Gun laws and gun violence--the reality

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.tierthreetactical.com/11-unbiased-gun-violence-statistics/

When there are restrictive gun laws the deaths by gun go down. Good, right? Oops--it's only suicides that go down, not homicides.

 

[Trausti]

The moral panic over guns is an excuse to avoid speaking of the real causes of violence.

 

[laughing dog]

https://www.tierthreetactical.com/11-unbiased-gun-violence-statistics/

When there are restrictive gun laws the deaths by gun go down. Good, right? Oops--it's only suicides that go down, not homicides.

Quoting a pro-gun site is certainly convincing. But even assuming the statistics show what you claim - a reduction in suicides is a good thing.

 

[Patooka]

You know, when I cite a blog as legitimate data, the first thing I check is if the blogpost has the word "unbiased" in it. That's how I know it is genuine. Having said that I agree with quite a few things from the article. For example:

"In fact the Dickey Amendment was passed by Congress to specifically keep the Center for Disease Control from studying it. Incredibly asinine." Good. Get rid of the Dickey Amendment or ban the CDC from doing research on the effects of tobacco; let's have consistency.

"A recent study by John’s Hopkins found that over half of gun owners do not lock their firearms up. This is not only stupid but criminal in many jurisdictions. Juveniles should not have unrestricted access to firearms. They should be taught the basics and safe gun handling, but they should be locked up." Yeah, no shit. Maybe there should be a law regarding that. I'm pretty certain that if you give your kid a bottle of Jack and their own set of keys to your car, you should be held accountable to the consequences.

The argument that because there is no evidence that gun laws reduce gun violence is bullshit, especially when the blogger himself admitted that no substantial research has been done on the issue for decades. A lot of the statistics he mentioned weren't sourced either. In fact the only source appears to be NCBI.

Loren, I know you are new to the whole using facts to back up assertions, and I applaud you for growing. But for future reference, a blog using one source and only one source to support one's assertions is hardly "unbiased".

 

[Trausti]

The argument that because there is no evidence that gun laws reduce gun violence is bullshit

See Brazil.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Loren, I know you are new to the whole using facts to back up assertions, and I applaud you for growing. But for future reference, a blog using one source and only one source to support one's assertions is hardly "unbiased".

But it feels sooooooooo good, confirmation bias, emotions and all. As good as any drug.

The problem isn't rational people with guns but emotional people with guns.

 

[prideandfall]

The moral panic over guns is an excuse to avoid speaking of the real causes of violence.

the moral panic over the paranoia of having guns taken away is just an excuse to avoid speaking of the real issue of one's pathetically small penis.

the causes of violence are endemic to human nature; violence is an essential and fundamental component of biological life and there is nothing that can ever be done in a society that isn't dozens of generations past technologically post-scarcity to ever stop violence, if even then.
the only thing we can do is try to limit access to tools which translates inherent human violence to widescale destruction or loss of life, and seeing as how guns are currently both the optimal means of achieving mass loss of life and the only readily available means of widescale destruction without the need for pre-planning or any special skillset, it's the top of the list of things that are relevant to the discussion of preserving life within a supposedly civilized society.

 

[Trausti]

The problem isn't rational people with guns but emotional people with guns.

Right. So why punish the rational people?

 

[prideandfall]

The problem isn't rational people with guns but emotional people with guns.

disagree - the problem is that on a long enough timeline a circumstance will emerge that turns the former into the latter.

- - - Updated - - -

Right. So why punish the rational people?

i would argue that not owning a gun has no logical or rational basis for being justifiably called a "punishment"

 

[Trausti]

Right. So why punish the rational people?

i would argue that not owning a gun has no logical or rational basis for being justifiably called a "punishment"

It's a right. Whether you chose or not chose to exercise that right is irrelevant. Leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Patooka]

The problem isn't rational people with guns but emotional people with guns.

Right. So why punish the rational people?

If you don't secure your firearms when they are not in use, you are not a responsible gun owner.
If you think your firearm will protect you against foreign invasion (Red Dawn bullshit) or a tyrannical government (Cliven Bundy bullshit), you are irrational and most likely an irresponsible gun owner.
If you think cars are more dangerous than guns, you are not a rational gun owner.
If you think government has no right to keep a database of transactions and ownership of firearms (you know, like what they do with cars), you are not a rational gun owner.
If you have ever posted a photo of yourself on social media brandishing a firearm, you are most likely not a responsible gun owner. However, I'll conceed that it is possible you are just an insecure wanker who is responsible to own firearms.
If you feel you must own a firearm with greater killing capacity than what was used at the battle of Stalingrad, you are a dishonest, irresponsible gun owner.
If you do moronic shit like this:

or this:

you are not a responsible gun owner.

Or to put it another way, none of the suggestions for gun reform punish responsible, rational gun owners, so what are you talking about?

 

[RavenSky]

Oops--it's only suicides that go down...

"Oops"?

 

[prideandfall]

It's a right.

that's rather highly debatable, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of conversation.

Whether you chose or not chose to exercise that right is irrelevant. Leave the rest of us alone.

cool story, but i would still argue that not owning a gun has no logical or rational basis for being justifiably called a "punishment"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The moral panic over guns is an excuse to avoid speaking of the real causes of violence.

the moral panic over the paranoia of having guns taken away is just an excuse to avoid speaking of the real issue of one's pathetically small penis.

the causes of violence are endemic to human nature; violence is an essential and fundamental component of biological life and there is nothing that can ever be done in a society that isn't dozens of generations past technologically post-scarcity to ever stop violence, if even then.
the only thing we can do is try to limit access to tools which translates inherent human violence to widescale destruction or loss of life, and seeing as how guns are currently both the optimal means of achieving mass loss of life and the only readily available means of widescale destruction without the need for pre-planning or any special skillset, it's the top of the list of things that are relevant to the discussion of preserving life within a supposedly civilized society.

That is a very rational claim, and is precisely why it will fail given our species.

Right. So why punish the rational people?

Why do you use the word "punishment?" Are you trolling?

 

[Gun Nut]

The problem isn't rational people with guns but emotional people with guns.

Right. So why punish the rational people?

Right.. I feel exactly the same way about highway speed limits... I am a better driver than everyone else, so I should not be restricted by those laws that are for lessor drivers.

 

[Gun Nut]

The problem isn't rational people with guns but emotional people with guns.

Right. So why punish the rational people?

If you don't secure your firearms when they are not in use, you are not a responsible gun owner.

Correct.

If you think your firearm will protect you against foreign invasion (Red Dawn bullshit) or a tyrannical government (Cliven Bundy bullshit), you are irrational and most likely an irresponsible gun owner.

Incorrect. They may be wrong about it or not, but that has no bearing on their level of responsibility to be a safe gun owner.

If you think cars are more dangerous than guns, you are not a rational gun owner.

The math disagrees with you.

If you think government has no right to keep a database of transactions and ownership of firearms (you know, like what they do with cars), you are not a rational gun owner.

again, nothing to do with being a safe gun owner, or rationality.. it is an opinion that anyone is free to hold. This is not a fact-based proposition, but a political one.

If you have ever posted a photo of yourself on social media brandishing a firearm, you are most likely not a responsible gun owner. However, I'll conceed that it is possible you are just an insecure wanker who is responsible to own firearms.

THIS is the point you are weakest on? Sorry, but posting pictures of yourself "brandishing" weapons is childish, and looks foolish to actual responsible gun owners... then again, posting pictures of your stupid snot-nosed kids en mass is pretty stupid in my opinion too.

If you feel you must own a firearm with greater killing capacity than what was used at the battle of Stalingrad, you are a dishonest, irresponsible gun owner.

unclear to me which bullet to the head is the lethal one and which one is not... Can yo specify?

If you do moronic shit like this:

or this:

you are not a responsible gun owner.

What is your issue exactly with how those guns were slung? They are pointed correctly. Is your issue that the trigger is not adequately guarded from people in the crowd?

 

[ronburgundy]

Why not actually read and cite the actual research rather than some rabidly pro gun blog written by an ex-marine who makes $ promoting the sale of guns?

As for the research, if you gave an ounce of honest rational thought to it, you would dismiss it as meaningless. First, their measure of state by state gun control laws has no validity or reliability. They use highly subjective "grades" given to each state by two political organizations, the NRA and the Brady Campaign. And the two grades were not even reliably negatively correlated, they were unrelated. IOW, states that the NRA gave and F to got anywhere from a D to an A by the Brady Campaign. And the Brady Campain are not reliably within themselves from year to year. They went from given 8 Fs in 2004 to 37 Fs just 5 years later, then 5 years after that back down to 27 Fs. There is no way that any objective criteria would result in that fluctuation, which means they are either giving highly subjective grades or changing the criteria used from year to year. Either way, no valid comparison can be made from year to year, which means no valid longitudinal relationships with other variables can be assessed.

Then, of course there is the obvious problem with all state-to-state comparison that is pointed out everytime you post these trash studies. There are virtually zero between state enforcement of gun laws, meaning that the laws a state passes are only as effective as the laws of other states. As FBI data shows, most criminals get their guns via buying them second hand from "law abiding" gun owners. So, laws that restrict formal sales at retail shops don't matter much, a some guy in the next state w/o restriction can buy countless guns and resell them. Also, even states with more restrictive laws in general still allow no-background checks at gun shows. Which makes the different "grades" the states get meaningless. Or to put it another way, they almost all deserve an F, which means there isn't states with legit good grades to correlate with anything.

Finally, you claimed "only suicides go down", and that is false. Suicides, unintentional deaths, and deaths of kids under 14 go down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.tierthreetactical.com/11-unbiased-gun-violence-statistics/

When there are restrictive gun laws the deaths by gun go down. Good, right? Oops--it's only suicides that go down, not homicides.

Quoting a pro-gun site is certainly convincing. But even assuming the statistics show what you claim - a reduction in suicides is a good thing.

A reduction in gun suicides doesn't mean a reduction in total suicides.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you think government has no right to keep a database of transactions and ownership of firearms (you know, like what they do with cars), you are not a rational gun owner.

Nobody's trying to outlaw private cars, there's no danger in the state having a database. The fact that the gun-banners keep trying to get a list of all private firearms is reason enough to consider it a bad idea.

Or to put it another way, none of the suggestions for gun reform punish responsible, rational gun owners, so what are you talking about?

Saying that none of the suggestions punish responsible rational gun owners doesn't make it so.

- - - Updated - - -

Oops--it's only suicides that go down...

"Oops"?

Gun laws are repeatedly presented as a means of reducing gun crime. The "oops" is that the data doesn't support that.

 

[Tigers!]

The problem isn't rational people with guns but emotional people with guns.

Right. So why punish the rational people?

If you don't secure your firearms when they are not in use, you are not a responsible gun owner.
If you think your firearm will protect you against foreign invasion (Red Dawn bullshit) or a tyrannical government (Cliven Bundy bullshit), you are irrational and most likely an irresponsible gun owner.
If you think cars are more dangerous than guns, you are not a rational gun owner.
If you think government has no right to keep a database of transactions and ownership of firearms (you know, like what they do with cars), you are not a rational gun owner.
If you have ever posted a photo of yourself on social media brandishing a firearm, you are most likely not a responsible gun owner. However, I'll conceed that it is possible you are just an insecure wanker who is responsible to own firearms.
If you feel you must own a firearm with greater killing capacity than what was used at the battle of Stalingrad, you are a dishonest, irresponsible gun owner.
If you do moronic shit like this:

or this:

you are not a responsible gun owner.

Or to put it another way, none of the suggestions for gun reform punish responsible, rational gun owners, so what are you talking about?

Why is te fellow in the first picture wearing headphones. he wouldn't hear any trouble?