Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GW Hayduke

  1. 11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Study referenced from CPRC.  This isn’t hard.  Single largest increase ever. 

    Proceed with your source attacks rather than referencing the results

    During President Obama’s administration, the number of concealed handgun permits soared to over 16.36 million – a 256% increase since 2007. Unlike surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer some personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have on gun ownership across the United States. 

    • Last year, the number of permit holders grew by a record 1.83 million. This is more than the previous record increase of 1.73 million, set just the year before. Each of the last four years that we have been recording this data has set a new record. Despite expectations that permits were primarily driven by fears of Democratic presidencies, the growth in permits has continued at a similar pace after the November 2016 election.
    • 6.53% of American adults have permits. Outside the restrictive states of California and New York, about 8% of the adult population has a permit.
    • In eleven states, more than 10% of adults have permits. Alabama has the highest rate — 20%. Indiana is second with 15.8%.
    • There are four counties in Pennsylvania that have between 30% and 50% of their adult populations with concealed handgun permits: Potter (50.3%), McKean (34.6%), Warren (34.6%), Cameron (31.3%), and Armstrong (30.1%).
    • Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas each have over 1.2 million residents who are active permit holders.
    • Another 14 states have adopted constitutional carry in all or virtually all of their state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Some people in these states still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements with their states. However, because of these constitutional carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry.
    • In 2016, women made up 36% of permit holders in the 14 states that provide data by gender. Eight states had data from 2012 to 2016 and they saw a 326% faster increase in permits among women than among men.
    • From 2012 to 2016, in the five states that provide data by race over that time period, the number of black people with permits increased 30% faster than the number of whites with permits. Asians appear to be the group that has experienced the largest increase in permitted concealed carry.
    • Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted. . . .

     

    Hmmmm..... The Crime Prevention Research Center? I understand why you were hesitant to share your source.  I get that Lott thinks the CC information is "hard data" on ownership in the US. "Hard data" is the best data! 

    There is a reason why none of Lott's studies are peer reviewed or published in reputable journals. The oil and tobacco industry are other industries that pushed misleading and fake science.

    "The Crime Prevention Research Center is a nonprofit founded in 2013 by John Lott, author of the book “More Guns, Less Crime.”  He is best known as an advocate in the gun rights debate, particularly his arguments against restrictions on owning and carrying guns.  Lott’s work has been called “junk science” as he has been accused of accepting funding from the National Rifle Association. Lott denies this claim."

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/

    Lets go ahead and concede for the sake of argument that "ownership of firearms is directly linked to CC permits" (ignoring the tenuous if any link between CC permits and ownership rates and ignoring all surveys). How are you going to deal with the lack of a decline in firearm violence and with the established correlation between between levels of violence and levels of firearms? 

  2. 19 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
    Now layer these dates with the polling dates for ownership rates and the decline in participation and you just might see something.  Fewer and fewer people are openly admitting they have a gun in their house.  Yet gun sales are in the tens of millions, and CCW rates have gone up by more than 500%.  Maybe, just maybe, you are missing something....something that conveniently challenges the point you are desperately trying to shoot down:  that homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking.
    • Between '99 and '07 - CCW applications rose slowly from 2.7M to 4.6M
    • Between '08 and '11 they rose to 8M
    • Between '12 and '13 they rose to 11.1M
    • Then in 2016 it hit 14.5M
    • And today, there are 16.4M
    And what is it with auto analogies?  This is as bad an analogy as when the attempt was made to compare the ACA individual mandate to auto insurance.  Nobody is claiming this is a light-switch solve.  Nobody.  What is being proposed, is that as we did when terrorist attacks happened, we harden the point of attack first, as we did - and then work our way out from there (as many nations facing attacks on their schools have done in the past). 
     
    We have hundreds of existing gun laws on the books right now.  Many of which are also underfunded and inadequate or unable to enforce.  Then you have Federal laws on top of state laws.  There are hundreds of federal regulations covering guns, their sales, import/export, the CMP, distribution of military arms, the manufacturing of ammo, the shipping of ammo and components, etc.  So actually enforce them.  The FBI ignored repeated warnings @ Parkland.  As did local LE dozens of times.  Local LE screwed up in the SC church massacre.  As it did with the Texas church massacre.  Same with San Bernadino.  Ramp up GVRO's.  Provide more transparency for background checks regarding mental health records. 
     
    You want a 'multi-faceted approach'.  After you secure the point of attack, start here.  Are these bad laws?  If so, why are they still siphoning off resources?  You can't reconcile new laws when you are unable to enforce the ones you have.  I keep hearing about "gun control" - what is that?  A piece of legislation, or a slogan?  Where are the specifics? 
     
    I agree the NRA has been to intransigent in terms of leading the cause for more research.  I've already mentioned straw borrowers.  The NRA has actually backed ideas for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (now we get to define mentally ill and how it relates to rights and due process). 

    "Homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking."  I understand that seems to be your central pieces of evidence, which then leads to the position that the availability of firearms in a population is not correlated to violence.  Please confirm.  If that isn't your position, please state the relevance of CC permits to the issue of gun violence.  I believe this is the same or similar position of bernorange; however, for some reason he isn't able to engage or confirm.

    First, you've got to source your data.  This isn't elementary school.  It is almost like you pasted this from a pro-gun website or something.  Your concealed carry numbers mean nothing unless we know where they came from. It is also important to understand which state's the numbers came from, are they nationwide, how changes in concealed carry laws affect applications, do all state's require permits, how do CC applications link ownership rates, do applications apply to all firearm purchases, and are they just a measure of the number of potential citizens that carry firearms?  There is an obvious leap from carry a concealed handgun to ownership rates. I get that you trust CC permits over; however, that leap is important if you want to establish that firearm ownership rates are increasing, which is counter to all surveys on ownership thus far.

    Second, the statement that "the homicide and gun related crimes are declining" is not accurate. Where have you been?  A surge in violence occurred in the 80s and 90s with a relatively flat trend after that.  See the below article from Pew, “Gun homicides steady after decline in 90s.” 

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/%3famp=1

    Another option, rather than haggling over CC permits or ignoring trends in homicides, is to look at research that has been done related to whether increased ownership correlates to increased violence.

    Peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Public Health: "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

    Peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine: "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

    The above information is to assist in the framing the gun violence problem in America. That problem IMO can be stated as the US has an untenable rate of overall firearm-related violence and an untenable frequency and magnitude of mass shootings.  Establishing and under the problem IMO is important before taking the next step in developing strategies that would reduce those rates.

    I understand analogies are complicated and can be extremely controversial. I get it.

  3. 8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Restricting traffic laws is not analogous to confiscation of guns.   One takes the gun away while the other leaves you your car with specific restrictions in it's use.

    You are equating gun reform with confiscation - that's a strawman. BTW we do remove cars from certain roads by constructing bypasses or implementing tolls. We also do take steps to remove cars off the road when they no longer pass inspection.  But that is all just tedious nitpicking.  Is then when I restate the definition of an analogy?

  4. 12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    No I'm not, and Nit picking ? Oh I'm sorry maybe the whole being off base with his comparison off a traffic law to gun confiscation was a trivial thing....  I'm sure Aqua can defend himself.

    And your analogy ?  Jesus are you really trying to say that's the same thing ?  Constructing a road and removing  traffic while you contract it is not in the same realm as confiscating guns.  

    And for the record, I'm not opposed to stricter gun laws, or certain weapons being illegal to own.

    An analogy is a comparison between things for the purpose of explanation. An analogy that is made between two things does not mean that those two things are exactly the same and that there are no differences between those two things.  

    Society was dealing with an untenable rate of vehicle deaths. This was a complex, multi-faceted problem. Society took a complex, multi-faceted approach at minimizing and mitigating the problem , which included inspections, licensing, registration, etc. etc. etc. and successfully culminated in lowering the rate of vehicle deaths. This is how society addresses complex problems. See also how we successfully minimized Islamic violent extremism. These are analogies to help understand how society should minimize and mitigate the untenable rate of firearm-related deaths (i.e., take a multi-faceted approach).

  5. 5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    The aren't even the same thing.  Traffic laws tell you how you must drive, you're still driving.   Now if you say take cars off the road then that's an analogy that applies.

     

    This is tedious nitpicking and you are equating gun reform with removal of all guns. BTW we do remove cars from certain roads by constructing bypasses or implementing tolls - but that is all just tedious nitpicking.

  6. 14 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Restricting firearms translates to restrictions of law abiding citizens.  Not criminals.  Nor does it solve the tactical problem of securing schools.  As stated - hundreds of millions of guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition takes decades to unwind.  We don't have decades.  Nor is anyone suggesting "hardening schools like we do airports".  There are various ways to harden a target, starting with armed security as so many targeted schools have done across the country.  Funny how the inner city schools seem to have solved this problem years ago.

    I hate to break it to you, but society often asks its citizens, and not just criminals, to do things for the benefit of other citizens and society as a whole.  I drive really well after drinking, so why do I have to comply with blood alcohol standards? I drive really well going fast, so why do I have to follow speed limits? I don't have a drinking problem, so why does the gas station stop selling me beer after a certain time? I'm really gun with a gun, why won't the TSA let me take it on an airplane? 

    My recommendation is to reflect on your feelings and emotions, recognize you aren't a "law abiding citizen" but rather just a "citizen," recognize the identity politics at play that have let you to have your feelings and emotions, and recognize the identity politics at play that have led you to identity as a "law abiding citizen."

  7. 44 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    I have no problem with polls.  But I also recognize gigantic flaws with these in particular.  I also recognize massive partisan confirmation bias as well.  Even my pseudo-socialist gun-owning parents refused to answer polls like this.  And I called them out for it.  It happens across the country.  Or did you not find it particularly interesting that while sales and concealed carry applications have spiked, response rates started to drop as this topic became more and more politicized?  

    Yeah, no. I don't think you single handily took down the Pew, Gallop, and GSS surveys. They are still our best source for understanding ownership trends. 

    This is where you step up to the big boy plate and provide a source of evidence.  Your claim is that "the majority of CHL permits/applications across the country have been increasing exponentially." Please also address the leap from CHL permits to firearm ownership. Please also put on your big boy pants and source your claim, "while sales and concealed carry applications have spiked, response rates started to drop." 

  8. 29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Ummm....dude.  The irony.  It's rich.

    Really?  That's your analog?  Let's go with it, it's a good one.

    - we put locks on cabin doors. AND,

    - we improved pre-flight screening and banned certain items.  AND,

    - we passed the damned Patriot Act.  AND,

    - we increased the holy hell out of our surveillance of potential terrorist actors.  AND,

    - we invaded actual countries to destroy their base of support.  AND,

    - we increased cooperation and intelligence sharing with our allies.  AND,

    - this list could go on for freaking pages.

    In fact, we have stopped numerous acts of terrorism.  Not by having locks on cabin doors, but by gathering intelligence and nipping the attacks in the bud before they were launched.

    Yet another multi-faceted approach to REDUCE (but not eliminate) a threat.

    As for requiring a gun registry (and mind you, I'm not necessarily in favor of it, but I can sure list some pros -- I can list cons, too), it would create a TIGHTER -- not airtight, but TIGHTER -- mechanism to monitor gun transfers.  Yes, the transfers of illegal unregistered weapons from criminal X to criminal Y would remain difficult to catch.  BUT, the sale/transfer of a gun -- either by a vendor or private seller - to Ed the Nutjob who wants to shoot up his work, school, a church, etc., will be more difficult.  And some such sales/transfers will be prevented (again, this requires that OTHER measures be in place, like mental health holds and such -- that is, there's no "one thing" that solves anything).

    I am absolutely for having an armed presence at schools -- as I observed, it saved lives in Chicago a couple of weeks ago, it probably saved lives (shortened the event) in Santa Fe, and if the cop had done his job, might have in Parkland as well.  It may be one of the MOST effective things we can do, at a relatively low cost (that is, relative to hardening targets, implementing a TSA-like entry regimen, etc.).  I favor that.  But that's not an "instead of" - it's an "in addition to."

    I'm glad we hardened cockpit doors.  But I think we would have been idiots if we said "we've hardened the doors, let's not do anything else."

    That's a great analogy. I might use that one, in addition to the automobile mortality, to show how we as a society are often able to address problems through minimization and mitigation.

  9. 22 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    There is no stagnate/declining gun ownership.  You keep positing this premise as a basis for your conclusion.  The problem is your polls, as stated, have zero mechanisms for verification.  And I'm telling you, with as politicized as this topic has become, owners simply answer 'no' (and that with less than half the polled population bothering to respond at all).  But what we can measure - CHL and FOID applications - those are skyrocketing across all demographics.  But that doesn't quite fit your narrative.  

    I get it. You don’t trust polls. I agree they aren’t perfect. However, that’s the best thing we have for measuring ownership trends. FOID is limited to one state and subject to local unknowns, and I haven’t seen anything concerning CHL trends that would be considered compelling - although do share what compels you. The wiki page I linked earlier describes the situation well. Also, Pew surveyed ownership since 1993 and their findings match GSS survey showing a decline in ownership.

    The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey.”

    http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/

     

  10. 20 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Because it's a false equivalency between safety belts and a national gun registry.  

    I get it. You don’t like the analogy because of reasons. FYI: you are using a strawman to accuse me of a fallacy - that is rich. Nowhere did I indicate safety belts are equivalent to a gun registry. 

  11. 41 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    It's ad hominem to dismiss the source without any criticism of the statements presented.  You dismissed ammoland.com as a propaganda outlet for fake science.  You offered no justification for it with respect to the statements of fact regarding NICS processing (the reason I posted the link).  That's pure ad hominem.

    I stated my criticisms of the presentation of data done by the gunpolicy.org/UoSydney group.  It was not a blanket condemnation because "gunpolicy.org/UoSydney are evil".  Bias in and of itself is not evil.  Pointing it out provides context when there is a significant error of omission.

     

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

    Seriously?  You literally put quotes around your attempted restatement of what you think I was saying.  Your quoted restatement is a misrepresentation of what I've said.  It's a classic example.  Maybe you really have difficulty with reading comprehension and it was an honest mistake, (given your lack of clarity on what an ad hominem is, I suppose that's possible), but it's not constructive to an honest dialogue.  If anything I've posted has been "jumbled, unclear" or "seemingly random", please ask me to clarify whatever you are having trouble understanding and I'll do my best to illuminate the point.

    It means that it doesn't really matter what anyone posts in this thread.  While most people advocate for their thoughts or otherwise might have a favored agenda, some people are so wound up in their position that their mind is closed to any other thought.  I believe that you are in the latter category.

    Why the continued fake accusation that I did not address you gunsammo.com source? I’m giving you an opportunity to correct this.

    From my ititial comment “Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.

    Suggest you stop with the fake outrage and fake accusations. There is no need to be so sensitive. Your source was addressed by indicating that “ownership trends” is the proper metric and I referred you to and described two sources that compete with your gunsammo.com source.

    FYI: restating a position into a clear simple form is not moving a persons position and is not a strawman. I even noted that my statement of your position with a lead up of “I believe you are trying to show..” to be honest about restating your position, thus giving you the courtesy of correcting your position. I gave you that courtesy a second time. I’ll give you a third opportunity.  

    Again, I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime. (this is your cue to restate your position or accept that position. Suggest you not whine about strawman again.)

  12. 40 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    That's anecdotal based upon your own assumptions and biases.  Especially since the majority of CHL permits/applications across the country have been increasing exponentially, and predominantly in urban areas.  

    I get it. You believe gun ownership has been exploding exponentially. 

    Rural decline isn’t antecdotal. It’s an attempt to provide context/reasoning behind either a stagnate gun ownership or a declining ownership rate. I.e., rural life has more uses and needs related to firearms. 

    https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/september/rural-areas-show-overall-population-decline-and-shifting-regional-patterns-of-population-change/

  13. 31 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Please don't take the disingenuous route by trying to make the intellectually dishonest analogy between seat belts and speed limits to a national gun registry.

    Are you going to explain how that was disingenuous or intellectually dishonest? An analogy is a comparison between two things for purpose of explanation. My analogy showed how a complex problem was dealt with in the US through a multi-pronged approach. How is that disingenuous or dishonest?

  14. 4 minutes ago, bernorange said:

     

     

    * sigh *

    How about not posting ad hominems when someone posts a source you don't like.  Are people so afraid of their own competence in sorting out bias and facts from propaganda that they can't even read and think for themselves when presented with a link?  If there is a problem with the information I posted, by all means highlight the issue and I will have no problem acknowledging any errors in fact, logic etc.  Absent any issue based criticism, I don't appreciate ad hominems used in an attempt to shut down a discussion though.  That's lazy and weak sauce.

    You misunderstood.  The source is biased.  They publicly state their agenda.  The bolded phrase is prima facie evidence of their bias.  The bias is not, in and of itself, a cause to dismiss them from the discussion.  The bias colors the reasoning for not disclosing important information about the underlying data though.  It's the data itself which is problematic. 

    Why resort to straw men?  I have been very clear with my language and that's not what I've said, implied or insinuated.  I get that you are hyper-partisan on this issue much like Guapo is with (anti-)abortion, but you don't need to do that.

    Hmmmm it’s Ad hominem when I note the large amount of fake science from the industry but it’s ok for you to disregard data from the university of Sydney?   There isn’t a justification for that. Also, I did address your source in my final paragraph concerning ownership so don’t be a troll and make things up through fake accusations. 

    It isn’t a big deal that the gun industry pushes fake science. This isn’t surprising. The tobacco industry and oil industry all pushed fake science to push their agenda and maximize profits. It’s what industries do. People shouldn’t be surprised or offended by this.

    Let’s be clear from your perspective gunammo.com is a good source but the university of Sydney is bad and biased. You are free to believe all that.

    You are free to state I’m using a strawman, without describing any evidence of such. I stated in simple, clear form what I believed your position was. You are free to restate your position. I restated your position because it was jumbled, unclear, and threw together bits of seemingly random information. 

    Again, I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.” Neither of these two statements are accurate however.

    You are also free to believe that I am hyper partisan - whatever that means.

    To address your npr article referencing the pew study that showed a decline since 1993, I recommend you go back and read my comment, note my discussion and evidence concerning the surge in the 80s and 90s with a relatively flat trend after that, then go back to the pew article and click the link for the updated information - also linked below. Note the new headline, “Gun homicides steady after decline in 90s.” 

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/%3famp=1

  15. 12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    How many of these are gang related?  How many are utilizing legally obtained firearms?  These homicides are accompanied by a litany of other illegal activities, so reconcile how utilizing punitive measures (fines, registration) is going to impact this at all?

    Hmmm. Are we past the point where we argue whether there is a problem and have now moved to argue whether there is anything we can do about the problem?

    We are talking about a complex problem that will require a multi-pronged approach at addressing. The best analogy is how we lowered the rate of traffic fatalities through inspections, licensing, registrations, safety requirements for vehicles and roadways, etc.

  16. 5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    There is a glaring issue here I'm hoping you recognize.  First, these polls have no verification mechanism.  With such a hotly debated topic, every gun owner I've ever known refuses to answer these.  They are not "refusing to answer" (which make up about 7% of the polled responses), they simply say "no".  With a little less than half answering (46%), that leaves a huge majority of households out there that are simply not participating.  

    If you want harder evidence, look at the spike in concealed parry permits.  Then reconcile this will gun sale numbers, and the politicized nature of the subject.  Even in states like IL that show GSS survey results decreasing, you see FOID applications skyrocketing.  

    Sure. There are issues with surveys. However, surveys across time are the best way to understand trends. The idea that gun occupancy hasn’t been increasing isn’t surprising since cities are growing while rural areas have either been decling or stagnant. 

    The FOID data is for one state and could be the result of a host of local issues.

  17. 43 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    So I finally found a little bit of time this morning to read through the country by country stats that GW has posted several times in this thread as a justfication for more gun control.  The numbers are all pulled from gunpolicy.org ( a publication maintained by the University of Sydney).  I cannot find on the site a clear description of where they are sourcing their numbers or doing any analysis of the same before comparing.  I'm pretty sure they don't because it would highlight just how meaningless it would render the comparisons and that's not the purpose of the site.  That site is designed to promote gun control/confiscation.  Here's a look at the bias of the principals at work on that site (emphasis mine):

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/about

    GW, as I mentioned several pages back, they are using disparate sources for their numbers and the underlying data is not collected/tracked the same across all jurisdictions.  You really can't draw any meaningful conclusions from comparing different varieties of fruits and vegetables.

    I understand you aren’t comfortable comparing rates of firearm-related violence across countries because you perceive the source to be biased even though the source is maintained by an academic institution. If academic institutions aren’t appropriate, do you consider sources from the gun industry, such as NRA or ammoland.com as non-biased? Also, if academic sources aren’t appropriate, what sources are appropriate to compare the US to other countries? I get that the gun industry doesn’t like the data.

    Even if you choose not to believe that the US’s rate of firearm violence is on par with third world countries (without any evidence to support that belief) because you don’t trust the Sydney School of Public Health, you still have to rectify another source that shows the US’s rate of overall homicides are also on par with third world countries. That source is from the UN.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

     

  18. 2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    I don't know about the "probability of gun violence", but the incidence of (overall) gun violence has been in decline for over a decade now (already posted source for this a while back in this thread) even through the record number of gun sales (as measured by NICS requests) in recent years.

    .

    Please don’t source from ammoland.com. There is too much fake science being pushed from the gun industry.

    I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.” Neither of these two statements are accurate however.

    First let me say, if true (though it isn’t) that firearm violence has been declining, we still as a society have a responsibility lower our rates of gun violence, since we as a country have rates on par with third world countries. Please review the below table and sort by overall or by homicides.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    Second, gun violence has not been in decline for a decade now. During the 80s and early 90s, rates of homicides and homicides by firearms both surged as a result of the drug war, crack cocaine, and other reasons. That surge dropped in the late 90s to its current level due to a range of factors including tough on crime strategies and some would argue removing lead from gasoline. Since the late 90s, the rate of both homicides and homicides by firearms have been relatively flat. 

    For a trend between 1997 and 2016 of overall homicides, see the below table and note the column concerning murder and no negligent manslaughter rate. The trend is relatively flat.

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-1

    For a trend in homicides by weapons type, see page 27, figure 42 showing homicides by weapon type. This only shows data up to 2008 but does show the crack-cocaine surge in 80s and 90s and the plateau since late 90s.

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

    Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

  19. 48 minutes ago, XYZ said:

    The republic was already heading toward a cliff, Trump or no Trump. There are no statesmen, only corrupt politicians trying to steal as much as possible for themselves and their friends.

    BoTh SiDes aRe tHe SaMe is a meme for a reason. 

    • Like 1
  20. 7 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

    So what does post #775 and #776 say to you? Voluntary buy backs, then warnings, then jail time?  Maybe I misunderstood. Please enlighten me. 

    “It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline. 

    Please explain the the warnings and fines for the guns I legally own. 

    If your guns are legally owned like you said and registered and licenced then warnings, fines, etc. wouldn’t be relevant.

  21. 20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    No one on the left has argued for a gun free country. No one on the left has called for taking the guns of law abiding citizens. 

    Yeah. This argument seems to be a strawman IMO. No one is wanting someone to give up their past time. No one is wanting to keep hunters from having guns. I think this argument tends to be the result of identity politics, the “responsible gun owner” vs the “gun grabbers” and the slippery slope thing. The issue IMO is the “responsible gun owner” should see themselves as responsible citizens, willing to take steps to make society safer. Steps such as licensing, registering, selling back firearms they don’t want to register, etc. 

  22. 24 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    Australia is an island and doesn’t have a pourous border with a country run by a criminal organization. In other words, good luck. 

    Ah yes. Nice move. The classic we-are-different-from-them-so-we-should-throw-our-hands-in-the-air fallacy. This one conveniently forgot about the development of boats and planes and conveniently ignored the fact that weapons move in the opposite direction. 

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/14/why-mexicos-drug-cartels-love-americas-gun-laws/?utm_term=.dac4bae0c3d3

  23. 35 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

    The genie back in the bottle argument is nonsense. 

    It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline. 

    And no, you’re not going to get all the guns back. Just like you can’t stop all crime, but you will reduce the availability, and therefore the  probability of gun violence 

     

    The genie back in the bottle idea is what you described. It will take years and multiple buy back events. Australia used this approach and was successful. 

×
×
  • Create New...