The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

It's not that small.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well that's a matter of taste, perspective and experience, isn't it

 

[Farm Boy]

No seriously, the economics aren't that small. Chicago's a good example because it's big enough to have everything you're looking for without all the confounding of the regularly scheduled dickwaving, even not having to reach for the burbs. Though you can, and it's pretty enlightening to see how it echoes outward.

 

[El_Machinae]

EDIT: Looking at the list again... I realized that if we go by the 2016 election, 13 of the 19 cities on that list are from Red States

I don't think that's the way to look at it. Loosely, purple areas that went for Trump probably were voting because of social dissatisfaction. And I would also correlate homicide with social dissatisfaction. They're both symptoms of an underlying cause, even if the causes will be different in every location

The statistic that would mean the most to me in debates like these is the correlation between gun-related violence and social support for the Second Amendment. People want on a gun, because they want to feel protected. Add people want other people to be disarmed, in order to feel protected

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, but that ignores Idaho and whatnot. Chicago's north side pulls it down on the charts in a way Detroit and St. Louis don't have available to the same extent. The game to some extent, is diluting and burying statistics then bending to the social input desired rather than family health and economic hope/prospect.

 

[cardgame]

@Timsup2nothin approximately 3K

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Timsup2nothin approximately 3K

Yeah, that's a fairly reasonable number where even if they come after you they don't have a lot to gain. Like I said, writing the bill of sale a couple grand below actual transaction isn't going to be an automatic flag on the play. It's when someone sells their three year old car for a dollar that the hammer comes down.

 

[rah]

The other thing to consider is that arbitrary products like xbox systems, knives, bricks, and power tools are less regulated than guns. Are guns sufficiently damaging to merit tighter regulation? It depends how much someone cares about them as compared to alternative means of homicide/suicide assuming tighter regulation. I would anticipate both of these rates to go down somewhat overall, with alternative methods increasing somewhat overall. Worth the cost? I don't know.

Another child killed while watching TV in his living room from a stray bullet meant for someone else. That's the biggest problems with guns vs. all the alternative methods you consider 'sufficiently damaging', the collateral damage. All the innocent people killed because someone missed their target. So yeah, they merit tighter regulations. It's harder to kill an innocent child sitting in his living room when you're using a knife.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Another child killed while watching TV in his living room from a stray bullet meant for someone else. That's the biggest problems with guns vs. all the alternative methods you consider 'sufficiently damaging', the collateral damage. All the innocent people killed because someone missed their target. So yeah, they merit tighter regulations. It's harder to kill an innocent child sitting in his living room when you're using a knife.

I'm not going to be moved by arguments from emotion, and I'm not sure who else you're trying to convince.

If you consider all deaths in the 5-9 age group in US, the totals are pretty small. Accidental injuries lead, with less than 1000 yearly. There is a separate category for homicide, which is less than half as likely as kids dying to cancer.

Some of those accidental deaths are going to be gun deaths (especially in the case of the child discharging the weapon), but probably not even half. When it comes to missed targets you're talking about statistical anomalies arising from situations that are already considered criminal or negligent...these missed shot deaths would be more common for adults but still uncommon. It's not a viable framework to make good policy, and it's indicative of bias.

On a side note, it's kind of dark that the homicide rate for 1-4 is roughly double that of 5-9. I'm not surprised but it still feels a bit rough to see that.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm trying to figure out the argument here. It's a bit apples to oranges, but are people suggesting that guns deserve more regulations than cars or less regulation?

 

[rah]

I'm not going to be moved by arguments from emotion, and I'm not sure who else you're trying to convince.

Many people here have suggested that if you eliminate guns, something else will be used. I'm just saying that's a crappy argument because of the collateral damage that is common with guns but not so much with other methods, like knives.
You claim it's rare, but not in Chicago. A good percentage of the people shot in Chicago are not the intended target. We hear about it in the news on an almost daily basis. If you think I'm making it up feel free to look it up. 500 shot already this year. Many innocents killed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm trying to figure out the argument here. It's a bit apples to oranges, but are people suggesting that guns deserve more regulations than cars or less regulation?

Depends who you're asking. I don't see what over-regulation solves in general, aside from a nation having too many resources.

You claim it's rare, but not in Chicago. A good percentage of the people shot in Chicago are not the intended target. We hear about it in the news on an almost daily basis. If you think I'm making it up feel free to look it up. 500 shot already this year. Many innocents killed.

Chicago sounds like it has problems specific to Chicago that it should probably be taking responsibility for and addressing.

 

[rah]

What, because innocent people aren't shot by guns elsewhere? Or are you just unsympathetic to "accidents".
My whole argument is that it's less likely to happen if knives and other methods are used. You have yet to post anything to dispute it but instead claim it's all emotional. Try showing otherwise.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What, because innocent people aren't shot by guns elsewhere? Or are you just unsympathetic to "accidents".

You seem to keep referring to Chicago specifically, which seems to have problems on a scale most US cities do not.

My whole argument is that it's less likely to happen if knives and other methods are used. You have yet to post anything to dispute it but instead claim it's all emotional. Try showing otherwise.

My counter-argument is that the number of deaths from this compared to other causes do not merit the disproportionate attention (especially in the context of the "think of the children" "rationale", which I despise), and probably does not merit over-regulation either.

 

[rah]

So you're either saying that there aren't enough innocents shot to warrant your attention or that just as many innocents die from other methods?

Either one is a lousy stand to take. IMO. And I have never advocated for over-regulation. Just sensible and enforceable ones.
How are safety classes, registration and thorough background checks considered over-regulation when we do that every day for people's safety when operating a motor vehicle?

 

[Berzerker]

We require those regulations for driving on public roads, so the analogy might work for open or concealed carry, but not gun ownership.

 

[rah]

What percentage of guns do you think never leave private land? I'd bet it's really low. If it is that low, it's not worth differentiating.
And I would guess that gun owners wouldn't care about that differentiation and would object anyway.
I'd be more willing to except it despite hearing some good objections to it here.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont know, but I can see walking around in public with a gun as requiring more regulation than simply having one at home. Same with cars.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So you're either saying that there aren't enough innocents shot to warrant your attention or that just as many innocents die from other methods?

The former.

Either one is a lousy stand to take. IMO.

There are a lot of deaths that apparently aren't enough to warrant your attention too, given that you're more than willing to post on gun control many times but this entire subforum doesn't even have a recent thread on other sources of "innocent" death that are more common/lethal. I'm willing to be honest about this, and would change my stance roughly instantly if we instead had like 20,000 kids dying to accidental shootings yearly or something.

I dont know, but I can see walking around in public with a gun as requiring more regulation than simply having one at home. Same with cars.

It's public use where cars are more regulated than guns though, and considering death rates between the two it makes sense that cars are more regulated.

When it comes to "stuff you're allowed to keep on private property", guns are more regulated as there is a fairly long list of stuff you aren't even allowed to own, regardless of usage or context. Non-street legal cars are generally legal to own in contrast.

 

[rah]

I dont know, but I can see walking around in public with a gun as requiring more regulation than simply having one at home. Same with cars.

I mostly agree. If I buy a gun and just keep it at the range under lock and key and just fire it there, very little regulation is probably required.
But I'll bet that most guns don't stay COMPLETELY at home. But if I shoot on my land and there's a possibility that the bullet might leave my property, then I consider it not complete at home.

And for the record, almost 40,000 gun deaths a year should warrant attention.