An honest unusual discussion about firearms

a reply to: Erno86

Loved "Book of Eli" I was fortunate to be in this scene as an Extra. Shot down in Lincoln County.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I would take a very simplistic foundation level view to oppose an argument to ban guns:

You want to ban guns vs I want to own a gun.

Why are you better than me, if we are equals?

In a society of equals, nobody is forcing anyone to own a gun.

Nobody should be forcing me not to own a gun.

*drops microphone*

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Do you have stats to show that "the average gun owner" can't afford a psychological evaluation every 6 months?

I and my wife both know different families that hunt year round because that is the only way they can keep meat on the table.
If they cant afford to buy meat, I will wager they cannot afford a pysch eval.

As for me personally, Ive been cleared to work around nukes and find it personally insulting that you think I need a pysch eval twice a year to own a gun.

But maybe I'm a little tired so taking things as they shouldn't.

Nice. But what does that have to do with showing the stats that I asked for?

Also, if people pass the evaluation, then that's great and they can go about their business. But how many times do we keep hearing the claim that this or that mass shooter was on specific meds, or had stopped taking his meds, or had a history of mental health issues? Society can't keep using "mental health problems" as an excuse for killers, then pretend that it's offensive to suggest that people take mental health exams before being allowed to obtain the main murder weapon in that same society.

I would say the same thing about needing mental health tests for sword ownership if swords were being used to kill 33,000 or so Americans every year (homicides and suicides).

ETA: Updated 40,000 to 33,000. I'm finding conflicting reports on the number of gun related deaths per year here, so I decided to use the lower estimate.

a reply to: Edumakated

I never said this suggestion would solve everything. The goal should be to keep reducing the number of murders.

So even if this measure saved only 10% more lives, then that's saving 3,000 to 3,300 or so American lives every year. That's around as many American lives as were taken during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and I seem to recall our entire country being up in an uproar about that and spending trillions on the War on Terror afterward. so it's odd to me that we can't spend money on programs to protect American lives right here.

Also, do you have any stats to show what percent of gun related crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns around the country? That can help your case here.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Also, do you have any stats to show what percent of gun related crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns around the country? That can help your case here.

It seems that there aren't a lot of statistics on that sort of thing on a national basis.

Passed in 1997 with the strong backing of the NRA, the so-called "Dickey Amendment" effectively bars the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying firearm violence -- an epidemic the American Medical Association has since dubbed "a public health crisis."

abcnews.go.com...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Also, do you have any stats to show what percent of gun related crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns around the country? That can help your case here.

A definitive study hasn't been done in over a decade, but it's out there.

This PolitiFact article cites several studies of prison inmates. Depending on the state, a little less than half up to two-thirds of inmates illegally obtained their firearms.

This Quora answer breaks down numbers from a different source.

However you want to look at, and "interpret" the data, it's hard to argue that illegal guns are used at least as often as legal ones, and probably substantially more so.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: enlightenedservant

1. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck. Deciding for someone else what they can and cannot afford is just wrong. Especially when you've never met them. ETA: i should add that "the average person" is a consideration that is unconstitutional. It may be a standard in use...but it ignores individuals and their rights, average or not.

Wait a second. I'm not the one who started talking about what the "average gun owner could afford". I simply used the phrase against the person who originally used it, since they were saying the average gun owner can't afford this. So it would be their burden to prove that "The average gun owner, who might be having a hard time just to financially support himself or his family? " is correct.

2. No. If any insurance scam were instituted for gun ownership, i'd not participate. It won't change the gun ownership though. I suspect you'd have enormous push back that escalates into violence on a national level if something like this were tried.

Think that through. Do you really think that threats would help or hurt your case here? If I said that there would be violence on a national scale if the govt mandated insurance on mosques in case a member of that mosque committed an act of terrorism, would that help or hurt my case?

Also, from what I've seen, there are already various existing types of gun liability insurance, personal firearms liability Insurance, etc. There's even "firearms-related insurance" that's exclusively for NRA members being offered by this company (HERE), which says the following:

Gun owners—and people who work in the firearms industry—need insurance that can be difficult or even impossible to get elsewhere. That’s why Lockton Affinity created insurance policies to meet the specific needs of gun owners and NRA members.

These policies provide valuable, necessary and reliable insurance at an affordable price, supported by knowledgeable representatives who understand just what you need.

Now, I don't know how well that particular company's policies are, but I certainly don't see violent uprisings happening because of its existence.

3. The amount of money insurers pay out is not my concern. I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of murders happen in the same areas over and over. It stands to reason that not being in those areas is going to decrease morbidity rates. Thus, it would seem that the dead person had far more responsibility for their safety than me, a complete stranger.

Are we supposed to ignore the murder-suicides, wife/girlfriend and family killings, and one-off shootings etc that happen all over the country so we can strictly focus on big cities? You don't think that my measures would help in those other cases involving abusive spouses and the such?

Check this out (HERE). It's a mass shooting tracker which only lists the incidents where 4 or more people are shot at once. It's not based on hearsay or stereotypes; it's based on documented cases & lists 1 or 2 links to local reports about each incident. Now look at the locations of each incident just for the month on May so far. There have been 18 incidents as of the time of this post, and they're spread across 14 different states. No state has more than 2 incidents and ironically, Oklahoma and Missouri have had as many incidents as Illinois.

I'm just wondering why we should ignore incidents like this to only focus on the major cities?

4. The only way to start improving mental health care is to divorce the diagnosis from the degradation of rights. Swooping people up into hospitals with questionable compliance to patients rights, losing freedom of movement, losing access to constitutional freedoms...the social stigma is one thing, but the extra punch in the gut hurts just as much. I have no solutions really...but i do see a huge problem.

I normally believe in treatment over punishment, so I can agree with where you're coming from on this one. However, like I just mentioned in another post, society can't keep using "mental illness" as an excuse for school shooters and other murderers, then pretend that mental health and easy access to guns shouldn't be related.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So I'll reply with some honest questions.

What other constitutional rights are you willing to give up?

If the government doesn't fear us then what prevents them from doing whatever they want?

originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: DBCowboy

So I'll reply with some honest questions.

What other constitutional rights are you willing to give up?

None.

If the government doesn't fear us then what prevents them from doing whatever they want?

What's to stop them now?

a reply to: DBCowboy

What's to stop them now?

The executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Because it's really hard for all of them to agree on anything.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Also, do you have any stats to show what percent of gun related crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns around the country? That can help your case here.

It seems that there aren't a lot of statistics on that sort of thing on a national basis.

Passed in 1997 with the strong backing of the NRA, the so-called "Dickey Amendment" effectively bars the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying firearm violence -- an epidemic the American Medical Association has since dubbed "a public health crisis."

abcnews.go.com...

Dickey amendment just prevents the CDC from advocating for gun control. They can study it all they want, they just can't do so in a biased manner to advocate for gun control. In fact, the CDC did study defensive use of guns and it confirmed what most pro-gun folks have said regarding defensive use... CDC never made the study public. Wonder why...

CDC Defensive Use Study

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Edumakated

I never said this suggestion would solve everything. The goal should be to keep reducing the number of murders.

So even if this measure saved only 10% more lives, then that's saving 3,000 to 3,300 or so American lives every year. That's around as many American lives as were taken during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and I seem to recall our entire country being up in an uproar about that and spending trillions on the War on Terror afterward. so it's odd to me that we can't spend money on programs to protect American lives right here.

Also, do you have any stats to show what percent of gun related crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns around the country? That can help your case here.

The answer to your data question was provided by another poster. So again, I see no connection with insurance and reduction in gun violence.

The thing is we can always reduce deaths. However, you still have to weigh the reduction in those deaths to the cost of the rest of us. For example, we can also reduce automobile deaths by lowering speed limits. However, at what convenience to the rest of us? There is a point of diminishing returns that has to be considered.

a reply to: Edumakated

America doesn't really have a gun problem. We have a black thug problem.

You are exactly right !

a reply to: Edumakated

Dickey amendment just prevents the CDC from advocating for gun control.

Sort of. Which means that if a study shows that gun control might be a good idea, it's a no go. So better to just not study it.

In fact, the CDC did study defensive use of guns and it confirmed what most pro-gun folks have said regarding defensive use... CDC never made the study public. Wonder why...

Maybe because the phone survey on which it was based was flawed. Because, after all, according to you, it would have been Ok to publish it since it would seemingly not advocate for gun control.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

Your source also uses the term " inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs". So, yeah. A meaningless survey because there is no way to quantify that particular part of the question. But Keck thinks he knows how to fiddle with the numbers to make them mean something.

In any case, I was responding to a statement about another sort of data. Though what is in that study would be of interest if it were properly done.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Not quite the same. That's referring to people who are illegally possessing those firearms, not firearms that are illegally obtained. That difference can be vast, including people who legally obtained the guns yet were later stripped of their right to possess guns. Also, your link literally says they got this data by asking inmates themselves. What percent of inmates who committed gun related crimes were polled and how can we expect that data to be reliable without knowing the sample size?

Either way, I'll concede that illegally obtained and/or illegally possessed guns count for around half of gun related crimes where the criminal is actually caught, convicted, and willing to answer govt questions truthfully. But that still means that half of criminals who are convicted of gun related crimes got or possessed those guns legally. If the goal is to reduce the amount of crimes and gun related crimes in the country, then why can't stricter gun regulations, background checks, and/or mental health evaluations reduce this number of crimes? Even a 10% reduction would be huge, yet people keep overlooking that half in order to focus on the other half.

And since I'm in a cheerful but pedantic mood, the poster I was responding to literally said:

"If the vast majority of gun violence is committed by illegally obtained guns, what good does insurance do?"

"Gun violence" would also include suicides, accidental shootings, shootings that are ruled as "justifiable" or "accidents", etc. If I had to take an uneducated guess, I'd guess that the majority of suicides by gun were committed by legally obtained or possessed guns. And I definitely think that we can reduce or help prevent some of those, particularly in the case of suicides (which account for the vast majority of gun violence in the country).

a reply to: Edumakated

Uhh, no. I just addressed that and that link's not about "gun violence". Gun violence" includes suicide; accidental shootings; threats with guns; shootings that are ruled as "justifiable", "accidents", and "suicides", etc.

That link was based on polls from inmates who were convicted of crimes w/guns. And the conclusion there is between 40% to 60% of them claimed to have possessed their guns illegally, depending on the State. Even if their numbers are completely correct, that still leaves 40% to 60% of criminals obtaining and/or possessing their guns legally, depending on the State.

Also, the point I was making about gun owner's insurance was that the insurance could include the mental health evaluations in their services. Remember the complaints that people couldn't afford regular mental health evaluations? So you're taking that out of context. Though since 40-60% of criminals apparently possessed or obtained their guns legally, then surely mental health evaluations would've flagged some of them, which could've helped reduce some of the crimes they committed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated

Dickey amendment just prevents the CDC from advocating for gun control.

Sort of. Which means that if a study shows that gun control might be a good idea, it's a no go. So better to just not study it.

In fact, the CDC did study defensive use of guns and it confirmed what most pro-gun folks have said regarding defensive use... CDC never made the study public. Wonder why...

Maybe because the phone survey on which it was based was flawed. Because, after all, according to you, it would have been Ok to publish it since it would seemingly not advocate for gun control.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

Your source also uses the term " inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs". So, yeah. A meaningless survey because there is no way to quantify that particular part of the question. But Keck thinks he knows how to fiddle with the numbers to make them mean something.

In any case, I was responding to a statement about another sort of data. Though what is in that study would be of interest if it were properly done.

I have no issue with the CDC studying gun control. However, it needs to be objectively done without bias.

One of the biggest issues I've stated with this entire debate is that there is no consensus on data and definitions. Mass shootings are not the same as gang violence which isn't the same as suicides. Semi-auto is not an automatic weapon. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle.

My point is there has to be a clear baseline for truthful and honest analyses.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Which scenario is likely to produce more deaths? You can replace the phrase "potential criminal" with "abusive spouse", "bully", "poor citizen", "desperate citizen", "mental health patient", "person with anger issues", etc and the answer would remain the same.

OK I'll play...they would have killed more or the same, but not less... So what is your point?

My point is that criminals will kill more or the same number of people with guns than if they don't have access to guns.

A claim was made that criminals used to kill plenty of people with weapons that aren't guns. So I alluded to the fact that they would've killed even more if those same criminals had guns. And then another claim was made that plenty of criminals like Capone killed a lot of people with guns. So I alluded to the fact that they wouldn't have been able to kill as many people if they didn't have guns. Get it now?

Do we lower all speed limits in the country to 35 to "save" 1000s of lives?

Wrong analogy. This would be more like "Do will limit a citizen's ability to get a driver's license if they have physical ailments or mental health issues?". And the answer there is "Yes! They already do this, depending on the State!". (From here:)

The Texas Department of Public Safety has by law probed applicants' mental health since the 1970s as part of a process to decide who gets a license.

A review of driver's license applications for major states shows that Texas is one of the few that asks such a general question.

California, New York, New Jersey and Michigan are among those that do not specifically ask about mental health.

Virginia asks would-be motorists if they have a "mental condition" that requires them to take medication.

Florida and Ohio want to know if applicants have conditions they believe could impact their ability to drive safely.

Texas applications carry a warning that failure to tell the truth could result in criminal charges, jail and a fine of up to $4,000, but officials suspect many people just lie.

Though I'll remember your comment mocking the quest to save thousands of American lives the next time there's a terrorist attack, a Benghazi-like incident, a police killing, or a killing committed by an illegal immigrant.

a reply to: Edumakated

My point is there has to be a clear baseline for truthful and honest analyses.

I concur. And I think it is absolutely necessary to an honest consideration of the issue. Of all of the issues.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

A claim was made that criminals used to kill plenty of people with weapons that aren't guns. So I alluded to the fact that they would've killed even more if those same criminals had guns. And then another claim was made that plenty of criminals like Capone killed a lot of people with guns. So I alluded to the fact that they wouldn't have been able to kill as many people if they didn't have guns. Get it now?

I get that is your assumption. For some reason in your scenario only the bad guys have guns... So maybe in my scenario there are less bad guys to kill because the good guys killed them off and/or the bad guys know the good guys also have guns....

I'm missing your whole point here, they actually had guns back then but didn't need them due to using greater numbers...

Though I'll remember your comment mocking the quest to save thousands of American lives the next time there's a terrorist attack, a Benghazi-like incident, a police killing, or a killing committed by an illegal immigrant.

People will kill who want to kill, period. You are taking your argument from banning guns to keeping people who might be mentally ill, dangerous or criminals way from guns, or cars or even freedom. I agree with this point, but to ban guns all you are doing is giving the bad guys who do not follow laws open season on everyone.