Everyone needs to take a deep drink of this stuff, at this point: ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I agree. That is Definitely part of the problem, IMHO.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

I understand your viewpoint, but I don't think that most law-abiding citizens believe that killing is a solution to anything other than a physical threat of harm to themselves or their loved ones.

I have a fair number of guns. I see them as collector items, sporting tools, and home defense tools. I hope I never have to use them for home defense. Oh, I did use one the other day to get rid of a rat that was wreaking havoc in my garage. I used a .22 pistol with rat shot.

If you only cared about that, then why bring up overall murder rates? It is hopelessly skewed by those "gangbangers" that you don't care about. Do you have stats for "innocent lives taken"? I didn't think so.

Men still have a place in this world. Did you see all three of the adults that were killed were men trying to save the kids that were under their care? God bless them, is all I have to say.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Homicide by firearm is a lot closer to that number than firearm deaths...

Hopefully that is something everyone here can agree on.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

My parents are pharmacists in NZ and were held up at gunpoint, together with my sister, who was then 4 years old. I'm not sure that them having a gun would have made that situation better. Far better to comply imo.

With home defence etc, if it is for a robbery, why not just let the robbers take whatever they want? Or will they kill you anyway? Which again brings us to this idea that people think a gun is an acceptable solution to a problem, which perhaps goes back to that constitutional right to bare arms.

Perhaps the school shooters think they are solving a threat to themselves by shooting up the schools?

So are you agreeing with Trump's bill?

Anybody has any data on murders with kitchen knives? Should I feel guilty while cooking or cleaning fish?

Ad Muncher

No

don't you have someones back to 'crack'

here pull my finger!

---

Steve

Actually I think the calculation was the other side of $500k. But I'm not going to go for false arguments, if the teachers want more money for something else, put it on the ballot. But overall, yeah our schools are pretty well funded.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

with verve and panache.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I actually agree with this Police Chief--it's a matter of priorities. With a criminal justice system that is already back logged and prisons that are already beyond capacity, it has not been a priority to go after those that have lied on their background checks. To me (and apparently those in law enforcement across the country) there is a huge difference between a felon who is actually in possession of a firearm, and one who lies on a background check. As Flynn stated, they make gun cases--lots of them. You hear it in the news all the time when felons are caught with firearms they get charged with unlawful possession and they do prison time. And there are firearm enhancements to sentences that get applied regularly.

So I don't think that we can just end the discussion on gun control by cherry-picking this one example and saying "But, but, we're not enforcing the laws on the books!"

... Homicide by firearm is much better, if you factor out extremely small pockets of crime and poverty, which skew the results regardless of gun policy. When you do that your entire first point ("states with stricter policies have more crime") implodes. The most homicides are overwhelmingly populated by red states with the most lax policies (DC and Baltimore-less Maryland drop out). Of course, you could point to poverty/segregation issues, which are the real reason that many red states have higher crime rates, but that is the opposite of what you started with, and I'm not going to help you out of this morass.

Here is a link to homicide by firearm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state#Murders

As you can see, the 4 worst cities are fully driven by extreme poverty (not gun laws). After that, there is pretty much a sea of red states.

In order (worst to ~23rd worst)
=================================
District of Columbia (entire city)
Louisiana (New Orleans)
Maryland (Baltimore)
Missouri (St. Louis)
South Carolina
Nevada
New Mexico
Michigan (Detroit)
Mississippi
Tennessee
Arizona
Illinois (Chicago)
Delaware
Georgia
Pennsylvania
Florida
Oklahoma
Texas
California
North Carolina
Virginia
Arkansas
Kentucky
.....

Bending data by ignoring the parts that disagree with your assertion is convenient, but ineffective in the overall analysis.

The whole question is highly multifactoral and cannot simply be blamed on gun ownership.

You are the one you began this by specifically and deceptively linking states with higher crime and more gun restrictions and trying to make conclusions, while posting no data ("The areas with more open gun laws, and less overall restriction, have lower crime rates...That fact sort of discredits your statements doesn't it? "). It isn't bending data to point out the flaws in your original point, and over-riding issues that fully explain such disparities. I am glad to see you backtrack on your first statement (Now: "The whole question is highly multifactoral and cannot simply be blamed on gun ownership.").

Of course, it won't matter, because that deceptive talking point that you began with resurrects itself repeatedly.


For posterity, here is the map of firearm deaths (total, because I care about suicides and accidental deaths). Compare with the red/blue divide and the 2016 map:

There is no law in any country regarding any matter that can 100% effective in preventing some negative outcome. Are for scrapping laws pertaining to tax evasion? What about dangerous driving?



I appreciate your thoughtful response and for the most part, am on the same page. I don't see this well armed genie taking his AR-15 and going back in to the bottle any time soon.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Supposedly 1/2 of guns are owned by 3% of country. It also appears that blue states are voluntarily disarming, while red states still have a much stronger gun culture. Gun deaths track surprisingly closely to gun ownership (with some surprises, Nebraska?). How people insist that higher gun ownership leads to lower gun deaths is a complete mystery to me.

Here are gun ownership numbers, circa 2013:



Compare with gun deaths:

Very well said. You nailed it.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Not replying to anyone in particular.

But why hasn't Florida passed gun regulation, e.g. Ban AR-15s? Forget the Feds. After sandy hook, it's clear they won't do a thing. The nytimes has a truly damning indictment of the Feds total inaction on this topic.

But the state of Fl could pass a law, and defend it against the NRA in Ct.

Win or lose, at least they could say with candor that they tried something. But to do nothing, not even try, seems inexcusable.

Aren't bump stocks still legal? Why? That too is inexcusable.

Someone wrote, public opinion could shift. I think they're right. That's why states should act when th Feds won't. That way, if the NRA wins in Ct, public opinion can target the real villain behind congressional inaction.

I'm not anti gun. But we have a serious problem in this country with guns. Kids are dying. Not from terrorism. Not from religious extremism. But because of the proliferation of military grade, civilian accessible weaponry. Something has to change.

Sorry, I was busy tonight. The biggest issue with these shooters is messed up people easily getting extremely deadly weapons that can fire many rounds in a short amount of time with minimal training. There are lots of ways in which one can diminish the likelihood of gun deaths from such mass shootings. Let's check out the "laboratories of democracy".... the states. Semi-automatic weapons are prohibited in lots of states, bump stocks have also been banned in a couple (after Las Vegas). Age limits have moved up to 21 in some states (for handguns, but not necessarily AR-15style weapons). Wait times are sometimes in place. Better reporting and mental health would help. This "kid" could have been stymied by any number of these measures. Of course, they can all be plausibly circumvented, but by that reasoning no law should ever be passed on any issue.

All sorts of limits exist, which have thus far passed SCOTUS muster. Given complete gridlock at the federal level, more bills in "blue" states will continue to be passed at the state and local level. Eventually SCOTUS will weigh in, upholding some, overturning others.

The bigger trend (which people are overlooking) is this: gun ownership is declining as blue areas are actively rejecting gun culture. This thread is a microcosm. People who largely support full gun rights put forth arguments that simultaneously deeply resonate with a pro-gun culture AND deeply alienate folks who aren't pro-gun. It's also true for the other side's arguments (I guess). Looking at the graphs above in previous responses, gun ownership in red states will stay above 30% while it drops toward 10% in blue states. Deaths due to firearms will probably reflect those percentages, just as they do now (check out the firearm death map above). Over decades, the level of gun deaths in blue states will largely resemble those in other countries. The country will continue to diverge on this as in so many issues. Everything in this thread supports that trajectory for gun ownership in the US.

 But those opposed to any change also repeatedly say other countries like Australia or in Europe are different and don’t have the same history or demographics and then conclude any change won’t work. However, since there has never been a national attempt to try, no one knows for sure what would happen.

For me that is the part that is baffling. The NRA blocks any attempt to do research or even have a dialog about what can be done and many have no problem with that.

People were recently banned for very minor comments but that is way over the line. It’s a disgrace.

Its ironic how obsessed Americans were regard ing WMDs in Iraq over a decade ago. Yet its quite clear, semi automatic guns pose a much bigger, and a much more realistic threat. They are mass killing machines. Maybe grenades should be legal too, and flame throwers. If tanks were legal for civilians to purchase and arm, kids would be using those too. Gotta draw the line somewhere. Hell, even if it doesn't work, at least you tried. Better than doing nothing. Even alcohol was banned once. So what. They weren't afraid to try.