8 ms·

Probably because those shootings are probably in high gun control areas like Chicago, NJ, CA where laws are strictest, so it shows that gun control doesn't real

by surge 7y ago

Probably because those shootings are probably in high gun control areas like Chicago, NJ, CA where laws are strictest, so it shows that gun control doesn't really work to stop those, and those deaths are usually the result overwhelmingly of handguns, not AR-15's or "assault style rifles" which are just semi-automatic rifles that look militaristic and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. In this case, the numbers don't help their agenda. The most effective forms of gun control should be focused on guns used in the majority of crime, which are handguns, but that's not the discussion that's being had because the gun debate is media driven, which is centered around mass shootings (greater shock factor, better ratings), which statistically are the rarest and of least concern by numbers (I think gun death/homicides by rifle < 300 even including mass shootings). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081 AR-15s are also very popular because they're a platform you can take an AR-15 lower, and or buy a cheap one and build up slowly over time until you have a very nice and accurate rifle. They look militaristic because their metal exterior but when people say they're identical functionally to hunting rifles, they're not lying when it comes to the part that handles firing the bullet. I'll also leave people with this: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1138520780042465280 https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1138520780042465280

chillwaves 7y ago
Probably need some evidence to back up your claims about their motivation. Gun control on the state level will not stop the flow of guns across state borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. Speaking as a gun owner.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Here's the trouble with that argument: > Gun control on the national level will not stop the flow of guns across national borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. People smuggle drugs into this country at scale. The same people who are among the most likely perpetrators of homicides. If prohibiting possession has no effect and prohibiting importation is similarly ineffective then it's hard to see how a national prohibition would do much more than a state one.
  - mikeyouse 7y ago
    We have open borders between states and mostly controlled borders between countries. Regardless, the guns flow out of the US, not into it.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      The "controlled borders" between the US and its neighbors are each more than a thousand miles across, and I'm led to believe that most of those in favor of gun control are sour on the effectiveness of securing them with a wall or other such measures. Moreover, contraband flows toward the places where it's prohibited. If certain firearms went from not prohibited to prohibited then they would flow in rather than out. And I'm not saying a national ban would have no effect, only that it would have a similar effect to a state-level ban -- regular people would follow the law, and then you might get e.g. fewer firearms suicides (but more non-firearms suicides). But if you expect gangs to stop arming themselves because of "borders" or national law, just look at Mexico.
      - chillwaves 7y ago
        The demand would drop and so would gun manufacturing. There would be less guns on the street and more effective securing/training of legal guns/owners. Clearly there is a spectrum of choices that can be made, some more effective than others. As mentioned, state borders have effectively zero restriction in movement and should be taken in context with any criticism of local gun laws.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        Why would there be less guns on the street? Aren't the vast majority of those illegally obtained anyways? IMO the more likely response would be that all the guns that were previously stolen/criminally obtained legal guns would become fully automatic since there's no reason not to at that point. (Manufacturing cost difference is basically nil, and if you're already smuggling an illegal rifle might as well make it automatic) Guns aren't exactly rocket science to make, and the plans are available online. Good guns, reliable guns, safe guns? Not so much, but why would the criminals in question care?
remarkEon 7y ago
>and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. Yeah, this. It's sort of developed into a moral panic because so many in the media grow up in urban centers on the east coast and don't have much contact with firearms. The reporting becomes pretty tainted, and in some cases hilariously inaccurate.
- ISL 7y ago
  The majority of people live in urban centers. One of the biggest difficulties in modern America is bridging the urban/rural divide: My father, living in a rural area, purchased a shotgun for home defense -- when 911 was accidentally dialed, the sheriff's response time was roughly 30 minutes. Their primary political concerns revolve around taxes and regulation. Sometimes a bear walks through the neighbor's yard. At our house in the city, on the other hand, I can throw five burritos and hit five other residences. I can't imagine firing that same shotgun in our house, as our windows and our neighbor's windows are in direct opposition. Police response times are quick, but we have people camping in the bushes across the street, a car break-in thrice a decade, and the occasional heroin addict passed out in the park, needle still in his arm. These are two entirely different modalities of living, and we are trying to apply federal law to both. The second amendment is essential to our democracy, but it is increasingly difficult to argue with the growing calls to address gun violence as a public health threat. Nobody wants to get shot, everyone wants to live free and out from under the thumb of a tyrannical government. We can find a way.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    A shotgun is actually pretty reasonable Urban defense, particularly with lead shot that isn't too large. Rifles are a big no no though. They can carry very far and overpenetrate.
    - ISL 7y ago
      I've been contemplating bear spray to fill that role. Deployed in the confines of our home, it would put both us and any assailant in a world of hurt, but nobody has to die (and, if turned against us, we might suffer far less). Even bird shot, fired from within our house, could easily kill our nearest neighbors. They're less than 10m away, and separated only by plate glass. The buckshot that my father has selected for home defense could easily reach them through their interior walls. I've already dealt with enough death in life.
kasey_junk 7y ago
You’ve forgotten the single most important factor. When it comes to intentional deaths by firearm, mass shootings target white children at a much higher per capita number. If white teenagers were getting killed by gun murders at even the rate of black kids killed by cops we’d have a national ban.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  See the fact California started heavily restricting gun ownership once black people started exercising their Second Amendment rights (and that happened under a Republican government) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
  - masonic 7y ago
    under a Republican government Actually, Democrats controlled the Assembly, and the Mulford Act didn't move until it had a majority of Democrat cosponsors.
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      It passed the Assembly in a bipartisan manner, but the governor was a republican (Reagan). It was also introduced by a republican (Mulford). I didn't mean to excuse the Democrats who supported it, they were racist opportunists, I merely wanted to point out the CA Republican party dropped its principled support for 2nd Amendment Rights as soon as the people they would be protecting didn't look White like them.
      - masonic 7y ago
        It passed the Assembly in a bipartisan manner It passed both houses with over 2/3rds majorities, and neither was Republican controlled... so your attempt to make it a partisan thing is confusing.
        kasey_junk 7y ago
paggle 7y ago
Bill Gates' graphic isn't compelling except in the case of some cancer and traffic accidents. Most heart disease, almost all Alzheimer's, most cancer, etc. are just various ways that old people die. You're going to have to die in some manner, so reducing Stroke deaths is just going to mean more Heart Disease deaths a few years later on a person who got to live a full life. Traffic accidents, earlier cancers, suicides, etc. take people who had much more quality life to be lived.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Even if you exclude "natural causes" the point is still there. Terrorism is ludicrously over-represented in the media, even compared to homicide. Homicide is half as likely as suicide but the media has it reversed. Drug overdose is preventable in ~100% of cases and kills three times more people than homicide but it's completely ignored.
tptacek 7y ago
I'm really tired of this argument that people are irrationally afraid of black rifles and simply don't understand the machines they're purporting to regulate. These are devices that were designed to be field stripped by 18 year olds in a jungle. They're not that complicated. The Mini-14 (for example) has a wooden stock, and looks like something out of Little House On The Prairie, in part because it was brought to market at a time where the M-16, a descendant of the Stoner AR-15 design, had acquired a reputation for dreadful unreliability. In an urban environment, it's just as problematic as an AR-15; what's your point? Another almost perfectly unhelpful argument is the irrationality of assault weapons bans. This is the Nelson Muntz of firearms regulations argument. The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine. It was the 2A crowd, and particularly the NRA, that fought off gun control advocates to the absurd position they occupy now. It's not some article of faith among gun control advocates that grips and barrel shrouds are actually important. The NRA is the reason we ended up here, and now they're telling us to stop hitting ourselves. Also, another example of a firearm with a wood stock? The AK-47.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Ultimately, you are agruing for DRM. Note that the State Separtment is _still_ (after the court loss) trying to claim ITAR on firearm CAD's. Our ability to print guns will only improve. Hand waving it away as something you dont think matters wont change it.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    Our ability to print everything will only improve. If you're an an-cap, there's a coherent argument to be made here, but if not, your argument proves too much.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      You are arguing for two classes of people; those with access to general purpose computing, and those without. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI

by surge 7y ago

chillwaves 7y ago

Probably need some evidence to back up your claims about their motivation. Gun control on the state level will not stop the flow of guns across state borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. Speaking as a gun owner.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Here's the trouble with that argument: > Gun control on the national level will not stop the flow of guns across national borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. People smuggle drugs into this country at scale. The same people who are among the most likely perpetrators of homicides. If prohibiting possession has no effect and prohibiting importation is similarly ineffective then it's hard to see how a national prohibition would do much more than a state one.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  We have open borders between states and mostly controlled borders between countries. Regardless, the guns flow out of the US, not into it.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    The "controlled borders" between the US and its neighbors are each more than a thousand miles across, and I'm led to believe that most of those in favor of gun control are sour on the effectiveness of securing them with a wall or other such measures. Moreover, contraband flows toward the places where it's prohibited. If certain firearms went from not prohibited to prohibited then they would flow in rather than out. And I'm not saying a national ban would have no effect, only that it would have a similar effect to a state-level ban -- regular people would follow the law, and then you might get e.g. fewer firearms suicides (but more non-firearms suicides). But if you expect gangs to stop arming themselves because of "borders" or national law, just look at Mexico.
    - chillwaves 7y ago
      The demand would drop and so would gun manufacturing. There would be less guns on the street and more effective securing/training of legal guns/owners. Clearly there is a spectrum of choices that can be made, some more effective than others. As mentioned, state borders have effectively zero restriction in movement and should be taken in context with any criticism of local gun laws.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        Why would there be less guns on the street? Aren't the vast majority of those illegally obtained anyways? IMO the more likely response would be that all the guns that were previously stolen/criminally obtained legal guns would become fully automatic since there's no reason not to at that point. (Manufacturing cost difference is basically nil, and if you're already smuggling an illegal rifle might as well make it automatic) Guns aren't exactly rocket science to make, and the plans are available online. Good guns, reliable guns, safe guns? Not so much, but why would the criminals in question care?

remarkEon 7y ago

>and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. Yeah, this. It's sort of developed into a moral panic because so many in the media grow up in urban centers on the east coast and don't have much contact with firearms. The reporting becomes pretty tainted, and in some cases hilariously inaccurate.

ISL 7y ago
The majority of people live in urban centers. One of the biggest difficulties in modern America is bridging the urban/rural divide: My father, living in a rural area, purchased a shotgun for home defense -- when 911 was accidentally dialed, the sheriff's response time was roughly 30 minutes. Their primary political concerns revolve around taxes and regulation. Sometimes a bear walks through the neighbor's yard. At our house in the city, on the other hand, I can throw five burritos and hit five other residences. I can't imagine firing that same shotgun in our house, as our windows and our neighbor's windows are in direct opposition. Police response times are quick, but we have people camping in the bushes across the street, a car break-in thrice a decade, and the occasional heroin addict passed out in the park, needle still in his arm. These are two entirely different modalities of living, and we are trying to apply federal law to both. The second amendment is essential to our democracy, but it is increasingly difficult to argue with the growing calls to address gun violence as a public health threat. Nobody wants to get shot, everyone wants to live free and out from under the thumb of a tyrannical government. We can find a way.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- aidenn0 7y ago
  A shotgun is actually pretty reasonable Urban defense, particularly with lead shot that isn't too large. Rifles are a big no no though. They can carry very far and overpenetrate.
  - ISL 7y ago
    I've been contemplating bear spray to fill that role. Deployed in the confines of our home, it would put both us and any assailant in a world of hurt, but nobody has to die (and, if turned against us, we might suffer far less). Even bird shot, fired from within our house, could easily kill our nearest neighbors. They're less than 10m away, and separated only by plate glass. The buckshot that my father has selected for home defense could easily reach them through their interior walls. I've already dealt with enough death in life.

kasey_junk 7y ago

You’ve forgotten the single most important factor. When it comes to intentional deaths by firearm, mass shootings target white children at a much higher per capita number. If white teenagers were getting killed by gun murders at even the rate of black kids killed by cops we’d have a national ban.

iudqnolq 7y ago
See the fact California started heavily restricting gun ownership once black people started exercising their Second Amendment rights (and that happened under a Republican government) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
- masonic 7y ago
  under a Republican government Actually, Democrats controlled the Assembly, and the Mulford Act didn't move until it had a majority of Democrat cosponsors.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    It passed the Assembly in a bipartisan manner, but the governor was a republican (Reagan). It was also introduced by a republican (Mulford). I didn't mean to excuse the Democrats who supported it, they were racist opportunists, I merely wanted to point out the CA Republican party dropped its principled support for 2nd Amendment Rights as soon as the people they would be protecting didn't look White like them.
    - masonic 7y ago
      It passed the Assembly in a bipartisan manner It passed both houses with over 2/3rds majorities, and neither was Republican controlled... so your attempt to make it a partisan thing is confusing.
      - kasey_junk 7y ago

paggle 7y ago

Bill Gates' graphic isn't compelling except in the case of some cancer and traffic accidents. Most heart disease, almost all Alzheimer's, most cancer, etc. are just various ways that old people die. You're going to have to die in some manner, so reducing Stroke deaths is just going to mean more Heart Disease deaths a few years later on a person who got to live a full life. Traffic accidents, earlier cancers, suicides, etc. take people who had much more quality life to be lived.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Even if you exclude "natural causes" the point is still there. Terrorism is ludicrously over-represented in the media, even compared to homicide. Homicide is half as likely as suicide but the media has it reversed. Drug overdose is preventable in ~100% of cases and kills three times more people than homicide but it's completely ignored.

tptacek 7y ago

I'm really tired of this argument that people are irrationally afraid of black rifles and simply don't understand the machines they're purporting to regulate. These are devices that were designed to be field stripped by 18 year olds in a jungle. They're not that complicated. The Mini-14 (for example) has a wooden stock, and looks like something out of Little House On The Prairie, in part because it was brought to market at a time where the M-16, a descendant of the Stoner AR-15 design, had acquired a reputation for dreadful unreliability. In an urban environment, it's just as problematic as an AR-15; what's your point? Another almost perfectly unhelpful argument is the irrationality of assault weapons bans. This is the Nelson Muntz of firearms regulations argument. The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine. It was the 2A crowd, and particularly the NRA, that fought off gun control advocates to the absurd position they occupy now. It's not some article of faith among gun control advocates that grips and barrel shrouds are actually important. The NRA is the reason we ended up here, and now they're telling us to stop hitting ourselves. Also, another example of a firearm with a wood stock? The AK-47.

jakeogh 7y ago
Ultimately, you are agruing for DRM. Note that the State Separtment is _still_ (after the court loss) trying to claim ITAR on firearm CAD's. Our ability to print guns will only improve. Hand waving it away as something you dont think matters wont change it.
- tptacek 7y ago
  Our ability to print everything will only improve. If you're an an-cap, there's a coherent argument to be made here, but if not, your argument proves too much.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    You are arguing for two classes of people; those with access to general purpose computing, and those without. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI