The Guns thread

[Handsome Rob]

Regwec is the one who made an analogy that underlined the absurdity in taking needless risks, but nor did he expect it to be understood by all.

I understood your analogy perfectly, which is why I responded with a similar analogy --BoredGuy is the one who struggled with the applicability of it, bless his heart.

A woman who shoots an attacker with a firearm might have a different view than you do on whether carrying a gun constitutes a "needless" risk. A parent whose child accidentally shot himself with dad's handgun may have the same.

Whose view of what constitutes a "needless" risk is correct? How do you determine that? Do you tell the woman she shouldn't have had the weapon that she used to save her life? Do you tell the parent he shouldn't have had the gun that his child accidentally killed himself with?

 

[DeadPresident]

I understood your analogy perfectly, which is why I responded with a similar analogy --BoredGuy is the one who struggled with the applicability of it, bless his heart.

A woman who shoots an attacker with a firearm might have a different view than you do on whether carrying a gun constitutes a "needless" risk. A parent whose child accidentally shot himself with dad's handgun may have the same.

Whose view of what constitutes a "needless" risk is correct? How do you determine that? Do you tell the woman she shouldn't have had the weapon that she used to save her life? Do you tell the parent he shouldn't have had the gun that his child accidentally killed himself with?

You aggregate, statistically assuming the most likely scenario in terms of gun safety and responsibility among the average user.Also, if the number of victims of mass shootings and accidental gun deaths is greater than the number of presumed lives saved in civilian gun defense/home defense cases I'd argue gun regulation should be skewed toward less access.

That access to certain kinds of ammunition and automatic rifles and other varieties of weapons should be restricted heavily seems like it's taken as read by now.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

You aggregate, statistically assuming the most likely scenario in terms of gun safety and responsibility among the average user.Also, if the number of victims of mass shootings and accidental gun deaths is greater than the number of presumed lives saved in civilian gun defense/home defense cases I'd argue gun regulation should be skewed toward less access.

That access to certain kinds of ammunition and automatic rifles and other varieties of weapons should be restricted heavily seems like it's taken as read by now.

Automatic weapons and other varieties of heavy weaponry are already heavily regulated and/or restricted from private ownership. Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than say semi-automatic handguns and shotguns.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Automatic weapons and other varieties of heavy weaponry are already heavily regulated and/or restricted from private ownership. Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangers than say semi-automatic handguns and shotguns.

It's funny. I don't see many M-16s, AK-47s, Mac10s or M4s in these mass shootings.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

And wonder why some gun owners don't trust certain people when it comes to gun control, here's one reason.

Matt Damon Wishes America’s Gun Laws Were as ‘Sensible’ as Australia’s

 

[BoredGuy]

I understood your analogy perfectly, which is why I responded with a similar analogy --BoredGuy is the one who struggled with the applicability of it, bless his heart.

I didn't struggle with anything, I think your understanding of analogies is sorely lacking, however
Don't be condescending, i'll give ya somethin to bless

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

And wonder why some gun owners don't trust certain people when it comes to gun control, here's one reason.

Matt Damon Wishes America’s Gun Laws Were as ‘Sensible’ as Australia’s

You mean how after a mass shooting they rounded up almost all the guns and got rid of them and since then have had almost no mass shootings? The horror!

 

[regwec]

I don't think celebrities' views on anything other than show business should be sought or reported.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

You mean how after a mass shooting they rounded up almost all the guns and got rid of them and since then have had almost no mass shootings? The horror!

Which was a vast overreaction to that one incident. Plus, while a ban over there makes sense since they've always had relatively tight restrictions on gun ownership (likely due to being a former penal colony) and didn't have the same amount of guns or cultural issues as the US, it's not a great measure to implement over here.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Which was a vast overreaction to that one incident. Plus, while a ban over there makes sense since they've always had relatively tight restrictions on gun ownership (likely due to being a former penal colony) and didn't have the same amount of guns or cultural issues as the US, it's not a great measure to implement over here.

Fact of the matter is since they've got rid of most of the access to those weapons mass shootings don't happen there. I understand that the biggest reason preventing anything like that happening here is because it's a logistical nightmare. There are almost as many guns as there are people in the USA.

 

[BoredGuy]

It's funny. I don't see many M-16s, AK-47s, Mac10s or M4s in these mass shootings.

that's why, if we're being honest, 9mms and .40 cals should be as heavily regulated as any automatics, as they lead to more deaths than anything else.

but god forbid anybody even so much as mentions that argument in America

 

[Webfoot Hero]

that's why, if we're being honest, 9mms and .40 cals should be as heavily regulated as any automatics, as they lead to more deaths than anything else.

but god forbid anybody even so much as mentions that argument in America

And yet in jurisdictions that do, the crime and murder rate involving guns is still fairly high when compared to some areas that don't have the same type of laws.

 

[BoredGuy]

that's because there's these things called cars that people can drive to the next state to easily buy the guns their area just regulated.... and that's why the whole country should have uniform laws and not this piece-meal state-by-state nonsense

I live in NJ and everybody loves to say "Paterson and Newark and Camden all have terrible crime rates even tho NJ has really tough gun laws" But do you know where doesn't? Pennsylvania. It takes about an hour tops from Paterson or Newark, and about 3 minutes from Camden, where the crime is the worst, to get to PA, buy anything you want, even with an out-of-state license, and easily smuggle it back to NJ.

And if the laws go city-by-city, hell, even easier

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

that's because there's these things called cars that people can drive to the next state to easily buy the guns their area just regulated.... and that's why the whole country should have uniform laws and not this piece-meal state-by-state nonsense

I live in NJ and everybody loves to say "Paterson and Newark and Camden all have terrible crime rates even tho NJ has really tough gun laws" But do you know where doesn't? Pennsylvania. It takes about an hour tops from Paterson or Newark, and about 3 minutes from Camden, where the crime is the worst, to get to PA, buy anything you want, even with an out-of-state license, and easily smuggle it back to NJ.

And if the laws go city-by-city, hell, even easier

Exactly, this argument is quite dumb for that exact reason. It's not that the gun laws don't work in those areas but the surrounding areas not adhering to the same standard that is the problem.

 

[DeadPresident]

Automatic weapons and other varieties of heavy weaponry are already heavily regulated and/or restricted from private ownership. Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than say semi-automatic handguns and shotguns.

But you can get them. And if I'm not mistaken doing a conversion on a semi-automatic rifle into full-auto is possible in the sense that acquiring the parts probably isn't incredibly difficult, no more difficult than acquiring the actual weapon.

The bolded is disturbing and hilarious at the same time, you're so used to guns being an acceptable part of everyday life you don't even blink making a statement like that. You'll even suggest that no guns<some guns is possibly an argument worth having.

 

[KevanG]

You mean how after a mass shooting they rounded up almost all the guns and got rid of them and since then have had almost no mass shootings? The horror!

They're the ones that should have the most guns. Crazy Aussies always preferring to wrestle crocodiles and beat down spiders with mega beers.

Bless their boomerangs.

 

[SV Fan]

They're the ones that should have the most guns. Crazy Aussies always preferring to wrestle crocodiles and beat down spiders with mega beers.

Bless their boomerangs.

Don't forget Dingoes going around eating babies

 

[Webfoot Hero]

But you can get them. And if I'm not mistaken doing a conversion on a semi-automatic rifle into full-auto is possible in the sense that acquiring the parts probably isn't incredibly difficult, no more difficult than acquiring the actual weapon.

The bolded is disturbing and hilarious at the same time, you're so used to guns being an acceptable part of everyday life you don't even blink making a statement like that. You'll even suggest that no guns<some guns is possibly an argument worth having.

1) It's really not as easy as some make it out to be or believe themselves. It takes some actual gunsmithing knowledge to do and, in most cases, civilian firearms have been manufactured to different standards than military standards to prevent them from being easily modified or compatible. Plus, modifying a semiauto into a fully automatic weapon is illegal and can get someone jail time and massive fines.

2) The main reason I said what I said is that I've been around guns for my whole life and have never been even remotely injured or afraid around them. That's because I've always been around so many safe and sane gun owners who've taught me enough about them to not be afraid or hurt by guns. I also don't mind civilians having guns is that I know so many who've done the work to become concealed weapon permit holders and they're the ones I'd trust to safely handle their guns and also protect those around them should the case arise.

 

[Sawyer]

Concerns this thread too...

https://***********/ThomasLS/status/750923183268716548?lang=en

Thomas L. Strickland
&#8207;@ThomasLS
#PhilandoCastile had a conceal-carry permit. Announced it. Pro conceal-carry groups should be on fire tonight.

I doubt we'll hear a thing.

https://***********/johnlegend/status/750928468125245440?lang=en

John Legend
&#8207;@johnlegend
Let's go NRA. I know y'all are for the 2nd amendment. Are you also for equal protection?

https://***********/AoDespair/status/750935192060170240?lang=en

David Simon
&#8207;@AoDespair
THIS. Gun culture is arrayed as social control against people of color. They dare to invoke same control, they die.

 

[DeadPresident]

1) It's really not as easy as some make it out to be or believe themselves. It takes some actual gunsmithing knowledge to do and, in most cases, civilian firearms have been manufactured to different standards than military standards to prevent them from being easily modified or compatible. Plus, modifying a semiauto into a fully automatic weapon is illegal and can get someone jail time and massive fines.

Those are fair points, I'll concede, my issue is just that in the case of a Sandy Hook or a Columbine, people with specific intentions will get access to what they deem necessary. These aren't people who care about jail time or massive fines, the equipment and means are available, it's problematic.

2) The main reason I said what I said is that I've been around guns for my whole life and have never been even remotely injured or afraid around them. That's because I've always been around so many safe and sane gun owners who've taught me enough about them to not be afraid or hurt by guns. I also don't mind civilians having guns is that I know so many who've done the work to become concealed weapon permit holders and they're the ones I'd trust to safely handle their guns and also protect those around them should the case arise.

Again, fair point, but I have to point out that your socialization around guns and the gun culture you're part of may be in the minority? The issue isn't the contingent of people who can handle guns properly under the current gun laws, the issue is the people who can't.

The other caveat that became more relevant after today's incident with another civilian African American being killed in cold blood is that America's gun culture appears to be having a detrimental effect on society at large, perhaps specifically cops. If all the facts are true and the man was legally allowed to own and keep a firearm but he was shot out of fear (or more likely a host of other social stigmas and general gun culture) then this is another in a series of incidents that is making a review of guns in America a necessity.

It's unfortunate that people who can't conduct themselves responsibly make this a topic, but just because 15-25% of people like yourself can behave responsibly around firearms doesn't necessarily mean they should be available to 100% of people if those people can't prove beforehand that they should be allowed to possess them.

 

[Handsome Rob]

It's unfortunate that people who can't conduct themselves responsibly make this a topic, but just because 15-25% of people like yourself can behave responsibly around firearms doesn't necessarily mean they should be available to 100% of people if those people can't prove beforehand that they should be allowed to possess them.

Do you have a source to back the bolded statement up? Because, if 75-85% of people couldn't behave responsibly around guns, we should expect to see a higher incident percentage of accidents and intentional violent actions involving guns.

Roughly 1/3 of adults in the United States owns a gun, according to a stat in a Mother Jones article. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were 50,000 incidents of gun violence in 2015. Let's throw the 20,000 suicides in there as well. So, 70,000 incidents of gun violence, self-inflicted or otherwise.

So, what does that mean, percentage-wise?

240,000,000 estimated adults (Census Estimate 2013). If 33% of those own guns, that's 80,000,000 gun owners.

Now, 70,000 annual gun incidents. That would mean that in a given year, 0.0875% of gun owners act irresponsibly (70,000 divided by 80,000,000), resulting in either intentional or accidental harm to themselves or others. And, that assumes only one unique gun owner and one unique victim for each incident.

Even if we multiply that number by 70 to account for a lifetime of years of being able to handle guns, the incident rate is only pulling in (EDIT) 6.125% of gun owners. Now, it might just be me, but less than 7% isn't exactly comparable to the 75-85% "estimate" you're throwing out.

Of course, that doesn't include irresponsible handling that doesn't result in an accidental injury/death, such as not putting the safety on while walking with a rifle out to the shooting range where the trigger isn't accidentally pulled. But, you're never going to have a reliable stat on that.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Those numbers are flawed though because a large majority of gun owners own multiple guns. I would even venture to guess that the folks who own multiple guns generally are the safer gun owners because they take the hobby seriously. It's the folks that get scared for whatever reason and go buy a gun w/o training so they can be "safe" that tend to cause the majority of accidental things and/or suicides.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Those numbers are flawed though because a large majority of gun owners own multiple guns. I would even venture to guess that the folks who own multiple guns generally are the safer gun owners because they take the hobby seriously. It's the folks that get scared for whatever reason and go buy a gun w/o training so they can be "safe" that tend to cause the majority of accidental things and/or suicides.

That's why I based my calculations on gun owners, not guns. Guns aren't irresponsible--people are. A guy can have 10 guns, but the odds are that he'll only be using one of those guns at any given point in time.

Hey, you should be glad I went that route. It actually produced a higher percentage of negative incidents, since there are only 80 million gun owners to put into the denominator but 300 million estimated guns in the United States. Had I gone with the number of guns, the incident percentage would have dropped to 0.0233% from the 0.0875% based on incidents to gun owners.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

That's why I based my calculations on gun owners, not guns. Guns aren't irresponsible--people are. A guy can have 10 guns, but the odds are that he'll only be using one of those guns at any given point in time.

Hey, you should be glad I went that route. It actually produced a higher percentage of negative incidents, since there are only 80 million gun owners to put into the denominator but 300 million estimated guns in the United States. Had I gone with the number of guns, the incident percentage would have dropped to 0.0233% from the 0.0875% based on incidents to gun owners.

Ahh I see, it's early and I failed geometry.

 

[DeadPresident]

Do you have a source to back the bolded statement up? Because, if 75-85% of people couldn't behave responsibly around guns, we should expect to see a higher incident percentage of accidents and intentional violent actions involving guns.

No, no source. When I say X% don't behave responsibly around guns I don't mean by observable incidents like gun deaths, although that's one of the most reliable or indicative stats to use. What I mean is peoples' outlook on guns and how much respect they treat them with, which I understand is an immeasurable concept so it's purely conjecture on my part.

That said, if we had to take all indicators that could be used to measure "irresponsible" behavior with a gun and add that to the percentage it may or may not get significantly higher.

Roughly 1/3 of adults in the United States owns a gun, according to a stat in a Mother Jones article. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were 50,000 incidents of gun violence in 2015. Let's throw the 20,000 suicides in there as well. So, 70,000 incidents of gun violence, self-inflicted or otherwise.

So, what does that mean, percentage-wise?

240,000,000 estimated adults (Census Estimate 2013). If 33% of those own guns, that's 80,000,000 gun owners.

Now, 70,000 annual gun incidents. That would mean that in a given year, 0.0875% of gun owners act irresponsibly (70,000 divided by 80,000,000), resulting in either intentional or accidental harm to themselves or others. And, that assumes only one unique gun owner and one unique victim for each incident.

Even if we multiply that number by 70 to account for a lifetime of years of being able to handle guns, the incident rate is only pulling in (EDIT) 6.125% of gun owners. Now, it might just be me, but less than 7% isn't exactly comparable to the 75-85% "estimate" you're throwing out.

Of course, that doesn't include irresponsible handling that doesn't result in an accidental injury/death, such as not putting the safety on while walking with a rifle out to the shooting range where the trigger isn't accidentally pulled. But, you're never going to have a reliable stat on that.

I'm glad you did this breakdown, and I agree with it 100% - and it also would've been pointless to calculate according to gun numbers because as you rightly said later it's unlikely a single person can simultaneously use more than two guns - the number of perpetrators is important, not the number of firearms. However, over a lifetime if we take it at 6.1% prevalence of gun incidents, not counting however many failed suicides, unreported incidents and other miscellaneous gun-related events that could have potentially resulted in a death or injury, isn't that already alarmingly high? On the conservative side let's add 2% and make it a flat 8% incident rate related to firearms, isn't that high?

If this was a disease, traffic danger, flight danger, food toxicity, or any other incident where a fatality/injury is a possibility, wouldn't an 8% margin of error be obscenely high? I'd be highly concerned if across the space of my lifetime there's an 8% chance I'd be involved in (or the perpetrator?) of a serious gun incident, especially at the rate they're occurring.