Gun policy analysis thread.

[scottt]

[

I've heard that (and the figure varies depending on which news outlet/politician states it) 80, 85, 87, 90 and 95 percent of Americans want more gun control. I do not believe that to be an accurate representation.

Also, the way questions are asked at a poll can easily sway the response. "Do you want universal background checks?" is a standard question, and the poll giver almost never mentions that in order to put that into effect, a national gun registry would have to be enabled. Also, as far as I know, every time a national registry has gone into effect, confiscation follows.

This applies to far more than guns, I'm sure we can all think back to another topic we feel strongly about and that we questioned poll results for accuracy.

Are you going to deny the polls until you find one that you like?

Polls are indicators, not actual measurements of entire populations. You already know this.

You can deny the polls all you want. But they still exist and yield results: the majority of the population supports common sense gun control and some additional measures.

No, I am saying I do not trust the accuracy of polls.

Polls are indeed indicators, but how questions are worded on the polls skew the results.

So I said I don't trust polls to be accurate, and you say polls support your view. Let's agree to disagree.

Common sense gun control never ends. Magazine limit bans, which criminals ignore. Barrel length restrictions, which criminals ignore. Etc. The control only works with the people that aren't the problem. I think it boils down to I see the criminal as the problem, and you see the gun. Is that reasonably accurate?

[scottt]

Lloyd, no one is telling gun owners that they "can't" own guns (excepting felons, children, etc). Maybe you didn't really mean that word, but that is what you wrote. I have been a strong proponent of "should not own" handguns and some other forms of weaponry. But "should not" and "can not" are miles apart on position. I also have been a critic of fear-based gun purchases because the stoking and manipulation of fear is precisely how gun manufacturers keep trying to sell their guns to Americans. Fear is a great human motivator, and vulnerable to manipulation for gain. The other main thrust of gun marketing is the myth of masculinity, so I have been critical of this thinking also (male identity tied to their gun ownership: the "I'll die before I let you take my guns away" mentality).

You were quoting my posts, so it sure looked like you were addressing them. I don't mind, I just couldn't understand.

Obviously, only if the Second Amendment is repealed (very unlikely) would we ever get to a "can't" own guns. Otherwise we will always be negotiating a kind of compromise over the right of ownership and the "general welfare" (risks, damages, costs) of society (and other factors, no doubt).

I have to agree both sides use fear to manipulate. And I can certainly respect a "should not" discussion versus a "can not" one.

The obstacle I see to any meaningful discussion about how we progress is that right now, we have a crime situation that seems to be growing, and instead of punishment and deterrence, we get the opposite. I don't know any gun owner that is willing to discuss any kind of restriction until the people that are currently committing crimes are punished and crime rates are near zero. As I see it, the police can only help if they happen to be very close by when something bad occurs, so in the long run they aren't to be counted as a deterrent. Breaking of the law results in a slap on the wrist and back out on the street in cases where it really should not be happening, so the law cannot be counted on to stop these people. The only one in position to keep me safe is me. If you want to discuss the tools I choose to do so, in a reduction capacity, you'll have to make it safe enough to consider.

Why do so many fear the lawful gun owner? Apart from a very very few outliers, they cause no problems.

Crime rates have to be "near zero" before gun owners will even discuss further regulation?????

That's a cuckoo impossible standard! Come on, scott.

That's kinda my point, as it stands currently, gov is doing absolutely nothing to protect me. Criminals are not punished. There is no deterrence. Crime rates rise, and bail is abolished. Criminals have all the guns they want, and the gov wants me to limit what I can use, because why?

There is not one valid reason for me to limit myself in these fashions. Lower the magazine capacity, why? Cops unload and still can't hit the target, yet the citizen is supposed to be hyper-accurate? Double standards there. Simply explain to me how me carrying a reduced capacity magazine instead of the standard makes anyone safer, except for the criminal.

[scottt]

Why do so many fear the lawful gun owner? Apart from a very very few outliers, they cause no problems.

I'm a lawful gun owner, but I don't obsess about criminals creeping into my bedroom or beheadings or the paranoid fantasies that you use to justify your obsession.

Simply put, I would rather frightened, unstable people didn't have the so-called right to carry guns.

That is, I don't want to trust you with the power of life and death. Which you seem to think is your right and your choice.

You might want to revisit the definition of obsess.

Frightened and unstable by whose definition? Yours, driven I believe by nothing but emotion and fear. Not trying to insult, I just think that you might have had a bad experience with guns.

Sorry to break it to you, Chip, but people have had the power of life and death since Cain. Back in 2019 I think, 1500-plus people were killed by hands/feet/blunt instruments. Not guns. What is that line in the movie Line of Fire? Something about if a man is willing to give up his life, he can kill anyone? The point is it is all about intent. Look at evil people like McVeigh. No gun there.

If you stop looking at objects and realize it is people that do things, you might start to see.

[TSherbs]

..., as it stands currently, gov is doing absolutely nothing to protect me.

That's just not true, scott.

Nevermind.

[Chip]

Sorry. You don't make sense to me. I'm happy to leave it that way.

Why are you so driven to compel me to accept your viewpoint?

[dneal]

Pointing out problems with your viewpoint is not scottt compelling you to change it. That's simply a deflection in lieu of a rebuttal. If you can't see the flaws in your hyperbolic, emotional and often mocking "viewpoint" - which scottt consistently identifies and points out - and be compelled to make that change yourself; you might question the reason for this apparent blind spot.

[TSherbs]

Not trying to insult, I just think that you might have had a bad experience with guns.

The country has, not me personally.

[Chuck Naill]

I had a bad experience with dogs once as a child, but I still like dogs. That said, dog owners should assume responsibility if they are going to have one. It might no be the owners fault for the dogs aggressive nature, but they would be at fault if they didn’t restrict the dog when around others. I think this best describes how most gun owners think. They actually promote and help train others with responsibilities associated with gun ownership and use.

[scottt]

Sorry. You don't make sense to me. I'm happy to leave it that way.

Why are you so driven to compel me to accept your viewpoint?

I'm trying to figure out how you got to that view, what different experiences you've had that resulted in that outlook.

[scottt]

Not trying to insult, I just think that you might have had a bad experience with guns.

The country has, not me personally.

By that logic, the country has also had some good experience with guns. 600K to 3 million times each year.

[TSherbs]

Not trying to insult, I just think that you might have had a bad experience with guns.

The country has, not me personally.

By that logic, the country has also had some good experience with guns. 600K to 3 million times each year.

Of course. Not all cigarettes cause cancer, not all poisoned groundwater wells cause luekemia, not all alcoholic fathers abuse their family members, not all adulterers are caught, not all those who text and drive hit people in crosswalks. Some of them were perfectly harmless. Not even all stolen guns end up killing anyone: they are merely used for the additional feeling of security that they bring to the possessor.

[scottt]

Not trying to insult, I just think that you might have had a bad experience with guns.

The country has, not me personally.

By that logic, the country has also had some good experience with guns. 600K to 3 million times each year.

Of course. Not all cigarettes cause cancer, not all poisoned groundwater wells cause luekemia, not all alcoholic fathers abuse their family members, not all adulterers are caught, not all those who text and drive hit people in crosswalks. Some of them were perfectly harmless. Not even all stolen guns end up killing anyone: they are merely used for the additional feeling of security that they bring to the possessor.

I find it quite telling that you took that slant with it. Many also stopped crime.

Still wondering what the gov has done to protect me. Perhaps the recent news that the current admin is looking at a plea deal for the people who planned the 9/11 attacks?

[TSherbs]

Not trying to insult, I just think that you might have had a bad experience with guns.

The country has, not me personally.

By that logic, the country has also had some good experience with guns. 600K to 3 million times each year.

Of course. Not all cigarettes cause cancer, not all poisoned groundwater wells cause luekemia, not all alcoholic fathers abuse their family members, not all adulterers are caught, not all those who text and drive hit people in crosswalks. Some of them were perfectly harmless. Not even all stolen guns end up killing anyone: they are merely used for the additional feeling of security that they bring to the possessor.

I find it quite telling that you took that slant with it. Many also stopped crime.

Still wondering what the gov has done to protect me. Perhaps the recent news that the current admin is looking at a plea deal for the people who planned the 9/11 attacks?

Hey, Scott. You're the one that started with the "by that logic" line. I just expanded your logic further in order to highlight its emptiness. We don't suggest regulations on products simply because of a rate of non-lethal consequences. It's not that simple. Although you don't see how the government protects your welfare and safety (you said that it does "nothing"), it actually does. Probably a thousand times a day, all of which you take for granted because you are so used to it. I am not interested in trying to change your mind, especially when I saw how extreme your insecurities are and how much they cloud your understanding of what the feds do for our country's security and your safety and health every day.

If you are satisfied with the present level of crimes and homicides and suicides and accidents and threats to spouses, etc, committed in America with guns, then by all means, stay in that comfortable bubble. We lead the world, but hey, everything's good, right?

[Chip]

I can't fail to notice how many ex-military types distrust and even hate the US government (their former employer) that trained them to use the very weapons they cherish.

Are you saying that you, as a trained killer working for the government, did nothing to keep us safe?

Or is just that there's a Democrat in the White House?

[scottt]

Not trying to insult, I just think that you might have had a bad experience with guns.

The country has, not me personally.

By that logic, the country has also had some good experience with guns. 600K to 3 million times each year.

Of course. Not all cigarettes cause cancer, not all poisoned groundwater wells cause luekemia, not all alcoholic fathers abuse their family members, not all adulterers are caught, not all those who text and drive hit people in crosswalks. Some of them were perfectly harmless. Not even all stolen guns end up killing anyone: they are merely used for the additional feeling of security that they bring to the possessor.

I find it quite telling that you took that slant with it. Many also stopped crime.

Still wondering what the gov has done to protect me. Perhaps the recent news that the current admin is looking at a plea deal for the people who planned the 9/11 attacks?

Hey, Scott. You're the one that started with the "by that logic" line. I just expanded your logic further in order to highlight its emptiness. We don't suggest regulations on products simply because of a rate of non-lethal consequences. It's not that simple. Although you don't see how the government protects your welfare and safety (you said that it does "nothing"), it actually does. Probably a thousand times a day, all of which you take for granted because you are so used to it. I am not interested in trying to change your mind, especially when I saw how extreme your insecurities are and how much they cloud your understanding of what the feds do for our country's security and your safety and health every day.

If you are satisfied with the present level of crimes and homicides and suicides and accidents and threats to spouses, etc, committed in America with guns, then by all means, stay in that comfortable bubble. We lead the world, but hey, everything's good, right?

Hi TSherbs. Actually, we do suggest regulations on products for non-lethal consequences. Look at all the safety regulations out there, from food prep to OSHA. While there are of course other regulations based on lethal consequences, it isn't alone in causes.

I really should have been more precise, I mean the government does little to protect my safety from the criminal element. I'm pretty sure you knew I didn't mean it helped make sure the drinking water was ok or something like that.

My extreme insecurities? Sounds like you are projecting there.

And I am of course not satisfied with the present level of crimes, etc, that is what we are discussing, so I'm not quite sure you are suddenly trying to change the focus?

Lastly, the present level of crimes/homicides/suicides/accidents and threats to spouses are NOT commited with guns, they are commited by people. Bad people. Criminals. Which was always my point. As I believe you knew.

So the result from you is heightened emotional responses, and a seeming unwillingness to blame bad people for acting badly. Per my previous example, I suppose you blame McVeigh's truck for commiting that carnage? C'mon.

[scottt]

I can't fail to notice how many ex-military types distrust and even hate the US government (their former employer) that trained them to use the very weapons they cherish.

Are you saying that you, as a trained killer working for the government, did nothing to keep us safe?

Or is just that there's a Democrat in the White House?

You should notice a little deeper, Chip. Why do so many ex-military have that opinion?

They did not train me, so that little emotional stab is blunted.

Please see my response to TSherbs regarding the scope of protecting me, I obviously meant it locally, against the criminal element, not the Russians.

But then again, focusing on Russians is sort of a thing with your type, isn't it?

[TSherbs]

I suppose you blame McVeigh's truck for commiting that carnage? C'mon.

Um, no scott. Nor do I blame guns for crime. I have never ever said such a thing. You're being a dick about this now, and are just baiting me.

I did not even oppose McVeigh's execution, which was an ethical lapse on my part. So don't even start there.

But I do hope that we now do better tracking of bulk citizen purchases of the materials that McVeigh used to make his bomb. As I have said repeatedly here, and as the statistics suggest, there is a correlation between increased gun per capita rates, lax gun storage laws, and gun-related deaths. In all cases, except accidents with children, there is an adult making a bad choice. Of course. No one ever doubts that or says anything to the contrary. But that is not the end of the story, scott. and, as with children, if the grown ups just aren't going to do any better than this with the toys that the government permits them (by law), then it is only natural to start taking them away. Public policy isn't made by just throwing up one's hands and saying, "It's just bad people, what are we going to do?" That, in my book, is negligence. That, to me, is like saying, "Well, as long as the gun death pandemic doesn't come to my house, I am not going to try to solve it."

Do you oppose ALL restrictions on gun ownership? Is there no weapon that a citizen can't have (in your opinion) to protect their house if they can afford it? What is it that you are actually opposed to? Do you really have no problem with our rate of gun violence in this country? If it is not somehow connected to the easy availability of guns in America, do you just think that Americans are that much more violent and evil by nature than the citizens of other countries (nearly every country in the world) with a lower per capita homicide rate? And are you uninterested in solving that for the health of the country?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

It seems to me that violence is becoming the preferred solution to people's problems. I don't have statistics to support this, and it may well be more noticeable simply because the media lens focuses on it, but it remains a gut feeling.

Hari Seldon (in Asimov's Foundation series) states something along the lines of 'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'. In today's society it seems (to me at least) that violence is increasingly viewed as the last refuge of the powerless. It is tempting to say that the powerless act out of desperation, hence the desperate acts of violence, but I do not know what portion of the truth that may represent.

[Chip]

Seems like most of the present violence is perpetrated not by the powerless, but against them.

[scottt]

I suppose you blame McVeigh's truck for commiting that carnage? C'mon.

Um, no scott. Nor do I blame guns for crime. I have never ever said such a thing. You're being a dick about this now, and are just baiting me.

I did not even oppose McVeigh's execution, which was an ethical lapse on my part. So don't even start there.

But I do hope that we now do better tracking of bulk citizen purchases of the materials that McVeigh used to make his bomb. As I have said repeatedly here, and as the statistics suggest, there is a correlation between increased gun per capita rates, lax gun storage laws, and gun-related deaths. In all cases, except accidents with children, there is an adult making a bad choice. Of course. No one ever doubts that or says anything to the contrary. But that is not the end of the story, scott. and, as with children, if the grown ups just aren't going to do any better than this with the toys that the government permits them (by law), then it is only natural to start taking them away. Public policy isn't made by just throwing up one's hands and saying, "It's just bad people, what are we going to do?" That, in my book, is negligence. That, to me, is like saying, "Well, as long as the gun death pandemic doesn't come to my house, I am not going to try to solve it."

Do you oppose ALL restrictions on gun ownership? Is there no weapon that a citizen can't have (in your opinion) to protect their house if they can afford it? What is it that you are actually opposed to? Do you really have no problem with our rate of gun violence in this country? If it is not somehow connected to the easy availability of guns in America, do you just think that Americans are that much more violent and evil by nature than the citizens of other countries (nearly every country in the world) with a lower per capita homicide rate? And are you uninterested in solving that for the health of the country?

I owe you an apology, I misread the 'committed with' as 'committed by'. My fault entirely. It was not an attempt at baiting, just an error on my part.

I would go so far as to say even with stringent gun storage laws, you would see an increase. Sadly, if people choose suicide, and I absolutely hate thinking of kids thinking there is no other way, and a gun is on the premises, many will often choose that as their method. Look at that L.A. mayoral candidate who got two securely stored guns stolen. Or more hideously, how that wingnut in Sandy Hook obtained those weapons.

So if securely stored guns can be stolen/utilized, what standards would you suggest for doing better? Seriously, most lower-tier gun safes are not that robust, all things considered. I'm not disagreeing with your point, I'm asking what you think would be reasonable? And yes, I do mean reasonable, because as it currently stands, gun ownership is a right, just like us conversing freely. Just as many look at guns with distaste, it is a right. Much as I (and I am sure you and everyone else) looks at some people spouting what we feel is inciendiary language, or they disagree with us generally, they have the right to speak.

No, not all restrictions. Just as the wealthy/political crowd have armed security (and that to me makes their 'give up your guns for safety' rhetoric a bit flat, since you know they will not) and submachine guns. I think it is more the citizenry should have access to the same level as the police. Not the military. The police need patrol rifles they say, because of criminals they encounter. What if you encounter them? (research crime rates in the cities for starters). Or even look at the basic, the cops need standard magazines (15-17) for encounters, why not us? So citizens should equal police in levels.

Criminals, already restricted from having firearms, seem to have no problem getting them. Enforce straw purchasing laws (Chicago does not), and if a criminal commits a crime with a gun, severe punishment. Not what is set to go into effect January 2023, where they can commit kidnapping, second degree murder and not get detained. That severe lack of punishment and deterrence led us to where we are in a large way. Bring the punishment and deterrence back.

I am opposed to stopping/severely lessening punishment of criminal activity and the lack of deterrence. This gives the message that criminals can act like savages, hurt innocent citizens, and not be punished much, if at all. I am very opposed to that.

I do not think Americans are more evil than others. I do think the criminal element in America is not punished, and that "if I rob this person and get caught I will get back out on the street the same day" mentality causes crime to flourish.

I am very intersted in solving that issue. Since the criminals are the ones causing the crimes, I believe we should focus on them, punish them so there will not be 'multiple repeat offenders' and the like, and start with that and see where it leads us. Yet all that seems to happen is more control over the ones not causing the problem. That does not make sense to me.

The police are not bound to help you, and with their lowered levels and reduced manpower (New Orleans 911 response time: two hours in some cases), they cannot protect me. The criminals, quite frankly armed or not, can hurt people, so why the heck is the current focus on placing more restrictions on my ability to defend myself?

Thanks for some great questions, and again, apologies for the earlier misunderstanding.