5 ms·

I'm taking a guess at what the OP meant, but people focus on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Supposedly most incidents and deaths are caused by hand

I'm taking a guess at what the OP meant, but people focus on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Supposedly most incidents and deaths are caused by handguns. They're more affordable, and easy to discretely keep on your person. A data-driven policy would focus on them first, but it's easier to rile up the public about AR-15s so we keep doing the less-effective thing.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
forshaper 2mo ago
One might wonder about why ceramic plates are controlled in Connecticut or New York.
- philipkglass 2mo ago
  It looks like Connecticut first enacted body armor regulations in 1998, the year after the North Hollywood police shootout with a pair of heavily armed and armored men: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapons_and_armor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapo... It's hard to find 1998 news articles about it now, but I would guess that the law was a reaction to this high profile crime.
  - forshaper 2mo ago
    Why did Connecticut do it, as opposed to other states? I guess CA would've made sense for that example. I understand such events would be used to argue in favor of the policy, but it seems like if it was just the event, other states would've done the same. And other countries do it as well, without as salient an event.
    - philipkglass 2mo ago
      California also limited body armor ownership in the wake of that shootout, though a court decision invalidated the law in 2009: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-20-la-me-body-armor20-2009dec20-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-20-la-me-bo... The decade-old ban was enacted after the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, a confrontation between police and two heavily armored bank robbers that injured officers and civilians. The state Legislature passed the ban in 1998 as a measure to protect police. The law was subsequently revised to pass court scrutiny and reinstated: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-reinstates-body-armor-ban-for-felons-3186708.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-reinstates...
MBCook 2mo ago
Things that feel useful instead of are useful. We're not allowed to use data or experts. They’re untrustworthy and out to trick us.
- timr 2mo ago
  Everyone loves the experts that repeat what they like to hear. The ones that don't are obviously quacks.
- LanceH 2mo ago
  > They’re untrustworthy and out to trick us. When politics is involved, there is a lot of truth to this.
austhrow743 2mo ago
Most deaths doesn't necessarily mean most deaths that people care about.
kelnos 2mo ago
Are handgun deaths predominantly murder, or are they mostly accidents? If the latter, then I don't think it's odd to go after AR-15-type weapons, which usually end up killing people during mass shooting incidents.
- novok 2mo ago
  you could of literally googled it, it's murder
  - throw1234567891 2mo ago
    Could have
- antonvs 2mo ago
  > Are handgun deaths predominantly murder, or are they mostly accidents? Have you met many humans?
- giantg2 2mo ago
  You can look at the FBI data. Also note that if you are concerned about mass shootings, that more mass shootings occur with handguns than rifles. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded- https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/homicide-data-table-8.xls https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in...
- zyx321 2mo ago
  Predominantly suicide, actually. Which is committed with whatever is conveniently at hand, and reducing convenience reduces incidence.
belorn 2mo ago
When we say that handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles, is that normalized towards ownership? Data and statistics is as always dependent on how and what you measure.
- SuperNinKenDo 2mo ago
  Not to get too off track, but it's actually an interesting case in that it's one of those where weighting for prevalence of ownership wouldn't matter for the purpose of discovering the more effective measure. If you did something to restrict handguns you would prevent more death than restricting other firearms. Also, not that it has any bearing on what I said, but I'm decidedly pro-gun for any repliers who want to follow up on this tangent.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    If it's weighted by ownership then banning one type of gun would increase the ownership of other types of guns, maybe not solving the problem.
    - SuperNinKenDo 2mo ago
      Certainly anyone promoting this as a policy goal would brush over the fact that you stated, and exagerate the benefits. However I doubt everybody owning a handgun would go out and buy a rifle. There is also the likelihood that many situations involving the use of handguns would not eventuate if the person in question had a rifle instead. But again, I'm not actually in favour of this anyway.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- giantg2 2mo ago
  What I could find was that there are estimated to be about 350-500 million firearms in the US. The closest thing to a breakdown was 30-50 million semi-auto rifles, and probably close to a 60/40 split handgun to long gun over time (article shows trends). Murders per year using rifles and shotguns were less than 600 combined. Handguns accounted for over 6000. So the number of hanguns is maybe something like 20% higher than long guns, but murders using handguns are 10x higher than with long guns. https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total/ https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total... 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 2mo ago

[deleted]

forshaper 2mo ago

One might wonder about why ceramic plates are controlled in Connecticut or New York.

philipkglass 2mo ago
It looks like Connecticut first enacted body armor regulations in 1998, the year after the North Hollywood police shootout with a pair of heavily armed and armored men: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapons_and_armor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapo... It's hard to find 1998 news articles about it now, but I would guess that the law was a reaction to this high profile crime.
- forshaper 2mo ago
  Why did Connecticut do it, as opposed to other states? I guess CA would've made sense for that example. I understand such events would be used to argue in favor of the policy, but it seems like if it was just the event, other states would've done the same. And other countries do it as well, without as salient an event.
  - philipkglass 2mo ago
    California also limited body armor ownership in the wake of that shootout, though a court decision invalidated the law in 2009: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-20-la-me-body-armor20-2009dec20-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-20-la-me-bo... The decade-old ban was enacted after the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, a confrontation between police and two heavily armored bank robbers that injured officers and civilians. The state Legislature passed the ban in 1998 as a measure to protect police. The law was subsequently revised to pass court scrutiny and reinstated: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-reinstates-body-armor-ban-for-felons-3186708.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-reinstates...

MBCook 2mo ago

Things that feel useful instead of are useful. We're not allowed to use data or experts. They’re untrustworthy and out to trick us.

timr 2mo ago
Everyone loves the experts that repeat what they like to hear. The ones that don't are obviously quacks.
LanceH 2mo ago
> They’re untrustworthy and out to trick us. When politics is involved, there is a lot of truth to this.

austhrow743 2mo ago

Most deaths doesn't necessarily mean most deaths that people care about.

kelnos 2mo ago

Are handgun deaths predominantly murder, or are they mostly accidents? If the latter, then I don't think it's odd to go after AR-15-type weapons, which usually end up killing people during mass shooting incidents.

novok 2mo ago
you could of literally googled it, it's murder
- throw1234567891 2mo ago
  Could have
antonvs 2mo ago
> Are handgun deaths predominantly murder, or are they mostly accidents? Have you met many humans?
giantg2 2mo ago
You can look at the FBI data. Also note that if you are concerned about mass shootings, that more mass shootings occur with handguns than rifles. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded- https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/homicide-data-table-8.xls https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in...
zyx321 2mo ago
Predominantly suicide, actually. Which is committed with whatever is conveniently at hand, and reducing convenience reduces incidence.

belorn 2mo ago

When we say that handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles, is that normalized towards ownership? Data and statistics is as always dependent on how and what you measure.

SuperNinKenDo 2mo ago
Not to get too off track, but it's actually an interesting case in that it's one of those where weighting for prevalence of ownership wouldn't matter for the purpose of discovering the more effective measure. If you did something to restrict handguns you would prevent more death than restricting other firearms. Also, not that it has any bearing on what I said, but I'm decidedly pro-gun for any repliers who want to follow up on this tangent.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  If it's weighted by ownership then banning one type of gun would increase the ownership of other types of guns, maybe not solving the problem.
  - SuperNinKenDo 2mo ago
    Certainly anyone promoting this as a policy goal would brush over the fact that you stated, and exagerate the benefits. However I doubt everybody owning a handgun would go out and buy a rifle. There is also the likelihood that many situations involving the use of handguns would not eventuate if the person in question had a rifle instead. But again, I'm not actually in favour of this anyway.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
giantg2 2mo ago
What I could find was that there are estimated to be about 350-500 million firearms in the US. The closest thing to a breakdown was 30-50 million semi-auto rifles, and probably close to a 60/40 split handgun to long gun over time (article shows trends). Murders per year using rifles and shotguns were less than 600 combined. Handguns accounted for over 6000. So the number of hanguns is maybe something like 20% higher than long guns, but murders using handguns are 10x higher than with long guns. https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total/ https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total... 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.-...