Gun policy analysis thread.

[dneal]

The vaccines work quite well, BUT they're not 100% effective.



Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Good grief, no one is suggesting they are, Lloyd. Masks and distancing are not 100 effective. Using a condom is not 100 effective. Driving the speed limit does not insure life.

Note how Chuck denies his previous position with the first sentence, complete with the argument from ridicule fallacy. Good grief, after all. Don't be silly.

Then the obfuscation begins, with the shift to masks and distancing.

If only somebody recognized and noted these tactics... lol

[Lloyd]

Vaccines DO prevent hospitalizations and deaths! Vaccines do NOT prevent ALL hospitalizations and deaths. But, as vaccines reduce transmission rates (directly and indirectly), the likelihood of getting it goes down.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

No, not "every" method. The other ones you mention are less lethal and don't have as long of a "half-life," so to speak, and aren't as prone to lethality in accidents, etc.

But again, let us not forget, that it is perhaps wisdom, as Chip has said, that is the best defense against what we fear, and does not threaten anyone else with projectiles designed to cut holes in flesh. You keep mentioning tools that harm, but there are other options that involve no weaponry. You might even try letting go of your warrior/defense point of view, There are other ways to manage fears besides living behind a fortress (that's a metaphor, mostly).

Do you fear fire? Is that why you keep an extinguisher in your house? Do you fear flooding, and is that why you buy insurance? You keep using fear as if it the sum total of the issue. But let's look at what you say: I have to go to places in some cities that are high crime.

That is not a fact. That is a summary conclusion, masking the facts. The crime rate in the area that you visit, particularly the rate against business (I am guessing) visitors to the area, in their cars, etc, would be the relevant "fact." What you call a "high" crime rates might mean that you would have to make 10,000 visits to such areas before you are even reaching a probability of >0.5 of having a crime committed against you (I am making up numbers to identify what I mean by "facts.") Your fear/worry/concern is an emotional fact, yes. But I keep trying to at least suggest that not all of our fears warrant a weaponized defense when looked at statistically (facts of relative incidence rates).

For example, if you are an urban auto repo man or DEA agent, your relavent violent incidence rate is much higher (I speculate) than that for a white-collar person parking in a private garage connected to the office building.

I can't and won't bother giving you a crash course in non-armed self defense or conflict avoidance training. Look online. De-escalation is a well-known term to search. I'm a retired teacher. I've been trained a little in deescalation with angry teens, but that is it.

Both can be facts. I have seen how criminals act, I can state that sometimes criminals act in the way I have seen them act. I'm not saying that is the only way they act, just that they can act like that.

My weaponized defense is the same as keeping a swiss army knife around, you never know when you might need its help with something. If, as you suggest, the probability of an encounter is quite low, then no worries, my defense need not be an issue, and all is well. If, however, something does happen, well, again, I look at it much like finding myself needing a screwdriver, then using a tool to rectify the issue. Nothing more.

Awareness, avoidance, evasion, escape. And yes, de-escalation, all are first. My goal is to be left alone, that is all. But if someone with ill intent persists, defense is warranted. As for non-armed defense, while it is a great skillset to acquire, I feel no need to limit myself against someone who is attacking me.

[scottt]

@scottt, the other thing I want to add is that I am not trying to dissuade you from owning your weapons. You are free to buy as many as you want or think is appropriate. I assume you are not trying to dissuade me from my position, either. I do hope, however, that when you approach the end of your life that you have the guns still in your possession destroyed. I really wish that the feds would institute a national buy-back program and melt them down. Even if it is to make materials for our armed forces. Just get them out of the use-stream of the citizenry. That's my hope, anyway.

You assume correctly, I just enjoy seeing things from another's viewpoint. There's always something to learn.

If by buy-back you mean people have to surrender items, it isn't really a buy back, it is confiscation, and that won't go over very well. It all, I believe, comes from trust. People's trust in the government is not very high, and in many circumstances, deservedly so.

While I can admire your focus on the idea of limiting the effectiveness of a firearm by removing it far sooner than its own lifecycle, the current society we have now does not help that idea any. There are ways to change laws, and then there are the countless (on both sides) lawsuits using a myriad of angles to achieve the same thing. Hiding control in spending bills is reprehensible, and such skullduggery should not be allowed by anyone. That it does exist just shows how dedicated each side is to their view. In the case of those who want to abolish ownership of firearms legally (leaving polititians and criminals armed of course), I don't feel it prudent to leave those close to me even more bereft of a chance to defend themselves, should some of the more cockamamie control laws get passed.

[Lloyd]

scottt- the fire extinguisher, the flood insurance policy, and the Swiss Army knife are all to deal with "bad things" after they happen (fire, flood, something requiring a tool). A gun is more to stop (or cause) the bad thing. If the extinguisher, the insurance policy, or the SAK accidentally got into a child's hands, it's doubtful that anyone would die. But, a gun? Even dogs can fire a gun at their owner accidentally (perhaps it's intentional) .

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

I've said several times that the companies that manufacture murder weapons and profit from selling them with very few restrictions ought to be liable for the consequences.

Victims of Highland Park Shooting Sue Gun Maker and Retailers

Lawsuits filed Tuesday in Lake County, Ill., argue that Smith & Wesson, the manufacturer of the rifle used in the Fourth of July attack, “deceptively and unfairly” marketed its weapons.

By Christine Hauser and Livia Albeck-Ripka
Sept. 29, 2022

Survivors and families of victims of the Fourth of July shooting in Highland Park, Ill., have filed lawsuits against Smith & Wesson, citing its marketing of the semiautomatic rifle used in the attack. The plaintiffs also sued two gun stores, the accused gunman and his father.

As mass shootings have become a painfully common occurrence and most federal gun control efforts have failed, suing gun manufacturers over their marketing is a novel legal tactic that plaintiffs have begun using as a way around a federal law protecting gun companies from litigation.

Seven people were killed and more than 30 people were injured, ranging in age from 8 to 85, in the Highland Park shooting, which took place during a parade in the city, about 25 miles north of downtown Chicago.

Robert E. Crimo III, who was 21 at the time, was indicted in July on 21 counts of first-degree murder, or three counts for each fatality, and multiple counts of attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm, according to the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office.

The lawsuits were announced on Wednesday by representatives of three of the people who were killed, as well as several others who were wounded or traumatized. The suits also name Bud’s Gun Shop, Red Dot Arms, Mr. Crimo and his father, Robert Crimo Jr., as defendants. The suits were filed Tuesday in the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit in Lake County, and are seeking a jury trial.

Gunmakers are protected from being held liable for mass shootings by a federal shield law, the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. But families of those killed in the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting argued that marketing of the weapon by Remington, the gunmaker, violated a state consumer protection law. In February, Remington agreed to pay $73 million to families of nine Sandy Hook shooting victims over the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 massacre, believed to be the largest such settlement by a gun manufacturer.

The Highland Park lawsuits are employing a similar tactic to those used in the Remington case. The filings allege that Mr. Crimo, using a Smith & Wesson, “was able to act out his violent fantasy — like so many disturbed and hate-filled young men before him.” They argue that the shooting played out in an entirely foreseeable way, “with extreme and limitless power,” just as the gun manufacturer had advertised.

Smith & Wesson’s marketing of the semiautomatic rifle, they add, misleadingly implied a link between its military and police line of rifles and the U.S. military, especially to appeal to individuals like Mr. Crimo. The suits also argue that two gun stores — Bud’s Gun Shop and Red Dot Arms — negligently and illegally sold the murder weapon to Mr. Crimo in violation of an assault weapons ban in Highwood and Highland Park, Ill.

According to the complaints, Mr. Crimo’s father also acted negligently by sponsoring his son’s firearm application when he was just 19, and shortly after he had attempted suicide and had threatened to kill everyone in his house. Suing the parent of an alleged gunman is another rare legal tactic that the Highland Park plaintiffs are using. In a criminal case, an Oakland County, Mich., prosecutor filed involuntary manslaughter charges in December against the parents of the suspect in last year’s shooting at Oxford High School in suburban Detroit.

“The July 4th mass shooting in Highland Park wasn’t just an act of one troubled young man,” Alla Lefkowitz, the senior director of affirmative litigation at Everytown Law, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement released Wednesday.

She added, “He used a gun that was deceptively and unfairly marketed to him by Smith & Wesson, illegally sold to him by Bud’s Gun Shop and Red Dot Arms, and negligently put in his hands by his father.”

Smith & Wesson and Bud’s Gun Shop did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday. A representative from Red Dot Arms, reached by phone Thursday, said the company had no comment on the suits.

Lorena Rebollar Sedano, who was shot in the attack, said in a statement that her life was irrevocably changed by the Fourth of July attack.

“Because of the marketing and advertising of these kinds of weapons, our lives will not be the same,” Ms. Sedano added. “That is why we demand justice so that this person pays and all those responsible pay for what they did.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/u...e=articleShare

[scottt]

scottt- the fire extinguisher, the flood insurance policy, and the Swiss Army knife are all to deal with "bad things" after they happen (fire, flood, something requiring a tool). A gun is more to stop (or cause) the bad thing. If the extinguisher, the insurance policy, or the SAK accidentally got into a child's hands, it's doubtful that anyone would die. But, a gun? Even dogs can fire a gun at their owner accidentally (perhaps it's intentional) .

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Hi Lloyd, all true. Which is why responsible people take precautions to avoid mistakes like that. In the case of using one for personal defense (as opposed to home defense), I still believe in using every edge I can against someone who means me ill.

[scottt]

Yup, gun manufacturers are protected from liability of criminal misuse of their products. The same, I believe, as the pharmaceutical industry (way more deaths there, but no real outcry) and the auto industry (how many vehicle fatalities per year?)

Look at the quote from the article:
"She added, “He used a gun that was deceptively and unfairly marketed to him by Smith & Wesson, illegally sold to him by Bud’s Gun Shop and Red Dot Arms, and negligently put in his hands by his father.”"

Everyone's fault but the shooter. If Bud's and RDA sold a gun, they followed federal law and paperwork. I am unsure as to how the 'sponsorship' works, but it looks like the gun was purchased by the father then given to the son. So if it was legal to sell to the father, and the FFLs wouldn't do otherwise, where's the illegal part? More emotional attacks versus rational. Sounds like father didn't know what their kid was up to.


On another gun policy topic, the ATF released an updated definition of 'what is a firearm' regarding 80% lowers. Pure stupidity. A blank without markings for holes to be drilled is not a firearm, but if it is shipped with a jig, it is a firearm. Or if a blank were on a table with no markings for holes to drill, not a firearm. Place a jig on it, presto, it is a firearm.

[Chuck Naill]

Pharma is not exempt. 😂😂

[dneal]

Everyone's fault but the shooter. If Bud's and RDA sold a gun, they followed federal law and paperwork. I am unsure as to how the 'sponsorship' works, but it looks like the gun was purchased by the father then given to the son. So if it was legal to sell to the father, and the FFLs wouldn't do otherwise, where's the illegal part? More emotional attacks versus rational. Sounds like father didn't know what their kid was up to.

Don't forget that the FBI (who runs NICS - the background check system) approved the transfer. Sounds like they need to be added to the list of culpable.
Then there's the State of Illinois, which mandates a Firearms Owner IDentification card (FOID). You have to be 21 to apply for one, but parents can sponsor their children (which is where the "sponsorship" thing comes from). If IL issued him a card, they probably should be added to the suit as well.

[scottt]

Everyone's fault but the shooter. If Bud's and RDA sold a gun, they followed federal law and paperwork. I am unsure as to how the 'sponsorship' works, but it looks like the gun was purchased by the father then given to the son. So if it was legal to sell to the father, and the FFLs wouldn't do otherwise, where's the illegal part? More emotional attacks versus rational. Sounds like father didn't know what their kid was up to.

Don't forget that the FBI (who runs NICS - the background check system) approved the transfer. Sounds like they need to be added to the list of culpable.
Then there's the State of Illinois, which mandates a Firearms Owner IDentification card (FOID). You have to be 21 to apply for one, but parents can sponsor their children (which is where the "sponsorship" thing comes from). If IL issued him a card, they probably should be added to the suit as well.

Check out the guns&gadgets podcast to see how looney the ATF is getting about the 80% definition.

[Chuck Naill]

Herein lies the problem, podcasts and podcasters. It’s second only to YouTube. However, it’s free. You’d need to pay for professional investigational reporting.

[dneal]

Herein lies the problem, podcasts and podcasters. It’s second only to YouTube. However, it’s free. You’d need to pay for professional investigational reporting.

Assertions without any supporting points, demonstrating continued ignorance to the digital realm.

Chuck, how does the calculus work out if the NYT is on YouTube? Is there any "professional investigational reporting" in this "Visual Investigations" playlist? They make the claim that:

Using evidence that’s hidden in plain sight, our investigative journalists present a definitive account of the news — from the Las Vegas massacre to a chemical attack in Syria.

They might want to update their examples to something more recent, but anyway... What does it say about the NYT that they also have Podcasts?

[dneal]

That’s a pretty disappointing study. I would similarly hypothesize that there’s a strong correlation between countries in bear-related deaths, those countries with bear populations having more bear-related deaths than those without bear populations.

Maybe I should apply for a research grant…

[dneal]

If you want to make a point, please do so.

I gave you the courtesy of reading the first paper, although my opinion of it wasn’t positive. Others may, but I’m certainly not going to entertain a flurry of links with “how ‘bout this one?”.

[dneal]

The point makes itself, but if you insist:

1. Individuals may think that owning guns leads to greater personal safety, but...
2. The evidence is clear that owning guns makes society more dangerous, not less, however...
3. Perceptions/opinions of individuals are often immutable.

It's a loop.

Note that the following two quotes below are a standard you advocated. I'm just seeing that you aren't following it when it's convenient for you.

What is the purpose of posting this? Are you doing so from a position of agreement with its sentiment, or the opposite? If either of those is the case then it would be nice if you could post your thoughts on this before asking for the thoughts of others. Otherwise it comes across as a fishing expedition by someone looking for an argument.

Beyond that, if you post without comment I may as well just randomly trawl through news sites.

and

Surely you are kidding, right?

A forum thread is a tool for discussion, it's not intended to be just a bulletin board.

But back to your post...

While I cannot be 100% certain, I am confident that a full literature review with accompanying content analysis will confirm the above (extremely brief) summary.

During the Obama administration, the CDC (who I'm told is infallible) was ordered to prepare a study on gun violence, "assault weapon" bans, etc... and found no evidence to support the anti-gun argument. One side groaned and the other side cheered. Wasn't the science settled at that point? Are you now a science denier spreading misinformation via flawed studies?

You seem to still be simply searching for studies that support your anti-gun view. Should I do the opposite and post studies that support a pro-gun side? Which of us would be correct? The one who posts the most links? How do we evaluate all these studies?

The partisan problem has already been pointed out by the Rand Corporation in their continuing study of gun policy. If you're truly interested, you might rummage around on their site. There's a lot.

I shared this previously, but it's relevant here too.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. - John Stuart Mill

[Chuck Naill]

"The first one to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and cross-examines him."
Proverbs 18:17

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart." Proverbs 30:12

Coming to a balanced solution requires some effort.

[dneal]

Assertions without any supporting points, demonstrating continued ignorance to the digital realm.

Chuck, how does the calculus work out if the NYT is on YouTube? Is there any "professional investigational reporting" in this "Visual Investigations" playlist? They make the claim that:

Using evidence that’s hidden in plain sight, our investigative journalists present a definitive account of the news — from the Las Vegas massacre to a chemical attack in Syria.

They might want to update their examples to something more recent, but anyway... What does it say about the NYT that they also have Podcasts?

Chuck, perhaps it was intentional but you seem to have overlooked this post.

Should you cancel your New York Times subscription? Those buffoons are on YouTube and have a podcast, and therefore not worth paying attention to. Right?

[Chuck Naill]

Assertions without any supporting points, demonstrating continued ignorance to the digital realm.

Chuck, how does the calculus work out if the NYT is on YouTube? Is there any "professional investigational reporting" in this "Visual Investigations" playlist? They make the claim that:

Using evidence that’s hidden in plain sight, our investigative journalists present a definitive account of the news — from the Las Vegas massacre to a chemical attack in Syria.

They might want to update their examples to something more recent, but anyway... What does it say about the NYT that they also have Podcasts?

Chuck, perhaps it was intentional but you seem to have overlooked this post.

Should you cancel your New York Times subscription? Those buffoons are on YouTube and have a podcast, and therefore not worth paying attention to. Right?

Have you been reduced to quoting your own posts?

[Chip]

Meanwhile, in Wyoming, Karl Allred, a pistol-packing Trumpster was appointed interim secretary of state.



He's pictured in the flesh (so to speak) at a 2022 Republican Party meeting. (Maybe they had a Show-and-Tell session.)