Lots of shootings...

[tedtan]

I've sure seen a lot of videos that prove there's way more people who aren't like that with guns than those that are.

While I don’t doubt you, I suspect that the videos you’ve seen are a bit skewed, as a video of someone with a concealed handgun leaving that gun concealed and walking away from the situation rather than engaging doesn’t exactly make for an exciting video.

If so, then why did the Highland Park shooter have two priors, one which involved threatening someone, yet he was still able to purchase and continue to possess 4 firearms?

Poorly worded and incomplete laws not being applied and enforced properly. This is one reason these laws need to be national rather than state or local. They won’t be perfect, but a consistent law applied universally will leave far fewer loopholes.

You're suggesting our lives should depend not on preventing sociopaths from getting guns in the first place but on a system of teenagers reporting what they see on social media? Remember they're too busy collecting bounties on those suffering a miscarriage

The two are not mutually exclusive, though.

Are you arguing that people who legally carry never use their weapon to commit crime?

I’m sure there are plenty of crimes committed by those legally carrying.

For example, in Texas, we have a “permitless carry” law that went into effect last September that says that anyone who is legally allowed to own a firearm can carry one in public. It is not quite a “constitutional carry” law, but very similar.

There is also a federal law that says that it is illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of an elementary, middle, or high school. There is an exception to this law for those who hold a license to carry a firearm issued by the state in which the school exists, so a person who is in law enforcement or a holds a license to carry is not violating this 1,000 foot law. However, I’m sure that plenty of people who carry under the “permitless carry” law drop their children off at school in the morning and pick them up in the evening while carrying. The “permitless carry” law does not supersede the federal 1,000 for law, so this is a case of a person legally carrying a gun (while not within 1,000 feet of the school property) committing a crime while on, and within 1,000 feet of, school property.

Is that the kind of crime you’re talking about, or are you meaning more along the lines of a person carrying legally shooting people illegally? I’m sure the latter occurs, too, but its more a case of “constitutional carry” or “permitless carry” laws allowing almost anyone to carry rather than legally carrying with a license/permit.

 

[Mike_R]

Let's put some less vague numbers with that statement - https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

...so 63% of guns used to commit "crime" (not sure exactly how that's defined, though") were purchased through legal means.

Out of 131 M gun owners in the USA, 52 k commit gun-related crimes (again, I'm not 100% clear on that definition) every year. That's only about 0.04% per year. But over an adult's life span that's a total of about 2% all-time projected.

While that's not a large percentage, I don't know if it's at all fair to classify as "miniscule" either. Would you settle for just saying that it is a percentage?

That is not how statistics work. Even if it were, a single year from nearly 30 years ago when there was far more crime and far less guns can't reasonably be extrapolated into a "all-time projected" figure.

There are multiple flaws in the math you present, but a huge one is "recidivism". Considering that, do you still think 2 percent of gun owners will commit a crime with a gun?

 

[Randy]

Btw that post wasn't to chastise @NoodleFace I really meant that.

Myself as a person, I'm risk adverse. That doesn't mean I don't do things that take risk, it means I weigh the risks and benefits, then choose the one that sounds less risky as long as it still accomplishes the goal. Carrying a gun with me everywhere doesn't feel like the solution with the least problems to go with it. But I guess that's different for different people idk.

 

[Randy]

Considering that, do you still think 2 percent of gun owners will commit a crime with a gun?

Sounds like a wild number but if you expanded that to say "commit a violent crime", no, 1 in 50 people over the course of a lifetime doesn't sound like all that many no. And if people are willing or irrational enough to commit violent crime, I don't think it's a stretch to say they'd be willing to commit that crime using their gun if it's available to them at the time they commit it.

 

[bostjan]

That is not how statistics work. Even if it were, a single year from nearly 30 years ago when there was far more crime and far less guns can't reasonably be extrapolated into a "all-time projected" figure.

There are multiple flaws in the math you present, but a huge one is "recidivism". Considering that, do you still think 2 percent of gun owners will commit a crime with a gun?

It's fair to say that there are flaws in what I presented. But I think that the best estimate is not horribly far off from that. If you have a better estimate, let's hear it. Otherwise, take the flaws at face value and assign some uncertainty to them - if the flaws are large enough to justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so be it, but I don't think they are. Certainly that's at least somewhat subjective, but in lieu of perfect data, imperfect data will have

The stated non-statistic that way more crimes are committed with stolen or smuggled guns than with legally purchased guns - is false.

It absolutely blows my mind that educated people who know that:

1) Prohibition was a failure in the US
2) The War on Drugs is a failure in the US

will sometimes think that the War on Guns in the US would somehow work.

Who is suggesting a war on guns, though? I feel like most people here are requesting more effective gun control laws that apply better common sense.

The US has a gun violence problem. Some people think the guns are the problem, some people think the violence is the problem.

Why would we not use the starting guess that both guns and violence are related to gun violence? Seems like a rational default position to take. Take it one step further: Is there evidence that more guns lead to more gun violence? Yes. Is there evidence that more violence leads to more gun violence? Yes.

So... I guess what's your point? Seems to be that you are implying that fewer guns won't mean less gun violence. If both common sense and data suggest that cultures with more guns deal with larger amounts of gun violence than cultures with fewer guns, I think that point needs better support.

Stats

I guess I don't understand the conclusion you are making from all of this. Is it that you are saying that the current system in place to control gun violence is doing its job?

SSO, would you put down your drinks and embrace Prohibition because drunk driving kills people? If not, why?

Because drunk driving = drinking + driving. No one is condoning drinking and driving. To equate gun control with drinking in this analogy just seems strange.

If we are talking about the more recent part of the discussion that everyone carrying a firearm with them would prevent mass shootings, then maybe we could make the analogy of "well then don't drive yourself to a bar without a DD." Which, yeah, okay, don't do that.

The right to self defense, I believe, is a basic human right.

But let's take just a moment to acknowledge right here that, as US citizens, we do not get a universal right to self-defense, because we don't. Some places don't let you own body armor, which is purely self-defense and cannot hurt anyone. If you are deemed mentally deficient or criminal or a minor or whatever, you do not get the same rights for self-defense as otherwise.

Even if you prefer to outsource your protection, it is unconscionable to use government (i.e. send people with guns) to enforce your preference on others. Some people abuse firearms, just as some people abuse alcohol.

Not sure where this analogy is going... When was the last time alcohol abuse led to a mass murder at a parade or in a mall or whatever?

Or perhaps you are more targeted in your disarmament goals - just calling for "assault weapons" to be banned. So maybe we start with banning hard liquor, and place purchase limits and background checks on beer and wine.

False equivalency.

Or perhaps as Rep. Don Beyer suggests, a 1,000 percent tax on the naughty items to leverage taxation instead of an outright ban due to lack of support (knowing full well that a war was fought in the US over the taxation of alcohol)?

What, the Whiskey Rebellion? What do you mean?

I'm not going to pretend that it's my place to get in between another adult and their adult beverages. I believe in personal liberty and accountability. If you really want to save lives of people and especially kids at the cost of a little liberty, though, alcohol statistically harms far more children than mass shootings do. We should start with the policies that save the most innocent people, right? Or is evidence based policy only important if it supports your personal biases? Why is it that we as a society accept something unnecessary that kills more children than mass shootings - more people than mass shootings? I am not advocating for a repeat of the disaster of Prohibition, or saying nothing should be done about violence in the US. I am honestly curious as to why we as a society accept the damage from alcohol but claim "not one more" and say 100m+ people should be stripped of their rights about something statistically far less likely.

The solution being called for I think is not viable. Prohibition doesn't work, and there is no 650k gun Aussie style buyback that will disarm the country that holds nearly half of the world's privately owned guns (besides the fact that you can't buy back something you never owned - buy back in this sense is a euphemism for taken involuntarily under duress). Civilian disarmament in the US would have to occur by threat of impoverishment or imprisonment enforced by people armed with guns, and that has a societal cost too. I have some ideas on how as a society we could work towards reducing violence. I do know that whatever David Hogg or Ted Cruz's miracle solutions are- that probably isn't it. There are social and economic factors that drive the violence and those factors need to be addressed. They are much harder to address than talking about reviving a failed bill that didn't stop violence or door control or video games.

You make some good points and some not-so-good points, but overall, I don't get your main idea. What proposed idea are you arguing against?

 

[profwoot]

Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility, and only those that carry one know how much of a good boy you have to be. Any Police Chief at any time will revoke your right to carry if you slip up just a little. I've been carrying one for 35 years and have never had a mishap, or accident, or have even felt the need to use one even though I've worked in some very sketchy areas. I know my own self and if my anger ever got to the point where I thought I might use one (out of anger) I would call the police and tell them to come get them. People that have never carried can only make assumptions.

It doesn't make you feel at all silly to have been carrying a gun around for 35 years without it ever once being useful? I don't even like it when I occasionally have to carry around the slightly larger key to my wife's car.

 

[Randy]

It doesn't make you feel at all silly to have been carrying a gun around for 35 years without it ever once being useful? I don't even like it when I occasionally have to carry around the slightly larger key to my wife's car.

I wonder how often he carries an umbrella.

 

[StevenC]

Just a thought. What's up with this generation?

The alt-right pipeline targeting them.

 

[bostjan]

It doesn't make you feel at all silly to have been carrying a gun around for 35 years without it ever once being useful? I don't even like it when I occasionally have to carry around the slightly larger key to my wife's car.

Hey, how many guys carry around condoms and only have a slim chance of using them?

 

[Randy]

Hey, how many guys carry around condoms and only have a slim chance of using them?

Based on what those guys say when the lights go off, most women would say none.

 

[StevenC]

There's nothing silly about protecting yourself or your home, it's something you hope never happens. But in reality there are two outcomes if it does happen, being carried by 6 or being judged by 12. Take your pick.

"Edge" of insanity?

 

[jaxadam]

 

[profwoot]

There's nothing silly about protecting yourself or your home, it's something you hope never happens. But in reality there are two outcomes if it does happen, being carried by 6 or being judged by 12. Take your pick.

You got a bit poetical toward the end but I think you're saying that you either kill or be killed? In your imagined kill-or-be-killed situation this would seem tautological, no? Obviously those aren't always the only two options. Look, It's not hard to imagine a situation and then work to protect yourself against it. For me, at least, the more relevant factor is whether the added risk to oneself and one's family plus the daily personal effort/inconvenience/weirdness of always having a gun on you is outweighed by the chance you'll someday be confronted with a situation in which it can be used in a net-positive way.

I do stipulate that the calculus would change if guns also offer you some measure of fun/pride/confidence/comfort, you live in an especially dangerous area, you've recently testified against a mobster, etc.

 

[narad]

You got a bit poetical toward the end but I think you're saying that you either kill or be killed? In your imagined kill-or-be-killed situation this would seem tautological, no? It's not hard to imagine a situation and then work to protect yourself against it. For me, at least, it's a matter of whether the risk to oneself and one's family plus the daily personal effort/inconvenience/weirdness is outweighed by the chance you'll someday be confronted with a situation in which lives can be saved with bullets.

I do stipulate that the calculus would change if guns also offer you some measure of fun/pride/confidence/comfort, you live in an especially dangerous area, you've recently testified against a mobster, etc.

Of course all but the staunchest of gun control people would still want the gun if it's a kill-or-be-killed situation where a gun is statistically likely to help. Like in a duel. But if we flip it around and say "there's a chance that you will have to walk through one of these doors, the door on the left has a 0.7 chance of survival, the door on the right a 0.4, which do you choose?"*, gun advocates are basically walking through that second door and saying, (again in a graveling Clint Eastwood voice), "I like those odds".

* These are not the actual stats and IIRC they're not so drastic, but in aggregate it's clear that by bringing the gun into the situation you are only making the situation statistically worse for yourself. Basically the gun owner is confidently proclaiming, "I'm not a statistic", or is too proud to hide in a closet or whatever out of pride than to do the smarter thing.

 

[Dumple Stilzkin]

As a preface: I haven't ever posted in the politics subforum here. I mostly plays 6 strings, so maybe I don't belong here, but in good faith I am posting a dissenting opinion from what seems to be the popular one on this forum. I have lurked quite a bit because I am curious to learn what other people think as a way of trying to understand people, grow, and evaluate my own biases. I am of the opinion that we need to build bridges with people that don't see the world the same way we do, and I work very hard to understand other people's positions. This is intended to respond to OP's question and will include some calculations related to violence which is intended to compare the magnitude of certain issues but not to diminish the fact that every loss of life is tragic.

It absolutely blows my mind that educated people who know that:

1) Prohibition was a failure in the US
2) The War on Drugs is a failure in the US

will sometimes think that the War on Guns in the US would somehow work. Even if you were willing to go full Swalwell and threaten your fellow citizens with nuclear weapons to achieve your political goals there are likely close to 400 million guns in the US and more being 3d printed at home every day - rounding them up would be a task that would make Sisyphus blush. Besides, the very people promising to solve the Schrodinger's AR 15 paradox (where a semi-automatic rifle is simultaneously a "weapon of war" that needs to be off our streets and a completely useless implement in resisting a government with nukes) are the same people literally deploying MRAPs and grenade launchers to American streets.

The US has a gun violence problem. Some people think the guns are the problem, some people think the violence is the problem.



https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/

https://www.responsibility.org/wp-c...Driving-Fatalities_Shareable_JPGS-V2-Pg03.jpg

I don't worry about getting shot at the grocery store. While there has been an increase in mass shootings, I am aware that the probability of being killed in one is pretty close to zero, so I mitigate my risk as best as I can and move on with life. There are other things that are far more likely to befall me that I do adjust my behaviors for - like limiting driving around the holidays and at night to the extent that I can while still living my life.

You are roughly 88x more likely to be killed in a DUI related fatality than in a mass shooting (check my math, but I came up with appx. 10,000 DUI deaths per year in the same timeframe as Everytown's study, higher lately though- divided by 114 (which is itself 1,363 mass shooting deaths in 12 years per Everytown, a gun control advocacy group tracking mass shootings). Maybe somebody cares enough to pull the detailed alcohol related traffic death stats to refine my calculation, but it is going to fall between probably between 75x to 100x - the point stands, the ratio is colossal. Of those "mass shootings", 61% were entirely in private homes- not in public at all, so you can determine whether or not fit the type of mass shootings you are discussing (grocery stores, schools, etc). When they say mass shooting you think grocery store because it has happened a few times and politicians/the media will tell you it's one of the top problems facing our country today. I'll let you come up with your own reason why they do this. Also, governments are actually working to ban purchases of life saving body armor that might shield you from gun violence. New York passed their bill already. You can come to your own conclusion about why that might be too.

If one were being more discerning than the problematic media definition (essentially being intellectually honest) and talking about mass shootings (where the public is targeted) by the FBI definition of an active shooter incident, with an "active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area" the risk goes down even more significantly. The FBI said 38 victims were killed in active shooter incident in 2020, compared to a population in 2020 of 329.5 million, so you would be looking at about a 1 in 8.7 million chance of being killed in an active shooter incident in the US in 2020. For @StevenC in Ireland, population 5m - that probability would mean likely zero to 1 people killed in mass shootings adjusted per capita. Someone in the US would be about 307 times more likely to be killed in an alcohol involved traffic fatality than an active shooter incident in 2020.

2021 saw a huge uptick (in percentage terms) compared to 2020 with 103 victims killed in active shooter incidents - out of 332.9m, that would put your odds of being killed in an active shooter incident at 1 in 3.2 million. This still means that the death toll from active shooters in the US in a year is eclipsed by DUI fatalities in the US in just over 3 days.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2020-070121.pdf/view

The vast majority of "gun violence" in the US is firearm suicide, which absolutely sucks but happens by other methods and in other countries too. The confiscatory types love that it pads the numbers, which is sick and sad. There are other disarmed, first world countries with similar or higher suicide rates and lack of access to firearms doesn't end suicide. Gang violence accounts for a significant amount of firearms homicide. Non-gang related mass shootings are actually an extremely rare cause of death, but they seem to be extra painful because they kill the innocent without much warning. Which, you know, DUIs often do too, and DUIs kill far more people - without getting into any other alcohol related morbidity or mortality.

SSO, would you put down your drinks and embrace Prohibition because drunk driving kills people? If not, why? Is it because you are more responsible than others, or you don't drive drunk, or you have a right to drink that overrides other people's safety? Or is it because guns are "designed only for killing human beings", unlike literal poison intentionally brewed and ingested that impairs judgement, causes preventable disease, and fuels domestic violence and automobile fatalities? It's for the children. No good person needs to own, purchase, manufacture, or consume high capacity assault poison juice. I don't drink, so I think society could be a lot safer if nobody did... do you see where this is going?

The right to self defense, I believe, is a basic human right. You might fully believe that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in the 2A doesn't mean the right of the people (and the militia means the National Guard, or whatever), but the right to defend yourself and your family is a natural right. Even if you prefer to outsource your protection, it is unconscionable to use government (i.e. send people with guns) to enforce your preference on others. Some people abuse firearms, just as some people abuse alcohol. Or perhaps you are more targeted in your disarmament goals - just calling for "assault weapons" to be banned. So maybe we start with banning hard liquor, and place purchase limits and background checks on beer and wine. Or perhaps as Rep. Don Beyer suggests, a 1,000 percent tax on the naughty items to leverage taxation instead of an outright ban due to lack of support (knowing full well that a war was fought in the US over the taxation of alcohol)?

I'm not going to pretend that it's my place to get in between another adult and their adult beverages. I believe in personal liberty and accountability. If you really want to save lives of people and especially kids at the cost of a little liberty, though, alcohol statistically harms far more children than mass shootings do. We should start with the policies that save the most innocent people, right? Or is evidence based policy only important if it supports your personal biases? Why is it that we as a society accept something unnecessary that kills more children than mass shootings - more people than mass shootings? I am not advocating for a repeat of the disaster of Prohibition, or saying nothing should be done about violence in the US. I am honestly curious as to why we as a society accept the damage from alcohol but claim "not one more" and say 100m+ people should be stripped of their rights about something statistically far less likely.

The solution being called for I think is not viable. Prohibition doesn't work, and there is no 650k gun Aussie style buyback that will disarm the country that holds nearly half of the world's privately owned guns (besides the fact that you can't buy back something you never owned - buy back in this sense is a euphemism for taken involuntarily under duress). Civilian disarmament in the US would have to occur by threat of impoverishment or imprisonment enforced by people armed with guns, and that has a societal cost too. I have some ideas on how as a society we could work towards reducing violence. I do know that whatever David Hogg or Ted Cruz's miracle solutions are- that probably isn't it. There are social and economic factors that drive the violence and those factors need to be addressed. They are much harder to address than talking about reviving a failed bill that didn't stop violence or door control or video games.

TLDR.

 

[Dumple Stilzkin]

That was pretty good. I need to listen to more TMac.

 

[Mike_R]

Otherwise, take the flaws at face value and assign some uncertainty to them - if the flaws are large enough to justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so be it, but I don't think they are.

The stated non-statistic that way more crimes are committed with stolen or smuggled guns than with legally purchased guns - is false.

Let me preface this by saying this is not a criticism of you personally, but rather of the calculation presented here. I think you are one of the most reasonable posters in this thread (from my viewpoint), and appreciate your dialogue over the course of this thread. I think in seeking truth and challenging each others ideas we can all get closer to truth. That said, the calculation presented here cannot be close to correct.

I think the best estimate is far less than the 2% you estimate- in other words, miniscule.

Where did I state anything about stolen or smuggled guns? I didn't, so I am not sure what you are saying is false about what I said. I said that recidivism was a flaw in the calculation.

Your calculation assumes that a given gun owner has a 0.04% probability of committing a crime with a gun in a year, and then you multiply that by 50 years - right? I am guessing at how you got your 2% (your post says 52k, the study says 582k, but your calc seems to use 582k) .

First - you assume that in a year, each of the 582k violent crimes involving a gun are committed by unique individuals, which isn't true. Within a given year it is not uncommon (perhaps it is most common?) for a single criminal to commit multiple crimes. The number of crimes committed does not equal the number of criminals.

When you then try to extend that over time it gets even further from the truth, because a majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. A study in Sweden found that 1% of the population there was responsible for 63% of violent crime. The numbers for the US bounce around, but most of them for recidivism seem to hover at or above the 50% mark.

This is especially true with firearms. 69% of firearms offenders released from prison are re-arrested within 8 years, and of those re-arrested the mean time to re-arrest was less than 2 years. See: https://www.ussc.gov/research/resea... recidivated at a,all other offenders (45.1%)

Then - committing crime isn't a dice roll. It isn't like if everyone just lived long enough they would end up committing violent crimes with a gun. That isn't how probabilities work. If you roll a dice 6 times you aren't guaranteed to see each number once, either.

Finally, 1993 was one of the worst years in history for violent crime. Violent crime today is almost 50% less prevalent, so taking an extreme high year from 30 years ago (the likes of which haven't been seen since) and multiplying it by 50 is not a reasonable forecast.

For these reasons I believe it can't possibly be close to 2%. I think it is far less than that.

 

[Mike_R]

Who is suggesting a war on guns, though? I feel like most people here are requesting more effective gun control laws that apply better common sense.

Biden, Pelosi, various posters on this thread (ranging from limiting advertising to banning certain guns to "round them up and melt them all down"). What is a prohibition? There are certainly people arguing for prohibition of private gun ownership (or at least certain guns) in office, on TV daily, and in this very thread.

Why would we not use the starting guess that both guns and violence are related to gun violence? Seems like a rational default position to take. Take it one step further: Is there evidence that more guns lead to more gun violence? Yes. Is there evidence that more violence leads to more gun violence? Yes.

So... I guess what's your point? Seems to be that you are implying that fewer guns won't mean less gun violence. If both common sense and data suggest that cultures with more guns deal with larger amounts of gun violence than cultures with fewer guns, I think that point needs better support.

Both correlated (by necessity, guns and violence are the two words that make up gun violence) but I don't agree that more guns = more violence. Look at the violent crime FBI data, and then the fact that there are more guns than ever in the US. I know there are mental gymnastics that people do to justify why that "common sense" doesn't make sense, but at least at face value there are more guns in circulation than 30 years ago and far lower rates of violent crime.

But the US is the only developed country with mass shootings, right? Not really. The most? Sure, it is also one of the most populous countries on the planet. But there are other differences between the US and Europe or Japan besides the number of guns owned, too.

Finland has more than double the guns per capita than Honduras (actually more than most of the world, although US ownership is far and away higher)... and far less violent crime. Someone was berated for having the audacity of pointing something similar out on this forum recently without considering differences in economic development, but that is an important point. The US has a high average income, but also some of the most extreme income inequality among developed nations. There are swaths of people that are getting left behind. There are high schools in this country where more than 3 out of 4 of students are reading at an elementary school level. Do you care to venture a guess as to whether those places have a lot of violent crime?

Gun violence is highly concentrated among the economically disadvantaged. An individual's education, income, family, career, friend network and neighborhood aren't really able to be legislated, which is why politicians focus on objects (like "assault weapons" or door locks). But they are incredibly significant in affecting how likely someone is to engage in gun violence. It is relatively rare (but still a non-zero number) for someone for whom life is working out to engage in gun violence. One way of reducing violence could be advocating for policies that provide dignity and economic opportunity to all, but that actually isn't a very popular opinion these days.

Most people are surprisingly ok with that form of gun violence, because if you aren't poor, living in the wrong neighborhood or engaging in other crimes you aren't likely to be a victim. Mass shootings seem to be so sensational because they affect poor and rich, young and old - even though in real terms your risk of dying in a mass shooting are very, very low- and far lower than other preventable causes of death that society deems acceptable.

People are using the idea that if there were zero guns, there would be zero gun violence. That might be technically true, but zero guns in a country that already has more guns than people will never happen. And even places with near zero gun ownership rates do not have zero gun violence.

I guess I don't understand the conclusion you are making from all of this. Is it that you are saying that the current system in place to control gun violence is doing its job?

Where did I say anything like that? I think that there is a lot that can be done to prevent violence, but I don't agree that disarming peaceful people is the way to do that - and that is what several major proposals (including a currrent bill in the House) are calling for.

Because drunk driving = drinking + driving. No one is condoning drinking and driving. To equate gun control with drinking in this analogy just seems strange.

And gun violence = guns + violence. No one is condoning mass shootings. Owning a gun isn't violent crime, just like drinking isn't drunk driving. The majority of gun owners never commit a crime with a gun (you say 98%, I think it is closer to 99.9+%- either way it is a clear majority). I am not equating gun control with drinking. I am equating gun control with Prohibition, where a law is implemented that will infringe on the rights of responsible people that will not stop irresponsible people from doing irresponsible things. If history has been any indicator before, attempts to change human behavior by banning inanimate objects doesn't have a great track record (see Prohibition, War on Drugs).

Not sure where this analogy is going... When was the last time alcohol abuse led to a mass murder at a parade or in a mall or whatever?

Why is it that only parade or mall shootings are important to discuss? If we could eliminate booze we would eliminate drinking and driving which would be a 88x to 300x greater reduction in deaths than eliminating mass shootings targeting the public. If your response to that is that we couldn't eliminate booze then you would understand that you couldn't eliminate guns either. If your response wasn't that - is there something about being murdered with a gun at a parade that makes it 100x worse for society than being killed by a drunk driver? We recently had a mass murder at a parade that killed almost as many people and wounded far more than the Highland shooting committed by someone driving a Ford Escape (who had already been arrested for running someone over).

But let's take just a moment to acknowledge right here that, as US citizens, we do not get a universal right to self-defense, because we don't. Some places don't let you own body armor, which is purely self-defense and cannot hurt anyone. If you are deemed mentally deficient or criminal or a minor or whatever, you do not get the same rights for self-defense as otherwise.

It is true that there are some tyrannical jurisdictions that limit ownership of body armor. I'll let you come up with your own reason as to why the government would do that. That isn't a legitimate reason to disarm peaceful people.

The right to self defense is a natural right. I do not believe that society has a right to prevent peaceful people from exercising the right to defend themselves with modern firearms if they so choose. Are violent criminals peaceful people? No.

You make some good points and some not-so-good points, but overall, I don't get your main idea. What proposed idea are you arguing against?

Disarming peaceful people is both immoral and ineffective. If people have a right to infringe on other peoples natural rights (which I don't believe that they do) then common sense would dictate starting with the factors responsible for the most harm, not just the most sensational. Focusing on addressing the causes of violence rather than the accessories used is likely to have a more positive effect on reducing gun violence than infringing on people's right to self defense.

I am also curious as to why politicians/media/this guitar forum care so much more about highly improbable senseless killings than far more probable (but less sensational) senseless killings. I didn't see a 30 page thread condemning or talking about restricting alcohol purchases due to DUI fatalities, however, there is a thread of people's experiences driving drunk.

 

[narad]

Finland has more than double the guns per capita than Honduras (actually more than most of the world, although US ownership is far and away higher)... and far less violent crime. Someone was berated for having the audacity of pointing something similar out on this forum recently without considering differences in economic development, but that is an important point. The US has a high average income, but also some of the most extreme income inequality among developed nations. There are swaths of people that are getting left behind. There are high schools in this country where more than 3 out of 4 of students are reading at an elementary school level. Do you care to venture a guess as to whether those places have a lot of violent crime?

Finland is kind of the case for like, "This is why we can't have nice things." There's nothing inherently wrong with guns, it's just guns and idiots who grew up watching too many action movies that leads to issues. It's guns and kids who grow up in a society where shooting people is just a far more normalized concept. And when faced with two options, (1) make americans more finnish so that they can own guns responsibly, or (2) get most of the guns off the streets, (2) seems far more viable.

Culturally America is like the least appropriate place to have guns, and just happens to be the one with all the guns. How many pictures of guitars have I seen with guns in them? How many gear demo vids does a gun make an appearance? I'm not bothered by that stuff I'm just like...WTF was that supposed to accomplish? There's just an effort to flaunt guns whenever possible. I'm not sure how many videos of finnish guys in cars driving around, quickly flashing a gun out the window I've seen, but I've seen a huge number of such behavior in the US. So like, Americans just show time and time again an inability to treat a gun as a serious thing that warrants responsible mature behavior, and not like a tattoo or a new car. Basically if you own a gun for your own protection and I don't know you have a gun, then kudos to you. You get to keep yours. Everyone who spends their days talking about how they'd love for someone to come into their home so they can blast them, everyone whose profile photo is themselves in the mirror with a gun, everyone who posts photos of a bed with 8 guns on it, anyone who didn't graduate high school, yours have gotta go...

It's America. Honestly not sure why there just isn't some superficially high gun tax that applies per gun. And any tiny infraction be met with actual jail time. Criminals and licensed gun owners the same, how about I see your gun outside your house and outside a hunting spot, you go to jail? Concealed carry, fine by me. Just get it out of the culture. In about a decade we turned cigarettes from being associate with the cool guy to being associated with losers, I'm sure we could probably manage the same with guns.

 

[Lemonbaby]

Both correlated (by necessity, guns and violence are the two words that make up gun violence) but I don't agree that more guns = more violence. Look at the violent crime FBI data, and then the fact that there are more guns than ever in the US. I know there are mental gymnastics that people do to justify why that "common sense" doesn't make sense, but at least at face value there are more guns in circulation than 30 years ago and far lower rates of violent crime.

As I'm sure you know, correlation doesn't imply causation. We also have more battery electric vehicles on the roads than thirty years ago, which doesn't mean that crime rates will drop to zero once the last car with combustion engine is banned from the roads.

For more on this topic, consult Tyler Vigen -> https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations