The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Phrossack]

Good to know that Tucker Carlson has reassured the idiot demographic that white supremacists "mean well and are trying their best" before going into hiding...errrr, taking a long planned vacation that has nothing to do with the current controversy whatsoever.

This seems less and less like satire.

 

[Arwon]

So there's this for total deaths. A lot of that is less suicides:

Those suicides haven't been substituted by other methods and rates were already on their way down, but there has been an overall lowering:

In terms of homicide there's never been enough murder in Australia (total murders s year are in the low hundreds) to really test statistically whether the gun buyback lowered homicide rates. Things like a single gang turf war or a heroin drought have spiked it.

However for mass shootings of 4 or more people, we've had a total of 3 since 1996, which comes after 11 in the decade before it. Two of those were murder suicide domestic attacks on farms. The third was a recent shotgun rampage in Darwin. There have also been a small handful of attempted mass shootings with fewer than 4 deaths - the sort of weapons used, often older shotguns, has seemingly blunted the lethality.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Another Trustworthy opinion piece...
Thomas Jefferson: ‘The Tree Of Liberty Must Be Refreshed From Time To Time With The Blood Of Patriots And Tyrants And Kindergarteners And Newlyweds And High-Schoolers And Parents And Teachers And Worshippers And Workers And Occasionally Infants’

 

[Estebonrober]

View attachment 531687

So there's this for total deaths. A lot of that is less suicides:

View attachment 531692

Those suicides haven't been substituted by other methods and rates were already on their way down, but there has been an overall lowering:

View attachment 531693

In terms of homicide there's never been enough murder in Australia (total murders s year are in the low hundreds) to really test statistically whether the gun buyback lowered homicide rates. Things like a single gang turf war or a heroin drought have spiked it.

However for mass shootings of 4 or more people, we've had a total of 3 since 1996, which comes after 11 in the decade before it. Two of those were murder suicide domestic attacks on farms. The third was a recent shotgun rampage in Darwin. There have also been a small handful of attempted mass shootings with fewer than 4 deaths - the sort of weapons used, often older shotguns, has seemingly blunted the lethality.

I love graphs and charts and maps and stuff.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

My wife gave me a download on the new security measures for active shooters and I keep coming back to the thought that I'd much rather her spending time on lesson plans than on how to avoid mass shootings.

But hey, Trump's got a plan for it. You see when they cut food stamps and eliminate free and reduced lunches for every poor kid in the country in the process, it makes it that much easier to hide the kids because they won't grow so big. Win Win

 

[Commodore]

In spontaneous mass murders high capacity/high velocity rifles are almost always the weapon of choice.

Accuses me of being disingenuous then proceeds to be disingenuous by calling a 30 round magazine (the typical magazine used by mass shooters) "high capacity". 30 round magazines are standard capacity, anything above that is high capacity.

Also, it's not disingenuous to use our government's own definition of mass shootings. What is disingenuous is to narrow things down to a specific type of mass shooting in order to advance a narrative.

Going by our government's definition, rifles are actually used in comparatively few mass shootings.

I also find it very weird for people like you who constantly rant on and on about how corrupt the government is to turn around and advocate for policies that would give that same corrupt government a monopoly on deadly force. Please explain to me how you justify this contradiction in your head?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Can't discuss it now, must wait 'till September, then bury it and pretend nothing happened.

US shootings: Mitch McConnell dismisses demands to recall Senate

US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has rejected recalling senators from their recess to discuss gun control after two mass shootings.

Mr McConnell said the issue would instead be "front and centre" when the Senate reconvenes in September.

A long-time defender of gun rights, he shifted his tone by saying that failing to take action would be "unacceptable".

Democrats, however, urged President Trump to summon the Senate immediately to pass stricter background check laws.

Their party, which holds a majority in the House, passed measures on background checks in February. But it requires Republican support to get through the Senate and become law.

A letter backed by some 200 Democratic lawmakers urged the president to use his power to convene the Senate in extraordinary circumstances, saying that Mr McConnell "has been an obstacle to taking any action".

But speaking to a radio station in his home state of Kentucky, Mr McConnell said the president had called him on Thursday "anxious to get an outcome".

He said that calling the Senate back immediately would only result in "political point scoring" and he instead wanted to start discussions during the August break to come back with a coherent plan in September.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49292111

 

[Lexicus]

How do we go about making "support for constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd" the litmus test for being serious about gun control?

 

[Lexicus]

Please explain to me how you justify this contradiction in your head?

Probably because as crappy as the government is, I trust it with deadly force a lot more than the utter goddamn lunatics who comprise the 3% of the population who own more than half the guns...

 

[EgonSpengler]

I also find it very weird for people like you who constantly rant on and on about how corrupt the government is to turn around and advocate for policies that would give that same corrupt government a monopoly on deadly force. Please explain to me how you justify this contradiction in your head?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it's about a general reduction in violence, by the government, by terrorists, and by citizens. A lot of my position on these issues lies in the fact that deadly force just isn't as effective as many people seem to believe it is. As far as the government being corrupt, we have tools at our disposal other than violence, and anyway, violence against the government doesn't have a great track record. Our War for Independence was the anomaly, not the norm, both in effectiveness and in righteousness. Bear in mind, if we equip everyone to fight the government, we're also allowing them to decide when it's time to do so; in effect, we'd be saying that the Crescent City White League - a self-declared, self-assembled, and self-deployed "militia" - were right to try to overthrow the government of Louisiana in 1874 for allowing emancipated Black men to vote. The Weather Underground, and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols also took it upon themselves to fight a US government that, they felt, had turned to tyranny. Setting aside the ethics of killing people, how'd that work out for those guys? Did they get what they wanted?

 

[Lexicus]

Our War for Independence was the anomaly, not the norm, both in effectiveness and in righteousness.

Incidentally, we required help from the French and Spanish to win that war. It wasn't a bunch of "gun owners" beating a professional army. The only battles we won were fought by our own professional forces and the "decisive battle" of the war would not have been won without help from the French fleet.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

An armed populace conversely seems to empower the state to arm itself more. Police in this country are way more stupid authoritarian than most other similar countries, and we have entire departments with access to tanks and military gear. All the talk about an armed populace keeping the government in check seems to have the opposite effect. Lots of the people who like guns go into positions where they can handle them for the state.

 

[Lexicus]

An armed populace conversely seems to empower the state to arm itself more. Police in this country are way more stupid authoritarian than most other similar countries, and we have entire departments with access to tanks and military gear. All the talk about an armed populace keeping the government in check seems to have the opposite effect. Lots of the people who like guns go into positions where they can handle them for the state.

Indeed, I find the possibility of these "militias" acting as auxiliary forces for the police and military to be far more likely than the idea that they will carry on an insurgency against the government...

 

[EgonSpengler]

An armed populace conversely seems to empower the state to arm itself more. Police in this country are way more stupid authoritarian than most other similar countries, and we have entire departments with access to tanks and military gear. All the talk about an armed populace keeping the government in check seems to have the opposite effect. Lots of the people who like guns go into positions where they can handle them for the state.

S'funny, just this morning I was reading a newspaper article that mentioned a study, which found a correlation between states with more relaxed firearm laws and increased violence both by and against police. I haven't had a chance to look up the study itself, though. All the usual caveats, correlation vs causation, etc. But I thought it was an intriguing article. Even anecdotally, I wonder how often someone successfully uses a gun to protect themselves against an armed agent of the state who is genuinely overstepping his authority? It didn't work great for the folks at Waco and Ruby Ridge, or for Fred Hampton, but maybe there have been other instances where it went well.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Indeed, I find the possibility of these "militias" acting as auxiliary forces for the police and military to be far more likely than the idea that they will carry on an insurgency against the government...

And I don't think the police like it very much when civilians do try to act as an auxiliary.

 

[Lexicus]

And I don't think the police like it very much when civilians do try to act as an auxiliary.

Yes, I think this is largely correct under normal circumstances but if they end up ethnically cleansing the US of Hispanics they're gonna need a lot of manpower...

 

[rah]

Or if they're protecting Hispanics from those that are trying to cleanse them.

 

[Commodore]

violence against the government doesn't have a great track record.

You talking about just the US or worldwide? Because worldwide, violence against the government actually has a great track record. Especially if you can turn it into a protracted guerilla war that forces the government to adopt ever more brutal methods to stop you. This turn both public and international opinion against said government and will either force them to change, or will cause the rest of the world to intervene on your behalf.

Armed uprising have had great success at achieving their aims over the course of history. Even when they are defeated on the battlefield, the legacy of the uprising usually includes at least some of the changes its leaders wanted to see. And if it doesn't, it usually inspires further uprisings until the desired changes are brought about.

but maybe there have been other instances where it went well.

The threat of violence with guns worked out well for Bundy for a while. Not that the government was corrupt in that case, nor was he the good guy, but he was able to get them to back down until he finally went too far. The West Virginia Coal Wars are another example. Even though the government successfully put down the uprising, the fact that it happened at all and escalated to the point that it did, did a lot to gain support for the labor movement in the US.

Indeed, I find the possibility of these "militias" acting as auxiliary forces for the police and military to be far more likely than the idea that they will carry on an insurgency against the government...

I agree. And so did the Founding Fathers. That was the main purpose of having the 2nd Amendment. Especially since they were all generally against the idea of raising and maintaining a large standing national military. The overthrowing a corrupt domestic government thing was a distant secondary purpose.

And I don't think the police like it very much when civilians do try to act as an auxiliary.

Well...let's just say a lot of them have also forgotten what it means to be an American. They also forget that we are supposed to be their bosses, not the other way around. Lot of politicians seem to have forgotten that as well.

 

[Lexicus]

Or if they're protecting Hispanics from those that are trying to cleanse them.

I agree. And so did the Founding Fathers. That was the main purpose of having the 2nd Amendment. Especially since they were all generally against the idea of raising and maintaining a large standing national military. The overthrowing a corrupt domestic government thing was a distant secondary purpose.

I didn't expect you to admit the purpose of the 2nd was to maintain a a pool of armed men from which to draw slave patrols, but yes.

 

[rah]

I agree. And so did the Founding Fathers. That was the main purpose of having the 2nd Amendment. Especially since they were all generally against the idea of raising and maintaining a large standing national military. The overthrowing a corrupt domestic government thing was a distant secondary purpose.

I find this a poor argument to support the continuation of keeping the 2nd since the government went ahead and raised a large standing national military.