying 100 million humans a basic right, a hobby, setting a dangerous constitutional precedent, losing a vital part of US culture, potentially risking government tyranny, plus the cost of confiscating 300 million weapons in the hands of existing humans, plus the risk of loss of life and property from law-abiding citizens no longer being able to defend said life and property when government oversight fails.. brute is willing to make that tradeoff. and apparently, so are millions of humans.

[ThisDinosaur]

there have been no proposals of gun legislation that would actually prevent many of these active shooter scenarios.

You cannot be a solitary shooter at your club because when your FAC exam comes up two years in, the authorities come to your club and interview multiple members of the club about how they feel about you. They have to be members in good standing and possibly FAC as well. So there is a significant investment of time and social capital. You have to be serious about wanting to get through the FAC. Then, the next step (among others) is the coppers visit your home for tea and biscuits. They interview you in your home. The magazines said they are looking for tidiness, your gun locker and how you handle yourself - and any sign of sketchyness. As draconian as this is, it weeds out only the most serious players. Once you attain FAC you have a big time and social capital investment that any sane person would not want to discard over misbehavior. Like you have a domestic disturbance call you lose your FAC.

Sounds like a good start. I'll say again, the fact that gun ownership is an "inalienable right" instead of a "privilege" like a driver's license is a problem. Not to derail the thread too much, but one argument I've heard in favor of stronger gun laws is that the phrase "keep and bear arms" does not imply ownership.

[BRUTE]

practically speaking, what would happen to the roughly 300 million firearms currently in circulation? would all firearm owners be grandfathered into one of those clubs? who would run them? currently, the closest thing seems to be the NRA. if nobody would be grandfathered in, what percentage of guns would likely be handed in? brute has heard that after the gun ban in Australia in the late 90s, only around 30% of guns were handed in.

[ThisDinosaur]

@Brute
No idea. Like Riggerjack said, the books are cooked on both sides and every study on this has an agenda. Which makes it impossible to make clear cause and effect statements. There are conflicting opinions on whether or not the Australian effort "worked" or the effect was statistical noise.

The columbine kids got at least some of their weapons from a gun show. Regulating those is still low hanging fruit. Certainly, if UK-like rules were in place the Parkland kid would not have had access. Neither would the Virginia tech kid.

[BRUTE]

Certainly, if UK-like rules were in place the Parkland kid would not have had access. Neither would the Virginia tech kid.

there were rules in place prohibiting both the recent church shooter and the Florida shooter from possessing guns - yet they still happened. brute is skeptical regarding the efficacy of rules. good intentions are not equal to good results.

[Campitor]

Not to derail the thread too much, but one argument I've heard in favor of stronger gun laws is that the phrase "keep and bear arms" does not imply ownership.

@ TD

I'd like to read the articles, if you can recollect where to find them, regarding the implications to ownership that "keep and bear" have. In the meantime I offer this research paper published by a historian and a law professor duo:

What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?

[slowtraveler]

@ Campitor and RJ

+1 to most of what you said.

[ducknalddon]

So you think civil war or the potential for it is a good justification for arming citizens?

28 human lives per year as insurance against government tyranny?

It's not 28 though is it, more like 13,000 deaths and 27,000 serious injuries.

[ThisDinosaur]

Why exactly are we ignoring the swiss and israelis and focusing on the australians and british?

The Israelis require every able bodied young adult to serve at least two years in the military. Which would ensure proper training with firearms. Reminds me of Robert Heinlein. In Starship Troopers, anyone can volunteer to serve in the military. The incentive to do so is that veterans ("citizens")get certain rights and privileges that nonveterans("civilians") don't.

This seems worth considering. A clean military record of, say, 2 years is more than adequate weapons training as well as a good test for agreeableness. Antisocial types tend to have poor military records and dishonorable discharges, like the guy who shot up the church in texas.

[vexed87]

Certainly, if UK-like rules were in place the Parkland kid would not have had access. Neither would the Virginia tech kid.

there were rules in place prohibiting both the recent church shooter and the Florida shooter from possessing guns - yet they still happened. brute is skeptical regarding the efficacy of rules. good intentions are not equal to good results.

There are elements of society who would rather be seen to do something, even if the methodology of change is not evidence-based, regardless of the unintended-outcomes of the change, because doing something with good intentions is perceived better than doing nothing in the eyes of many. You can call individuals out on this, and they will acknowledge that they have no evidence that proposed changes will work, but it's better than doing nothing, right, right?!

Dunning-Kruger in practice.

Gun laws are a red herring, the issue here is the mental health of the individual who takes it upon themselves to arm themselves, legal or otherwise and turn the weapon on innocent citizens. What makes a person reach crisis point and turn on their own community? Quite likely it's feelings of worthlessness, bullying, isolation and abandonment. Fix the society, not the symptoms (access to guns).

[ThisDinosaur]

Gun laws are a red herring, the issue here is the mental health of the individual who takes it upon themselves to arm themselves, legal or otherwise and turn the weapon on innocent citizens. What makes a person reach crisis point and turn on their own community? Quite likely it's feelings of worthlessness, bullying, isolation and abandonment. Fix the society, not the symptoms (access to guns).

What's your plan to fix bullying? Social isolation of atypical individuals is older than guns, laws, and humans.

[IlliniDave]

Seems like in this case (Florida case) there was a pretty significant failure of "the system" in regards to the particular individual who confessed to the spree.

[BRUTE]

It's not 28 though is it, more like 13,000 deaths and 27,000 serious injuries.

the 28 is from active shooter scenarios as defined by the FBI (i.e. non-gang, non-domestic, non-suicide, non-accident, more than 4 (?) deaths per incident). if brute remembers correctly, this was the average over the last decade or so.

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens). These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".

33,636 deaths. this sounds bad.

2/3 of the deaths are suicides, which brute likes to put aside. brute realizes some humans believe in preventing suicides, and sometimes brute does, too.

the accident number is negligible.

The Centers for Disease Control reports that there were 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S. in 2010. The FBI breaks down the gun-related homicides in 2010 by weapon: 6,009 involved a handgun, 358 involved a rifle, and 1,939 involved an unspecified type of firearm.

358 / 11,078 of firearm-related homicides by rifle. that's around 3%. in contrast, 54% were committed with handguns - so why do proposals mostly focus on "high-powered rifles" and "large capacity magazines"? this reeks to brute of sensationalism and emotional appeal rather than a true desire to prevent gun deaths.

Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms.

this doesn't sound so bad. it may be "double of any other western country", but that just means the US has 1.3% instead of 0.6% in gun deaths. diabetes, cancer, and heart disease are likely also double, but these cost orders of magnitude more lives.

according to the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ources.svg), around 2% of firearms acquired by federal inmates were bought at gun shows. 35% were sourced from friends & family, 9% through theft, 15% through drug dealers, 9% the black market, and 15% from retail stores (which are already heavily regulated).

this means that a whopping 68% of these guns used in crimes were sourced through unregulated channels. no extra background check or cool off period or any other such law would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals through these channels.

In 2006, 58 percent of L.A.'s murders were gang-related.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States (see graphs at right).[86] Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame.[39] The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among lower income and especially unemployed males. Youths and Hispanic and African American males in the U.S. were the most represented, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.

apparently the #1 source of gun crime in the US are young unemployed human males with nothing to do but start turf wars.

magically wishing all 200 million guns in the US away overnight would prevent those angry young males from killing each other. but that would be logistically impossible, politically impossible, a cultural tragedy, and deprive the ~50 million law abiding gun owners a constitutional right, a hobby, and everything else positive connected with guns.

in contrast, creating economic opportunity and community involvement for young unemployed human males would likely give them something much better to do than murder each other.

there will always be a 1%ish outlier group that can't be accounted for. typically it's not a great idea to make that the basis for all policy decisions. mass shootings constitute about 1% of US firearm deaths. they should not be the basis for most policy decisions regarding firearms.

[George the original one]

there will always be a 1%ish outlier group that can't be accounted for. typically it's not a great idea to make that the basis for all policy decisions. mass shootings constitute about 1% of US firearm deaths. they should not be the basis for most policy decisions regarding firearms.

In general, I agree. However, what the public notices is that the number & scale of mass shootings has been accelerating in the past two decades. The public would prefer going back to the days before postal workers, McDonald's, schools, & concerts were targets of the nutcases and you could rely on murders being about passion, hookers, and criminal activities.

[Campitor]

there will always be a 1%ish outlier group that can't be accounted for. typically it's not a great idea to make that the basis for all policy decisions. mass shootings constitute about 1% of US firearm deaths. they should not be the basis for most policy decisions regarding firearms.

In general, I agree. However, what the public notices is that the number & scale of mass shootings has been accelerating in the past two decades. The public would prefer going back to the days before postal workers, McDonald's, schools, & concerts were targets of the nutcases and you could rely on murders being about passion, hookers, and criminal activities.

The past that your pining for has never existed. There have always been mass murders and crazy people running around. The difference is now every crazy act of violence is blasted over the megaphone of media to every tv, smart phone, computer, and coffee shop/restaurant monitor. This gives the impression that it's accelerating beyond what the numbers show, spawn copy cat killings, and gives trench-coat mafia wannabe's something to hope for.

Some historical perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

What happened to those poor children and adults at that school was horrible and I wish it had never happened. But I believe none of the proposed measures will ever stop someone who is determined to kill a large group of people or decrease the ease in which to do so. Evil is evil and will find a way to kill/maim/hurt. The only means of stopping someone with violent intent, once the opportunity of prevention has passed, is with a corresponding opposition of force. What we are really arguing is where that source should come from. Is it going to be state and federal agents, a community of responsible citizens, or a combination of both? I favor the combined approach of state/federal/citizens.

Owning a gun does not auto-magically turn you into a blood thirsty killing machine. Having weapons training doesn't auto-magically prevent you from using guns irresponsibly. Being an armed federal or state agent doesn't guarantee ethical and enlightened behavior. We are all human and most of us are good and decent human beings who hope to never kill another human even in a justified scenario. But if I'm on a sidewalk with a maniac barreling down at me and my loved ones with a 30ft U-Haul truck, I surely hope that there will be some armed civilians who can take out that monster before he gets to me or anyone else. Vehicle-ramming attack

[BRUTE]

However, what the public notices is that the number & scale of mass shootings has been accelerating in the past two decades. The public would prefer going back to the days before postal workers, McDonald's, schools, & concerts were targets of the nutcases and you could rely on murders being about passion, hookers, and criminal activities.

well, over a 10 year period there were on average 28 deaths per year in those types of mass shootings. so the public is simply misinformed. it is a tiny sliver of gun deaths. 30 per year out of ~10,000 gun homicides is about .3%, or 0.003.

[BRUTE]

brute just had a revelation/thought while preparing dead animal flesh for consumption. he realizes this is only partly related to the topic of gun control, so if other humans want to debate brute's later rants, maybe he should open a new topic?

brute will start with a movie quote:

Colonel Oliver: [explaining why the world will not intervene] You're black. You're not even a nigger. You're an African.

brute believes the (in his eyes) ineffective, emotional-appeal-based, irrational gun control debate in the US is in large part based on this sentiment. and brute doesn't think it's racism. it's just human nature to get used to things. humans get used to almost anything.

just as the movie character's sentiment is that to westerners, "Africans have civil wars all the time", to suburban wealthy humans in the US, "poor inner city blacks shoot each other all the time". yes, they make up the vast majority of gun deaths. no, the gun control alarmists don't care about them. not because liberals are racist, but because those young black men are not like them, or like anyone they know or care about.

liberals get riled up when white children in suburban schools get shot up because their white children go to suburban schools. 100x more black unemployed inner city human males get shot in the same time frame, but they don't care. they want those evil assault rifles banned, which the inner city gang members don't use anyway, but which look scary on CNN.

and how could brute blame humans for being human?

if humans actually cared about # of lives saved from gun death, not just cute white suburban human children, what could they maybe do to reduce the # of young inner city poor human males murdering each other over turf and sub minimum wage drug slinging jobs?

brute's theory is that it has a lot to do with society's disdain for certain types of humans.

humans are social animals and will do and endure practically anything to find belonging of some kind, somewhere. just to jog the memory, humans murdered 6 million jews to be part of the in group.

there are humans that (in certain cultures) just have no worth to society, and society lets those humans know it. the worth of a human to society depends on a few factors, including gender and education. brute suspects that "inner city black" is more a proxy for "no education" than it is racism here, because the same thinking applies to poor/uneducated white human males.

children have value to society, because biology + potential. any 10 year old young inner city black human male still triggers cuteness in adult humans and could still go to college.

by 17-20, it is pretty clear if an individual human is going to go to college, otherwise work at a productive job, or become a burden to society.

human males are valued for producing stuff for society and raising children (the next generation of potential work horses). education is a proxy for potential productivity, so college or other types of education are seen as such an indication. if a human male at ~18 years old shows no indication that he will become a workhorse, society despises him, pushes him out, calls him names, and does not give him a place in it, no feeling of belonging.

humans will do almost anything to belong. somewhere.

the whole gang phenomenon is likely just some kind of ersatz family/society for a group of humans that cannot find acceptance in "real" families or societies.

brute is quite sure that locking up a large percentage of black fathers doesn't help this situation, because it is much harder to give belonging and structure to a young human male's life if one is a working poor single mother. but it is probably not the only factor, because similar things happen to poor low-potential white human males, i.e. opioid crisis.

ideas brute has for giving meaning and belonging to young aggressive human males that would otherwise spend their energy to their own and society's detriment:
- reduce prison sentences for non-violent crimes
- legalize drugs (the more the better)
- relax child labor and minimum wage laws - black inner city youth unemployment is absurdly high. if these young human males had a way to legally earn money and respect, they would likely do it
- improve reintegration of former convicts into society by education and job training/placement
- drop general societal disdain for humans who happen to have drawn the economic short straw.

brute wants to talk a bit more about this last point.

it used to be that cities were shitholes and full of poor and dirty humans and the good suburban and country folk looked down upon them as immoral sinners. (criterion: religious purity or something)

now the economic tides have shifted. nobody needs factories or farms any more, and all the young professionals move to large metro areas because the money is much better. rust belt and rural folk are looked down upon as immoral, uneducated idiots. (criterion: education/metropolitan-ness)

both are terribly unproductive. why can humans not realize that their current luck of the draw is not due to their moral superiority, and that the other party's current bad state is due to lack of said luck?

brute would love to see the economic winners be nice and gracious to the economic losers. not in the form of wealth transfer necessarily (although a lot of that is going on anyway), but in the form of cultural/media acceptance, reaching out, community building.

money is nice, but belonging is priceless.

[George the original one]

Some historical perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

School shootings (equally incomplete, but at least more representative of what the public perceives)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_sh ... ted_States



The public, however misinformed they may be, is more familiar with the number rather than the rate per population.