The Big Gun Control Thread

Yeah, good point Paleo. I like to shoot my friends' pistols and shotguns when we're camping, but I'm pretty ignorant to a lot of the things that article mentioned. It was really nice to read a snarky yet reasonable explanation for a lot of the things the Left tends to hyperbolize.

I do kinda wish it had tried to tackle the race angle. I'm friends with several gun enthusiasts and while they're all very careful with their weapons, the tendency to think of white people with guns as "exercising their second amendment rights" and black people with guns as "thugs" is more prevalent than I'm comfortable with.

That's an excellent article. I especially liked this bit:

Oddly enough, gun control and gun violence are both at their lowest level in decades. In other words: The last time this few Americans were shooting each other, John F. Kennedy was president. It gets weirder. You know what else has been in free-fall for 50 years? The percentage of gun-owning Americans. So we have fewer gun owners, with the freedom to own whatever they want, and, crime-wise, we're living in Camelot 2.0. If we could just cut the number of gun owners in half and then arm them all with that rail rifle from Eraser, crime as we know it might come to an end.

Gun crime is actually bad in the battlegrounds for the War on Drugs, mostly the inner cities. White, upper-class people are much safer than they've ever been. And if we stopped the War on Drugs, then poor people would be safer, too.

People are scared because of Life As Seen on Television, where the breathless crying about the latest tragedy makes it sound like it happened right next door, to people you know. It makes us incorrectly think the threat is enormously larger than it actually is.

Malor wrote:

That's an excellent article. I especially liked this bit:

Oddly enough, gun control and gun violence are both at their lowest level in decades. In other words: The last time this few Americans were shooting each other, John F. Kennedy was president. It gets weirder. You know what else has been in free-fall for 50 years? The percentage of gun-owning Americans. So we have fewer gun owners, with the freedom to own whatever they want, and, crime-wise, we're living in Camelot 2.0. If we could just cut the number of gun owners in half and then arm them all with that rail rifle from Eraser, crime as we know it might come to an end.

Gun crime is actually bad in the battlegrounds for the War on Drugs, mostly the inner cities. White, upper-class people are much safer than they've ever been. And if we stopped the War on Drugs, then poor people would be safer, too.

People are scared because of Life As Seen on Television, where the breathless crying about the latest tragedy makes it sound like it happened right next door, to people you know. It makes us incorrectly think the threat is enormously larger than it actually is.

The irony in our historically safe times is that violent behavior has become so aberrant that it is always newsworthy.

Both lying and misinformation / failure to investigate the actual facts.

I find talking with well informed people I have no problem discussing reasonable gun control. But if the person has some misconception reason is out the window until it is corrected.

realityhack wrote:

Both lying and misinformation / failure to investigate the actual facts.

I find talking with well informed people I have no problem discussing reasonable gun control. But if the person has some misconception reason is out the window until it is corrected.

Pretty much.

When folks use the words "assault weapon", they pretty much lose my attention.

That Cracked article was excellent and covers a lot of my feelings on the subject.

Paleocon wrote:

When folks use the words "assault weapon", they pretty much lose my attention.

My gut reaction is to try to educate them... at least if they seem in any way reasonable (and I try to avoid contact with the other kind of people).
I am not personally a gun owner, and for personal reasons I never will be. But I have fired guns a few times. I get the appeal and I don't think everyone who wants to own some is nuts.

I agree with Edwiin the cracked article was great. I like the idea of reasonable gun control not it makes me feel all scared so lets ban it control.

realityhack wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

When folks use the words "assault weapon", they pretty much lose my attention.

My gut reaction is to try to educate them... at least if they seem in any way reasonable (and I try to avoid contact with the other kind of people).
I am not personally a gun owner, and for personal reasons I never will be. But I have fired guns a few times. I get the appeal and I don't think everyone who wants to own some is nuts.

I agree with Edwiin the cracked article was great. I like the idea of reasonable gun control not it makes me feel all scared so lets ban it control.

I have tried in the past, but it really isn't terribly productive. You can point out all the rational arguments for why the term "assault weapon" does nothing to further the discourse toward reducing firearm crimes, but all you ever get back is bs like "it was the gun lobby that made the 'assault weapon ban' worthless". And frankly, folks like that seem to pride themselves on their ignorance of firearms and hold onto it with a sort of religious faith that SHALL NOT be tested with facts.

I wrote to my congress critters supporting universal background checks when the Manchin-Toomey Amendment was up for vote and only just got a response today. /facepalm

Paleocon wrote:
realityhack wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

When folks use the words "assault weapon", they pretty much lose my attention.

My gut reaction is to try to educate them... at least if they seem in any way reasonable (and I try to avoid contact with the other kind of people).
I am not personally a gun owner, and for personal reasons I never will be. But I have fired guns a few times. I get the appeal and I don't think everyone who wants to own some is nuts.

I agree with Edwiin the cracked article was great. I like the idea of reasonable gun control not it makes me feel all scared so lets ban it control.

I have tried in the past, but it really isn't terribly productive. You can point out all the rational arguments for why the term "assault weapon" does nothing to further the discourse toward reducing firearm crimes, but all you ever get back is bs like "it was the gun lobby that made the 'assault weapon ban' worthless". And frankly, folks like that seem to pride themselves on their ignorance of firearms and hold onto it with a sort of religious faith that SHALL NOT be tested with facts.

I have had more success opening the conversation to what the real goal is etc

It's important to remember that people having guns is not the problem, it's people using guns to attack people. Those are two very different things.

Personally, I think one of the most probable ways to turn a gun owner into a gun user is trying to take them away.

Because that is totally a realistic scenario outside someone who commits a crime and not even a little bit of an exaggeration right?

How many people have you actually seen or can link to having their guns taken away?

realityhack wrote:

Because that is totally a realistic scenario outside someone who commits a crime and not even a little bit of an exaggeration right?

How many people have you actually seen or can link to having their guns taken away?

Malor wrote:

Personally, I think one of the most probable ways to turn a gun owner into a gun user is trying to take them away.

He said probable and I would have to agree with Malor on this IN THEORY.

Enter the land of unicorns with me for a moment....If the government actually ever said, "Hi, we've decided that guns are bad and we're going to take them all away from you, we'll be by your house around two-ish to collect them so if you could have them all out on your front porch, unloaded and ready for pickup that would be great. Any questions? Ok, great thanks."

There would be armed rebellion which is what Malor is, I believe, stating. Now of course this is never going to happen for numerous reasons but it's the scenario that gun rights groups love to trot out to scare gun owners with.

realityhack wrote:

Because that is totally a realistic scenario outside someone who commits a crime and not even a little bit of an exaggeration right?

How many people have you actually seen or can link to having their guns taken away?

Having read that Cracked article -- the threat of having one's guns taken away is equally bad as the actual thing happening. Look how many times the video game community froths at the mouth at any politician invoking the "violent video games = dead kids = we should ban them" line of illogic.

Seth wrote:
realityhack wrote:

Because that is totally a realistic scenario outside someone who commits a crime and not even a little bit of an exaggeration right?

How many people have you actually seen or can link to having their guns taken away?

Having read that Cracked article -- the threat of having one's guns taken away is equally bad as the actual thing happening. Look how many times the video game community froths at the mouth at any politician invoking the "violent video games = dead kids = we should ban them" line of illogic.

The "threat" is entirely ridiculous though. With groups like the NRA and their super fanatical off-shoots (pun!), I doubt the US government would ever even be able to pass a resolution to confiscate a BULLET from a law-abiding gun owner. The "threat" is manufactured and does nothing but make reactions to the "threat", which is where some of the rest of us start worrying about the idea of any kind of good-faith argument ever occurring.

You're right, although I wouldn't really differentiate between a legitimate threat and a ridiculous threat in this scenario. Chicago has some gun laws that several places in America view the same way we view Australia's video game laws. In Michigan, open carry advocates are constantly testing law enforcement by carrying holstered sidearms into government buildings -- their subsequent removal is more than a ridiculous threat, from my perspective.

Have... we EVER allowed people to openly (or not openly) carry personal firearms into government buildings in the past 50 years?

Seth is saying that it's illegal, but people continue to do it to test the limits.

damn double post

It's perfectly legal to open carry in Michigan on public property. Schools, streets, etc.

Right but not in government/Federal buildings right? I took your previous post to mean that while illegal in government buildings people are still walking in with guns to prove some sort of macho point.

Anyone find it amusing/fitting that "I am not a lawyer" is shortened to I Anal?

Given the brewhaha, brouhaha I'm assuming it's *policy,* but not *law* keeping holstered sidearms out of public hearings. Because no one is arrested for bringing in guns, just asked (firmly, by a police officer), to leave.

But, IANAL.

edited. Too many damn pun beer festivals warped my grasp of language.

Stupid phone deleted my post.
Maylor I sincerely apologize I misread your post.

JC wrote:

Right but not in government/Federal buildings right? I took your previous post to mean that while illegal in government buildings people are still walking in with guns to prove some sort of macho point.

Government doesn't have to mean federal. VA is the same way, with the exception of schools, which is hotly debated topic now given the shooting at VT a few years ago. That time the only armed citizen was the bad guy.

I like the article, but the point about gun ownership "being in freefall" is not really supported by their numbers. It has gone from about 49% in 1960 to 47%, according to the figures they cite in the earlier part of the article. That represents a steep decline from about '67 to '85, followed by a rebound in the next ten years, then a very quick and deep drop (about 30%) in the next five years, then up again in the Bush years, with some more up and down, and the last couple of years a decline followed by a jump again in the last two or three years.

That 47% figure, by the way, is reinforced by the political breakdown they cited. Republicans and Democrats are at nearly identical numbers in the population (45% each including leaners according to Gallup in 2010), so 55% of R's and 40% of D's is 47.5% of the population, near enough. That back of the envelope speaks to the fact that gun ownership is *not* on the decline in the long run, but it certainly fluctuated a *lot* (up to 30% relative) in the last 53 years.

It's interesting how quickly it can change too. I wonder if any of that is down to reluctance to report in times when gun ownership is less popular? Hmmm.... In which case, the variability would likely be much less.

We don't have significantly fewer guns, so what's changed to reduce the homicide rate in the last 53 years? That's a tricky question because it's risen significantly and fallen again several times. What's interesting is that it's been quite low and slightly declining for over a decade now. I suspect there are multiple things going on, but that's just a guess. I will note though that the very high drop in ownership of handguns during the period is suggestive.

Maybe it's just harder to carry around a long arm and shoot someone with it on the spur of the moment.

I thought the article made a good point... though I am not sure how WELL they made it.
There wasn't much there that I am remembering now thinking 'what a great way of putting that' or 'what a great way to word that'

The idea that both sides need to turn the emotions WAY down and start listening and addressing real issues is great. We have had that lots of times in this thread.

Unfortunately I think they might have been able to do a better job showing what that looks like.

Robear wrote:

I like the article, but the point about gun ownership "being in freefall" is not really supported by their numbers. It has gone from about 49% in 1960 to 47%, according to the figures they cite in the earlier part of the article. That represents a steep decline from about '67 to '85, followed by a rebound in the next ten years, then a very quick and deep drop (about 30%) in the next five years, then up again in the Bush years, with some more up and down, and the last couple of years a decline followed by a jump again in the last two or three years.

That 47% figure, by the way, is reinforced by the political breakdown they cited. Republicans and Democrats are at nearly identical numbers in the population (45% each including leaners according to Gallup in 2010), so 55% of R's and 40% of D's is 47.5% of the population, near enough. That back of the envelope speaks to the fact that gun ownership is *not* on the decline in the long run, but it certainly fluctuated a *lot* (up to 30% relative) in the last 53 years.

It's interesting how quickly it can change too. I wonder if any of that is down to reluctance to report in times when gun ownership is less popular? Hmmm.... In which case, the variability would likely be much less.

We don't have significantly fewer guns, so what's changed to reduce the homicide rate in the last 53 years? That's a tricky question because it's risen significantly and fallen again several times. What's interesting is that it's been quite low and slightly declining for over a decade now. I suspect there are multiple things going on, but that's just a guess. I will note though that the very high drop in ownership of handguns during the period is suggestive.

Maybe it's just harder to carry around a long arm and shoot someone with it on the spur of the moment.

Dropping over the last 2 decades actually. As a criminology major the answer is.... We don't know why. There's too many variations and data points to point a finger and say "That's the reason!" As your own data suggests, it's probably not due to a decrease in firearms in the population, since they haven't. Some suggest inner city programs, some suggest it's the decline in the use of Crack (specifically crack since it's peak of use and decline coincides with the curve), some suggest it's the way we do law enforcement (there have been a lot of ideological shifts in the last 20 years), but there's just too many correlations to point to a causation. Even saying things like "it's the decline of crack" leads to multiple issues - why is there a decline? Law enforcement, rehab, other drugs, welfare, inner city programs, the juvenile system (unlikely, it's a disaster), prisons, society & culture, wealth factors, economy, or all of them? It's just too complex of an issue to have a clear answer, so we should keep doing things that seem to have an impact and hope it continues to improve.

I also think part of it is the fact that forensics have become so good that people reconsider homicide as it's much more likely you'll get caught and imprisoned. So, we could even say DNA is a reason... but we don't know.

Shoal07 wrote:

Some suggest inner city programs, some suggest it's the decline in the use of Crack (specifically crack since it's peak of use and decline coincides with the curve), some suggest it's the way we do law enforcement (there have been a lot of ideological shifts in the last 20 years), but there's just too many correlations to point to a causation. Even saying things like "it's the decline of crack" leads to multiple issues - why is there a decline? Law enforcement, rehab, other drugs, welfare, inner city programs, the juvenile system (unlikely, it's a disaster), prisons, society & culture, wealth factors, economy, or all of them? It's just too complex of an issue to have a clear answer, so we should keep doing things that seem to have an impact and hope it continues to improve.

Or it could mostly be lead.

(Link to previous GWJ discussion.)

Yeah, I was going to mention lead as a possible cause.

Pollution matters.