Now is not the time to talk about gun control (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
1,456
Location
Madisonville
Offline
There are a number of studies that show the effect of various gun control laws and homicide rates.



https://watermark.silverchair.com/mxv012.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAqIwggKeBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKPMIICiwIBADCCAoQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMfCroWmZHNL-k8x-yAgEQgIICVaei2MHHtDVJAVUTM4uCua67kVvLO3bDeCvM7F8A5OYdg5BmYnPXLzkQy5hKoZCcnegGVy_IpRcoQHCxidL1Y7Pmx_y5PYnfi_45yFz0WbxNibBhQSkO5tEQLZ53fxjdspqP3avGAppZwqLBU4MVbi_9P0MKmYy_cYcC8UKsvqpPln0TQNO3EJMNyewoOzKSSE77mX469JTEOLbhQgT--RuFQ4W5X_I4FRwyTfpbGfFgMQpYuEKODQzEJUtaJq_25UWKYobFnEA0oEkrZaDItjDtPcnCmJ3vlcjuxwRcvitJhlI4DIoxeq9Q5_CG7E3176FzyWZQ6sjbr1ylqg91TIEiVuq1kVWP2bm2DHK6VFL2_Hj95zn6dVi_DHYqZDIWb0Bs8NTcUPlFcNxsoRYYDb1zxm5Ixo-kbwlgX5XMknxMwnEVVXfgrhPZGNHmrfHS7U5THaHBuw35ZCCYG7zw5Qns975tiqaIoT_PTIEty4s8Neou9NBYP9IFQvPTv3SitxBuJYkJTviR_TItDxGzac-TXkYINQLKi1ha6vfIMrik787VL8yZAZ5-Wn-LQ46sRfitby1sEq-R26UPpRsuVsRyoqT_f9Yg6pS_RQHNml-rAYIuwM4NC7IMOGZPm444jzwFSRCF0N-NNeLOL8vp3xLU58rdJbMosPCKzgZRcpjq-_tJLLgoTLo71DBUI1qBPqvUjlxGeuaXYMuLsSSzBTEV93Xr1ZaMATvB0pr3N39c5PLSSFUTVv9w5lDYmCmAbaEggsMAt3KU3HJTH3cTItwfPxKBnA

It's not a clear cut science of course. But basically, when you control who can own a gun, and reduce the number of guns in circulation, homicide rates go down.

It has to pass constitutional muster which I won't claim to be an expert on - we clearly all agree that we can't let any one own any type of weapon, so it's basically a matter of degree.
I was specifically talking about the assault weapons ban that Biden talked about today. From your article:

In that study, which was published March 28, 2019, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, Siegel’s team analyzed 25 years of national data to examine the relationship between 10 different types of state laws and the number of deaths by homicide and suicide in all 50 states. State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates. In contrast, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have access to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity ammunition magazine bans—and “stand your ground” laws have no effect on the rate of firearm-related homicide. None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates.

2 more studies showing the assault weapons ban didn't work:

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
  • M. Gius
  • Published 2014
  • Political Science
  • Applied Economics Letters
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard


Findings: In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed.
 

coldseat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
785
Reaction score
1,391
Age
45
Location
San Antonio
Offline
Considering that mass shootings account for less than 1% of the yearly 16k-20k shootings a year, why would you think reinstating the assault weapons ban would make much of a difference?
The argument for an assault weapons ban isn't purely one of statistics. We all know that mass shooting don't account for a large percentage of the gun deaths in this country, they are a byproduct of a larger issue with the gun culture and gun violence in this country. But they are unique in that, 1.) Through often targeted killings (to a community/race/religion), they are indiscriminate. 2.) A large number of people die. 3.) The randomness and locations of the mass murders (places where we congregate for daily and special occasions) leaves a community feeling vulnerable and fearful.

We need to make these mass murders harder to commit, if only to make some headway in the gun violence in this country. If we can bring things back to normal with this, then we have a chance at addressing the larger issue of gun violence. If we can't even ban assault rifles, the absurdedly effective weapon of choice for these mass murderers, when there is no legitimate use for this weapon other than military use and mass murders, then what hope do we have of doing anything?
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
2,508
Location
Virginia
Offline
I was specifically talking about the assault weapons ban that Biden talked about today. From your article:
Sorry, I lost the thread of the conversation. You're correct that the correlation between assault weapon bans and a reduction in homicides is not strong.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
1,713
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
National Service still sounds like a draft just with mandatory strings attached, “either/or” and if it’s compulsory, some people might resent it because they didn’t voluntarily decide to work in federal agencies or in FEMA or in the Peace Corps and if this service feels forced or pressed upon them, “for the good of your country” it loses its authenticity.

In Cuba, they have similar laws where every adult young male or female is FORCED to do 3 years of work benefitting the state and the UK abolished National Service in the late 50’s because of its class bias where mostly working-class Brits were the ones overwhelmingly chosen to fight in the Korean War and in Kenya, Rhodesia, Nigeria, Malta, or Cyprus against insurgent, independence groups fighting from dying, splintering, post WWII British empire. It doesn’t work in the long haul in most calculations you try to enhance, redefine, or improve it to “make it fairer”.
They have them in South Korea and Israel, and they seem to work fine.

We need a culture change in the US. If we continue to see each other as competitors, it will hasten our decline.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
1,456
Location
Madisonville
Offline
In the wake of the latter shooting, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer promised a vote on “universal background checks” this week, even though the Boulder gunman reportedly purchased his rifle at a store, which would mean he had a clean background check (unless someone there broke existing laws).

...The vast majority of gun homicides and suicides are committed using handguns. Why doesn’t Biden want to ban revolvers? More people are killed by knives than rifles in the United States. More people are killed by fists and kicking than rifles.


Colorado already has the same universal background checks that Schumer was talking about.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
7,135
Location
Midwest
Online
Here is a great thread about the subject. Comes at it from the public health standpoint, which I think is the correct way to address it. It floored me to see that gun violence accounted for more deaths than car crashes in 2015-2016.


 

Saint by the Bay

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
962
Reaction score
3,301
Age
48
Location
Houston, TX
Offline
Banning any type of guns in America will have a negligible effect because there are so many guns already in circulation. It’s really what happened in 94. In the immortal words of Ice Cube, “so what they do go and ban the AK, my shirt wasn’t registered any **** way.” Trying gun confiscation would be a surreal disaster and wouldn’t pass Constitutional muster.

Universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole may help a bit, but not tremendously.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I don’t believe most of the proposals I’ve seen will be more than feel good legislation. Gun violence in America is a problem it will take someone far smarter than me to figure out.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
1,713
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
I was specifically talking about the assault weapons ban that Biden talked about today. From your article:

In that study, which was published March 28, 2019, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, Siegel’s team analyzed 25 years of national data to examine the relationship between 10 different types of state laws and the number of deaths by homicide and suicide in all 50 states. State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates. In contrast, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have access to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity ammunition magazine bans—and “stand your ground” laws have no effect on the rate of firearm-related homicide. None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates.

2 more studies showing the assault weapons ban didn't work:

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
  • M. Gius
  • Published 2014
  • Political Science
  • Applied Economics Letters
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard


Findings: In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed.
It appears that this study analyzed state laws.

I’ll concede that state laws are ineffective at reducing firearm related crime.

Maybe I missed it, but the study you cited here does not evaluate the 1994 assault weapons ban specifically.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
2,508
Location
Virginia
Offline
It appears that this study analyzed state laws.

I’ll concede that state laws are ineffective at reducing firearm related crime.

Maybe I missed it, but the study you cited here does not evaluate the 1994 assault weapons ban specifically.
This was from a study I posted earlier. There's not a strong correlation between banning certain types of guns and overall homicide rates. However, there is a strong correlation in laws that restricts who can purchase guns and a drop in homicide.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
2,508
Location
Virginia
Offline
Banning any type of guns in America will have a negligible effect because there are so many guns already in circulation. It’s really what happened in 94. In the immortal words of Ice Cube, “so what they do go and ban the AK, my shirt wasn’t registered any **** way.” Trying gun confiscation would be a surreal disaster and wouldn’t pass Constitutional muster.

Universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole may help a bit, but not tremendously.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I don’t believe most of the proposals I’ve seen will be more than feel good legislation. Gun violence in America is a problem it will take someone far smarter than me to figure out.
There's not an easy answer, but you have to play the long game. There's a strong correlation between the number of firearms in circulation and the number of homicides and suicides. So, you enact laws and policies that slowly drive down the number of guns in circulation. It's a 10-20 year play.

Also, a lot of problems are driven by poverty. Policies to reduce poverty and build up local institutions and communities have a huge effect on reducing crime, particularly violent crime.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
1,713
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
This was from a study I posted earlier. There's not a strong correlation between banning certain types of guns and overall homicide rates. However, there is a strong correlation in laws that restricts who can purchase guns and a drop in homicide.
Oh I get that.

I do think that the type of mass shooting that has become more common in the past 20 years like Newtown, Parkland, or Las Vegas would be impacted by banning assault weapons. Those may only be a two or three a year, but reducing the impact of those even a little bit far outweighs any benefit we might get from having those type of weapons available to the general public, which IMO is 0.
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
71
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
They have them in South Korea and Israel, and they seem to work fine.

We need a culture change in the US. If we continue to see each other as competitors, it will hasten our decline.
Well, thats the thing, its about the messaging and how it comes across as being mandatory, the state, or in our case, the federal government, is sort of politicizing what should-be an idealistic, altruistic choice to do volunteer work at the Red Cross, FEMA, ACOE, summer volunteer working for charities, imminuzation, treating disadvantaged, poor and needy kids in Latin America or sub-Saharan countries. College students doing this sort of aid relief via missionaries, non-profit NCO's, or taking a year off to teach English-language classes in South Korea, Japan or China because they enthusiastically CHOSE to do it, not have the federal government lay out a list of options, and say, "Choose One, but if one of their options isn't included or being offered, fork them and their choices, their going to damn well do whatever relief work or living wage state agency job their unfamiliar with and only half-heartedly believe in and maybe they grow into it and began to appreciate it, but others just see it as a limited, state-enforced and regulated maybe decently paid " job" they didnt ask and wish for and it becomes a burden they can't wait until its over and go back to living their previous lives.

In Israel and South Korea, those are nations which have very severe, existent national security threats, both external and internal, from hostile neighboring Arab countries who've never fully accepted their existence, to Islamic extremist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who use anti-Semitic slogans, rhetoric, and employ violence, mass murder in places like Lebanon to such an extent that some foreign policy analysts label Lebanon, "a failed state". South Korea has an one-party Stalinist, brutal totalitarian regime that has one of the world's largest armies, a nuclear arsenal, and a whole, advanced cadre of newest, deadliest ICBM's, SAM's, cruise missiles and an army leadership that has shown signs of wanting to solve the current Korean division by invasion and threatening to use nukes and cruise missiles to kill millions of South Korean civilians, soldiers, US troops stationed there, and to turn Seoul, and probably also Tokyo, Kobe, Kyoto, and other major Japanese cities into nuclear wastelands. If a second Korean conflict ever broke out, it wouldn't be contained to just the Korean Peninsula, North Korea likely uses nuclear, biological weapons on Japanese cities too. US, South Korean, and Japanese war game planners have designed multiple scenarios where these situations would occur.

Israel and South Korea are in very precarious, dangerous geopolitical positions so a National Service policy would make a lot more practical sense due to their very existence being always put in a place where it becomes threatened. Canada doesn't have a vast arsenal of nukes stationed all over in remote, missile silos, depots and bases and Justin Trudeau isn't exactly our mortal enemy either, even though he depised Trump.
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
71
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
Asked and answered.

Nowhere in the constitution are you granted the right to a handgun.
The Second Amendment, via the Heller SCOTUS case, doesn't mean what many left-leaning Democrats would prefer or like to see, either. The government doesn't have the right to tell you either you can't legally purchase a firearm, rifle, go through expanded universal background checks, pass them and then be demonized or whispered by family, friends, co-workers, or colleagues who might disagree with you politically that you're some kind of dangerous, potential wannabe vigilante who should be watched, be wary of and stay away from.

You know, like character assassination on a ordinary everyday small-town American scenario that goes on irregardless for a whole multitude of different reasons then just who own guns or how many their are. Maybe you and I have known a few butt crevasses in our own respective lives in our streets we lived on, people we worked with, some family members or friends we fall out with for political or ideological reasons or maybe its just some of them being antisocial and like to being overtly/covertly confrontational like talking shirt, or lies behind your back.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #71
OP
brandon

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
2,091
Offline
The Second Amendment, via the Heller SCOTUS case, doesn't mean what many left-leaning Democrats would prefer or like to see, either. The government doesn't have the right to tell you either you can't legally purchase a firearm, rifle, go through expanded universal background checks, pass them and then be demonized or whispered by family, friends, co-workers, or colleagues who might disagree with you politically that you're some kind of dangerous, potential wannabe vigilante who should be watched, be wary of and stay away from.

You know, like character assassination on a ordinary everyday small-town American scenario that goes on irregardless for a whole multitude of different reasons then just who own guns or how many their are. Maybe you and I have known a few butt crevasses in our own respective lives in our streets we lived on, people we worked with, some family members or friends we fall out with for political or ideological reasons or maybe its just some of them being antisocial and like to being overtly/covertly confrontational like talking shirt, or lies behind your back.
You’re not the victim here. The victims are the victims.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
1,713
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
Well, thats the thing, its about the messaging and how it comes across as being mandatory, the state, or in our case, the federal government, is sort of politicizing what should-be an idealistic, altruistic choice to do volunteer work at the Red Cross, FEMA, ACOE, summer volunteer working for charities, imminuzation, treating disadvantaged, poor and needy kids in Latin America or sub-Saharan countries. College students doing this sort of aid relief via missionaries, non-profit NCO's, or taking a year off to teach English-language classes in South Korea, Japan or China because they enthusiastically CHOSE to do it, not have the federal government lay out a list of options, and say, "Choose One, but if one of their options isn't included or being offered, fork them and their choices, their going to damn well do whatever relief work or living wage state agency job their unfamiliar with and only half-heartedly believe in and maybe they grow into it and began to appreciate it, but others just see it as a limited, state-enforced and regulated maybe decently paid " job" they didnt ask and wish for and it becomes a burden they can't wait until its over and go back to living their previous lives.

In Israel and South Korea, those are nations which have very severe, existent national security threats, both external and internal, from hostile neighboring Arab countries who've never fully accepted their existence, to Islamic extremist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who use anti-Semitic slogans, rhetoric, and employ violence, mass murder in places like Lebanon to such an extent that some foreign policy analysts label Lebanon, "a failed state". South Korea has an one-party Stalinist, brutal totalitarian regime that has one of the world's largest armies, a nuclear arsenal, and a whole, advanced cadre of newest, deadliest ICBM's, SAM's, cruise missiles and an army leadership that has shown signs of wanting to solve the current Korean division by invasion and threatening to use nukes and cruise missiles to kill millions of South Korean civilians, soldiers, US troops stationed there, and to turn Seoul, and probably also Tokyo, Kobe, Kyoto, and other major Japanese cities into nuclear wastelands. If a second Korean conflict ever broke out, it wouldn't be contained to just the Korean Peninsula, North Korea likely uses nuclear, biological weapons on Japanese cities too. US, South Korean, and Japanese war game planners have designed multiple scenarios where these situations would occur.

Israel and South Korea are in very precarious, dangerous geopolitical positions so a National Service policy would make a lot more practical sense due to their very existence being always put in a place where it becomes threatened. Canada doesn't have a vast arsenal of nukes stationed all over in remote, missile silos, depots and bases and Justin Trudeau isn't exactly our mortal enemy either, even though he depised Trump.
I agree with pretty much all of this.

I will add that our geopolitical situation is more precarious than most people accept. Adaptation would be a better route than resistance, but I fear we have one more generation of resistance before we accept it.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom