The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Snowygerry]

The Swiss still have a militia system iirc their reservists are required to keep a rifle at home, they are the original "well-regulated militia".

 

[EgonSpengler]

The Swiss still have a militia system iirc their reservists are required to keep a rifle at home, they are the original "well-regulated militia".

We still have well-regulated militias. We call them "police departments" now.

Okay, maybe not well-regulated. Somewhat-regulated. But that's for a different thread.

And, yes, I know police departments aren't quite the same things as militias.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Pew Research Center, 22 June 2017 - "America’s Complex Relationship With Guns"

One big difference between the US and other countries is the number of handguns, and I believe handguns account for most of the violence in this country.

By the look of it, many Americans seem to feel that they are in near-constant danger that requires quick access to lethal force. Perhaps this constant sense of unease is what separates Americans from people in other countries. As mentioned above, the sense that a person has of needing a gun for protection seems like it has to be a product of the proliferation of guns, at least in part, so there's a vicious cycle there. My sense is that if we could wave a magic wand and reduce American ownership of handguns, the remaining population who own long guns for hunting or sport shooting might resemble other, similar countries, like Canada, France, or Finland. iirc, Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership, and almost none of them are handguns (~5%, I think I read somewhere?). Reducing the numbers of handguns would likely reduce the number of homicides and suicides (the latter, dramatically so).

I think you're right but why do Americans feel so threatened? They spend an average amount as a % of GDP on law enforcement, they have an average number of police officers per capita and many police departments seem to have more firepower than most small countries, and the USs position on crime and safety indices isn't bad, much better than France and the French don't live in fear or feel the need for guns for personal protection.

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

 

[Edmund Ironside]

There is a big issue in the USA with perception of crime. It is perceived to be a much greater threat then it actually is. People often when asked will think it is getting worse even if statistics show it is improving. The media portrayal and emphasis on crime (especially rightwing media) plays a roll in this misconception.

 

[Kaitzilla]

So much crime even hired security is not enough!

CNN correspondent reporting on San Francisco street crime falls victim to car break-in

A CNN correspondent in San Francisco to report on the city’s “rampant street crime” had her rental car broken into Friday — even with hired security tasked with watching the…

nypost.com

“We had security to watch our rental car + crew car. Thieves did this in under 4 seconds. This is ridiculous,” she wrote.

Lah said she and producer Jason Kravarik were at San Francisco’s City Hall when the thieves struck, stealing two bags from the car.

The CNN crew made the nearly 400-mile trip from Los Angeles to cover “voter discontent because of rampant street crime.”

“San Francisco is a beautiful city. This is our 3rd day here and I’ve loved my time here. But if you do visit this city, know that even with hired security watching your car, it is not enough,” the reporter said.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think you're right but why do Americans feel so threatened? They spend an average amount as a % of GDP on law enforcement, they have an average number of police officers per capita and many police departments seem to have more firepower than most small countries, and the USs position on crime and safety indices isn't bad, much better than France and the French don't live in fear or feel the need for guns for personal protection.

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

There is a big issue in the USA with perception of crime. It is perceived to be a much greater threat then it actually is. People often when asked will think it is getting worse even if statistics show it is improving. The media portrayal and emphasis on crime (especially rightwing media) plays a roll in this misconception.

Some public service announcements from the National Rifle Association:

Spoiler :

 

[Birdjaguar]

FBI documents give new view into Las Vegas shooter’s mindset
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS, Nev. — The high-stakes gambler who carried out the deadliest mass shooting in modern America, killing 60 and injuring hundreds more in Las Vegas, was apparently angry over how the casinos were treating him despite his high-roller status, according to a fellow gambler.

An FBI interview with the gunman’s fellow gambler is detailed in hundreds of pages of documents made public this week. The gambler, whose name is redacted in the documents, said he believed the stress could have easily caused gunman Stephen Paddock “to snap.” Paddock, 64, was a video poker player who relied on gambling as his main source of income. The revelation comes years after the FBI in Las Vegas and the local police department concluded their investigations without a definitive motive, although both agencies said Paddock burned through more than $1.5 million, became obsessed with guns, and distanced himself from his girlfriend and family in the months leading up to the massacre.
In a statement Thursday, Las Vegas police defended their inconclusive findings and dismissed the importance of the documents released this week in response to an open-records request from the Wall Street Journal.

“We were unable to determine a motive for the shooter,” the statement said. “Speculating on a motive causes more harm to the hundreds of people who were victims that night.” Still, the cache of documents offer a new view into the gunman’s mindset through interviews with neighbors, acquaintances and employees of the Las Vegas casinos he frequented. Those interviewed by the FBI described Paddock as a “strange” introvert who never made eye contact and only wanted to talk about gambling, while the gunman’s fellow gambler told the FBI that Paddock was “very upset” that the red carpet treatment for high rollers seemed to be fading.

According to the gambler, casinos had previously treated high rollers like Paddock to free cruises, flights, penthouse suites, rides in “nice cars” and wine country tours. But in the years before the Oct. 1, 2017, mass shooting, the gambler said casinos had begun banning some high rollers “for playing well and winning large quantities of money.”

 

[Farm Boy]

A lot of the big collections contain military grade stuff. I miss when my buddies dad would bust out the powder horn flintlock he kitted up. That thing is a hoot. Course, the man used to keep a barrel of black powder back then, so there is always something people gonna have a problem with.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

On another note, some of the pro-gun rhetoric argues for "good guys with guns" and that having armed guards at schools would stop shootings.

schools/churches/etc are targets for multiple reasons, one of which is that armed resistance will be minimal. the one guy there before swat was outgunned. a piece of this "good guy with gun" rationale is also that a person who is otherwise a victim has an extra option that might prevent becoming one, depending on context.

Gun ownership became a political issue and was pushed hard by the GOP and its allies. In post WW2 America hand guns were a crime issue and gun control laws were passed as a way to control crime.

doesn't seem to have helped much, and in modern political discussion handguns are barely acknowledged, which comes off as blatantly dishonest wrt policy stances.

Basically, that it's much more a cultural artifact related to identity, than anything coming out of actual utilitarian/pragmatism, and that it's the reason it weights more than the amount of violence it enables in society.

there's definitely a cultural element to guns specifically. however, there's also a basic constitutional rationale; guns are property. with the country's original emphasis on freedom on its founding, our constitution needs a good reason to deprive people of property options. "someone else might use this irresponsibly or do crimes with it" is not a good reason, and if logically extended to other tools results in absurd outcomes.

it's a similar concept to defending the legal rights of criminals or not punishing the people who are just inside the margins. amongst property, the most controversial ones get attention, but they also become a canary-in-coal-mine wrt government overreach. guns are certainly not the only property that us government encroaches on, sometimes illegally. they are perhaps one of the most relevant pieces of property should the government ever go too far, and that fact isn't lost on a good % of the population, nor is it lost on the government.

We still have well-regulated militias. We call them "police departments" now.

that would not be my first, or fifth, pick for examples of "well regulated" institutions in the usa. and i don't think it would actually rank very highly on your list either. they are given the green light by courts to literally steal from you, without criminal conviction or even charges, using force to do so if necessary. imo example like this being widespread make 2a as necessary as it's ever been.

There is a big issue in the USA with perception of crime. It is perceived to be a much greater threat then it actually is. People often when asked will think it is getting worse even if statistics show it is improving. The media portrayal and emphasis on crime (especially rightwing media) plays a roll in this misconception.

i haven't checked stats, but i would guess ahead of time that globally crime has gone down in usa, while concentrating in some areas. a huge % of shooting deaths are gang related for example, and those don't happen in random locations across us as a whole.

also note that civil forfeiture is competitive with burglary in terms of losses, so ymmv on how much crime has gone down vs being not-counted.

But in the years before the Oct. 1, 2017, mass shooting, the gambler said casinos had begun banning some high rollers “for playing well and winning large quantities of money.”

it doesn't justify a murdering spree, but on a side note this actually happens. it is possible to beat the house, but the house will notice and remove anybody doing so consistently. occasionally they get in trouble for refusing to let someone cash out (which is illegal). but for the most part, they will allow it and then group-blacklist people who are too successful (which is not illegal).

 

[EgonSpengler]

that would not be my first, or fifth, pick for examples of "well regulated" institutions in the usa. and i don't think it would actually rank very highly on your list either.

Perhaps because I wrote as much in the very same post?

imo example like this being widespread make 2a as necessary as it's ever been.

Oh, please. I'm so tired of nonsense like this. (Not from you, specifically, just in general, from the pro-gun crowd.) The Second Amendment has never done [poo] for restraining police misbehavior. The First Amendment has. The First Amendment [forking] rocks. The First Amendment kicks the Second Amendment's [trunk] up and down the street. The Second Amendment would be amusing if 40,000 people a year weren't dying because of it. Put a video camera that can post to YouTube in everybody's pocket and suddenly the cops are running for their mother[loving] lives. Thankfully, we don't have to wait for the Second Amendment to protect anybody's freedom. [Flipping] iPhones have done more for us in 15 years than guns did in the previous 150. The Second Amendment can suck my .

Spoiler :

Okay, top blown. I feel better now. I need a Guinness.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Oh, please. I'm so tired of nonsense like this. (Not from you, specifically, just in general, from the pro-gun crowd.) The Second Amendment has never done [poo] for restraining police misbehavior.

it's a "nuclear option", so to speak. a last resort. you don't tell law enforcement "nope" with a gun as an individual with success, unless you're fishing for suicide by cop or a long jail sentence. however, that doesn't mean the presence of a nuclear option at scale isn't considered, should it be necessary.

The Second Amendment would be amusing if 40,000 people a year weren't dying because of it.

that's a "but for" argument w/o supporting evidence. this was not a problem for all of usa's history. something changed. if i'm not mistaken, we had less murder per capita even during times when possessing fully automatic firearms was not yet illegal. given gun laws are stricter since then (and trending more so over time), we should by default expect fewer such deaths rather than more. and since 2a predates any of it for usa, it can't explain more deaths now any more than it can explain fewer deaths per capita 100+ years ago.

Thankfully, we don't have to wait for the Second Amendment to protect anybody's freedom.

indeed, it is not ideal to default to the nuclear option.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Perhaps because I wrote as much in the very same post?


Oh, please. I'm so tired of nonsense like this. (Not from you, specifically, just in general, from the pro-gun crowd.) The Second Amendment has never done [poo] for restraining police misbehavior. The First Amendment has. The First Amendment [forking] rocks. The First Amendment kicks the Second Amendment's [trunk] up and down the street. The Second Amendment would be amusing if 40,000 people a year weren't dying because of it. Put a video camera that can post to YouTube in everybody's pocket and suddenly the cops are running for their mother[loving] lives. Thankfully, we don't have to wait for the Second Amendment to protect anybody's freedom. [Flipping] iPhones have done more for us in 15 years than guns did in the previous 150. The Second Amendment can suck my .

Spoiler :

Okay, top blown. I feel better now. I need a Guinness.

You deserve a Guinness

 

[EgonSpengler]

it's a "nuclear option", so to speak. a last resort. you don't tell law enforcement "nope" with a gun as an individual with success, unless you're fishing for suicide by cop or a long jail sentence. however, that doesn't mean the presence of a nuclear option at scale isn't considered, should it be necessary.


that's a "but for" argument w/o supporting evidence. this was not a problem for all of usa's history. something changed. if i'm not mistaken, we had less murder per capita even during times when possessing fully automatic firearms was not yet illegal. given gun laws are stricter since then (and trending more so over time), we should by default expect fewer such deaths rather than more. and since 2a predates any of it for usa, it can't explain more deaths now any more than it can explain fewer deaths per capita 100+ years ago.


indeed, it is not ideal to default to the nuclear option.

The value in any 'nuclear option' is only as a deterrent, and as a deterrent, an armed population doesn't appear to make police any better behaved. Even if we only compare U.S. states to one another, there's at least some evidence the reverse is true. (And if we do include other, similar countries, if civilian ownership of guns is a deterrent to police violence, then countries like England and Australia must experience police shootings like we've never seen. Police in those countries must be mowing people down in the streets, with so little fear of being shot in return.)

Northeastern Global News, 26 October 2018 - "Do more guns lead to more fatal police shootings?"

Police shootings of civilians are more likely in states with high rates of gun ownership, according to a new study by researchers from Northeastern and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“The take-home message from the study is that when people live in places where guns are more prevalent, the police officers are more likely to shoot and kill them,” said co-author Matt Miller, professor of health sciences at Northeastern and co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “The relationship is pretty strong."

Of course correlation =/= causation. It's possible that police officers in states with higher rates of gun ownership just happen to be more violent than police in less-well-armed states. I suppose it's even possible, though it sounds outlandish, that the guns carried by civilians in those states are indeed holding back the veritable tsunami of shootings by police officers that would be unleashed if everyone were carrying fewer guns (I suppose anyone in those states who believes this would also be a strong proponent for defunding the police).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The value in any 'nuclear option' is only as a deterrent, and as a deterrent, an armed population doesn't appear to make police any better behaved.

you can do the nuclear option too, if it gets bad enough. again, we don't know what it looks like w/o it. also again, if you're going to claim 2a is the *cause* of the added shooting, you must explain why it took more than a century to manifest as such too. otherwise something else is the cause.

defunding police won't work, because then you still need somebody to enforce law (or not to have law). changing their oversight structure is what's required, which will probably result in cleaning house among them as a consequence.

 

[Lexicus]

that would not be my first, or fifth, pick for examples of "well regulated" institutions in the usa. and i don't think it would actually rank very highly on your list either. they are given the green light by courts to literally steal from you, without criminal conviction or even charges, using force to do so if necessary. imo example like this being widespread make 2a as necessary as it's ever been.

@EgonSpengler the real issue with this is that this poster defends literally every police shooting of a black suspect on the grounds that the suspect presented a threat of some kind to the officer; this rhetoric isn't without some truth to it but it is completely silly coming from this particular source, the guy who thinks "Michael Brown didn't have his hands up" is enough of a justification for him to die.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

Perhaps because I wrote as much in the very same post?


Oh, please. I'm so tired of nonsense like this. (Not from you, specifically, just in general, from the pro-gun crowd.) The Second Amendment has never done [poo] for restraining police misbehavior. The First Amendment has. The First Amendment [forking] rocks. The First Amendment kicks the Second Amendment's [trunk] up and down the street. The Second Amendment would be amusing if 40,000 people a year weren't dying because of it. Put a video camera that can post to YouTube in everybody's pocket and suddenly the cops are running for their mother[loving] lives. Thankfully, we don't have to wait for the Second Amendment to protect anybody's freedom. [Flipping] iPhones have done more for us in 15 years than guns did in the previous 150. The Second Amendment can suck my .

Spoiler :

Okay, top blown. I feel better now. I need a Guinness.

No it's an interesting point. I'd only add that filming the police deters them when in some public venue, as that's as good as eyewitness testimony against them.
But it is harder to film them when/if they ever decide to break into a private residence and do whatever they want. Not many witnesses other than the victim in that case.
Guns in the hands of property homeowners would presumably try to deter them from doing that...or doing that more often.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

on that note, the afroman case should be dismissed with prejudice on the facts alone. he managed to film them, and they try to sue. they had a warrant at least, even though they found nothing.

but what if they didn't, and they were still trying to damage the cameras? what might a reasonable person assume someone damaging cameras in their own house assume is the purpose for that damage? what legitimate law enforcement purpose does that serve? but if it isn't a legit law enforcement purpose, then you now have an armed robber/criminal trespasser in the house.

 

[RobAnybody]

I heard an interesting point by a panelist on Bill Maher's Real Time - not sure I agree with it, but it's worth noting: people who are ardent 2nd Amendment supporters view the occasional mass murder or school shooting the same as ardent defenders of the 1st Amendment view allowing hate speech, or allowing KKK rallies, in that it's just something you have to put up with in order to preserve the ideal of the idea.

fwiw, I don't own any guns (well, except for a toy Walther P38 that transforms into Megatron) - just trying to head off anyone trying to get me defend that view; just figured I'd share it as I found it to be a useful insight

 

[Hygro]

I mean yeah.

 

[Lexicus]

A crucial difference is that people die or are seriously injured when they are shot with bullets but typically are not killed or seriously injured by hearing words