Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
When hunting in west Texas, I dont HUNT with a hand gun, but i certainly carry one on me at all times.
Mostly due to personal protection. Not from people, but from snakes, hogs, bobcats etc.
So there is that.
Ah I didn't know how prevalent it was, worst I deal with up here is deer and maybe a mountain lion or black bear if you're in the wrong neighborhood.
Moose though, you better be running away.
Moose!? Yea..i'm the hell outta there then. lol.
That kind of nasty critter is pretty prevalent in that area of Texas.
Here in Illinois (i dont hunt here) I dont think its much of an issue, and i dont think many hunters carry hand guns.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
When hunting in west Texas, I dont HUNT with a hand gun, but i certainly carry one on me at all times.
Mostly due to personal protection. Not from people, but from snakes, hogs, bobcats etc.
So there is that.
Ah I didn't know how prevalent it was, worst I deal with up here is deer and maybe a mountain lion or black bear if you're in the wrong neighborhood.
Moose though, you better be running away.
I can get the stats if anyone cares but no, it's not prevalent anywhere for any wild animal and guns are bad for protection even if you don't hurt yourself before hand.
What questions would you see as being necessary on such a test? Is the goal of the test to reduce accidents, or to keep the gun out of the hands of someone who would do something nefarious with it?
I feel like being able to accurately check the box that says "never at something you don't intend to shoot" when asked what things it's okay to point your gun at is something that you could easily pass without any studying but still utterly fail to meaningfully implement in practice if you're an irresponsible person.
I am all for better training, as cheaply and available as possible, for those who choose to own guns. The sort of thing that the NRA used to be all about before they became primarily a lobbying organization.
And yeah, if Jim-bob can't pass the tests for gun ownership, welp, time to move to the city so big government can make sure he doesn't hurt himself anyways.
Are you commenting on my post? I didn't say or imply that Jim-Bob has to do that. If he can't pass gun tests where he's from, going to the city won't change much. It also depends why he failed the tests.
In rural areas it could be as simple as not having any form of ID. Or the like. To me it relates directly to why we think showing ID for voting is such a bad thing.
I'm not sure gun control is worth spending political capital on. I'd drop the issue to end its power as a wedge that drives voters to the Republicans.
Are there really liberals that purely vote Democratic based on support for gun control? It seems like an incidental point of view that comes with having compassion for victims in general, not a core belief in of itself.
I'd rather take it all and fix anything else wrong with America (and there is a fuck ton wrong with it), and take a general reduction in crime as a result of better living standards.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
And the reason I mentioned the snake charmer is that, when you are comparing firearms, there are comparable weapons that fulfill the same utilitarian purpose used with handguns. Banning guns doesn't mean people can't go out in the bush in Texas anymore.
It just means they need to carry a small shotgun along with the rifle instead of a handgun. The purpose is served, and no one has access to a weapon that can spray a dozen shots in less than a dozen seconds.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
When hunting in west Texas, I dont HUNT with a hand gun, but i certainly carry one on me at all times.
Mostly due to personal protection. Not from people, but from snakes, hogs, bobcats etc.
So there is that.
Ah I didn't know how prevalent it was, worst I deal with up here is deer and maybe a mountain lion or black bear if you're in the wrong neighborhood.
Moose though, you better be running away.
I can get the stats if anyone cares but no, it's not prevalent anywhere for any wild animal and guns are bad for protection even if you don't hurt yourself before hand.
Say what now? Yes it is. Literally every hunter i know in Texas (out west anyway) carries a handgun while hunting. And every single one of them has had to use it for this purpose at least once. Except myself. Fortunately.
I mentioned several, much earlier in the thread. I think all Constitutional rights secured to the individual have some limit at the places where they impact society. I support licensing, I conditionally support firearms training classes, I support background checks and better reporting of mental health issues looped into that check. I'm unhappy with but concede that the arguments are very good for a "cooling off" period. If it needs to be said, I support the restrictions on fully automatic weapons and on crew-served weapons and most explosives / rockets.
I'm not sure gun control is worth spending political capital on. I'd drop the issue to end its power as a wedge that drives voters to the Republicans.
Are there really liberals that purely vote Democratic based on support for gun control? It seems like an incidental point of view that comes with having compassion for victims in general, not a core belief in of itself.
I'd rather take it all and fix anything else wrong with America (and there is a fuck ton wrong with it), and take a general reduction in crime as a result of better living standards.
there are single-issue gun control voters, they tend to be the ones with dead loved ones
And yeah, if Jim-bob can't pass the tests for gun ownership, welp, time to move to the city so big government can make sure he doesn't hurt himself anyways.
Are you commenting on my post? I didn't say or imply that Jim-Bob has to do that. If he can't pass gun tests where he's from, going to the city won't change much. It also depends why he failed the tests.
In rural areas it could be as simple as not having any form of ID. Or the like. To me it relates directly to why we think showing ID for voting is such a bad thing.
In that case I'd want the government to have programs to get them that access, so when they do test for gun licenses that's not an issue holding them back.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
When hunting in west Texas, I dont HUNT with a hand gun, but i certainly carry one on me at all times.
Mostly due to personal protection. Not from people, but from snakes, hogs, bobcats etc.
So there is that.
Ah I didn't know how prevalent it was, worst I deal with up here is deer and maybe a mountain lion or black bear if you're in the wrong neighborhood.
Moose though, you better be running away.
I can get the stats if anyone cares but no, it's not prevalent anywhere for any wild animal and guns are bad for protection even if you don't hurt yourself before hand.
Say what now? Yes it is. Literally every hunter i know in Texas (out west anyway) carries a handgun while hunting. And every single one of them has had to use it for this purpose at least once. Except myself. Fortunately.
Yeah same here. But I live in Bear and Cougar territory so I am more than happy to have never used it yet. And it is common here too on the rez.
I'm not sure gun control is worth spending political capital on. I'd drop the issue to end its power as a wedge that drives voters to the Republicans.
Are there really liberals that purely vote Democratic based on support for gun control? It seems like an incidental point of view that comes with having compassion for victims in general, not a core belief in of itself.
I'd rather take it all and fix anything else wrong with America (and there is a fuck ton wrong with it), and take a general reduction in crime as a result of better living standards.
there are single-issue gun control voters, they tend to be the ones with dead loved ones
Anything that causes more than 1,000,000 preventable deaths over a four-decade span is going to be a perennial political issue. That's especially true when those deaths are often public, messy, and terrifying to the community.
This isn't something that is just going to go away.
And the reason I mentioned the snake charmer is that, when you are comparing firearms, there are comparable weapons that fulfill the same utilitarian purpose used with handguns. Banning guns doesn't mean people can't go out in the bush in Texas anymore.
It just means they need to carry a small shotgun along with the rifle instead of a handgun. The purpose is served, and no one has access to a weapon that can spray a dozen shots in less than a dozen seconds.
A small shotgun does not work well in this role. Way harder to draw and bring to bear/shoot accurately in a small space.
Also, a snake charmer shotgun will absolutely jack crap against a havalina (sp?) hog in Texas, aside from piss it off.
For perspective.....(and wow, i'd never looked at this list before) according to the CDC
EDIT! This is for 2013 alone.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
We have massive public health campaigns, as well as billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research, devoted to every single one of those problems. There are literally thousands of people in this country who work on preventing life-style related diabetes alone.
Charities are devoted to solving those issues. World leaders meet at UN Conferences to discuss The War on Cancer. If there was a law that they could pass to reduce cancer death, it would be passed in every nation on the Earth. Even the crazy one.
But the CDC is still barred from researching or issuing grants to study gun deaths.
Correction CDC is no longer barred from researching gun violence. Post Sandy Hook Obama executive ordered that off. They still don't because congress can strip their funding and investigating gun violence is a great way to get black listed from government research grants.
For perspective.....(and wow, i'd never looked at this list before) according to the CDC
EDIT! This is for 2013 alone.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
We have massive public health campaigns, as well as billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research, devoted to every single one of those problems. There are literally thousands of people in this country who work on preventing life-style related diabetes alone.
Charities are devoted to solving those issues. World leaders meet at UN Conferences to discuss The War on Cancer. If there was a law that they could pass to reduce cancer death, it would be passed in every nation on the Earth. Even the crazy one.
But the CDC is still barred from researching or issuing grants to study gun deaths.
Wasnt make any broader points by posting it, but simply putting it out there for perspective.
Y'know, i'd pose that instead of worrying as much about guns -which is an obviously devisive subject- we should ask:
"Why do people want to kill other people? What can we do to stop it?"
And i'd once again pose that there is a HUGE number of other factors that we can change in this country without arguing about guns, that would impact the level of violence far greater than just getting rid of all guns.
Repeal the Second Amendment. It'll never happen, I know. But that is my new stance. Trying to compromise with these NRA fuckers isn't working. We, collectively as a country, have proven to each other that we cannot responsibly and reasonably respect the right to own a firearm, particularly in light of Engineering progress of the last 225 years.
If a Bar can deny a drunk a drink, I see no argument for why a shop can't deny someone a weapon. Just because some well-reasoned law was built at a time when it took 30-60 seconds to load and fire one absurdly inaccurate shot.
Or, if we are going to hold the Second Amendment sancrosanct, I'll quote Professor Farnsworth - "Today the mad scientist can't get a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad student!" Perhaps I should begin keeping my mutated Anthrax, you know, for Duck Hunting.
For perspective.....(and wow, i'd never looked at this list before) according to the CDC
EDIT! This is for 2013 alone.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
We have massive public health campaigns, as well as billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research, devoted to every single one of those problems. There are literally thousands of people in this country who work on preventing life-style related diabetes alone.
Charities are devoted to solving those issues. World leaders meet at UN Conferences to discuss The War on Cancer. If there was a law that they could pass to reduce cancer death, it would be passed in every nation on the Earth. Even the crazy one.
But the CDC is still barred from researching or issuing grants to study gun deaths.
Wasnt make any broader points by posting it, but simply putting it out there for perspective.
Y'know, i'd pose that instead of worrying as much about guns -which is an obviously devisive subject- we should ask:
"Why do people want to kill other people? What can we do to stop it?"
And i'd once again pose that there is a HUGE number of other factors that we can change in this country without arguing about guns, that would impact the level of violence far greater than just getting rid of all guns.
No-one's arguing to ban all guns, and the government can do more than one thing at a time. Preventing gun deaths is a problem to be attacked from multiple angles to solve.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
It is, however far cheaper.
Paying someone to crawl up your ass like NZ apparently does is, without a doubt, probably the MOST effective way to keep would-be killers from owning guns while minimizing false positives.
But that is going to be cost prohibitive. If the goal is "don't let bad people have guns," bans, rigorous investigations, and piles of red tape are all viable means, with their own draw backs.
If anything, the fact that the NZ and AU approaches have similar effects wrt to mass shootings, while outperforming the US's efforts, should indicate that both have merit, not that the AU approach does not.
I think the big ideal many of us are trying to convey is logistics. The models may be present but the scale, even with Canada is no where near the same. In both landmass and population. Setting up a bureaucratic system would require, in a real world sense, at least one "station" per county in the US to handle the red tape paperwork, etc. That is almost a 5th of a billion dollars (~160mil) to just staff one individual at 50k per year at each of those locations. Just for salary alone.
That is small I suppose in grand scheme of national budgetary concerns but it would balloon up fast from that one simple cost. Logistics of this nature, and who will pay for it (as many opinions say tax the gun owner which is hogwash), is what many of us find as a major point of contention.
(I presume you're referring to the NZ method)
You could get costs down a bit by leveraging existing infrastructure. Distribute home inspections to beat cops, fire / building inspectors. Use police stations for the interviews, with either state funded investigators, ATF agents, or social workers. The two elements needn't be a full time job for anyone, as the required skillsets are already available; so you'd save a few bucks there.
But this multi-faceted problem with no single solution, it's going to require an iterative approach. Bans are cheap, which makes temporary freeze / buy backs a good place to start from a cost efficacy angle. If they prove effective, and the NRA are willing to try the more costly approach, and they would be (spoilers: Good luck getting that first thing done, though)), then you roll it back and replace it with the more refined solution.
Two steps forward, one step back, and on we could go.
Also I would like a pony and a political climate more amenable to the concept of trying new things; because changing that Could to a Shall is going to be a herculean task as long as any measure proposed impacts gun sales.
Sorry wasnt trying to compare disease and gun stuff. I should have been more pointed....
I just was amazed at how LARGE the numbers were, and the percentage of murdered people per year (with a gun).
Again, for 2013 it was
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208
That is both much bigger/ and much smaller than i thought itd be.
For perspective.....(and wow, i'd never looked at this list before) according to the CDC
EDIT! This is for 2013 alone.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
We have massive public health campaigns, as well as billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research, devoted to every single one of those problems. There are literally thousands of people in this country who work on preventing life-style related diabetes alone.
Charities are devoted to solving those issues. World leaders meet at UN Conferences to discuss The War on Cancer. If there was a law that they could pass to reduce cancer death, it would be passed in every nation on the Earth. Even the crazy one.
But the CDC is still barred from researching or issuing grants to study gun deaths.
Wasnt make any broader points by posting it, but simply putting it out there for perspective.
Y'know, i'd pose that instead of worrying as much about guns -which is an obviously devisive subject- we should ask:
"Why do people want to kill other people? What can we do to stop it?"
And i'd once again pose that there is a HUGE number of other factors that we can change in this country without arguing about guns, that would impact the level of violence far greater than just getting rid of all guns.
I feel like its a distraction from the root issues of:
1. Ongoing racism in our civic and economic institutions.
2. Poverty and wealth imbalances (often along racial lines).
3. De facto segregation (white/wealth flight from areas with existing or increasing minority population)
Which all feed into each other. I'd rather spend political capital on addressing those issues than gun control.
They're issues that are incredibly tough to talk about in our current political climate, and it feels like gun control is a relatively easy cop out sometimes on Obama's part.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Basically no one in the us or Canada needs the protection from wild animals.
.Likewise, Stephen Herrero, a Canadian biologist, reports that during the 1990s bears killed around three people a year in the U.S. and Canada
And if you are worried mace seems better anyway.
.The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality -- based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research -- a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.
Coyote
.Two fatal coyote attacks have been confirmed by experts.
Hog
. His analysis included 412 wild pig attacks involving 665 human victims worldwide, over a 15-year period.
Among the key findings:
• Only four fatal wild pig attacks were reported in the U.S., three of which involved wounded animals being hunted. The most recent such case occurred in Texas in 1996.
Alligators
.Since 1948 there have been 22 fatal attacks in Florida, as well as 206 major bites and 116 minor bites, according to the wildlife agency.
Rabies
. The number of rabies-related human deaths in the United States has declined from more than 100 annually at the turn of the century to one or two per year in the 1990's. Modern day prophylaxis has proven nearly 100% successful.
Edit: Oh and to compare that to tornadoes which you also brought up.
. Tornado deaths per year
2011 553
2012 70
Old stuff but if there's something new or stats on injuries I would love to see them.
Correction CDC is no longer barred from researching gun violence. Post Sandy Hook Obama executive ordered that off. They still don't because congress can strip their funding and investigating gun violence is a great way to get black listed from government research grants.
Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.
* A lot of the others can, as well. Cancer, diabetes and heart disease are increasingly seen as lifestyle diseases for most sufferers. Which is why we invest billions of dollars in trying to improve diet, exercise, sunscreen and other preventative measures.
Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.
For perspective.....(and wow, i'd never looked at this list before) according to the CDC
EDIT! This is for 2013 alone.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
We have massive public health campaigns, as well as billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research, devoted to every single one of those problems. There are literally thousands of people in this country who work on preventing life-style related diabetes alone.
Charities are devoted to solving those issues. World leaders meet at UN Conferences to discuss The War on Cancer. If there was a law that they could pass to reduce cancer death, it would be passed in every nation on the Earth. Even the crazy one.
But the CDC is still barred from researching or issuing grants to study gun deaths.
Wasnt make any broader points by posting it, but simply putting it out there for perspective.
Y'know, i'd pose that instead of worrying as much about guns -which is an obviously devisive subject- we should ask:
"Why do people want to kill other people? What can we do to stop it?"
And i'd once again pose that there is a HUGE number of other factors that we can change in this country without arguing about guns, that would impact the level of violence far greater than just getting rid of all guns.
I feel like its a distraction from the root issues of:
1. Ongoing racism in our civic and economic institutions.
2. Poverty and wealth imbalances (often along racial lines).
3. De facto segregation (white/wealth flight from areas with existing or increasing minority population)
Which all feed into each other. I'd rather spend political capital on addressing those issues than gun control.
They're issues that are incredibly tough to talk about in our current political climate, and it feels like gun control is a relatively easy cop out sometimes on Obama's part.
It's not a cop-out, all those effects guns and guns effect them. America's laughable gun regulations are making the country more dangerous than it already was, and it won't hurt those causes by getting that made into a solution.
Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.
For perspective.....(and wow, i'd never looked at this list before) according to the CDC
EDIT! This is for 2013 alone.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
We have massive public health campaigns, as well as billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research, devoted to every single one of those problems. There are literally thousands of people in this country who work on preventing life-style related diabetes alone.
Charities are devoted to solving those issues. World leaders meet at UN Conferences to discuss The War on Cancer. If there was a law that they could pass to reduce cancer death, it would be passed in every nation on the Earth. Even the crazy one.
But the CDC is still barred from researching or issuing grants to study gun deaths.
Wasnt make any broader points by posting it, but simply putting it out there for perspective.
Y'know, i'd pose that instead of worrying as much about guns -which is an obviously devisive subject- we should ask:
"Why do people want to kill other people? What can we do to stop it?"
And i'd once again pose that there is a HUGE number of other factors that we can change in this country without arguing about guns, that would impact the level of violence far greater than just getting rid of all guns.
I feel like its a distraction from the root issues of:
1. Ongoing racism in our civic and economic institutions.
2. Poverty and wealth imbalances (often along racial lines).
3. De facto segregation (white/wealth flight from areas with existing or increasing minority population)
Which all feed into each other. I'd rather spend political capital on addressing those issues than gun control.
They're issues that are incredibly tough to talk about in our current political climate, and it feels like gun control is a relatively easy cop out sometimes on Obama's part.
I think anyone with any clue about American politics knows that embracing "gun control" is not a relatively easy copout for anyone in American politics. You can see why in this thread.
Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.
That article is an interesting use of data. The calendar map that's been posted a few times seems to be using the method James Allen Fox uses, 4 or more people killed, to say that mass shootings are out of control while Fox is using the same method to say mass shootings are consistent and haven't actually increased. The article chooses to discard domestic violence-related mass shootings which Fox and the calendar map use and only counts public mass shooting/spree killing incidents to say that they're happening more frequently.
Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.
That article is an interesting use of data. The calendar map that's been posted a few times seems to be using the method James Allen Fox uses, 4 or more people killed, to say that mass shootings are out of control while Fox is using the same method to say mass shootings are consistent and haven't actually increased. The article chooses to discard domestic violence-related mass shootings which Fox and the calendar map use and only counts public mass shooting/spree killing incidents to say that they're happening more frequently.
We don't have a definitive view of it because of reasons shown. To me the numbers are skewed the same method as we have changed our definition of terrorist as of late.
For perspective.....(and wow, i'd never looked at this list before) according to the CDC
EDIT! This is for 2013 alone.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
We have massive public health campaigns, as well as billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research, devoted to every single one of those problems. There are literally thousands of people in this country who work on preventing life-style related diabetes alone.
Charities are devoted to solving those issues. World leaders meet at UN Conferences to discuss The War on Cancer. If there was a law that they could pass to reduce cancer death, it would be passed in every nation on the Earth. Even the crazy one.
But the CDC is still barred from researching or issuing grants to study gun deaths.
Wasnt make any broader points by posting it, but simply putting it out there for perspective.
Y'know, i'd pose that instead of worrying as much about guns -which is an obviously devisive subject- we should ask:
"Why do people want to kill other people? What can we do to stop it?"
And i'd once again pose that there is a HUGE number of other factors that we can change in this country without arguing about guns, that would impact the level of violence far greater than just getting rid of all guns.
I feel like its a distraction from the root issues of:
1. Ongoing racism in our civic and economic institutions.
2. Poverty and wealth imbalances (often along racial lines).
3. De facto segregation (white/wealth flight from areas with existing or increasing minority population)
Which all feed into each other. I'd rather spend political capital on addressing those issues than gun control.
They're issues that are incredibly tough to talk about in our current political climate, and it feels like gun control is a relatively easy cop out sometimes on Obama's part.
I think anyone with any clue about American politics knows that embracing "gun control" is not a relatively easy copout for anyone in American politics. You can see why in this thread.
Compared to saying "we need to address de facto segregation in our neighborhoods and schools" it definitely is. Racism remains the deepest, most painful issue in the US.
US politics punted that issue in the 1980s like it punted slavery in the 1780s and Jim Crow in the 1880s. Now its coming to a head a few generations later and we're still punting.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.
That article is an interesting use of data. The calendar map that's been posted a few times seems to be using the method James Allen Fox uses, 4 or more people killed, to say that mass shootings are out of control while Fox is using the same method to say mass shootings are consistent and haven't actually increased. The article chooses to discard domestic violence-related mass shootings which Fox and the calendar map use and only counts public mass shooting/spree killing incidents to say that they're happening more frequently.
We don't have a definitive view of it because of reasons shown. To me the numbers are skewed the same way we have changed our definition of terrorist as of late.
As Brad Plumer explained, they were just looking at different numbers than Fox, and Mother Jones's numbers excluded certain types of mass shootings. "Fox is looking at all mass shootings involving four or more victims — that's the standard FBI definition," Plumer wrote. "Mother Jones, by contrast, had a much more restrictive definition, excluding things like armed robbery or gang violence."
Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.
That article is an interesting use of data. The calendar map that's been posted a few times seems to be using the method James Allen Fox uses, 4 or more people killed, to say that mass shootings are out of control while Fox is using the same method to say mass shootings are consistent and haven't actually increased. The article chooses to discard domestic violence-related mass shootings which Fox and the calendar map use and only counts public mass shooting/spree killing incidents to say that they're happening more frequently.
It is also worth noting that the murder rate is surging again. I've seen in several places discussion about how the early data suggests that the post-90s dip is going to be the bottom of a curve, not a permanent line down.
So, yes, it is important to still talk about guns. That dip you are crowing about is looking to be a temporary trough in a U-curve, not a permanent decrease.
Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.
That article is an interesting use of data. The calendar map that's been posted a few times seems to be using the method James Allen Fox uses, 4 or more people killed, to say that mass shootings are out of control while Fox is using the same method to say mass shootings are consistent and haven't actually increased. The article chooses to discard domestic violence-related mass shootings which Fox and the calendar map use and only counts public mass shooting/spree killing incidents to say that they're happening more frequently.
We don't have a definitive view of it because of reasons shown. To me the numbers are skewed the same way we have changed our definition of terrorist as of late.
As Brad Plumer explained, they were just looking at different numbers than Fox, and Mother Jones's numbers excluded certain types of mass shootings. "Fox is looking at all mass shootings involving four or more victims — that's the standard FBI definition," Plumer wrote. "Mother Jones, by contrast, had a much more restrictive definition, excluding things like armed robbery or gang violence."
Oh I am agreeing with you moreso than not. I am saying that the numbers are skewed because of changing definitions... and perhaps a splash of political agenda. It makes it hard to back any set of numbers in the end.
For perspective.....(and wow, i'd never looked at this list before) according to the CDC
EDIT! This is for 2013 alone.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
We have massive public health campaigns, as well as billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research, devoted to every single one of those problems. There are literally thousands of people in this country who work on preventing life-style related diabetes alone.
Charities are devoted to solving those issues. World leaders meet at UN Conferences to discuss The War on Cancer. If there was a law that they could pass to reduce cancer death, it would be passed in every nation on the Earth. Even the crazy one.
But the CDC is still barred from researching or issuing grants to study gun deaths.
Wasnt make any broader points by posting it, but simply putting it out there for perspective.
Y'know, i'd pose that instead of worrying as much about guns -which is an obviously devisive subject- we should ask:
"Why do people want to kill other people? What can we do to stop it?"
And i'd once again pose that there is a HUGE number of other factors that we can change in this country without arguing about guns, that would impact the level of violence far greater than just getting rid of all guns.
I feel like its a distraction from the root issues of:
1. Ongoing racism in our civic and economic institutions.
2. Poverty and wealth imbalances (often along racial lines).
3. De facto segregation (white/wealth flight from areas with existing or increasing minority population)
Which all feed into each other. I'd rather spend political capital on addressing those issues than gun control.
They're issues that are incredibly tough to talk about in our current political climate, and it feels like gun control is a relatively easy cop out sometimes on Obama's part.
I think anyone with any clue about American politics knows that embracing "gun control" is not a relatively easy copout for anyone in American politics. You can see why in this thread.
Compared to saying "we need to address de facto segregation in our neighborhoods and schools" it definitely is. Racism remains the deepest, most painful issue in the US.
US politics punted that issue in the 1980s like it punted slavery in the 1780s and Jim Crow in the 1880s. Now its coming to a head a few generations later and we're still punting.
Just like it punts gun control when the public gets tired of gun deaths.
I always play the ignorant UK guy, and I apologise, but I need to do it again - it seems clear there'll be no movement on Gun Control policy without a change to the Constitution because the rights it enshrines are seemingly set in stone. Is that even possible? Has it happened before in modern times? If not, how could that be enabled? How do you convince the populace to support that?
No change to the Constitution is necessary. As several of us have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, for a very long time, it was a settled matter that the Second Amendment was held as a collective right by the states. It was only in the past 30 years that the idea that it should held as an individual right by people in the US was considered anything but a fringe legal theory. This was done in large part by a concerted campaign to push the theory to prominence, and to make the Federal judiciary more amenable to it.
Is there any reading I can do on this (ie it being a very recent development that owning a gun is an individual right)?
Hedgie is wildly misrepresenting how "settled" this matter was. To get some reading on it from the non-Hedgie PoV, check this out for starters, by Constitutional Law professor Glenn Geynolds:
thje Wiki articles on DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago for the modern recognition of first an individual right (really a negative right, i.e. that the government can't infringe upon the individual's right to bear arms), and secondly the "incorporation" of that right, which means that like the 1st Amendment, it trumps individual state laws that might try to be more restrictive than the Amendment would allow.
...yes, Reynolds may be a conlaw professor. But, he's also a very well known conservative pundit who publishes under the name Instapundit.
That's a pretty big lie of omission there.
Second, show me the legal scholarship on the individualist reading predating the Cincinnati Revolt. One of the elements of the push was to flood legal academia with papers reinforcing the theory from the conservative side of the community.
So, what you're saying is that they used their 1st amendment rights to argue in the marketplace of ideas so convincingly that they swayed the opinions of the legal practitioners who were already educated under previous jurisprudence and found it unconvincing?
This isn't a case of spooky machinations preying on open young minds, everyone but Roberts was already practicing during the "Cincinnati Revolt," and he was most of the way through law school.
Also, as a point of order, they address your arguments in DC vs. Heller, where they argue a lot of the pro-control arguments were based on pre-incorporation grounds, meaning that prior to states being held to the same standards, state level regulations were permissible.
If you want to make the argument they are wrong, addressing their merits is fine, but arguing they are wrong because Republicans talked to them in the past is not super strong.
Posts
Moose!? Yea..i'm the hell outta there then. lol.
That kind of nasty critter is pretty prevalent in that area of Texas.
Here in Illinois (i dont hunt here) I dont think its much of an issue, and i dont think many hunters carry hand guns.
I can get the stats if anyone cares but no, it's not prevalent anywhere for any wild animal and guns are bad for protection even if you don't hurt yourself before hand.
I feel like being able to accurately check the box that says "never at something you don't intend to shoot" when asked what things it's okay to point your gun at is something that you could easily pass without any studying but still utterly fail to meaningfully implement in practice if you're an irresponsible person.
I am all for better training, as cheaply and available as possible, for those who choose to own guns. The sort of thing that the NRA used to be all about before they became primarily a lobbying organization.
In rural areas it could be as simple as not having any form of ID. Or the like. To me it relates directly to why we think showing ID for voting is such a bad thing.
Are there really liberals that purely vote Democratic based on support for gun control? It seems like an incidental point of view that comes with having compassion for victims in general, not a core belief in of itself.
I'd rather take it all and fix anything else wrong with America (and there is a fuck ton wrong with it), and take a general reduction in crime as a result of better living standards.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
It just means they need to carry a small shotgun along with the rifle instead of a handgun. The purpose is served, and no one has access to a weapon that can spray a dozen shots in less than a dozen seconds.
Say what now? Yes it is. Literally every hunter i know in Texas (out west anyway) carries a handgun while hunting. And every single one of them has had to use it for this purpose at least once. Except myself. Fortunately.
... wait, "most"?
This I can get behind.
there are single-issue gun control voters, they tend to be the ones with dead loved ones
In that case I'd want the government to have programs to get them that access, so when they do test for gun licenses that's not an issue holding them back.
Yeah same here. But I live in Bear and Cougar territory so I am more than happy to have never used it yet. And it is common here too on the rez.
Anything that causes more than 1,000,000 preventable deaths over a four-decade span is going to be a perennial political issue. That's especially true when those deaths are often public, messy, and terrifying to the community.
This isn't something that is just going to go away.
A small shotgun does not work well in this role. Way harder to draw and bring to bear/shoot accurately in a small space.
Also, a snake charmer shotgun will absolutely jack crap against a havalina (sp?) hog in Texas, aside from piss it off.
EDIT! This is for 2013 alone.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
We have massive public health campaigns, as well as billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research, devoted to every single one of those problems. There are literally thousands of people in this country who work on preventing life-style related diabetes alone.
Charities are devoted to solving those issues. World leaders meet at UN Conferences to discuss The War on Cancer. If there was a law that they could pass to reduce cancer death, it would be passed in every nation on the Earth. Even the crazy one.
But the CDC is still barred from researching or issuing grants to study gun deaths.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/
pleasepaypreacher.net
Wasnt make any broader points by posting it, but simply putting it out there for perspective.
Y'know, i'd pose that instead of worrying as much about guns -which is an obviously devisive subject- we should ask:
"Why do people want to kill other people? What can we do to stop it?"
And i'd once again pose that there is a HUGE number of other factors that we can change in this country without arguing about guns, that would impact the level of violence far greater than just getting rid of all guns.
Even things like diabetes, that was a choice I made.
Someone shooting me with a gun is out of my control, but entirely a man made thing.
I own a rifle. I hunt with it.
Repeal the Second Amendment. It'll never happen, I know. But that is my new stance. Trying to compromise with these NRA fuckers isn't working. We, collectively as a country, have proven to each other that we cannot responsibly and reasonably respect the right to own a firearm, particularly in light of Engineering progress of the last 225 years.
If a Bar can deny a drunk a drink, I see no argument for why a shop can't deny someone a weapon. Just because some well-reasoned law was built at a time when it took 30-60 seconds to load and fire one absurdly inaccurate shot.
Or, if we are going to hold the Second Amendment sancrosanct, I'll quote Professor Farnsworth - "Today the mad scientist can't get a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad student!" Perhaps I should begin keeping my mutated Anthrax, you know, for Duck Hunting.
Man made things get researched by the government.
No-one's arguing to ban all guns, and the government can do more than one thing at a time. Preventing gun deaths is a problem to be attacked from multiple angles to solve.
I'm okay with them researching it too.
I'd be happy actually, it'd be nice to have real numbers that we could really get in detail with.
No arguments here.
(I presume you're referring to the NZ method)
You could get costs down a bit by leveraging existing infrastructure. Distribute home inspections to beat cops, fire / building inspectors. Use police stations for the interviews, with either state funded investigators, ATF agents, or social workers. The two elements needn't be a full time job for anyone, as the required skillsets are already available; so you'd save a few bucks there.
But this multi-faceted problem with no single solution, it's going to require an iterative approach. Bans are cheap, which makes temporary freeze / buy backs a good place to start from a cost efficacy angle. If they prove effective, and the NRA are willing to try the more costly approach, and they would be (spoilers: Good luck getting that first thing done, though)), then you roll it back and replace it with the more refined solution.
Two steps forward, one step back, and on we could go.
Also I would like a pony and a political climate more amenable to the concept of trying new things; because changing that Could to a Shall is going to be a herculean task as long as any measure proposed impacts gun sales.
I just was amazed at how LARGE the numbers were, and the percentage of murdered people per year (with a gun).
Again, for 2013 it was
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208
That is both much bigger/ and much smaller than i thought itd be.
I feel like its a distraction from the root issues of:
1. Ongoing racism in our civic and economic institutions.
2. Poverty and wealth imbalances (often along racial lines).
3. De facto segregation (white/wealth flight from areas with existing or increasing minority population)
Which all feed into each other. I'd rather spend political capital on addressing those issues than gun control.
They're issues that are incredibly tough to talk about in our current political climate, and it feels like gun control is a relatively easy cop out sometimes on Obama's part.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Basically no one in the us or Canada needs the protection from wild animals.
.Likewise, Stephen Herrero, a Canadian biologist, reports that during the 1990s bears killed around three people a year in the U.S. and Canada
And if you are worried mace seems better anyway.
.The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality -- based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research -- a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.
Coyote
.Two fatal coyote attacks have been confirmed by experts.
Hog
. His analysis included 412 wild pig attacks involving 665 human victims worldwide, over a 15-year period.
Among the key findings:
• Only four fatal wild pig attacks were reported in the U.S., three of which involved wounded animals being hunted. The most recent such case occurred in Texas in 1996.
Alligators
.Since 1948 there have been 22 fatal attacks in Florida, as well as 206 major bites and 116 minor bites, according to the wildlife agency.
Rabies
. The number of rabies-related human deaths in the United States has declined from more than 100 annually at the turn of the century to one or two per year in the 1990's. Modern day prophylaxis has proven nearly 100% successful.
Edit: Oh and to compare that to tornadoes which you also brought up.
. Tornado deaths per year
2011 553
2012 70
Old stuff but if there's something new or stats on injuries I would love to see them.
So going by the 1.4 million firearms deaths since 1968 figure, that would put firearms deaths at #18 on the CDC's top causes of deaths of all American's list (if they included gun deaths in the figure).
Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.
* A lot of the others can, as well. Cancer, diabetes and heart disease are increasingly seen as lifestyle diseases for most sufferers. Which is why we invest billions of dollars in trying to improve diet, exercise, sunscreen and other preventative measures.
Policy has been alleviating it though. Since 1993 gun homicides have dropped 49% in the US. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
It's not a cop-out, all those effects guns and guns effect them. America's laughable gun regulations are making the country more dangerous than it already was, and it won't hurt those causes by getting that made into a solution.
Violent crime in general is down. That said, the suicide rate has barely budged, and the rate of mass shootings has tripled since 2011.
I think anyone with any clue about American politics knows that embracing "gun control" is not a relatively easy copout for anyone in American politics. You can see why in this thread.
That article is an interesting use of data. The calendar map that's been posted a few times seems to be using the method James Allen Fox uses, 4 or more people killed, to say that mass shootings are out of control while Fox is using the same method to say mass shootings are consistent and haven't actually increased. The article chooses to discard domestic violence-related mass shootings which Fox and the calendar map use and only counts public mass shooting/spree killing incidents to say that they're happening more frequently.
We don't have a definitive view of it because of reasons shown. To me the numbers are skewed the same method as we have changed our definition of terrorist as of late.
Compared to saying "we need to address de facto segregation in our neighborhoods and schools" it definitely is. Racism remains the deepest, most painful issue in the US.
US politics punted that issue in the 1980s like it punted slavery in the 1780s and Jim Crow in the 1880s. Now its coming to a head a few generations later and we're still punting.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
It seems the FBI uses Fox's method though.
http://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/mass-shootings-rare-united-states
It is also worth noting that the murder rate is surging again. I've seen in several places discussion about how the early data suggests that the post-90s dip is going to be the bottom of a curve, not a permanent line down.
So, yes, it is important to still talk about guns. That dip you are crowing about is looking to be a temporary trough in a U-curve, not a permanent decrease.
Preacher 2016, we can do at least two things at once.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Oh I am agreeing with you moreso than not. I am saying that the numbers are skewed because of changing definitions... and perhaps a splash of political agenda. It makes it hard to back any set of numbers in the end.
Just like it punts gun control when the public gets tired of gun deaths.
So, what you're saying is that they used their 1st amendment rights to argue in the marketplace of ideas so convincingly that they swayed the opinions of the legal practitioners who were already educated under previous jurisprudence and found it unconvincing?
This isn't a case of spooky machinations preying on open young minds, everyone but Roberts was already practicing during the "Cincinnati Revolt," and he was most of the way through law school.
Also, as a point of order, they address your arguments in DC vs. Heller, where they argue a lot of the pro-control arguments were based on pre-incorporation grounds, meaning that prior to states being held to the same standards, state level regulations were permissible.
If you want to make the argument they are wrong, addressing their merits is fine, but arguing they are wrong because Republicans talked to them in the past is not super strong.