Mass Shootings

[BabaYaga 15301]

On 5/28/2018 at 2:43 AM, scottsins said:

What if, as a “compromise”, whichever weapons are subject to a new prohibition...are covered by a registration/grandfather clause.  IOW, there is a time period where someone can register their “about to be banned” weapon (if it is not already registered to them).  After the law goes into effect, possession by those to who the weapon is not registered becomes a crime.

So the "compromise" for the tens of millions of law abiding citizens that have committed no crimes is deciding between weapons banning or a national gun registry.  How mighty white of you. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I don't know about the "probability of gun violence", but the incidence of (overall) gun violence has been in decline for over a decade now (already posted source for this a while back in this thread) even through the record number of gun sales (as measured by NICS requests) in recent years.

.

Please don’t source from ammoland.com. There is too much fake science being pushed from the gun industry.

I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.” Neither of these two statements are accurate however.

First let me say, if true (though it isn’t) that firearm violence has been declining, we still as a society have a responsibility lower our rates of gun violence, since we as a country have rates on par with third world countries. Please review the below table and sort by overall or by homicides.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Second, gun violence has not been in decline for a decade now. During the 80s and early 90s, rates of homicides and homicides by firearms both surged as a result of the drug war, crack cocaine, and other reasons. That surge dropped in the late 90s to its current level due to a range of factors including tough on crime strategies and some would argue removing lead from gasoline. Since the late 90s, the rate of both homicides and homicides by firearms have been relatively flat. 

For a trend between 1997 and 2016 of overall homicides, see the below table and note the column concerning murder and no negligent manslaughter rate. The trend is relatively flat.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-1

For a trend in homicides by weapons type, see page 27, figure 42 showing homicides by weapon type. This only shows data up to 2008 but does show the crack-cocaine surge in 80s and 90s and the plateau since late 90s.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

[GW Hayduke 1953]

43 minutes ago, bernorange said:

So I finally found a little bit of time this morning to read through the country by country stats that GW has posted several times in this thread as a justfication for more gun control.  The numbers are all pulled from gunpolicy.org ( a publication maintained by the University of Sydney).  I cannot find on the site a clear description of where they are sourcing their numbers or doing any analysis of the same before comparing.  I'm pretty sure they don't because it would highlight just how meaningless it would render the comparisons and that's not the purpose of the site.  That site is designed to promote gun control/confiscation.  Here's a look at the bias of the principals at work on that site (emphasis mine):

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region

http://www.gunpolicy.org/about

GW, as I mentioned several pages back, they are using disparate sources for their numbers and the underlying data is not collected/tracked the same across all jurisdictions.  You really can't draw any meaningful conclusions from comparing different varieties of fruits and vegetables.

I understand you aren’t comfortable comparing rates of firearm-related violence across countries because you perceive the source to be biased even though the source is maintained by an academic institution. If academic institutions aren’t appropriate, do you consider sources from the gun industry, such as NRA or ammoland.com as non-biased? Also, if academic sources aren’t appropriate, what sources are appropriate to compare the US to other countries? I get that the gun industry doesn’t like the data.

Even if you choose not to believe that the US’s rate of firearm violence is on par with third world countries (without any evidence to support that belief) because you don’t trust the Sydney School of Public Health, you still have to rectify another source that shows the US’s rate of overall homicides are also on par with third world countries. That source is from the UN.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[BabaYaga 15301]

13 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.

There is a glaring issue here I'm hoping you recognize.  First, these polls have no verification mechanism.  With such a hotly debated topic, every gun owner I've ever known refuses to answer these.  They are not "refusing to answer" (which make up about 7% of the polled responses), they simply say "no".  With a little less than half answering (46%), that leaves a huge majority of households out there that are simply not participating.  

If you want harder evidence, look at the spike in concealed parry permits.  Then reconcile this will gun sale numbers, and the politicized nature of the subject.  Even in states like IL that show GSS survey results decreasing, you see FOID applications skyrocketing.  

[BabaYaga 15301]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

the US’s rate of overall homicides are also on par with third world countries.

How many of these are gang related?  How many are utilizing legally obtained firearms?  These homicides are accompanied by a litany of other illegal activities, so reconcile how utilizing punitive measures (fines, registration) is going to impact this at all?

[GW Hayduke 1953]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

There is a glaring issue here I'm hoping you recognize.  First, these polls have no verification mechanism.  With such a hotly debated topic, every gun owner I've ever known refuses to answer these.  They are not "refusing to answer" (which make up about 7% of the polled responses), they simply say "no".  With a little less than half answering (46%), that leaves a huge majority of households out there that are simply not participating.  

If you want harder evidence, look at the spike in concealed parry permits.  Then reconcile this will gun sale numbers, and the politicized nature of the subject.  Even in states like IL that show GSS survey results decreasing, you see FOID applications skyrocketing.  

Sure. There are issues with surveys. However, surveys across time are the best way to understand trends. The idea that gun occupancy hasn’t been increasing isn’t surprising since cities are growing while rural areas have either been decling or stagnant. 

The FOID data is for one state and could be the result of a host of local issues.

[bernorange 8362]

25 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

...

First let me say, if true (though it isn’t) that firearm violence has been declining, ..

 

On 5/21/2018 at 12:22 PM, bernorange said:

The rate of firearm violence has been declining for years ...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

 

On 5/21/2018 at 12:29 PM, GW Hayduke said:

You are correct that the “rate” of violence has been in decline. ..

* sigh *

Quote

Please don’t source from ammoland.com. There is too much fake science being pushed from the gun industry.

...

How about not posting ad hominems when someone posts a source you don't like.  Are people so afraid of their own competence in sorting out bias and facts from propaganda that they can't even read and think for themselves when presented with a link?  If there is a problem with the information I posted, by all means highlight the issue and I will have no problem acknowledging any errors in fact, logic etc.  Absent any issue based criticism, I don't appreciate ad hominems used in an attempt to shut down a discussion though.  That's lazy and weak sauce.

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I understand you aren’t comfortable comparing rates of firearm-related violence across countries because you perceive the source to be biased ...

You misunderstood.  The source is biased.  They publicly state their agenda.  The bolded phrase is prima facie evidence of their bias.  The bias is not, in and of itself, a cause to dismiss them from the discussion.  The bias colors the reasoning for not disclosing important information about the underlying data though.  It's the data itself which is problematic. 

Quote

... I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.” Neither of these two statements are accurate however. ...

Why resort to straw men?  I have been very clear with my language and that's not what I've said, implied or insinuated.  I get that you are hyper-partisan on this issue much like Guapo is with (anti-)abortion, but you don't need to do that.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

How many of these are gang related?  How many are utilizing legally obtained firearms?  These homicides are accompanied by a litany of other illegal activities, so reconcile how utilizing punitive measures (fines, registration) is going to impact this at all?

Hmmm. Are we past the point where we argue whether there is a problem and have now moved to argue whether there is anything we can do about the problem?

We are talking about a complex problem that will require a multi-pronged approach at addressing. The best analogy is how we lowered the rate of traffic fatalities through inspections, licensing, registrations, safety requirements for vehicles and roadways, etc.

[BabaYaga 15301]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

isn’t surprising since cities are growing while rural areas have either been decling or stagnant. 

That's anecdotal based upon your own assumptions and biases.  Especially since the majority of CHL permits/applications across the country have been increasing exponentially, and predominantly in urban areas.  

[BabaYaga 15301]

7 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

The best analogy is how we lowered the rate of traffic fatalities through inspections, licensing, registrations, safety requirements for vehicles and roadways, etc.

Please don't take the disingenuous route by trying to make the intellectually dishonest analogy between seat belts and speed limits to a national gun registry.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

4 minutes ago, bernorange said:

 

 

* sigh *

How about not posting ad hominems when someone posts a source you don't like.  Are people so afraid of their own competence in sorting out bias and facts from propaganda that they can't even read and think for themselves when presented with a link?  If there is a problem with the information I posted, by all means highlight the issue and I will have no problem acknowledging any errors in fact, logic etc.  Absent any issue based criticism, I don't appreciate ad hominems used in an attempt to shut down a discussion though.  That's lazy and weak sauce.

You misunderstood.  The source is biased.  They publicly state their agenda.  The bolded phrase is prima facie evidence of their bias.  The bias is not, in and of itself, a cause to dismiss them from the discussion.  The bias colors the reasoning for not disclosing important information about the underlying data though.  It's the data itself which is problematic. 

Why resort to straw men?  I have been very clear with my language and that's not what I've said, implied or insinuated.  I get that you are hyper-partisan on this issue much like Guapo is with (anti-)abortion, but you don't need to do that.

Hmmmm it’s Ad hominem when I note the large amount of fake science from the industry but it’s ok for you to disregard data from the university of Sydney?   There isn’t a justification for that. Also, I did address your source in my final paragraph concerning ownership so don’t be a troll and make things up through fake accusations. 

It isn’t a big deal that the gun industry pushes fake science. This isn’t surprising. The tobacco industry and oil industry all pushed fake science to push their agenda and maximize profits. It’s what industries do. People shouldn’t be surprised or offended by this.

Let’s be clear from your perspective gunammo.com is a good source but the university of Sydney is bad and biased. You are free to believe all that.

You are free to state I’m using a strawman, without describing any evidence of such. I stated in simple, clear form what I believed your position was. You are free to restate your position. I restated your position because it was jumbled, unclear, and threw together bits of seemingly random information. 

Again, I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.” Neither of these two statements are accurate however.

You are also free to believe that I am hyper partisan - whatever that means.

To address your npr article referencing the pew study that showed a decline since 1993, I recommend you go back and read my comment, note my discussion and evidence concerning the surge in the 80s and 90s with a relatively flat trend after that, then go back to the pew article and click the link for the updated information - also linked below. Note the new headline, “Gun homicides steady after decline in 90s.” 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/%3famp=1

[GW Hayduke 1953]

31 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Please don't take the disingenuous route by trying to make the intellectually dishonest analogy between seat belts and speed limits to a national gun registry.

Are you going to explain how that was disingenuous or intellectually dishonest? An analogy is a comparison between two things for purpose of explanation. My analogy showed how a complex problem was dealt with in the US through a multi-pronged approach. How is that disingenuous or dishonest?

[GW Hayduke 1953]

40 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That's anecdotal based upon your own assumptions and biases.  Especially since the majority of CHL permits/applications across the country have been increasing exponentially, and predominantly in urban areas.  

I get it. You believe gun ownership has been exploding exponentially. 

Rural decline isn’t antecdotal. It’s an attempt to provide context/reasoning behind either a stagnate gun ownership or a declining ownership rate. I.e., rural life has more uses and needs related to firearms. 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/september/rural-areas-show-overall-population-decline-and-shifting-regional-patterns-of-population-change/

[bernorange 8362]

32 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Hmmmm it’s Ad hominem when I note the large amount of fake science from the industry but it’s ok for you to disregard data from the university of Sydney?   There isn’t a justification for that. Also, I did address your source in my final paragraph concerning ownership so don’t be a troll and make things up through fake accusations. 

It isn’t a big deal that the gun industry pushes fake science. This isn’t surprising. The tobacco industry and oil industry all pushed fake science to push their agenda and maximize profits. It’s what industries do. People shouldn’t be surprised or offended by this.

Let’s be clear from your perspective gunammo.com is a good source but the university of Sydney is bad and biased. You are free to believe all that.

It's ad hominem to dismiss the source without any criticism of the statements presented.  You dismissed ammoland.com as a propaganda outlet for fake science.  You offered no justification for it with respect to the statements of fact regarding NICS processing (the reason I posted the link).  That's pure ad hominem.

I stated my criticisms of the presentation of data done by the gunpolicy.org/UoSydney group.  It was not a blanket condemnation because "gunpolicy.org/UoSydney are evil".  Bias in and of itself is not evil.  Pointing it out provides context when there is a significant error of omission.

Quote

You are free to state I’m using a strawman, without describing any evidence of such. I stated in simple, clear form what I believed your position was. You are free to restate your position. I restated your position because it was jumbled, unclear, and threw together bits of seemingly random information. 

Again, I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.” Neither of these two statements are accurate however.
 

 

Quote

Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

Seriously?  You literally put quotes around your attempted restatement of what you think I was saying.  Your quoted restatement is a misrepresentation of what I've said.  It's a classic example.  Maybe you really have difficulty with reading comprehension and it was an honest mistake, (given your lack of clarity on what an ad hominem is, I suppose that's possible), but it's not constructive to an honest dialogue.  If anything I've posted has been "jumbled, unclear" or "seemingly random", please ask me to clarify whatever you are having trouble understanding and I'll do my best to illuminate the point.

Quote

You are also free to believe that I am hyper partisan - whatever that means.

It means that it doesn't really matter what anyone posts in this thread.  While most people advocate for their thoughts or otherwise might have a favored agenda, some people are so wound up in their position that their mind is closed to any other thought.  I believe that you are in the latter category.

Edited May 29, 2018 by bernorange

[GW Hayduke 1953]

41 minutes ago, bernorange said:

It's ad hominem to dismiss the source without any criticism of the statements presented.  You dismissed ammoland.com as a propaganda outlet for fake science.  You offered no justification for it with respect to the statements of fact regarding NICS processing (the reason I posted the link).  That's pure ad hominem.

I stated my criticisms of the presentation of data done by the gunpolicy.org/UoSydney group.  It was not a blanket condemnation because "gunpolicy.org/UoSydney are evil".  Bias in and of itself is not evil.  Pointing it out provides context when there is a significant error of omission.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

Seriously?  You literally put quotes around your attempted restatement of what you think I was saying.  Your quoted restatement is a misrepresentation of what I've said.  It's a classic example.  Maybe you really have difficulty with reading comprehension and it was an honest mistake, (given your lack of clarity on what an ad hominem is, I suppose that's possible), but it's not constructive to an honest dialogue.  If anything I've posted has been "jumbled, unclear" or "seemingly random", please ask me to clarify whatever you are having trouble understanding and I'll do my best to illuminate the point.

It means that it doesn't really matter what anyone posts in this thread.  While most people advocate for their thoughts or otherwise might have a favored agenda, some people are so wound up in their position that their mind is closed to any other thought.  I believe that you are in the latter category.

Why the continued fake accusation that I did not address you gunsammo.com source? I’m giving you an opportunity to correct this.

From my ititial comment “Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.“

Suggest you stop with the fake outrage and fake accusations. There is no need to be so sensitive. Your source was addressed by indicating that “ownership trends” is the proper metric and I referred you to and described two sources that compete with your gunsammo.com source.

FYI: restating a position into a clear simple form is not moving a persons position and is not a strawman. I even noted that my statement of your position with a lead up of “I believe you are trying to show..” to be honest about restating your position, thus giving you the courtesy of correcting your position. I gave you that courtesy a second time. I’ll give you a third opportunity.  

Again, I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.”  (this is your cue to restate your position or accept that position. Suggest you not whine about strawman again.)

Edited May 29, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[BabaYaga 15301]

3 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

Are you going to explain how that was disingenuous or intellectually dishonest? An analogy is a comparison between two things for purpose of explanation. My analogy showed how a complex problem was dealt with in the US through a multi-pronged approach. How is that disingenuous or dishonest?

Because it's a false equivalency between safety belts and a national gun registry.  

[BabaYaga 15301]

3 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

I get it. You believe gun ownership has been exploding exponentially. 

Rural decline isn’t antecdotal. It’s an attempt to provide context/reasoning behind either a stagnate gun ownership or a declining ownership rate. I.e., rural life has more uses and needs related to firearms. 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/september/rural-areas-show-overall-population-decline-and-shifting-regional-patterns-of-population-change/

There is no stagnate/declining gun ownership.  You keep positing this premise as a basis for your conclusion.  The problem is your polls, as stated, have zero mechanisms for verification.  And I'm telling you, with as politicized as this topic has become, owners simply answer 'no' (and that with less than half the polled population bothering to respond at all).  But what we can measure - CHL and FOID applications - those are skyrocketing across all demographics.  But that doesn't quite fit your narrative.  

[Brisketexan 105161]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Because it's a false equivalency between safety belts and a national gun registry.  

But it's NOT a false equivalency between "comprehensive approach to safety helped with cars" and "comprehensive approach to safety can help with guns."

Requiring a driving test and license helped with car safety.

Passing and enforcing highway regs (like speed limits) helped with car safety.

Better design to withstand crashes helped with car safety.

Better passenger restraints (seatbelts, airbags) helped with car safety.

Better roads and road design helped with car safety.

In short, (1) no ONE thing was the key to safer driving, and (2) even with a comprehensive program, we only have REDUCED fatalities per mile, not an elimination of fatalities. That "in short" is the analogy folks (including me) are using with respect to gun violence.  That is, any improvement (1) won't be built on ONE thing, and (2) we can only REDUCE gun violence, not eliminate it.  And, importantly, in BOTH cases, cars/guns remain available and usable.

Might some sort of registry be a COMPONENT of a comprehensive approach?  Perhaps.  It's worth a discussion.  After all, it's hard to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, wackjobs, etc., if we don't even know that a gun exists or is being exchanged in commerce.  Maybe we decide that we aren't comfortable with some sort of registry, but we should do so with the understanding that not having such a tool means that it's going to be very difficult to meaningfully regulate firearms transactions, including transactions that put guns in the hands of dangerous nutbars.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Brisketexan

[atomheartbevo 89735]

On 5/28/2018 at 2:43 AM, scottsins said:

What if, as a “compromise”, whichever weapons are subject to a new prohibition...are covered by a registration/grandfather clause.  IOW, there is a time period where someone can register their “about to be banned” weapon (if it is not already registered to them).  After the law goes into effect, possession by those to who the weapon is not registered becomes a crime.

Some gun control folks won’t approve because there are still a LOT of these weapons at large.  Some gun rights folks will dig in and state that the registration requirement is an onerous restriction of their rights.

To me, the disapproval by the more outer segments of the issue is basically evidence that it’s a decent, reasonable compromise.

*  I’m not addressing the other questions of whether this would “work to stop all of the shootings”, etc.  I just always wonder how people feel about the idea.

The "compromise" still isn't much of one though, it's one side getting their way.  Plus, the people who register will not be the ones you need to worry about - the criminal element is still going to do their thing.  

The "compromise" I'd like to see is that we start off with everybody recognizing that the GOP/NRA uses the threat of gun control to raise money, and that the Dems use the threat of gun violence to raise money.  This is partly the elephant in the room that we are all talking around.  

Most of the politicians on either side don't care too much about solving the issue, but care more about using it to raise money.  I know this, because if the NRA was all about protecting gun owners, they would be more supportive of measures that could lower things like these school shootings, because we will eventually get that school shooting that will change the political landscape drastically.  It's not "if" but "when".  The left would need to shut up their members that want to ban everything as well.

Next up, both sides sit down and talk about the mental health stuff and access to firearms (penalizing parents who don't secure their firearms, keeping firearms out of homes that have people with mental health issues).  A serious talk about it.  I'm fairly certain the NRA has the resources to make the GOP have that conversation. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

20 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Because it's a false equivalency between safety belts and a national gun registry.  

I get it. You don’t like the analogy because of reasons. FYI: you are using a strawman to accuse me of a fallacy - that is rich. Nowhere did I indicate safety belts are equivalent to a gun registry. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

22 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

There is no stagnate/declining gun ownership.  You keep positing this premise as a basis for your conclusion.  The problem is your polls, as stated, have zero mechanisms for verification.  And I'm telling you, with as politicized as this topic has become, owners simply answer 'no' (and that with less than half the polled population bothering to respond at all).  But what we can measure - CHL and FOID applications - those are skyrocketing across all demographics.  But that doesn't quite fit your narrative.  

I get it. You don’t trust polls. I agree they aren’t perfect. However, that’s the best thing we have for measuring ownership trends. FOID is limited to one state and subject to local unknowns, and I haven’t seen anything concerning CHL trends that would be considered compelling - although do share what compels you. The wiki page I linked earlier describes the situation well. Also, Pew surveyed ownership since 1993 and their findings match GSS survey showing a decline in ownership.

“The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey.”

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/

 

[BabaYaga 15301]

59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Might some sort of registry be a COMPONENT of a comprehensive approach?  Perhaps.  It's worth a discussion.  After all, it's hard to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, wackjobs, etc., if we don't even know that a gun exists or is being exchanged in commerce.  Maybe we decide that we aren't comfortable with some sort of registry, but we should do so with the understanding that not having such a tool means that it's going to be very difficult to meaningfully regulate firearms transactions, including transactions that put guns in the hands of dangerous nutbars.

It's not "hard" - it's impossible.  Impossible to keep 400+ million guns (that we know about) out of the hands of criminals.  Impossible to secure our painfully porous borders and inadequate port security.  And even if successful, these are punitive measures, not prohibitive. 

That doesn't mean nothing can be done.  After 9/11, how did we initially solve for hijackings?  We put a lock on the cabin door.  We didn't solve for peace in the ME.  We put in locks.  At the point of entry.  We solve for the tactical solution - not the strategic.  It's the same with schools.  There no 'softer" targets in our society than schools.  And Brisket, you ironically have been the only one I've seen even entertain the idea of guarding schools.  And before you start layering in new laws, you must fix or remove the ones on the books today.  And no, the new "fix" in the spending bill did little more than allow for better institutional communication. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are two discussions here:  societal gun safety and school shootings.  So what is easier to solve for?  Locks on cabin doors, or stopping terrorism?

Edited May 29, 2018 by BabaYaga

[scottsins 1968]

45 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The "compromise" still isn't much of one though, it's one side getting their way.  Plus, the people who register will not be the ones you need to worry about - the criminal element is still going to do their thing.  

The "compromise" I'd like to see is that we start off with everybody recognizing that the GOP/NRA uses the threat of gun control to raise money, and that the Dems use the threat of gun violence to raise money.  This is partly the elephant in the room that we are all talking around.  

Most of the politicians on either side don't care too much about solving the issue, but care more about using it to raise money.  I know this, because if the NRA was all about protecting gun owners, they would be more supportive of measures that could lower things like these school shootings, because we will eventually get that school shooting that will change the political landscape drastically.  It's not "if" but "when".  The left would need to shut up their members that want to ban everything as well.

Next up, both sides sit down and talk about the mental health stuff and access to firearms (penalizing parents who don't secure their firearms, keeping firearms out of homes that have people with mental health issues).  A serious talk about it.  I'm fairly certain the NRA has the resources to make the GOP have that conversation. 

Between this and the other reply to my post, I guess I wasn't clear enough when I said that I wasn't advocating for a particular ban.  I was merely addressing ONE concern that always gets brought up.  It was not at all supposed to be a compromise on the banning of some gun.  It was a compromise on the issue of:

"If a particular weapon were to be outlawed, how would that be implemented?"  One answer was up-thread about buybacks, 20 year notice periods and then totally illegal for anyone to have.  Others respond by stating (correctly, in my opinion), "fuck that for a bunch of reasons...thus no ban or restriction at all."

ETA:  This implementation issue could also apply to magazine capacity, etc.

Edited May 29, 2018 by scottsins

[BabaYaga 15301]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I get it. You don’t trust polls. I agree they aren’t perfect. However, that’s the best thing we have for measuring ownership trends. FOID is limited to one state and subject to local unknowns, and I haven’t seen anything concerning CHL trends that would be considered compelling - although do share what compels you. The wiki page I linked earlier describes the situation well. Also, Pew surveyed ownership since 1993 and their findings match GSS survey showing a decline in ownership.

“The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey.”

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/

 

I have no problem with polls.  But I also recognize gigantic flaws with these in particular.  I also recognize massive partisan confirmation bias as well.  Even my pseudo-socialist gun-owning parents refused to answer polls like this.  And I called them out for it.  It happens across the country.  Or did you not find it particularly interesting that while sales and concealed carry applications have spiked, response rates started to drop as this topic became more and more politicized?  

[scottsins 1968]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's not "hard" - it's impossible.  Impossible to keep 400+ million guns (that we know about) out of the hands of criminals.  Impossible to secure our painfully porous borders and inadequate port security.  And even if successful, these are punitive measures, not prohibitive. 

That doesn't mean nothing can be done.  After 9/11, how did we initially solve for hijackings?  We put a lock on the cabin door.  We didn't solve for peace in the ME.  We put in locks.  At the point of entry.  We solve for the tactical solution - not the strategic.  It's the same with schools.  There no 'softer" targets in our society than schools.  And Brisket, you ironically have been the only one I've seen even entertain the idea of guarding schools.  And before you start layering in new laws, you must fix or remove the ones on the books today.  And no, the new "fix" in the spending bill did little more than allow for better institutional communication. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are two discussions here:  societal gun safety and school shootings.  So what is easier to solve for?  Locks on cabin doors, or peace in the ME?

I'm all for securing schools in a much more robust manner.  Control the number and location of entry points, have SEVERAL armed "cops", metal detectors, etc.  I will note that these new special security police should not have any jurisdiction or job scope beyond securing entry and responding to major situations.

[Brisketexan 105161]

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's not "hard" - it's impossible.  Impossible to keep 400+ million guns (that we know about) out of the hands of criminals.  Impossible to secure our painfully porous borders and inadequate port security.  And even if successful, these are punitive measures, not prohibitive. 

That doesn't mean nothing can be done.  After 9/11, how did we initially solve for hijackings?  We put a lock on the cabin door.  We didn't solve for peace in the ME.  We put in locks.  At the point of entry.  We solve for the tactical solution - not the strategic.  It's the same with schools.  There no 'softer" targets in our society than schools.  And Brisket, you ironically have been the only one I've seen even entertain the idea of guarding schools.  And before you start layering in new laws, you must fix or remove the ones on the books today.  And no, the new "fix" in the spending bill did little more than allow for better institutional communication. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are two discussions here:  societal gun safety and school shootings.  So what is easier to solve for?  Locks on cabin doors, or stopping terrorism?

Ummm....dude.  The irony.  It's rich.

Really?  That's your analog?  Let's go with it, it's a good one.

- we put locks on cabin doors. AND,

- we improved pre-flight screening and banned certain items.  AND,

- we passed the damned Patriot Act.  AND,

- we increased the holy hell out of our surveillance of potential terrorist actors.  AND,

- we invaded actual countries to destroy their base of support.  AND,

- we increased cooperation and intelligence sharing with our allies.  AND,

- this list could go on for freaking pages.

In fact, we have stopped numerous acts of terrorism.  Not by having locks on cabin doors, but by gathering intelligence and nipping the attacks in the bud before they were launched.

Yet another multi-faceted approach to REDUCE (but not eliminate) a threat.

As for requiring a gun registry (and mind you, I'm not necessarily in favor of it, but I can sure list some pros -- I can list cons, too), it would create a TIGHTER -- not airtight, but TIGHTER -- mechanism to monitor gun transfers.  Yes, the transfers of illegal unregistered weapons from criminal X to criminal Y would remain difficult to catch.  BUT, the sale/transfer of a gun -- either by a vendor or private seller - to Ed the Nutjob who wants to shoot up his work, school, a church, etc., will be more difficult.  And some such sales/transfers will be prevented (again, this requires that OTHER measures be in place, like mental health holds and such -- that is, there's no "one thing" that solves anything).

I am absolutely for having an armed presence at schools -- as I observed, it saved lives in Chicago a couple of weeks ago, it probably saved lives (shortened the event) in Santa Fe, and if the cop had done his job, might have in Parkland as well.  It may be one of the MOST effective things we can do, at a relatively low cost (that is, relative to hardening targets, implementing a TSA-like entry regimen, etc.).  I favor that.  But that's not an "instead of" - it's an "in addition to."

I'm glad we hardened cockpit doors.  But I think we would have been idiots if we said "we've hardened the doors, let's not do anything else."

[BabaYaga 15301]

2 minutes ago, scottsins said:

I'm all for securing schools in a much more robust manner.  Control the number and location of entry points, have SEVERAL armed "cops", metal detectors, etc.  I will note that these new special security police should not have any jurisdiction or job scope beyond securing entry and responding to major situations.

This is what we did post-9/11.  This is what Israel did with their schools.  This is what many Jewish schools did here in America when confronted with anti-Semitic threats.  They solved for the tactical solution.  Harden the target.  Lock the schools down.  If everyone really cares about the children, then provide the physical means to protect them and stop trying to boil the ocean.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, scottsins said:

I'm all for securing schools in a much more robust manner.  Control the number and location of entry points, have SEVERAL armed "cops", metal detectors, etc.  I will note that these new special security police should not have any jurisdiction or job scope beyond securing entry and responding to major situations.

The dollars that would cost at each school, let alone an entire system in a city or county would be a bit large.  The problem is not going to be solved with hardware. 

[BabaYaga 15301]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummm....dude.  The irony.  It's rich.

Really?  That's your analog?  Let's go with it, it's a good one.

- we put locks on cabin doors. AND,

- we improved pre-flight screening and banned certain items.  AND,

- we passed the damned Patriot Act.  AND,

- we increased the holy hell out of our surveillance of potential terrorist actors.  AND,

- we invaded actual countries to destroy their base of support.  AND,

- we increased cooperation and intelligence sharing with our allies.  AND,

- this list could go on for freaking pages.

In fact, we have stopped numerous acts of terrorism.  Not by having locks on cabin doors, but by gathering intelligence and nipping the attacks in the bud before they were launched.

Yet another multi-faceted approach to REDUCE (but not eliminate) a threat.

As for requiring a gun registry (and mind you, I'm not necessarily in favor of it, but I can sure list some pros -- I can list cons, too), it would create a TIGHTER -- not airtight, but TIGHTER -- mechanism to monitor gun transfers.  Yes, the transfers of illegal unregistered weapons from criminal X to criminal Y would remain difficult to catch.  BUT, the sale/transfer of a gun -- either by a vendor or private seller - to Ed the Nutjob who wants to shoot up his work, school, a church, etc., will be more difficult.  And some such sales/transfers will be prevented (again, this requires that OTHER measures be in place, like mental health holds and such -- that is, there's no "one thing" that solves anything).

I am absolutely for having an armed presence at schools -- as I observed, it saved lives in Chicago a couple of weeks ago, it probably saved lives (shortened the event) in Santa Fe, and if the cop had done his job, might have in Parkland as well.  It may be one of the MOST effective things we can do, at a relatively low cost (that is, relative to hardening targets, implementing a TSA-like entry regimen, etc.).  I favor that.  But that's not an "instead of" - it's an "in addition to."

I'm glad we hardened cockpit doors.  But I think we would have been idiots if we said "we've hardened the doors, let's not do anything else."

Nobody is saying "lets' not do anything else" - they are saying lets do this first.  Harden the target.  Lock down the schools.  And go from there.  And FWIW, having worked for an airline, I can tell you on average for all the other measure put into place, it is still painfully easy to sneak weapons on board planes.  To the tune of roughly 70+% of all items placed on planes (fake weapons), and "improvement" from their previous fail rate of over 95%.  And guess what, even with weapons, they still can't breach the cabin and take control of the planes.  

[BabaYaga 15301]

8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The dollars that would cost at each school, let alone an entire system in a city or county would be a bit large.  The problem is not going to be solved with hardware. 

And yet we can allocate close to $8 billion for TSA?

[scottsins 1968]

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The dollars that would cost at each school, let alone an entire system in a city or county would be a bit large.  The problem is not going to be solved with hardware. 

Please evaluate the "a bit large" cost, vis a vis the intended benefit, "less kids murdered in schools".

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, scottsins said:

Please evaluate the "a bit large" cost, vis a vis the intended benefit, "less kids murdered in schools".

Jesus, the cost would bankrupt some school districts, that's how much of a bit large it could be.  Turning our schools into hardened facilities isn't the answer anyway.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And yet we can allocate close to $8 billion for TSA?

Yep, and that's federal dollars. So unless the federal gov't is going to step in and do this it's a non starter.  And how many airports are there as opposed to how many schools are out there ?  

I want the barbed wire fence contract.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[Brisketexan 105161]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Nobody is saying "lets' not do anything else" - they are saying lets do this first.  Harden the target.  Lock down the schools.  And go from there.  And FWIW, having worked for an airline, I can tell you on average for all the other measure put into place, it is still painfully easy to sneak weapons on board planes.  To the tune of roughly 70+% of all items placed on planes (fake weapons), and "improvement" from their previous fail rate of over 95%.  And guess what, even with weapons, they still can't breach the cabin and take control of the planes.  

Ummmm....you are shitting all over any "anything else" being brought up.  You react immediately and vehemently to anything that even smacks of restricting firearms.

And I can tell you that the number of terrorist attacks stopped by "something else" (intelligence) is a shitload more than the number of attacks stopped by hardened cockpit doors.  That's just simple truth.

As to "harden schools like we do airports" -- we've talked this through ad nauseum.  Move 1,500 people through a single entry in 15 minutes?  The logistics are ridiculous, and to overcome them, the cost would be ridiculous.  Now, we CAN more effectively and cheaply harden individual classrooms (better doors, add emergency deadbolts), and we CAN have an armed officer on every campus.  Everything is a balancing test.  Everything.

[BabaYaga 15301]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummmm....you are shitting all over any "anything else" being brought up.  You react immediately and vehemently to anything that even smacks of restricting firearms.

And I can tell you that the number of terrorist attacks stopped by "something else" (intelligence) is a shitload more than the number of attacks stopped by hardened cockpit doors.  That's just simple truth.

As to "harden schools like we do airports" -- we've talked this through ad nauseum.  Move 1,500 people through a single entry in 15 minutes?  The logistics are ridiculous, and to overcome them, the cost would be ridiculous.  Now, we CAN more effectively and cheaply harden individual classrooms (better doors, add emergency deadbolts), and we CAN have an armed officer on every campus.  Everything is a balancing test.  Everything.

Restricting firearms translates to restrictions of law abiding citizens.  Not criminals.  Nor does it solve the tactical problem of securing schools.  As stated - hundreds of millions of guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition takes decades to unwind.  We don't have decades.  Nor is anyone suggesting "hardening schools like we do airports".  There are various ways to harden a target, starting with armed security as so many targeted schools have done across the country.  Funny how the inner city schools seem to have solved this problem years ago.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummm....dude.  The irony.  It's rich.

Really?  That's your analog?  Let's go with it, it's a good one.

- we put locks on cabin doors. AND,

- we improved pre-flight screening and banned certain items.  AND,

- we passed the damned Patriot Act.  AND,

- we increased the holy hell out of our surveillance of potential terrorist actors.  AND,

- we invaded actual countries to destroy their base of support.  AND,

- we increased cooperation and intelligence sharing with our allies.  AND,

- this list could go on for freaking pages.

In fact, we have stopped numerous acts of terrorism.  Not by having locks on cabin doors, but by gathering intelligence and nipping the attacks in the bud before they were launched.

Yet another multi-faceted approach to REDUCE (but not eliminate) a threat.

As for requiring a gun registry (and mind you, I'm not necessarily in favor of it, but I can sure list some pros -- I can list cons, too), it would create a TIGHTER -- not airtight, but TIGHTER -- mechanism to monitor gun transfers.  Yes, the transfers of illegal unregistered weapons from criminal X to criminal Y would remain difficult to catch.  BUT, the sale/transfer of a gun -- either by a vendor or private seller - to Ed the Nutjob who wants to shoot up his work, school, a church, etc., will be more difficult.  And some such sales/transfers will be prevented (again, this requires that OTHER measures be in place, like mental health holds and such -- that is, there's no "one thing" that solves anything).

I am absolutely for having an armed presence at schools -- as I observed, it saved lives in Chicago a couple of weeks ago, it probably saved lives (shortened the event) in Santa Fe, and if the cop had done his job, might have in Parkland as well.  It may be one of the MOST effective things we can do, at a relatively low cost (that is, relative to hardening targets, implementing a TSA-like entry regimen, etc.).  I favor that.  But that's not an "instead of" - it's an "in addition to."

I'm glad we hardened cockpit doors.  But I think we would have been idiots if we said "we've hardened the doors, let's not do anything else."

That's a great analogy. I might use that one, in addition to the automobile mortality, to show how we as a society are often able to address problems through minimization and mitigation.

[Brisketexan 105161]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Restricting firearms translates to restrictions of law abiding citizens.  Not criminals. 

Let's go back to cars:

- requiring testing and licensing

- adding to the cost by requiring certain crash performance

- adding to the cost by requiring seatbelts and airbags

- having an age-restriction on driving

- requiring registration of vehicles

All of those burdens fall on law abiding citizens, not criminals.  The point you are making....isn't really a point.  I'm a law-abiding citizen....until I'm not.  Restricting my ability to give/sell my gun to Ed Nutbar is absolutely a restriction on me, a law abiding citizen.  So?  That's how laws work.  "It won't stop someone dead-set on breaking the law" - if that was a valid argument, then we would have literally no laws.

We have restrictions on all kinds of products and activities.  We even have restrictions on SPEECH (yep, time, place and manner restrictions pass constitutional muster).  Those all fall on "law abiding citizens."  That's the way it works.  That's the way it works for literally everything else.  Why are guns different?  Remember, speech is protected by the amendment that comes BEFORE the 2nd, so think this through.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

44 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I have no problem with polls.  But I also recognize gigantic flaws with these in particular.  I also recognize massive partisan confirmation bias as well.  Even my pseudo-socialist gun-owning parents refused to answer polls like this.  And I called them out for it.  It happens across the country.  Or did you not find it particularly interesting that while sales and concealed carry applications have spiked, response rates started to drop as this topic became more and more politicized?  

Yeah, no. I don't think you single handily took down the Pew, Gallop, and GSS surveys. They are still our best source for understanding ownership trends. 

This is where you step up to the big boy plate and provide a source of evidence.  Your claim is that "the majority of CHL permits/applications across the country have been increasing exponentially." Please also address the leap from CHL permits to firearm ownership. Please also put on your big boy pants and source your claim, "while sales and concealed carry applications have spiked, response rates started to drop." 

[Blotto 23560]

Religious wackjobs in the GOP gonna be coming for our porn. This has gone too far.....

Quote

Does anyone know what kind of porn Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) is watching?

Whatever it is, the 67-year-old Black, who is running for governor of Tennessee, said it’s a “big part” of what is driving the spike in school shootings.

During a meeting last week with local pastors, Black raised the issue of gun violence in schools and why it keeps happening.

“Pornography,” she said.

“It’s available on the shelf when you walk in the grocery store. Yeah, you have to reach up to get it, but there’s pornography there,” she continued. “All of this is available without parental guidance. I think that is a big part of the root cause.”

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b0d6634e4b0568a880ede65

[DDD Dad 14343]

On 5/27/2018 at 10:10 PM, Eskimohorn said:

 

Son, there aint no draft no more

 

There was one?

[GW Hayduke 1953]

14 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Restricting firearms translates to restrictions of law abiding citizens.  Not criminals.  Nor does it solve the tactical problem of securing schools.  As stated - hundreds of millions of guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition takes decades to unwind.  We don't have decades.  Nor is anyone suggesting "hardening schools like we do airports".  There are various ways to harden a target, starting with armed security as so many targeted schools have done across the country.  Funny how the inner city schools seem to have solved this problem years ago.

I hate to break it to you, but society often asks its citizens, and not just criminals, to do things for the benefit of other citizens and society as a whole.  I drive really well after drinking, so why do I have to comply with blood alcohol standards? I drive really well going fast, so why do I have to follow speed limits? I don't have a drinking problem, so why does the gas station stop selling me beer after a certain time? I'm really gun with a gun, why won't the TSA let me take it on an airplane? 

My recommendation is to reflect on your feelings and emotions, recognize you aren't a "law abiding citizen" but rather just a "citizen," recognize the identity politics at play that have let you to have your feelings and emotions, and recognize the identity politics at play that have led you to identity as a "law abiding citizen."

[Brisketexan 105161]

6 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Religious wackjobs in the GOP gonna be coming for our porn. This has gone too far.....

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b0d6634e4b0568a880ede65

Porn at the grocery store?

Who the fuck would get some HEB porn (what the hell is that anyway? An issue of Cosmo?) when there's all the porn in the world available with a coupla mouse clicks?

ALL of that said (because we have to make fun of olds).....that's not entirely off-base (hear me out here).  I think that young men (think the "incel" crowd) is fucked up in that they have insanely unrealistic expectations and demands about the female-male dynamic.  They think that women should be like the gals in the videos, and should happily and willingly submit to being their playthings.  When they get rejected, they can't handle it.  There's some indication that rejection by a girl played a role in Santa Fe.  We know it did in Santa Barbara.  I wouldn't say we should BLAME pornography, but we've got some issues with young males and their expectations/demands when it comes to relationships with women, as well as their ability to handle rejection.

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Restricting firearms translates to restrictions of law abiding citizens.  Not criminals.  Nor does it solve the tactical problem of securing schools.  As stated - hundreds of millions of guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition takes decades to unwind.  We don't have decades.  Nor is anyone suggesting "hardening schools like we do airports".  There are various ways to harden a target, starting with armed security as so many targeted schools have done across the country.  Funny how the inner city schools seem to have solved this problem years ago.

No, it doesn't.  Would you say traffic laws and having to get a drivers license restricts your right to drive?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

No, it doesn't.  Would you say traffic laws and having to get a drivers license restricts your right to drive?

The aren't even the same thing.  Traffic laws tell you how you must drive, you're still driving.   Now if you say take cars off the road then that's an analogy that applies.

 

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The aren't even the same thing.  Traffic laws tell you how you must drive, you're still driving.   Now if you say take cars off the road then that's an analogy that applies.

 

Every single one of our rights has constraints.  We have freedom of speech but we can't say anything we want about anything at any time.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Every single one of our rights has constraints.  We have freedom of speech but we can't say anything we want about anything at any time.

And again your analogy wasn't applicable.

 Yep, we have laws and they seem to infringe on law abiding citizens at times, mostly because we have to govern for the least common denominator of our citizenry.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The aren't even the same thing.  Traffic laws tell you how you must drive, you're still driving.   Now if you say take cars off the road then that's an analogy that applies.

 

This is tedious nitpicking and you are equating gun reform with removal of all guns. BTW we do remove cars from certain roads by constructing bypasses or implementing tolls - but that is all just tedious nitpicking.

[MoJames 8244]

Cool, a thread about analogies.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

This is tedious nitpicking and you are equating gun reform with removal of all guns. BTW we do remove cars from certain roads by constructing bypasses or implementing tolls - but that is all just tedious nitpicking.

No I'm not, and Nit picking ? Oh I'm sorry maybe the whole being off base with his comparison off a traffic law to gun confiscation was a trivial thing....  I'm sure Aqua can defend himself.

And your analogy ?  Jesus are you really trying to say that's the same thing ?  Constructing a road and removing  traffic while you contract it is not in the same realm as confiscating guns.  

And for the record, I'm not opposed to stricter gun laws, or certain weapons being illegal to own.

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And again your analogy wasn't applicable.

 Yep, we have laws and they seem to infringe on law abiding citizens at times, mostly because we have to govern for the least common denominator of our citizenry.

How do we do that with guns?