3 ms·

"Basically non-existent [sic]" like backgrounds checks. How would nanny state regulations work or be comparable when Americans already possess many guns? Cow /

"Basically non-existent [sic]" like backgrounds checks. How would nanny state regulations work or be comparable when Americans already possess many guns? Cow / barn door.

handrous 5y ago
What's the "[sic]" for? I don't see an error.
mumblemumble 5y ago
That's perhaps a true fact, but also, maybe a bit of a rhetorical own goal? I don't think that the gun lobby having been so successful at achieving a sort of crony capitalist vendor lock-in with the American public implies in any way that this is a good thing, which is what you'd have to demonstrate for this analogy to really help the case you're trying to present. I mean, if you're trying to say that regulation doesn't work, then pointing out that the the gun lobby has secured laws that severely limit firearm regulation in the USA, so now Americans already own a lot of guns and shoot each other a lot and there's nothing that can be done about it anymore, is perhaps doing more to illustrate the case that you're trying to argue against.
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  > now Americans already own a lot of guns and shoot each other a lot Your analysis of the data may vary, but: Between 1998 and 2019, there have been more than 391,897,875 background checks for gun purchases in the U.S.[1]. It is unknown which of those were for rifles; it is also unknown what percentage of those background checks were for multiple firearm purchases in a single transactions. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle by far, so it seems entirely plausible that there are perhaps vastly more than 100 million AR-15's in private ownership in the U.S. (An interesting point is that it is rather unlikely that most people would be so unwise as to advertise ownership.) (Of note, there is no legal definition of assault rifle, and the "AR" in AR-15 stands for Armalite, one of the first manufacturers of the AR-15.) In total, less than 400 killings (including murders, self-defense, suicide etc) per year committed with all types of rifles[2]. (In fact, more people are killed each year with blunt objects like clubs, hammers, etc.) Those who wish to increase ownership of handguns would do well to note that many, many people in the U.S. own handguns for personal defense, and a very tiny fraction are used for killing in any given year. By far the largest handgun numbers are from people taking their own lives, and most of the others are from criminal activities, typically in large cities. Those criminal activities are committed by people who, by definition, do not obey the law. This is obviously a politically fraught topic; just wanted to provide some actual, if somewhat surprising, data. Again, your analysis and politics may vary, but that's the data. 1. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_mo... 2. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - frockington1 5y ago
    Why do you consider it unwise to advertise ownership of an AR-15? Why would anyone care? Where I live the response would be "cool, can I shoot it next range trip"
    - gunapologist99 5y ago
      Depending on where you live in the country, you might experience any of the following things: 1. social response / cancel culture 2. theft 3. legal liability
  - gunapologist99 5y ago
    (Sorry, too late to edit.. I meant "increase regulation of handguns" in case the mistake wasn't obvious)
- EricE 5y ago
  "the gun lobby has secured laws that severely limit firearm regulation in the USA" The gun lobbies didn't secure laws that severely limit firearm regulation. They didn't have to. It was enumerated as the 2nd amendment in our constitution - and for damn good reasons. The difference between the American and French Revolutions - the American Revolution started from the place that the people have all rights and our constitution restricts governments ability to infringe upon those inalienable rights. The French Revolution came from the perspective of the states rights and in turn grants rights to the people. I think I prefer the former over the latter.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    Given the events of the last year and the historical opposition of groups like the NRA to minorities having gun access I feel the greatest threat to continuing free democracy in the US (for everyone) is not the government but the same group that owns the majority of guns.
marcinzm 5y ago
You made an implicit argument that regulation doesn't work, I simply pointed out that it does in many many place. You now argue that it doesn't work because the item being regulated is in wide spread possession. Drones are not. Thus by your own chain of reasoning it is perfectly reasonable to enforce very strong regulations NOW if we wish to have any chance of managing drones. I guess, thank you for making such a great argument for strong regulation from the onset.

"Basically non-existent [sic]" like backgrounds checks. How would nanny state regulations work or be comparable when Americans already possess many guns? Cow / barn door.

handrous 5y ago

What's the "[sic]" for? I don't see an error.

mumblemumble 5y ago

That's perhaps a true fact, but also, maybe a bit of a rhetorical own goal? I don't think that the gun lobby having been so successful at achieving a sort of crony capitalist vendor lock-in with the American public implies in any way that this is a good thing, which is what you'd have to demonstrate for this analogy to really help the case you're trying to present. I mean, if you're trying to say that regulation doesn't work, then pointing out that the the gun lobby has secured laws that severely limit firearm regulation in the USA, so now Americans already own a lot of guns and shoot each other a lot and there's nothing that can be done about it anymore, is perhaps doing more to illustrate the case that you're trying to argue against.

gunapologist99 5y ago
> now Americans already own a lot of guns and shoot each other a lot Your analysis of the data may vary, but: Between 1998 and 2019, there have been more than 391,897,875 background checks for gun purchases in the U.S.[1]. It is unknown which of those were for rifles; it is also unknown what percentage of those background checks were for multiple firearm purchases in a single transactions. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle by far, so it seems entirely plausible that there are perhaps vastly more than 100 million AR-15's in private ownership in the U.S. (An interesting point is that it is rather unlikely that most people would be so unwise as to advertise ownership.) (Of note, there is no legal definition of assault rifle, and the "AR" in AR-15 stands for Armalite, one of the first manufacturers of the AR-15.) In total, less than 400 killings (including murders, self-defense, suicide etc) per year committed with all types of rifles[2]. (In fact, more people are killed each year with blunt objects like clubs, hammers, etc.) Those who wish to increase ownership of handguns would do well to note that many, many people in the U.S. own handguns for personal defense, and a very tiny fraction are used for killing in any given year. By far the largest handgun numbers are from people taking their own lives, and most of the others are from criminal activities, typically in large cities. Those criminal activities are committed by people who, by definition, do not obey the law. This is obviously a politically fraught topic; just wanted to provide some actual, if somewhat surprising, data. Again, your analysis and politics may vary, but that's the data. 1. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_mo... 2. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- frockington1 5y ago
  Why do you consider it unwise to advertise ownership of an AR-15? Why would anyone care? Where I live the response would be "cool, can I shoot it next range trip"
  - gunapologist99 5y ago
    Depending on where you live in the country, you might experience any of the following things: 1. social response / cancel culture 2. theft 3. legal liability
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  (Sorry, too late to edit.. I meant "increase regulation of handguns" in case the mistake wasn't obvious)
EricE 5y ago
"the gun lobby has secured laws that severely limit firearm regulation in the USA" The gun lobbies didn't secure laws that severely limit firearm regulation. They didn't have to. It was enumerated as the 2nd amendment in our constitution - and for damn good reasons. The difference between the American and French Revolutions - the American Revolution started from the place that the people have all rights and our constitution restricts governments ability to infringe upon those inalienable rights. The French Revolution came from the perspective of the states rights and in turn grants rights to the people. I think I prefer the former over the latter.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  Given the events of the last year and the historical opposition of groups like the NRA to minorities having gun access I feel the greatest threat to continuing free democracy in the US (for everyone) is not the government but the same group that owns the majority of guns.

marcinzm 5y ago

You made an implicit argument that regulation doesn't work, I simply pointed out that it does in many many place. You now argue that it doesn't work because the item being regulated is in wide spread possession. Drones are not. Thus by your own chain of reasoning it is perfectly reasonable to enforce very strong regulations NOW if we wish to have any chance of managing drones. I guess, thank you for making such a great argument for strong regulation from the onset.