Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

27
senorgrand wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:35 pm When talking about America as the "most violent industrialized country" (which it isn't), anti2a folks point to America having more guns than any industrialized country (which we do).

What they fail to point out is that we also have one of the largest income inequalities of any major country and a run-amok drug war.
Income inequality is killing far more people than assault rifles, but it's not a good way to drum up donations for a political campaign.

Easy solutions for complex problems are typically what a politician will present, and even though we've tried an AWB, which had no significant effect on crime, almost the entire Dem field wants to try it again.

It's a money raising tool, not a political solution.

Talking about rampant poverty and inequity would fix violent crime, as would making sure that we have safe and legal reproductive rights. People should not be forced to have children if they don't want to, and having unwanted children leads to spikes in crime rates.


Also, thanks to the OP for the post. It's a great summation of the problems with most gun control articles.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

28
NegativeApproach wrote: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:30 am
senorgrand wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:35 pm When talking about America as the "most violent industrialized country" (which it isn't), anti2a folks point to America having more guns than any industrialized country (which we do).

What they fail to point out is that we also have one of the largest income inequalities of any major country and a run-amok drug war.
Income inequality is killing far more people than assault rifles, but it's not a good way to drum up donations for a political campaign.
I'm guessing one could count on one hand the number of people killed by perps using manufactured automatic weapons in civilian society in the US within the last 50 years.
NegativeApproach wrote: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:30 amEasy solutions for complex problems are typically what a politician will present, and even though we've tried an AWB, which had no significant effect on crime, almost the entire Dem field wants to try it again.

It's a money raising tool, not a political solution.

It is a political solution to raising money.
NegativeApproach wrote: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:30 amTalking about rampant poverty and inequity would fix violent crime, as would making sure that we have safe and legal reproductive rights. People should not be forced to have children if they don't want to, and having unwanted children leads to spikes in crime rates.
Apparently, there is no interest in actually reducing crime committed using firearms further.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

29
The actual claim isn’t just about “Homicides,” but rather about all forms of violence or death associated with firearms.

The cited article presents a narrow slice of that relationship, dealing only with “Homicides related to Firearms.”

And, yes, such a correlation can be demonstrated, but not really in any meaningful way, given the expansive lack of real data in the USA on the actual number of firearms in the population, and who in the population owns them (ethnicity, urban/rural population, political and social affiliations, and other associated/relevant datum).

The basic point: More firearms within a population presents a greater risk of injury/death within that population, is a pretty trivially true claim.

That is no different than saying: “The more Thermonuclear Weapons there are in the world, the risk to the Global Population increases as a result.”

Or: “The more loaded Rat-Traps there are in a room, the greater is the chance that someone will be hurt by one.”

This is the basis of any form of Harm Reduction, as well as being the premise behind all Arms Control Theory, whether dealing with Nuclear-Armed Nation-States, or with the various factions within a population engaged in what is effectively an Arms Race with itself (which is actually the most risk-prone of the relationships involved with Harm Reduction as it applies to Arms Control Theory).

The USA having basically outlawed the Government being able to study this issue has prevented any real determinative examination of the issue, leaving many of the different factions involved most closely with the issue depending upon what is really nothing but a lot of Confirmation Bias, or citing Generalized Theory and Relationships that are unable to make any determinative statements regarding due to that lack of data.

As such, it is a disservice to the goals of protecting Firearm Ownership to deny the reality of Firearms being inherently dangerous (like Nuclear Weapons, Knives/Swords, Armed Rat-Traps, Chainsaws, and so on... But especially those things identified explicitly as weapons, which are explicitly designed to be inherently dangerous to begin with... That’s the whole point of being a “weapon”), or to oppose any study that could either reveal a causal connection between Firearms and Inherent Risk of Death/Injury within a population, or...

That could reveal the directly opposed outcome, of there being no such connection...

The point being, we should want to know definitively, either way, what the reality is, and that currently the means to make such a definitive determination is hampered by Laws preventing Local, State, and Federal Governments from either keeping records that are required to discover such a determination, or from gathering the information required for such records.

Refusing to allow, or fearing the outcome of, such a study is little different from the current Political-Right’s refusal to allow the robust or rigorous study of Global Warming and the respective Climate Changes involved simply so they can preserve an issue that motivates their base... Yet the refusal to allow such study eventually dooms that same population.

This issue should be no different. We should be willing to not just support a determinative study of this issue, we should be demanding one, regardless of any possibility that the results might be something we don’t like.

MB

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

30
Absolute props to MB; well said!

Is there room, even in the LGC, for someone who believes in some limits on possession of certain types of guns or magazines? Where, as a whole, does this community draw the line? Full auto? Full auto .50 caliber? RPG's? I know we all have opinions on what "should be" allowed. What, if anything, is the consensus here? I speak as someone who grew up in Mexico before the influx of smuggled American guns plus our endless craving for illegal drugs resulted in total chaos for my country of origin. I love shooting but, seriously, folks, each one of us has some idea of what makes sense and what amounts to rationalizing our own desires for bigger, faster, boomier stuff. How do we, individually, arrive at our personal comfort zone with firearms?

I'll be completely honest here when I say that placing the blame on systemic inequality or racism is just kicking the can down the street. An easy out for the rest of us. And I'll add that dismissing suicide as a risk of gun ownership is similar rationalization or "otherization" of those who are at risk of suicide. It has been documented that the risk of suicide by firearms is highest in the first month of gun ownership; if you want to dismiss that as "well, they would have done it anyway" you are wiping off the possibility of finding out if what you think is true or not. We all need to stop for a minute and think about the extent to which we want to justify our personal choices as if they were the right thing for all.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

31
I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I certainly hope there's room.

I believe the official policy is that we're a big tent, and that there's room for respectful discussion of policy. We generally prefer cause mitigation to gun control. Not everyone has the same access to guns, and it's hard for non-stakeholders to understand the other side. Gun control and everyday carry both come from the same place - fear of someone else with a gun. Addressing the fear has to be part of the discussion. But we legitimately have different perspectives. And that's legit.

Practical considerations need to be considered too. Magazine restrictions don't seem practical to me, even though I sympathize deeply with the goal of forcing a mass shooter to stop and reload more often, increasing the odds someone can tackle them. It's super easy to buy a legal size mag, and "lose" the big ones. If gun confiscation is difficult, mags are impossible.

I look at the NFA as an example where ownership of certain weapon types is regulated more tightly and seems to have worked, but I am not going to deny that it complicates possession in annoying ways. Barely hearing a suppressed .22 at the range made me start thinking about trust issues, and not in the way that would make my neighbors feel comfortable. On the other hand, fully automatic weapons are still used in crimes. There are other loopholes, like rifle-caliber pistols with short barrels. Or flare guns with shotgun inserts. Again, reasons why regulations may not be the right answer.

I fully agree that muzzling and defunding research on gun violence is harmful to everyone. As a group, I would hope that we support research. Who wouldn't want numbers to support our arguments? Separating suicide from murder is useful, but we need to address them differently. Someone posted the maps earlier showing that suicide rates by gun are far higher in the economically depressed rural parts of America, while murder rates are an urban problem. Jives with personal experience. Dems tend to be urban dwellers, Republicans rural, tends to correlate with gun control perspectives. Suicide mitigation is just as important, but it's going to take different approaches.

We know that restrictions on ownership "work" to mitigate murder rates because other countries have done that experiment. That's our biggest obstacle. We need to both demonstrate responsible ownership and build the case that it serves a net good. Repeating NRA bumper sticker slogans isn't helpful. The Black Panthers are a better example. Current events demonstrate the potential evils of a police state better than anything we've seen in generations. Not the data set we wanted, but here we are.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

32
Ricardo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:05 amAbsolute props to MB; well said!

Is there room, even in the LGC, for someone who believes in some limits on possession of certain types of guns or magazines?
Since at least 2013 there has been a contingent here who, like the greater firearm prohibition lobby--Brady, VPC, LCPGV, MAIG/Moms/Everytown, ARS/Giffords, March for Our Lives, and of course CSGV--favor prohibitions on possession (keep) and carry (bear) over root cause mitigation. I doubt that has changed much over the years.
Ricardo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:05 amWhere, as a whole, does this community draw the line? Full auto? Full auto .50 caliber? RPG's?
Government already drew the line on full auto and explosives in 1934 when it decided civilian LEAs must have weapons primacy over non-LEO civilians. Thus federal approval is already required, along with registration and fingerprinting, for possession of machine guns and destructive devices. There are likely some here who believe machine guns--whether .50BMG or smaller--should be disallowed entirely for those not in government. Perhaps some also are amenable to banning SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, destructive devices, and/or AOWs entirely, though--like a total machine gun ban--I could not say what statistically-relevant problem in the US such bans would be meant to solve.

As for arbitrary bans on specific calibers--.50BMG but not .700 NE, .68 ball, .460 Weatherby Magnum, or .338 Lapua, etc.--you might also find some supporters, but I have not yet encountered any here.

With regard to "possession of certain types of guns" as you mentioned above, there always has been some support, though not from me, for arbitrary restrictions on, say, intermediate, e.g., 5.45×39mm-7.62×39mm, semi-automatic carbines and their mags, while deeming less powerful .22 rimfires and more powerful rifles, such as .30.06 and up, putting aside physics related to bullet construction and fragmentation, OK.
Ricardo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:05 amI know we all have opinions on what "should be" allowed. What, if anything, is the consensus here? I speak as someone who grew up in Mexico before the influx of smuggled American guns plus our endless craving for illegal drugs resulted in total chaos for my country of origin. I love shooting but, seriously, folks, each one of us has some idea of what makes sense and what amounts to rationalizing our own desires for bigger, faster, boomier stuff. How do we, individually, arrive at our personal comfort zone with firearms?
I'm not inclined to view hardware as the root cause of the behavioral problems of people, poor economic conditions, or rampant crime. Opinions will vary.
Ricardo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:05 amI'll be completely honest here when I say that placing the blame on systemic inequality or racism is just kicking the can down the street. An easy out for the rest of us.
Politicians could choose not to kick the can down the street, but doing so is an easy out. It gets them better PR to advocate for bans in lieu of solutions. Here is what the LGC has to say about what it supports: https://theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/ ... igation-2/
Ricardo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:05 amAnd I'll add that dismissing suicide as a risk of gun ownership is similar rationalization or "otherization" of those who are at risk of suicide. It has been documented that the risk of suicide by firearms is highest in the first month of gun ownership; if you want to dismiss that as "well, they would have done it anyway" you are wiping off the possibility of finding out if what you think is true or not.
I wonder if suicide using poison hemlock is most prevalent among those new to growing poison hemlock as opposed to those who have grown it for years, or if suicide using sleeping pills--2500mg Ambien, 150mg Xanax, 270mg Lunesta, etc.--is most prevalent among those who never had previously bought sleeping pills as opposed to those who have used them for years as sleep aids.
Ricardo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:05 amWe all need to stop for a minute and think about the extent to which we want to justify our personal choices as if they were the right thing for all.
"[P]ersonal choices" also entail choosing not to own firearms at all. So a person's ownership of a particular firearm is not demonstrative making a choice "for all."

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

33
Thanks to both for your replies; I learned some time ago, from hanging out with mostly very conservative shooters in Texas, that one's disposition towards firearms and the Second Amendment are largely determined by the environment one grows up in. Largely, not exclusively by any means. So I learned to give my shooting friends a lot of leeway for their beliefs, as I knew that mine are also partly learned from youth. I see that the LGC is more open to differences of opinion and for nuance -a rare thing in our time. Again, thanks for that reminder.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

38
blarkk wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:50 am gettyimages-1228460156-bf68b69a3a3fe861c7e915fed38f4226d8333f56-s800-c85.jpg

With these people being held up as the poster couple for gun ownership, I am almost convinced that prohibition is a good idea.
Almost? What's "almost" about it? I'm convinced those two should loose their right to own firearms. For a long time, quite possibly permanent.

You are probably referring to them being the "poster couple" for average gun owners by the antis. I don't accept that characterization, not by a long shot. Just like I also don't accept the political characterizations from tRumpers or the tRumpenfurer. There are plenty of facts to show they are wrong.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

39
BKinzey wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:16 pm
blarkk wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:50 am gettyimages-1228460156-bf68b69a3a3fe861c7e915fed38f4226d8333f56-s800-c85.jpg

With these people being held up as the poster couple for gun ownership, I am almost convinced that prohibition is a good idea.
Almost? What's "almost" about it? I'm convinced those two should loose their right to own firearms. For a long time, quite possibly permanent.

You are probably referring to them being the "poster couple" for average gun owners by the antis. I don't accept that characterization, not by a long shot. Just like I also don't accept the political characterizations from tRumpers or the tRumpenfurer. There are plenty of facts to show they are wrong.
I don’t accept the characterization either. Implying it applies to all gun owners or even typical gun owners is unfair and prejudiced. Don’t swallow bloomie’s kool aid.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

40
Ricardo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:05 am Absolute props to MB; well said!

Is there room, even in the LGC, for someone who believes in some limits on possession of certain types of guns or magazines? Where, as a whole, does this community draw the line? Full auto? Full auto .50 caliber? RPG's? I know we all have opinions on what "should be" allowed. What, if anything, is the consensus here? I speak as someone who grew up in Mexico before the influx of smuggled American guns plus our endless craving for illegal drugs resulted in total chaos for my country of origin. I love shooting but, seriously, folks, each one of us has some idea of what makes sense and what amounts to rationalizing our own desires for bigger, faster, boomier stuff. How do we, individually, arrive at our personal comfort zone with firearms?
I can't speak for the group, but I for one think anything the national guard can have, we should too.

In fact, we can. The government hasn't outlawed MG's, Destructive Devices (such as grenades, RPG'S, Cannons, etc). What they have done is made them cost prohibitive and put those who can afford and do desire to have them under scrutiny should they seek to acquire them.

Basically, it's ok for the rich, but not for the poor. To be fair, as much as I enjoy explosives and guns equipped with full giggle switch, I have no need for them and many of these items (RPG's, cannons, etc.) I just don't have enough space on demand to play with them safely. Bear in mind, in the time of our founding fathers merchant ships requested permission to mount cannons on their ships to fend off pirates. Our government defaulted to 2A, which says "yes you absolutely can, no need to ask it's granted in the constitution".
I'll be completely honest here when I say that placing the blame on systemic inequality or racism is just kicking the can down the street. An easy out for the rest of us.
I'd argue the opposite. People born into poverty with shit for economic opportunity often get desperate and turn to crime to keep their heads above water. This inevitably leads to violence. Look at Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, or any underdeveloped country. Guns are a tool that can make violent goals much more easily achieved, and expedient, but eliminating them wouldn't eliminate murders. In fact, more murders are committed by blunt objects than even AR15's. Blunt objects are second only to handguns for most common murder weapon.
And I'll add that dismissing suicide as a risk of gun ownership is similar rationalization or "otherization" of those who are at risk of suicide. It has been documented that the risk of suicide by firearms is highest in the first month of gun ownership; if you want to dismiss that as "well, they would have done it anyway" you are wiping off the possibility of finding out if what you think is true or not.
The people who commit suicide are looking to end pain permanently as immediately as possible while inflicting as little pain to themselves as possible. Of course if they can get a gun they're probably gonna choose that. The perception being death will be instant, they'll be dead before they can feel it. But many more still choose other methods. I know four people who took it upon themselves to exit this world. Two of them were gun owners. Three chose hanging, including both gun owners (I assume they wanted open casket for the sake of their families). The fourth is a mystery to me and I don't want to know as she and I were close.
We all need to stop for a minute and think about the extent to which we want to justify our personal choices as if they were the right thing for all.
I will be totally open here and profess I value the right of the individual over the good of the collective in many instances, but what I think the "anti-gun" crowd (I support the second amendment, but...) fails to consider above all else isn't even the balance between collectivism and individualism and what rights are important, but whether or not their controls are even realistic or could be effective.


There are more guns in this country than people. Millions of semi automatic rifles, and pistols, and even more magazines for them that are mass manufactured and distributed. They simply can't be counted. All the way up to today, there has been no registry, and they change hands often with relatively little restriction (which means even if laws were reversed to allow the ATF to compile 4473's into a rudimentary registry, many of the damn things have changed hands more than a bowl in a hippie smoke session. Quite frankly, the proverbial toothpaste has been let out of the tube. We have no real way to put it back and due to the nature of gun culture in this country, there will be active resistance to any attempt to do so.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

43
lurker wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:15 am it seems clear to me that some few individual people should not have guns, any guns. picking them out of the crowd is the problem to be worked, not what kind of guns we allow our fellow citizens to have. maybe a little more emphasis on mental health is in order here.
Agreed. I think a good start would be to register those who we know aren't allowed to have them (violent criminals, people with known dangerous mental states, etc) into a database and putting a signifier on their photo ID card that notes they are prohibited from owning a firearm and requiring individual sellers to check ID for that signifier. It's not a fix all, but it's a start.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests