Political So now what

[glockman]

See my comment about statistics, but 3.5 per 100k in 2021.



Open carry, or concealed carry?

So 0.000035% Every child killed is tragic. There is no plan that brings that number to zero.
There have been several Open carry and several concealed. The mall shooting I'm referring to was a "Constitutionally carried" concealed weapon.

 

[glockman]

I'll post this over and over. The US ranks 91 out of 190 countries for homicide per 100k people. We have an order of magnitude more guns than the second most armed country. It is impossible to correlate gun ownership to death per 100K people. Culture, economic statis and many other factors are way easier to correlate.

Of the top ten gun owning states, only 3 are in the top 10 for homicide per capita. Globally and nationally it just doesn't correlate.

 

[Herzog]

I'll post this over and over. The US ranks 91 out of 190 countries for homicide per 100k people. We have an order of magnitude more guns than the second most armed country. It is impossible to correlate gun ownership to death per 100K people. Culture, economic statis and many other factors are way easier to correlate.

Of the top ten gun owning states, only 3 are in the top 10 for homicide per capita. Globally and nationally it just doesn't correlate.

It's even easier when you look at even just the States here where gun ownership is high (with many over 50%) with a correlation of extremely low violence rates. Guns are not the problem. Funny though, where MOST of the violent crime happens there tends to be lower gun ownership and also stricter gun laws. Super weird, what could cause this?

Edit - just realized I repeated your last sentence

 

[Cody]

So 0.000035% Every child killed is tragic.

agreed

There is no plan that brings that number to zero.

Absolutes make for bad arguments. Does anyone advocate somewhere that we can get to zero in a population as large as ours? Source?

There have been several Open carry and several concealed. The mall shooting I'm referring to was a "Constitutionally carried" concealed weapon.

so I was right

I don't think we're on totally different sides, but I personally think the solution is a far more complex issue than just guns, but we'll never make progress towards it because nobody really wants to sit down with a willingness to find solutions because it might mean compromise somewhere.

 

[glockman]

agreed

Absolutes make for bad arguments. Does anyone advocate somewhere that we can get to zero in a population as large as ours? Source?

so I was right

I don't think we're on totally different sides, but I personally think the solution is a far more complex issue than just guns, but we'll never make progress towards it because nobody really wants to sit down with a willingness to find solutions because it might mean compromise somewhere.

I think you are a reasonable person Cody and that puts us on the same side😁.
I would argue that every law on the books related to owning firearms is a compromise and they are working extremely well.

As you pointed out, there isn't a plan to get to zero fatalities but that is an argument used one the gun control side. That if it saves one life it's worth it. It's possible to get some reasonably reliable data on self defense and those numbers get massively inflated by gun advocates and massively understated or just out right ignored by the gun control folks.
At it's root, gun control is more harmful than good in almost every measured metric. Total number of gun deaths including suicide are less than the number of self defense uses as reported by the super left leaning and anti gun Harvard school of public health. They used the national crime victim survey to determine there are approx 100k defensive uses per year. There are less than 30k gun deaths. So on the lowest side, 3/1.
Here is the data source.

Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no

Conflicting statistics about guns—such as how many people in the U.S. use guns for self-defense each year, and whether or not the crime rate is tied to how many people own guns—was the subject of a…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

 

[ID Bronco]

Idaho Senate passes bill to create special ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ license plates - East Idaho News

BOISE (Idaho Capital Sun) — Idaho lawmakers are working to get an official state license plate featuring the Gadsden flag, the yellow flag from the Revolutionary War era featuring a coiled rattlesnake and the phrase “Don’t Tread on Me,” serving as a popular symbol of opposition to the violation...

www.eastidahonews.com

I like my trout plate, but this may have to go on the rest of the fleet

 

[Cody]

I think you are a reasonable person Cody and that puts us on the same side😁.
I would argue that every law on the books related to owning firearms is a compromise and they are working extremely well.

I'm reasonable adjacent.

As you pointed out, there isn't a plan to get to zero fatalities but that is an argument used one the gun control side. That if it saves one life it's worth it. It's possible to get some reasonably reliable data on self defense and those numbers get massively inflated by gun advocates and massively understated or just out right ignored by the gun control folks.

Yes, somehow the same stats can be used to paint both sides of an argument. I was a stats tutor in college, and I wish I used more of that stuff in my DTD to have retained more of the useful parts of it.

At it's root, gun control is more harmful than good in almost every measured metric. Total number of gun deaths including suicide are less than the number of self defense uses as reported by the super left leaning and anti gun Harvard school of public health. They used the national crime victim survey to determine there are approx 100k defensive uses per year. There are less than 30k gun deaths. So on the lowest side, 3/1.
Here is the data source.

Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no

Conflicting statistics about guns—such as how many people in the U.S. use guns for self-defense each year, and whether or not the crime rate is tied to how many people own guns—was the subject of a…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

100k defensive uses doesn't mean 100k lives saved. 30k gun deaths....some of those are suicide. Some of those are drug/crime related. Some accidental. No matter what, that death was someone's kid/friend/sibling/spouse at some point and someone is almost certainly grieving. I'm not trying to parse out value of one death vs another, but I think the important deaths to try and cut down on are the innocent deaths. People at the mall, the concert, the parade, the school. If there is any way to do that, I think you have to look at it. My example above about the tax was just pulled out of my ass, but what if levying a 2% tax on ammunition and firearm sales and using that money to create more accessible mental health resources for people ends up cutting the child homicide rate from 3.5 per 100k to 2.5 per 100k. Is that worth paying the 2% tax? 10%? I don't think the solution is nearly that simple, but what if a combination of small concessions like that can all add up to save 1500 innocent lives a year, isn't that worth looking at? How many gun owners would balk at paying $20-50 per year in additional tax if it could be shown to save lives without giving up guns? I'd like to think that there is something like that out there, but I'm not so naive to believe the rest of our government isn't too broken and bloated to effectively create and manage a program like that.

I do get what you're saying though, that everything seems to be a take from gun owners without a give from the other side, and that's obviously not very collaborative. Wouldn't a proactive approach to try to find those alternative solutions be worthwhile in the event that the anti-gun sentiment continues to pick up steam until it reaches a boiling point where there is no longer a discussion, just a reaction from the anti-gun groups? Give up smaller concessions now, to prevent massive ones later? Wishful thinking I'm sure, as any concession probably feels like just a stepping stone to get to their ultimate goal of eliminating guns.

 

[Herzog]

Wouldn't a proactive approach to try to find those alternative solutions be worthwhile in the event that the anti-gun sentiment continues to pick up steam until it reaches a boiling point where there is no longer a discussion, just a reaction from the anti-gun groups? Give up smaller concessions now, to prevent massive ones later? Wishful thinking I'm sure, as any concession probably feels like just a stepping stone to get to their ultimate goal of eliminating guns.

Just like dealing with SUWA? Same people, same process. Give an inch they take a mile.

 

[Cody]

Ya, that did enter my brain. Enough probably isn't enough for many anti gun people

 

[N-Smooth]

That’s the problem. It’s real easy for the folks in the middle to say the “come and take it” crowd are ridiculous but a HUGE portion of the opposition are just as, if not more passionate and unrelenting. The kicker is they know nothing about guns, at all- which we’ve seen in hearings and whatnot.

I consider myself to be pretty open-minded about it but even trying to talk to people about it is painful.

 

[johngottfredson]

Alcohol is FAR worse and deadlier than guns on society. Once people get serious about banning alcohol, I’ll seriously listen to the discussions of curtailing guns.

 

[glockman]

I'm reasonable adjacent.

Yes, somehow the same stats can be used to paint both sides of an argument. I was a stats tutor in college, and I wish I used more of that stuff in my DTD to have retained more of the useful parts of it.

100k defensive uses doesn't mean 100k lives saved. 30k gun deaths....some of those are suicide. Some of those are drug/crime related. Some accidental. No matter what, that death was someone's kid/friend/sibling/spouse at some point and someone is almost certainly grieving. I'm not trying to parse out value of one death vs another, but I think the important deaths to try and cut down on are the innocent deaths. People at the mall, the concert, the parade, the school. If there is any way to do that, I think you have to look at it. My example above about the tax was just pulled out of my ass, but what if levying a 2% tax on ammunition and firearm sales and using that money to create more accessible mental health resources for people ends up cutting the child homicide rate from 3.5 per 100k to 2.5 per 100k. Is that worth paying the 2% tax? 10%? I don't think the solution is nearly that simple, but what if a combination of small concessions like that can all add up to save 1500 innocent lives a year, isn't that worth looking at? How many gun owners would balk at paying $20-50 per year in additional tax if it could be shown to save lives without giving up guns? I'd like to think that there is something like that out there, but I'm not so naive to believe the rest of our government isn't too broken and bloated to effectively create and manage a program like that.

I do get what you're saying though, that everything seems to be a take from gun owners without a give from the other side, and that's obviously not very collaborative. Wouldn't a proactive approach to try to find those alternative solutions be worthwhile in the event that the anti-gun sentiment continues to pick up steam until it reaches a boiling point where there is no longer a discussion, just a reaction from the anti-gun groups? Give up smaller concessions now, to prevent massive ones later? Wishful thinking I'm sure, as any concession probably feels like just a stepping stone to get to their ultimate goal of eliminating guns.

Agreed, every defensive use may not have prevented a death. I look at my 5' daughter and very much would prefer she shoot a would be rapist than deal with being assaulted. She has zero chance against an average sized man. That might not be a life saved but it is a huge improvement to a would be victims life. I also realize that not every person has an avid shooting family that teaches them to use guns proficiently. 3 of my kids have won state championships in shooting sports.
I don't disagree with your tax statement. Just like many here spend time and money to save and protect trails, lots of gun owners spend time and money to educate people and reduce gun violence and accidents. I flinch at an additional tax though. I am looking at a $250 suppressor to make shooting one of my rifles less damaging to my hearing. The tax stamp to apply for said item is $200. If you look at the NFA, that tax was actually designed to prevent normal people from being able to afford a gun. The problem is no gun control advocate is going to be ok with more kids having training on the safe use of guns. They are like the abstinence crowd who don't want education about things they are uncomfortable with.

 

[ID Bronco]

I do get what you're saying though, that everything seems to be a take from gun owners without a give from the other side, and that's obviously not very collaborative. Wouldn't a proactive approach to try to find those alternative solutions be worthwhile in the event that the anti-gun sentiment continues to pick up steam until it reaches a boiling point where there is no longer a discussion, just a reaction from the anti-gun groups? Give up smaller concessions now, to prevent massive ones later? Wishful thinking I'm sure, as any concession probably feels like just a stepping stone to get to their ultimate goal of eliminating guns.

How has that logic worked with motorized recreation? I haven't seen a slowdown in the closures after previous compromises. It's the same mindset/folks here. They don't bend, they just paint the other side as the bad guys. Your last sentence here is spot on.

 

[Unimog]

I agree completely with the idea of discussing ideas: I haven't yet heard a gun control idea that I considered reasonable and that passed the common sense test while allowing the constitutional right to defend against criminals and as a check to the government.

It seems more than a bit unfair to tax guns as a potential source of funding to pay for mental health problems. Did a gun somehow now cause the mental health problem? Are gun owners in some way more responsible for mental health of the general public than other citizens?

 

[RustEoldtrux]

Congress also has a history of grabbing taxes like this for entirely different purposes and probably would use it to promote more gun control. No more taxes is my mantra.

 

[Houndoc]

Bee stings kill more children per year than AR 15's.

I was not able find specific stats on either children killed by AR style rifles (for an honest discussion the entire class of weapons needs to be used not just the specific AR 15) or bee stings (average 72 total deaths per year in the US). Please share what you have.

I'll post this over and over. The US ranks 91 out of 190 countries for homicide per 100k people. We have an order of magnitude more guns than the second most armed country. It is impossible to correlate gun ownership to death per 100K people. Culture, economic statis and many other factors are way easier to correlate.

Of the top ten gun owning states, only 3 are in the top 10 for homicide per capita. Globally and nationally it just doesn't correlate.

It's even easier when you look at even just the States here where gun ownership is high (with many over 50%) with a correlation of extremely low violence rates. Guns are not the problem. Funny though, where MOST of the violent crime happens there tends to be lower gun ownership and also stricter gun laws. Super weird, what could cause this?

Edit - just realized I repeated your last sentence

That said, the states with the highest gun deaths (thus including accidents and suicides) are all high gun ownership "red" states. I wish that realization would drive more of the mental health discussion aspect of the gun debate Cody brought up.

reaches a boiling point where there is no longer a discussion, just a reaction from the anti-gun groups? Give up smaller concessions now, to prevent massive ones later? Wishful thinking I'm sure, as any concession probably feels like just a stepping stone to get to their ultimate goal of eliminating guns.

Unfortunately discussion and compromise has become the ultimate boogey man in politics on most any topic. The main reason so many of the topics discussed in this thread are not being dealt with.

 

[Herzog]

That said, the states with the highest gun deaths (thus including accidents and suicides) are all high gun ownership "red" states. I wish that realization would drive more of the mental health discussion aspect of the gun debate Cody brought up.

I wonder which political policy is responsible for rural blue collar people losing their livelihood and thus resorting to such acts? Removing guns from that demographic doesn't change the outcome.

Edit: Not only that but how many of those are sadly veteran suicides in those red states. That's a whole other cluster****.

 

[glockman]

I was not able find specific stats on either children killed by AR style rifles (for an honest discussion the entire class of weapons needs to be used not just the specific AR 15) or bee stings (average 72 total deaths per year in the US). Please share what you have.

You won't find the stat on children killed by AR15's because no one tracking this stuff breaks it down that far.
For 2023, there were 297 children killed by all firearms. That is from gunviolencearchive.org. If you look at the 6 years leading up to 2020 where civilization had a total meltdown, there were and average of 212 children killed per year by all firearms. So what changed in 2020 that resulted in a 30% increase in children being shot? Was it lax gun laws or a 30% increase in gun ownership?

The FBI tracks homicide by means of death. The latest year is 2019 and it can be found here https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-20.
Here is a table showing homicides by means of death.

You can do the math. 3-4% of deaths were with rifles. In 2019 there were 212 children killed by all firearms. So it would have to be close to 50% of them killed by rifles to outpace bees. In 2023 there were 297 children killed by all firearms and the average rate for rifles is around 3%. That would be way less than 10 children killed by all rifles in 2023.
Or you could look at how many more people knives killed than all rifles, AK's, AR's, Steyr aug's. It's about 5x more people killed with knives. You may ask why Amazon lets you order knives without a background check when they kill 5x more people than AR 15's.

 

[nnnnnate]

This is the kind of thing that pisses me off and that I would think would appeal generally across the board but doesn't seem to. This is also why I generally approve of funding the IRS, so they can take this kind of enforcement.

IRS launches crackdown on 125,000 wealthy 'non-filers'

The IRS plans to go after 125,000 high-income earners who did not file tax returns going back to 2017.

apnews.com

 

[Herzog]

This is the kind of thing that pisses me off and that I would think would appeal generally across the board but doesn't seem to. This is also why I generally approve of funding the IRS, so they can take this kind of enforcement.

IRS launches crackdown on 125,000 wealthy 'non-filers'

The IRS plans to go after 125,000 high-income earners who did not file tax returns going back to 2017.

apnews.com

I disagree. I think we should follow in their footsteps and force the government to stop funding everything outside of our country. I applaud those non-filers.

(This is not financial advice)