Common Sense Gun Control

[houndawg]

Now back to overall homicides. Yesterday and today I looked at the data on civilian gun ownership rates at https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country, data on how developed each country is at https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -countries, and data on total homicide rates at https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country.

There is not sufficient evidence to say that, when all countries are considered, that more civilian owned firearms is associated with higher homicide rates. There IS sufficient evidence to say that more development is associated with lower homicide rates. Also, there is still not sufficient evidence to say civilian gun ownership rate is a factor even if you control for development.

I also tried looking at whether there is sufficient evidence to say gun ownership is a factor if you just look at G20 countries. There isn't.

The ONE thing is that, if you ONLY look at the G7, there is a highly significant correlation (>99.99% confidence) that, among the G7, more civilian gun ownership is associated with higher homicide rate). That's kind of remarkable to get that high a confidence level with only 6 pairs (data not available for UK).

But it should be noted that the United States is rated 76 of 196 in homicide rate at https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country. It's got a homicide rate of 4.96 per 100,000. It'd be nice if it was better than that. But, to put that into context, the top rate is 52.02. Gun control advocates should not be acting as though this is the most dangerous place to live in the world.

Cold comfort when guns are the leading cause of death for kids 1-4 in the US, but at least its a small positive

[houndawg]

I don't think either side is using common sense, regardless of what it is to them. They're both more interested in sticking to their talking points than actually trying to make things better. As you and others have mentioned, putting a concerted effort and funding toward making sure existing laws and processes are followed would be a huge step forward.

As far as bans are concerned, there appears to be an acceptable line for infringement, where is it? Why is it ok to ban private ownership of RPGs and bazookas but not automatics?

WTF Are you talking about Automatics are banned post 1986. And pre ban have to have go through a full proctological with the ATF, along with tax stamp.

What you mean to say is that automatics manufactured post '86 are banned if you don't have an FFL. Automatics from pre '86 are ok if you meet the qualifications - thats the category that semi-auto weapons with detachable magazines should be placed into.

[Col Hogan]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

i like a lot of what you typed here…but have a question…

You used the Democrat talking point “…without turning them into prisons…”

Why? Is Congress a prison? Is a courthouse a prison?

How is beefing up security to the point that an 18 year old maniac can’t get into a school making it a prison?

Otherwise, I like the idea of states being the laboratories of ideas…

[houndawg]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

i like a lot of what you typed here…but have a question…

You used the Democrat talking point “…without turning them into prisons…”

Why? Is Congress a prison? Is a courthouse a prison?

How is beefing up security to the point that an 18 year old maniac can’t get into a school making it a prison?

Otherwise, I like the idea of states being the laboratories of ideas…

What if schools were equipped to make smoke like ships used to?

[JohnStOnge]

It's obviously not going to happen but I actually believe we should repeal or modify the Second Amendment. I think it's obsolete and, if you take it literally, it's just not tenable. It was written for a different defense system at a different time. The Constitution says we're not supposed to have a permanent standing army. We were supposed to rely heavily on militias for defense (to repel invasions, etc.).

It's not limited to guns. It refers to "arms." "Arms" back then included a range of weapons that is a lot different from what "Arms" encompasses now.

It does not protect us from a tyrannical government. If our government decided to be tyrannical and the US military supported it people trying to resist because they have guns would be annihilated. The hope would be that the military would not go along with it. Either way the fact that private citizens have guns would not make a difference in the final outcome. If the US military went along with it and private citizens with guns thought they could take on the US military we'd get a lot of private citizens with guns killed. That's the only difference it would make.

Having guns does not, on a population level, make people safer. It's been repeatedly shown that households with guns are far more likely to have someone in their household die as a result of that than they are to end up having somebody saved by using a gun in self defense.

If we want to let people have guns for sporting purposes, fine. But this idea that it is this REALLY essential fundamental right essential to our existence as a free people is ridiculous in today's context. Freedom of speech is that. Freedom of the press is that. The right to vote is that even though it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The processes and institutions that, for instance, kept Trump from succeeding in his effort to corrupt our election are. Keeping and bearing arms is not.

[UNI88]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

i like a lot of what you typed here…but have a question…

You used the Democrat talking point “…without turning them into prisons…”

Why? Is Congress a prison? Is a courthouse a prison?

How is beefing up security to the point that an 18 year old maniac can’t get into a school making it a prison?

Otherwise, I like the idea of states being the laboratories of ideas…

Good question. I used that language because it seems to be a liberal rallying cry. I should have put it in quotes.

I would argue that Congress, a courthouse, etc. are different from schools. I'm not a psychologist but I would guess that kids' development is impacted by restrictive security measures. Plus there is always going to be a level of vulnerability at schools that locking a building can't alleviate - they go outside for PE, recess, etc. Shame on us if we have to take those away in the name of security. If we do then we've failed our children.

[houndawg]

i like a lot of what you typed here…but have a question…

You used the Democrat talking point “…without turning them into prisons…”

Why? Is Congress a prison? Is a courthouse a prison?

How is beefing up security to the point that an 18 year old maniac can’t get into a school making it a prison?

Otherwise, I like the idea of states being the laboratories of ideas…

Good question. I used that language because it seems to be a liberal rallying cry. I should have put it in quotes.

I would argue that Congress, a courthouse, etc. are different from schools. I'm not a psychologist but I would guess that kids' development is impacted by restrictive security measures. Plus there is always going to be a level of vulnerability at schools that locking a building can't alleviate - they go outside for PE, recess, etc. Shame on us if we have to take those away in the name of security. If we do then we've failed our children.

Freedom isn't free, somebody needs to tell those kid's families to buck up.

[BDKJMU]

Here is an abstract of an abstract of a study concluding mass shooting deaths were lower during the "assault weapons" ban:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

Conclusion: Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.

There is also this statement:

Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities...

As for what "assault rifles" are, I think it's safe to say that they are whatever was banned by the ban.

So that's the deal. Mass shooting deaths are a small percentage of total homicides. But if you are looking at mass shooting deaths, "assault rifles" are obviously a factor.

I stopped reading right there. Its clear the author doesn’t know wtf he is talking about. Assault rifles are by defintion select fire or full auto, and were banned (without an FFL or tax stamp) long before 1994. 1936 NFA heavily regulated fully automatic weapons, and 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act banned new ones unless you are dealer (FFL), and for those manufactured before 86’, for non FFL, became extremely expensive, in addition to the proctological you have to go through to get an ATF tax stamp get one.

I might have had a semi auto AK and an AR that were both lost in boating accidents, but I have never owned an ‘assault rifle’ or ‘assault weapon’. If its not select fire and/or full auto, its not an assault rifle/weapon.

[BDKJMU]

WTF Are you talking about Automatics are banned post 1986. And pre ban have to have go through a full proctological with the ATF, along with tax stamp.

What you mean to say is that automatics manufactured post '86 are banned if you don't have an FFL. Automatics from pre '86 are ok if you meet the qualifications - thats the category that semi-auto weapons with detachable magazines should be placed into.

I should have stated I was coming from the persepctive of Joe Q Public/non FFL.
https://guntrustnfa.com/nfa-tax-stamps-complete-guide/
Yeah for an FFL much easier, but they had to go through the proctological to get the FFL.
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/how-to-g ... %20More%20

[BDKJMU]

It's obviously not going to happen but I actually believe we should repeal or modify the Second Amendment. I think it's obsolete and, if you take it literally, it's just not tenable. It was written for a different defense system at a different time. The Constitution says we're not supposed to have a permanent standing army. We were supposed to rely heavily on militias for defense (to repel invasions, etc.).

It's not limited to guns. It refers to "arms." "Arms" back then included a range of weapons that is a lot different from what "Arms" encompasses now.

It does not protect us from a tyrannical government. If our government decided to be tyrannical and the US military supported it people trying to resist because they have guns would be annihilated. The hope would be that the military would not go along with it. Either way the fact that private citizens have guns would not make a difference in the final outcome. If the US military went along with it and private citizens with guns thought they could take on the US military we'd get a lot of private citizens with guns killed. That's the only difference it would make.

Having guns does not, on a population level, make people safer. It's been repeatedly shown that households with guns are far more likely to have someone in their household die as a result of that than they are to end up having somebody saved by using a gun in self defense.

If we want to let people have guns for sporting purposes, fine. But this idea that it is this REALLY essential fundamental right essential to our existence as a free people is ridiculous in today's context. Freedom of speech is that. Freedom of the press is that. The right to vote is that even though it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The processes and institutions that, for instance, kept Trump from succeeding in his effort to corrupt our election are. Keeping and bearing arms is not.

Spoken like the true liberal you are.

[Gil Dobie]

i like a lot of what you typed here…but have a question…

You used the Democrat talking point “…without turning them into prisons…”

Why? Is Congress a prison? Is a courthouse a prison?

How is beefing up security to the point that an 18 year old maniac can’t get into a school making it a prison?

Otherwise, I like the idea of states being the laboratories of ideas…

Good question. I used that language because it seems to be a liberal rallying cry. I should have put it in quotes.

I would argue that Congress, a courthouse, etc. are different from schools. I'm not a psychologist but I would guess that kids' development is impacted by restrictive security measures. Plus there is always going to be a level of vulnerability at schools that locking a building can't alleviate - they go outside for PE, recess, etc. Shame on us if we have to take those away in the name of security. If we do then we've failed our children.

Many school playgrounds are already fenced. I've noticed it when looking for a park or playground with my grandkids. It wouldn't be a big deal to have sports stadium like entrance for all schools.

[Gil Dobie]

It's obviously not going to happen but I actually believe we should repeal or modify the Second Amendment. I think it's obsolete and, if you take it literally, it's just not tenable. It was written for a different defense system at a different time. The Constitution says we're not supposed to have a permanent standing army. We were supposed to rely heavily on militias for defense (to repel invasions, etc.).

It's not limited to guns. It refers to "arms." "Arms" back then included a range of weapons that is a lot different from what "Arms" encompasses now.

It does not protect us from a tyrannical government. If our government decided to be tyrannical and the US military supported it people trying to resist because they have guns would be annihilated. The hope would be that the military would not go along with it. Either way the fact that private citizens have guns would not make a difference in the final outcome. If the US military went along with it and private citizens with guns thought they could take on the US military we'd get a lot of private citizens with guns killed. That's the only difference it would make.

Having guns does not, on a population level, make people safer. It's been repeatedly shown that households with guns are far more likely to have someone in their household die as a result of that than they are to end up having somebody saved by using a gun in self defense.

If we want to let people have guns for sporting purposes, fine. But this idea that it is this REALLY essential fundamental right essential to our existence as a free people is ridiculous in today's context. Freedom of speech is that. Freedom of the press is that. The right to vote is that even though it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The processes and institutions that, for instance, kept Trump from succeeding in his effort to corrupt our election are. Keeping and bearing arms is not.

Shame on you for bringing asshat Trump into the conversation. The gun ownership in America is why you aren't learning Chinese, or maybe that is your desire.

[AZGrizFan]

It's obviously not going to happen but I actually believe we should repeal or modify the Second Amendment. I think it's obsolete and, if you take it literally, it's just not tenable. It was written for a different defense system at a different time. The Constitution says we're not supposed to have a permanent standing army. We were supposed to rely heavily on militias for defense (to repel invasions, etc.).

It's not limited to guns. It refers to "arms." "Arms" back then included a range of weapons that is a lot different from what "Arms" encompasses now.

It does not protect us from a tyrannical government. If our government decided to be tyrannical and the US military supported it people trying to resist because they have guns would be annihilated. The hope would be that the military would not go along with it. Either way the fact that private citizens have guns would not make a difference in the final outcome. If the US military went along with it and private citizens with guns thought they could take on the US military we'd get a lot of private citizens with guns killed. That's the only difference it would make.

Having guns does not, on a population level, make people safer. It's been repeatedly shown that households with guns are far more likely to have someone in their household die as a result of that than they are to end up having somebody saved by using a gun in self defense.

If we want to let people have guns for sporting purposes, fine. But this idea that it is this REALLY essential fundamental right essential to our existence as a free people is ridiculous in today's context. Freedom of speech is that. Freedom of the press is that. The right to vote is that even though it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The processes and institutions that, for instance, kept Trump from succeeding in his effort to corrupt our election are. Keeping and bearing arms is not.

I couldn’t disagree more. On just about every single point. Right now the fact that there are 300,000,000 guns out there in the hands of private citizens is about the ONLY thing preventing our government from becoming even MORE tyrannical.

[SDHornet]

It's obviously not going to happen but I actually believe we should repeal or modify the Second Amendment. I think it's obsolete and, if you take it literally, it's just not tenable. It was written for a different defense system at a different time. The Constitution says we're not supposed to have a permanent standing army. We were supposed to rely heavily on militias for defense (to repel invasions, etc.).

It's not limited to guns. It refers to "arms." "Arms" back then included a range of weapons that is a lot different from what "Arms" encompasses now.

It does not protect us from a tyrannical government. If our government decided to be tyrannical and the US military supported it people trying to resist because they have guns would be annihilated. The hope would be that the military would not go along with it. Either way the fact that private citizens have guns would not make a difference in the final outcome. If the US military went along with it and private citizens with guns thought they could take on the US military we'd get a lot of private citizens with guns killed. That's the only difference it would make.

Having guns does not, on a population level, make people safer. It's been repeatedly shown that households with guns are far more likely to have someone in their household die as a result of that than they are to end up having somebody saved by using a gun in self defense.

If we want to let people have guns for sporting purposes, fine. But this idea that it is this REALLY essential fundamental right essential to our existence as a free people is ridiculous in today's context. Freedom of speech is that. Freedom of the press is that. The right to vote is that even though it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The processes and institutions that, for instance, kept Trump from succeeding in his effort to corrupt our election are. Keeping and bearing arms is not.

I couldn’t disagree more. On just about every single point. Right now the fact that there are 300,000,000 guns out there in the hands of private citizens is about the ONLY thing preventing our government from becoming even MORE tyrannical.

Yep. Thanks to the China Virus tyranny, any "common sense" gun law is pretty much DOA.

[houndawg]

What you mean to say is that automatics manufactured post '86 are banned if you don't have an FFL. Automatics from pre '86 are ok if you meet the qualifications - thats the category that semi-auto weapons with detachable magazines should be placed into.

I should have stated I was coming from the persepctive of Joe Q Public/non FFL.
https://guntrustnfa.com/nfa-tax-stamps-complete-guide/
Yeah for an FFL much easier, but they had to go through the proctological to get the FFL.
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/how-to-g ... %20More%20

Thats what I'm talking about - nothing needs to be banned if high-capacity semi-auto weapons are placed in the same category. Everbody is blaming "the system" for these events - when the FFL system is sitting right there waiting to be used.

[Winterborn]

I want an armored HMMWV with a CROWS system.

I wonder if I could set up that system to track and take care of my racoon problem.

[Winterborn]

I couldn’t disagree more. On just about every single point. Right now the fact that there are 300,000,000 guns out there in the hands of private citizens is about the ONLY thing preventing our government from becoming even MORE tyrannical.

Yep. Thanks to the China Virus tyranny, any "common sense" gun law is pretty much DOA.

One of the few good things to come out of that whole mess. It became very clear for anybody that was paying attention how fast "rights" went out the window in the name of "society".

[Winterborn]

Here is an abstract of an abstract of a study concluding mass shooting deaths were lower during the "assault weapons" ban:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/



There is also this statement:



As for what "assault rifles" are, I think it's safe to say that they are whatever was banned by the ban.

So that's the deal. Mass shooting deaths are a small percentage of total homicides. But if you are looking at mass shooting deaths, "assault rifles" are obviously a factor.

I stopped reading right there. Its clear the author doesn’t know wtf he is talking about. Assault rifles are by defintion select fire or full auto, and were banned (without an FFL or tax stamp) long before 1994. 1936 NFA heavily regulated fully automatic weapons, and 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act banned new ones unless you are dealer (FFL), and for those manufactured before 86’, for non FFL, became extremely expensive, in addition to the proctological you have to go through to get an ATF tax stamp get one.

I might have had a semi auto AK and an AR that were both lost in boating accidents, but I have never owned an ‘assault rifle’ or ‘assault weapon’. If its not select fire and/or full auto, its not an assault rifle/weapon.

It is "interesting" that they used media reports for their data instead of the FBI database. I will give anybody 3 guess on why but only 1 should count.

[Ibanez]

I want an armored HMMWV with a CROWS system.

I wonder if I could set up that system to track and take care of my racoon problem.

I'll have to search the dark abyss of my memory but the USMC has a vehicle mounted turret system which a user can lock onto a suspect, and the weapon will track that person and then fire. It also has an omnidirectional microphone(called a Boomerang), that when it picks up the sound of a gun shot or rocket, the turret automatically spins to that location and begins scanning. I saw a few videos from OEF back in 2008 or 2009 of it tracking a combatant on a motorbike and then suddenly...pink mist

[Ibanez]

I couldn’t disagree more. On just about every single point. Right now the fact that there are 300,000,000 guns out there in the hands of private citizens is about the ONLY thing preventing our government from becoming even MORE tyrannical.

Yep. Thanks to the China Virus tyranny, any "common sense" gun law is pretty much DOA.

The tyranny of governors, right? 1111

[Winterborn]

I wonder if I could set up that system to track and take care of my racoon problem.

I'll have to search the dark abyss of my memory but the USMC has a vehicle mounted turret system which a user can lock onto a suspect, and the weapon will track that person and then fire. It also has an omnidirectional microphone(called a Boomerang), that when it picks up the sound of a gun shot or rocket, the turret automatically spins to that location and begins scanning. I saw a few videos from OEF back in 2008 or 2009 of it tracking a combatant on a motorbike and then suddenly...pink mist

So that is a yes then.

[Baldy]

It's obviously not going to happen but I actually believe we should repeal or modify the Second Amendment. I think it's obsolete and, if you take it literally, it's just not tenable. It was written for a different defense system at a different time. The Constitution says we're not supposed to have a permanent standing army. We were supposed to rely heavily on militias for defense (to repel invasions, etc.).

It's not limited to guns. It refers to "arms." "Arms" back then included a range of weapons that is a lot different from what "Arms" encompasses now.

It does not protect us from a tyrannical government. If our government decided to be tyrannical and the US military supported it people trying to resist because they have guns would be annihilated. The hope would be that the military would not go along with it. Either way the fact that private citizens have guns would not make a difference in the final outcome. If the US military went along with it and private citizens with guns thought they could take on the US military we'd get a lot of private citizens with guns killed. That's the only difference it would make.

Having guns does not, on a population level, make people safer. It's been repeatedly shown that households with guns are far more likely to have someone in their household die as a result of that than they are to end up having somebody saved by using a gun in self defense.

If we want to let people have guns for sporting purposes, fine. But this idea that it is this REALLY essential fundamental right essential to our existence as a free people is ridiculous in today's context. Freedom of speech is that. Freedom of the press is that. The right to vote is that even though it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The processes and institutions that, for instance, kept Trump from succeeding in his effort to corrupt our election are. Keeping and bearing arms is not.

Shame on you for bringing asshat Trump into the conversation. The gun ownership in America is why you aren't learning Chinese, or maybe that is your desire.

Please tell me you are not surprised.

He brings Trump into ever single conversation.

[Ibanez]

I'll have to search the dark abyss of my memory but the USMC has a vehicle mounted turret system which a user can lock onto a suspect, and the weapon will track that person and then fire. It also has an omnidirectional microphone(called a Boomerang), that when it picks up the sound of a gun shot or rocket, the turret automatically spins to that location and begins scanning. I saw a few videos from OEF back in 2008 or 2009 of it tracking a combatant on a motorbike and then suddenly...pink mist

So that is a yes then.

Yes, and it's effective. My brother is a program manager for CROWs down in Charleston and has been for about 10 years or so. He's said the development and improvements have been quite incredible.

[Ibanez]

I don't know WTF I'm talking about. I have a life that doesn't revolve around guns. Modifies but doesn't substantially change the original question, how is a ban on automatics, not an infringement?

Based on the current makeup of the SCOTUS, how long before gun advocates mount a legal challenge to the ban?

You don’t have to have a life that revolves around guns to know that fully automatics have long been banned. I’ve seen countless times libs (not saying you’re a lib) saying we need to ban automatics, along with assault rifles, machine guns, and I just

I think it is an infringement.

I have no idea if a challenge would be mounted that reached SCOTUS, or if it would be successfull.

No, BDK. "AR" stands for assault rifle. It's a Democrat/Liberal conspiracy to make YOU believe it isn't..but they know the truth.

[houndawg]

i like a lot of what you typed here…but have a question…

You used the Democrat talking point “…without turning them into prisons…”

Why? Is Congress a prison? Is a courthouse a prison?

How is beefing up security to the point that an 18 year old maniac can’t get into a school making it a prison?

Otherwise, I like the idea of states being the laboratories of ideas…

Good question. I used that language because it seems to be a liberal rallying cry. I should have put it in quotes.

I would argue that Congress, a courthouse, etc. are different from schools. I'm not a psychologist but I would guess that kids' development is impacted by restrictive security measures. Plus there is always going to be a level of vulnerability at schools that locking a building can't alleviate - they go outside for PE, recess, etc. Shame on us if we have to take those away in the name of security. If we do then we've failed our children.

There are a significant amount of people that would welcome it - same crowd that says DOE is bad, teachers are grooming their students, and we should place the onus of stopping school shootings on armed Marxist teachers (they're all Marxists).