President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby KeithE » Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:03 am

Moving this subject over to the PPP Forum. What do ya’ll think about the President’s Plan?
Now is the Time

I have yet to read it, but I’d be interested in thoughtful discussion on this plan (or other plans) because school/public violence is not going to fix itself.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby Sandy » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:24 am

Pretty simple plan. The two key elements are the closing of loopholes in purchasing and registration and school safety. The assault weapons ban is just common sense, and a restoration of the original intent of the constitutional right to bear arms, which has been turned upside down by the NRA and their manufacturing and sale interests. They couldn't care less about dead kids, as long as they are profiting from it.

School safety is going to involve a culture change. You can secure your entrances, but how do you keep kids from bringing something through the door? That will require searching backpacks, and search devices at the door. A nice tax on gun sales would be required to pay for that.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby ET » Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:48 pm

I'll address a few points:
get military-style assault weapons...off the streets

The rifles used in the referenced crimes were semi-automatic rifles worn detachable magazines that look like military "assault" rifles. An assault rifle is - BY DEFINITION - capable of full-auto fire. None of these were. Regardless of how they look, they are semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.

So the goal really requires abolition and confiscation of such firearms. Obama and Co are not honest enough to state that goal outright, but that is the end game. One need not design a firearm to look like a "military assault rifle" such as an AR-15 for it to function in the same manner: Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. No bayonet lug. No pistol grip. No grenade launcher. No black stock. Still Semi-automatic. Accepts standard AR type magazines.

get...high-capacity magazines off the streets

A magazine is nothing but a metal or plastic box with a spring and one other piece in it. 3-D printers are coming to market. Before long, enter the dimensions of the required magazine, press print and within a few hours you have whatever capacity magazine you desire that you can get to work. Since killers in these instances only require a single-use product, there is no requirement to use any materials more expensive than what will get the job done one time. Limiting the capacity of magazines will most likely become meaningless before long.

Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds: The case for prohibiting high-capacity magazines has been proven over and over; the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which would have been
prohibited under the 1994 law.

Where is the evidence - for the "cas"e that has supposedly "been proven over and over" - that a 10-round magazine would have resulted in less tragedy than a 11-19 round magazine? Where is the evidence that a killer with 3 10-round magazines would have killed fewer people than with 2 15-round magazines? :wall:

Why is 10 the magic number? Because it's the first number in double-digits? Ten rounds is COMPLETELY arbitrary and unsupported by any logic or reasoning. It's just a number picked out of thin air by politicians and "activists".

They have, or have had, a very cool sheriff up in Boone County, IN. Sherriff's demo of how magazine size makes very little difference. Almost 14 minute video here, but the best one I've found. Video demonstrates the time it takes to perform magazine changes with 15, 10 and 6-round magazines comprising 30 shots total, performed by both an experienced shooter and a less experienced female shooter.

The setup isn't really "real world", but it does essentially illustrate the silliness of two arguments behind the 10 round magazine limit:
  • a 10-round restriction would NOT reduce the number of shooting victims - magazine swaps take very little time
  • a 10-round limit almost certainly would NOT allow a potential victim to rush the shooter (the dude rushing out toward the shooters is a bit slow, in my opinion, but neither is he subject to the stress and/or confusion that might cause a slow response to an "active shooter" and he also most likely knows how many rounds are in the magazine, so he can anticipate when to make his move toward the shooter)
finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the street

Uhhh, exactly where and when has this been an issue? This one, for all practical purposes as it relates to mass murders or murders in general, goes into the category with the myths of "cop killer bullets" and "plastic guns that can't be detected by x-ray machines".

encourage gun owners to live up to their responsibility to store guns safely

Per this story from the New York Daily News, the guns used in the recent Oregon shooting were secured. Just as a criminal can break into a house and steal, a person determined to do harm can circumvent guns locks and other security measures.

I'll provide at least one in support. Many of the other proposals are "the devil is in the details" or useless/meaningless, which is why the NRA has often opposed many of these so-called "common sense" regulations.

provide effective training for active shooter situations...

Active shooters in schools: The enemy is denial, Policeone.com
“How many kids have been killed by school fire in all of North America in the past 50 years? Kids killed... school fire... North America... 50 years... How many? Zero. That’s right. Not one single kid has been killed by school fire anywhere in North America in the past half a century. Now, how many kids have been killed by school violence?”
***
“Come with me to the library at Columbine High School,” Grossman said. “The teacher in the library at Columbine High School spent her professional lifetime preparing for a fire, and we can all agree if there had been a fire in that library, that teacher would have instinctively, reflexively known what to do.

"But the thing most likely to kill her kids — the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill her kids, the teacher didn’t have a clue what to do. She should have put those kids in the librarian’s office but she didn’t know that. So she did the worst thing possible — she tried to secure her kids in an un-securable location. She told the kids to hide in the library — a library that has plate glass windows for walls. It’s an aquarium, it’s a fish bowl. She told the kids to hide in a fishbowl. What did those killers see? They saw targets. They saw fish in a fish bowl.”

Grossman said that if the school administrators at Columbine had spent a fraction of the money they’d spent preparing for fire doing lockdown drills and talking with local law enforcers about the violent dangers they face, the outcome that day may have been different.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby Sandy » Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:23 pm

The reality of the situation is that gun manufacturing is one of the multi-billion dollar a year businesses that has paid for Congress and gets what they want. Until that is brought under control, and the constitution is enforced as it was intended by the founding fathers, gun violence will increase.

Schools can be secured. It will cost, and it will look like we live in a society that is out of control with gun violence (we are), but kids should be able to be safe at school. I'm not a death penalty advocate, but if an intruder brings a gun into a school building, I'm all for life in prison without parole. A 90% tax on gun sales would pay for the security and the metal detectors that would be required.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby ET » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:51 pm

Sandy wrote:The reality of the situation is that gun manufacturing is one of the multi-billion dollar a year businesses that has paid for Congress and gets what they want. Until that is brought under control, and the constitution is enforced as it was intended by the founding fathers, gun violence will increase.
***
Schools can be secured. It will cost, and it will look like we live in a society that is out of control with gun violence (we are)...

What increase in gun violence? It's dropped dramatically since 1993. Overall, the murder rate in 2011 was about what it was in 1911...so we're on a 100-year low. Violent crime in general has been decreasing.

From Pew Research: Gun homicide rate down 49% since 1993 peak: public unaware
Image
Here's one for non-fatal "gun violence":
Image

From USAToday based on those figures, December 2013: Study: Despite drop in gun crime, 56% think it's worse
Violent gun crime has dropped dramatically in the past two decades, but the majority of Americans think it's more of a problem now than ever, according to a Pew Research Center study released Tuesday.
***
The rate of non-fatal violent gun crime victimization dropped 75% in the past 20 years; The gun homicide rate dropped 49% in the same period, according to numbers Pew researchers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It would appear reality does not hold up to your claims, Sandy.

Sandy wrote:A 90% tax on gun sales would pay for the security and the metal detectors that would be required.

You're just pulling a number out of the air. Hey, why not a 90% tax on automobiles to pay for drunken driving costs that claim the lives of some 20,000 people a year? Or let's make another run at Prohibition!

If keeping the kids safe is such a noble goal, why shouldn't we tax EVERYBODY to do it? Someone wrote that the motto of the American left is "Ask not what you can do for your country. Make somebody else pay for it." You seem to have adopted such thinking.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby David Flick » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:29 am

.
.

Sandy wrote:A 90% tax on gun sales would pay for the security and the metal detectors that would be required.
    ET wrote:You're just pulling a number out of the air. Hey, why not a 90% tax on automobiles to pay for drunken driving costs that claim the lives of some 20,000 people a year? Or let's make another run at Prohibition!

    If keeping the kids safe is such a noble goal, why shouldn't we tax EVERYBODY to do it? Someone wrote that the motto of the American left is "Ask not what you can do for your country. Make somebody else pay for it." You seem to have adopted such thinking.

      Saw this cartoon on Facebook last night...
        Image

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby KeithE » Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:25 am

ET wrote:
Sandy wrote:The reality of the situation is that gun manufacturing is one of the multi-billion dollar a year businesses that has paid for Congress and gets what they want. Until that is brought under control, and the constitution is enforced as it was intended by the founding fathers, gun violence will increase.
***
Schools can be secured. It will cost, and it will look like we live in a society that is out of control with gun violence (we are)...

What increase in gun violence? It's dropped dramatically since 1993. Overall, the murder rate in 2011 was about what it was in 1911...so we're on a 100-year low. Violent crime in general has been decreasing.

From Pew Research: Gun homicide rate down 49% since 1993 peak: public unaware
Image
Here's one for non-fatal "gun violence":
Image

From USAToday based on those figures, December 2013: Study: Despite drop in gun crime, 56% think it's worse
Violent gun crime has dropped dramatically in the past two decades, but the majority of Americans think it's more of a problem now than ever, according to a Pew Research Center study released Tuesday.
***
The rate of non-fatal violent gun crime victimization dropped 75% in the past 20 years; The gun homicide rate dropped 49% in the same period, according to numbers Pew researchers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It would appear reality does not hold up to your claims, Sandy.

Sandy wrote:A 90% tax on gun sales would pay for the security and the metal detectors that would be required.

You're just pulling a number out of the air. Hey, why not a 90% tax on automobiles to pay for drunken driving costs that claim the lives of some 20,000 people a year? Or let's make another run at Prohibition!

If keeping the kids safe is such a noble goal, why shouldn't we tax EVERYBODY to do it? Someone wrote that the motto of the American left is "Ask not what you can do for your country. Make somebody else pay for it." You seem to have adopted such thinking.



Good data, ET.

Now what happened in 1993? Answers: The economy improved under Clinton/Gore and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed.

From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent. [18] For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials.[19] In 2009, felons accounted for 48 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 16 percent of denials.


By now I’m sure it has prevented over 2.0 million gun purchases mostly from felons. Looks to be effective to me.

Has it solved America’s homicide problem? No. We still have 6 times the rate of firearm homicide than any other country in the world.

Image
Image

Source: Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

CFR about the USA:
The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years, stirred by a series of mass killings by gunmen in civilian settings. The killing of twenty schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012 prompted a national discussion over gun laws and calls by the Obama administration to limit the availability of military-style assault weapons. However, compromise legislation that would have banned semiautomatic weapons and expanded background checks was defeated in the Senate in April 2013 despite extensive public support.

Gun ownership in the United States far surpasses other countries, and recent mass shootings in particular have raised comparisons with policies abroad. Democracies that have experienced similar traumatic shooting incidents have taken significant steps to regulate gun ownership and restrict assault weapons. They generally experience far fewer incidents of gun violence than the United States.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the sale of firearms to several categories of individuals, including persons under eighteen years of age, those with criminal records, the mentally disabled, unlawful aliens, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others. In 1993, the law was amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for all unlicensed persons purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer.

However, critics maintain that a so-called "gun show loophole," codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check.

As of 2013, there were no federal laws banning semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity ammunition magazines, which can increase the potential lethality of a given firearm. There was a federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire.



About time for some more regulation! Like 1) ending the gun show loophole and 2) outlawing sell of semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity ammunition magazines to the public. Both are part of the WH’s Plan as is better mental health treatment.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby Timothy Bonney » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:45 am

David, to me the "guns don't kill people" analogy has always been one of the worst. If guns don't kill people why does the military have them? Or should we send our army to battle with just knives next time?? If gun don't kill people than neither do bombs. If that is the case than why are we concerned about terroists having nuclear weapons?

The truth is that guns, bombs, etc. allow people to kill MORE people than can than can kill without them. Guns multiply and enhance the ability for people to kill other people in mass numbers, at a distance, and quickly so that cowards and crazies can take dozens of lives in one ignominious blaze.

Right now we are creating a society where some people are being allowed to openly carry WMD into the restaurant and the grocery store. If that trend continues how will we know the crazy shooter carrying weapons into Kroger from the nice guy who just has a gun fetish? We won't until the nut ball opens fire and kills.

When I was in Israel I had to get used to soldiers walking the streets openly carrying automatic weapons for our safety. Do we really want to become such a gun toting society that our police have to be so armed? Do we want the US to be like the Middle East? Do we want the US to be more like Mexico with its level of violence?

I think it is far past time for the Americans to end their love affair with guns for the sake of the safety of its own citizens.
Tim Bonney
Blog - http://circuitwriter.org
User avatar
Timothy Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Sioux City, Iowa

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby David Flick » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:23 pm

.
.

Timothy Bonney wrote:David, 1to me the "guns don't kill people" analogy has always been one of the worst. 2If guns don't kill people why does the military have them? Or should we send our army to battle with just knives next time?? 3If gun don't kill people than neither do bombs. 4If that is the case than why are we concerned about terroists having nuclear weapons?

    1) Not surprising that that you (and every other anti-gun advocate) honestly believe that's a bad analogy, but have you ever seen or heard of a gun firing itself and killing a human being of its own volition? Do guns possess volition? Do guns, which are inanimate objects, possess the capacity to kill without human (people) assistance? I think not. Your "belief" about guns doesn't hold water.

    2) I think you know why the military has guns. And I further think you know why the military doesn't go into war with just knives. Actually that's a very weak piece of defense against the possession of guns.

    3) You just destroyed your own argument. As noted above, guns are inanimate objects and have no volition or capacity to kill without
    people pulling triggers. Likewise, bombs, which are also inanimate objects, cannot kill without the assistance of people . So it goes without saying, that guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns.

    4) Think about it for a moment. When was the last time you heard of a nuclear weapon detonating itself without human assistance (people assistance)? Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects. Terrorists are people. So your argument falls apart here again. Nuclear weapons don't kill people by themselves. People kill people with nuclear weapons.
The truth is that guns, bombs, etc. allow people to kill MORE people than can than can kill without them. Guns multiply and enhance the ability for people to kill other people in mass numbers, at a distance, and quickly so that cowards and crazies can take dozens of lives in one ignominious blaze.

    It's clear to me that you destroy your own argument with poor logic. When you say: (a) "guns allow people to kill MORE people" and (b) "people ... kill other people in mass numbers with guns," you are destroying your argument. Your argument is literally: Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns.
Right now we are creating a society where 1some people are being allowed to openly carry WMD into the restaurant and the grocery store. If that trend continues how will we know the 2crazy shooter carrying weapons into Kroger from the nice guy who just has a gun fetish? 3We won't until the nut ball opens fire and kills.

    Three questions: 1) How can the "WMD" (an inanimate object with no volition of its own), being carried into the restaurant and the grocery store possibly kill anyone without the person (who possesses volition), pulling the trigger? The "WMD" (gun) cannot fire itself...

    2) How can the weapon (an inanimate object with no volition of its own), being carried into Kroger by the "crazy shooter," (a person possessing volition), possibly be discharged without the "crazy shooter" pulling the trigger?"

    3 How can the gun/weapon , (an inanimate object with no volition of its own), being carried by the "nut ball" fire and kill without being discharged by the "nut ball," (a person who possesses volition)?
When I was in Israel I had to get used to soldiers walking the streets openly carrying automatic weapons for our safety. Do we really want to become such a gun toting society that our police have to be so armed? Do we want the US to be like the Middle East? Do we want the US to be more like Mexico with its level of violence?

    What makes you think the US is moving toward getting used to soldiers walking the streets openly carrying automatic weapons for our safety? What makes you think we are becoming a gun-toting country? What makes you think the US is becoming like the Middle East? What makes you think we want the US to be more like more like Mexico with its level of violence? You can't compare the US to Israel, or the Middle East, or to Mexico.
I think it is far past time for the Americans to end their love affair with guns for the sake of the safety of its own citizens.

    Do Americans really have a "love affair with guns?" Perhaps the anti-gun folks have a love affair with attacking law abiding Americans and destroying the 2nd Amendment...

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby Sandy » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:04 pm

Timothy Bonney wrote:David, to me the "guns don't kill people" analogy has always been one of the worst. If guns don't kill people why does the military have them? Or should we send our army to battle with just knives next time?? If gun don't kill people than neither do bombs. If that is the case than why are we concerned about terroists having nuclear weapons?

The truth is that guns, bombs, etc. allow people to kill MORE people than can than can kill without them. Guns multiply and enhance the ability for people to kill other people in mass numbers, at a distance, and quickly so that cowards and crazies can take dozens of lives in one ignominious blaze.

Right now we are creating a society where some people are being allowed to openly carry WMD into the restaurant and the grocery store. If that trend continues how will we know the crazy shooter carrying weapons into Kroger from the nice guy who just has a gun fetish? We won't until the nut ball opens fire and kills.

When I was in Israel I had to get used to soldiers walking the streets openly carrying automatic weapons for our safety. Do we really want to become such a gun toting society that our police have to be so armed? Do we want the US to be like the Middle East? Do we want the US to be more like Mexico with its level of violence?

I think it is far past time for the Americans to end their love affair with guns for the sake of the safety of its own citizens.


Very well said.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby Sandy » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:07 pm

ET wrote:What increase in gun violence? It's dropped dramatically since 1993. Overall, the murder rate in 2011 was about what it was in 1911...so we're on a 100-year low. Violent crime in general has been decreasing.


That's a pretty meaningless statistic, couched in specifics. It matters very little in light of the number of children under the age of 16 who have been gunned down in their school, which is several thousand times greater than it was in 1911. Aside from that, I don't believe the statistic is accurate.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby ET » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:58 pm

KeithE wrote:Good data, ET.

Now what happened in 1993? Answers: The economy improved under Clinton/Gore and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed.

We've been down this road before. There were millions of guns in people's hands before the Brady bill (passed Nov 1993) came along. Gun sales in particularly the first few years after the Brady Bill became effective would have constituted only a small fraction of the firearms in circulation, so it cannot have made any real contribution to the decrease in crime from '93 until who knows how much later....most certainly not before '94 or '95. While such a background check could in theory be a (very small) part of the reason for the decrease in "gun" violence, your assertion is very weak. Nothing to support it, especially since other types of violent crime not associated with a gun (rape, assault) decreased as well.

"Gun" violence decreased during the '90s and stayed relatively level during the so-called "great recession", so your attempt to make the decrease about Clinton/Gore and their economic policies isn't logical. Since you brought them into it, I will note that the firearm homicide rate actually decreased during the years between 2005 to 2010. This would be after the "assault weapons" ban and "Clinton/Gore magazine limit" expired.

KeithE wrote:By now I’m sure it has prevented over 2.0 million gun purchases mostly from felons. Looks to be effective to me.

Effective at keeping them from buying firearms legally, yes. Does it mean those same felons don't possess firearms or were unable to acquire a firearm? No.

KeithE wrote:Has it solved America’s homicide problem? No. We still have 6 times the rate of firearm homicide than any other country in the world.

And if you take away the firearms, they'll in all likelihood just kill with something else.

Of course, progressives were some of the biggest proponents of Prohibition. They were naive enough to believe that if you outlawed alcohol, people wouldn't drink or have access to it. :roll:

KeithE wrote:About time for some more regulation! Like 1) ending the gun show loophole and 2) outlawing sell of semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity ammunition magazines to the public. Both are part of the WH’s Plan as is better mental health treatment.

Basically, you want to ban or confiscate as much as is politically feasible. Not surprising. Sorry, but if you want to regulate something, it should be required of you to present a logical argument - backed by DATA, of course - for why the law-abiding owners of such items must give them up because of the misuse of a small minority.

1) Explain why limiting magazine capacity will do anything for "gun violence". How will a 10-round magazine lead to a reduction in "gun violence" over the standard magazines of 12-19 rounds? I presented a demonstration WITH data to support my argument that such a limit is meaningless. I challenge you to do the same for your position.

2) Explain the significance of the "gun show loophole" and present any evidence of a significant role in crimes committed with a gun. What mass-murderers in the last 30 years have obtained their weapons of choice at gun shows by exploiting the "gun show loophole"?

3) Explain why a few nuts using one particular type of firearm should cause the rest of those that possess them or want to use them to have to give them up? What other parts of our lives are to be constrained based on the acts of the lawbreakers? Should we all have to have breathalyzers installed in our vehicles because drunk drivers kill some 20,000 people a year with their vehicles?

4) Where has a "military-style .50 caliber rifle" been used in a crime? How many people don't use them for a crime? Do you even know what a "military-style .50 caliber rifle" is without having to Google it or did you just copy-and-paste this from the Brady Bunch web site?

For further consideration: Deaths per 100k due to vehicle accidents is as follows in the countries your previous charts referenced:
U.S. - 11.6
Canada - 6
Australia - 5.2
Israel - 3.3
United Kingdom - 3.5
Norway - 2.9
Japan - 4.8

"Time for some more regulation!"? Maybe limits on how many miles a year we can all drive each month. Maybe engine governors on our cars so they can't go over 45 mph and there won't be any deaths due to police chases. Reduce the speed limit on interstates back to 55 mph. Mandate ALL vehicles have a breathalyzer installed that must be used before starting your vehicle EVERY time.

I can save more lives with my regulations (and several times over) than you can with your proposals. I can probably save more children in one year with such proposals than have been murdered by gun-toting crazies in the last 50. Somehow I doubt no one on this board is willing to limit their freedoms and privacy to such an extent that it saves a great number of children each year.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby Sandy » Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:08 am

ET wrote: Somehow I doubt no one on this board is willing to limit their freedoms and privacy to such an extent that it saves a great number of children each year.


There is no limit on freedom and privacy in any proposal that would effectively limit gun violence in schools. Of course, for those who think unlimited ownership of a gun arsenal is a personal, constitutionally guaranteed "freedom," that's what looms large as the more important issue. It's "my rights" over the lives of children, bottom line, statistics notwithstanding. And as I've said before, they're just someone else's children, of no consequence. No second thought will be given to the bloodied, mangled bodies of elementary school children in Connecticut until one of the gun rights advocates children or family is exposed to that kind of violence. Then minds will change and there will be action.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby ET » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:26 pm

Keith started this discussion with "but I’d be interested in thoughtful discussion on this plan (or other plans) because school/public violence is not going to fix itself". I have tried to oblige him with the data and charts as well as a critique of the various policies proposed that would supposedly reduce such violence.

Sandy wrote:No second thought will be given to the bloodied, mangled bodies of elementary school children in Connecticut until one of the gun rights advocates children or family is exposed to that kind of violence. Then minds will change and there will be action.

Sandy, your response is nothing thoughtful, just some rhetoric dripping with moral superiority. You claim "gun" violence is increasing. I provide data and charts to show that it is not. Keith and a large cadre of lefties seek a ban on ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds. I provide a video showing that whether the magazine is limited to 6, 10 or 15 rounds, the time that it takes to fire off 30 rounds varies as little as 2-4 seconds, providing strong evidence that magazine limits would be essentially useless in lowering the number of victims in a shooting situation.

Maybe you need to watch one of these videos.
Suzanna Hupp testifying before Congress as the daughter of two of the shooting victims in the Luby's Cafeteria shooting in Killeen, Texas back in 1991. I suggest if nothing else you skip to the 3:45 mark and listen.

Or maybe this one: Darrell Scott testimony to House Judiciary Committee. He was the father of Rachel Scott, killed in the Columbine shootings. You can pick this one up at the 1:15 mark.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby KeithE » Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:58 am

ET wrote:
KeithE wrote:Good data, ET.

Now what happened in 1993? Answers: The economy improved under Clinton/Gore and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed.

We've been down this road before. There were millions of guns in people's hands before the Brady bill (passed Nov 1993) came along. Gun sales in particularly the first few years after the Brady Bill became effective would have constituted only a small fraction of the firearms in circulation, so it cannot have made any real contribution to the decrease in crime from '93 until who knows how much later....most certainly not before '94 or '95. While such a background check could in theory be a (very small) part of the reason for the decrease in "gun" violence, your assertion is very weak. Nothing to support it, especially since other types of violent crime not associated with a gun (rape, assault) decreased as well.

"Gun" violence decreased during the '90s and stayed relatively level during the so-called "great recession", so your attempt to make the decrease about Clinton/Gore and their economic policies isn't logical. Since you brought them into it, I will note that the firearm homicide rate actually decreased during the years between 2005 to 2010. This would be after the "assault weapons" ban and "Clinton/Gore magazine limit" expired.

Assault weapon ban expired Sept 2004 when the firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was 4.0. It did decrease to 3.6 by 2010 and has hovered at that high rate for close for nearly 10 years now (I say "high rate" because it is 6 times that of any other developed country).
Image
Your apparent conclusion is that ending the assault weapons ban has helped reduce homicide rate by guns from 2005-2010, while maintaining the far greater change (7.0 down to 3.8 ) that resulted in the 7 years after the Brady Bill passed. That demonstrates how eager you are to latch onto any data that favors your going-in bias and having a blind eye towards data that is much stronger (if in fact these gun control bills or termination of such was a cause at all). Look at it.
Image

I pointed out that other factors (like economic good times) could also have played an important role in the drop of the homicide rates by gun. But I’ll have to admit it is not the most critical factor in predicting homicidal death by gun rates - that dubious honor goes to states who voted for McCain. Poverty was the second strongest correlate- states with high poverty had increased incidence of homicide rates by gun.

Image

Source. Read all of it. Its conclusion:
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and [url]tighter gun laws[/url]. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.


Ergo tight gun control leads to less fatal gun violence.

KeithE wrote:About time for some more regulation! Like 1) ending the gun show loophole and 2) outlawing sell of semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity ammunition magazines to the public. Both are part of the WH’s Plan as is better mental health treatment.

ET wrote:Basically, you want to ban or confiscate as much as is politically feasible. Not surprising. Sorry, but if you want to regulate something, it should be required of you to present a logical argument - backed by DATA, of course - for why the law-abiding owners of such items must give them up because of the misuse of a small minority.


Six times the homicide rate by firearms of any other country not enough DATA??

The Obama Plan is not forcing you to “give them up” except for the types of guns not needed for “law-abiding” owners.

ET wrote:1) Explain why limiting magazine capacity will do anything for "gun violence". How will a 10-round magazine lead to a reduction in "gun violence" over the standard magazines of 12-19 rounds? I presented a demonstration WITH data to support my argument that such a limit is meaningless. I challenge you to do the same for your position.

The only thing you showed was about timing; nothing about the increased fire power (e.g. # of potentially dead people) involved with assault rifles and multi-shot magazines.
ET wrote:2) Explain the significance of the "gun show loophole" and present any evidence of a significant role in crimes committed with a gun. What mass-murderers in the last 30 years have obtained their weapons of choice at gun shows by exploiting the "gun show loophole”?


Try the Columbine mass murder for one. 40% of guns purchased are purchased through gun shows. 3/4 of the states have this loophole.
Source

ET wrote:3) Explain why a few nuts using one particular type of firearm should cause the rest of those that possess them or want to use them to have to give them up? What other parts of our lives are to be constrained based on the acts of the lawbreakers? Should we all have to have breathalyzers installed in our vehicles because drunk drivers kill some 20,000 people a year with their vehicles?

You don’t have to give up your guns for hunting or self-protection, just register them and hopefully train yourself in safe usage.

Quite frankly breathalyzers in all cars sounds like a good idea to me even though there are only about 10,000 people who die per year in the US due to drunk driving in recent years (it was 15,827 in 1991).

Meanwhile ~ 30,000 people die from guns each year about 60% of them suicides.

Fetuses are not the only lives that have “sanctity”.

ET wrote:4) Where has a "military-style .50 caliber rifle" been used in a crime? How many people don't use them for a crime? Do you even know what a "military-style .50 caliber rifle" is without having to Google it or did you just copy-and-paste this from the Brady Bunch web site?

Just cut-and-pasted and I’m not into the gun culture to know what a .50 caliber rifle is. I just know it can kill.

ET wrote:For further consideration: Deaths per 100k due to vehicle accidents is as follows in the countries your previous charts referenced:
U.S. - 11.6
Canada - 6
Australia - 5.2
Israel - 3.3
United Kingdom - 3.5
Norway - 2.9
Japan - 4.8

"Time for some more regulation!"? Maybe limits on how many miles a year we can all drive each month. Maybe engine governors on our cars so they can't go over 45 mph and there won't be any deaths due to police chases. Reduce the speed limit on interstates back to 55 mph. Mandate ALL vehicles have a breathalyzer installed that must be used before starting your vehicle EVERY time.

I can save more lives with my regulations (and several times over) than you can with your proposals. I can probably save more children in one year with such proposals than have been murdered by gun-toting crazies in the last 50. Somehow I doubt no one on this board is willing to limit their freedoms and privacy to such an extent that it saves a great number of children each year.


Sounds like some good ideas to explore! We are nearly twice as bad as the next worst country listed - Canada.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby Sandy » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:37 am

ET wrote:Explain the significance of the "gun show loophole" and present any evidence of a significant role in crimes committed with a gun. What mass-murderers in the last 30 years have obtained their weapons of choice at gun shows by exploiting the "gun show loophole”?


Keith mentioned Columbine. I believe that some of the weapons used in the Aurora theater shooting were also purchased at gun shows. The shooter in the school in Pearl, Mississippi and Jonesboro, Arkansas were as well, I believe. And Tucson.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby Ed Pettibone » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:33 pm

Ed: Sandy I do not doubt that you believe "that some of the weapons used in the Aurora theater shooting were also purchased at gun shows. The shooter in the school in Pearl, Mississippi and Jonesboro, Arkansas were as well, I believe. And Tucson." but can you support it?
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11116
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby ET » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:26 pm

Source: Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence, by Don B. Kates, Pacific Research Institute and Gary A. Mauser, Simon Fraser University

KeithE wrote:Your apparent conclusion is that ending the assault weapons ban has helped reduce homicide rate by guns from 2005-2010, while maintaining the far greater change (7.0 down to 3.8 ) that resulted in the 7 years after the Brady Bill passed. That demonstrates how eager you are to latch onto any data that favors your going-in bias and having a blind eye towards data that is much stronger (if in fact these gun control bills or termination of such was a cause at all). Look at it.

I make no such conclusion. My argument is that ending the "assault weapons" ban did not lead to an increase in the homicide rate. Based on your argument and the boilerplate one advanced by Bloomberg, Brady & Co, you, Sandy and Timothy, an expiration of an assault weapons ban should lead to an increase in violence and particularly gun violence.

As for that premise and "data that is much stronger", well, I'll give you a bit of that later on, extracted from the study above.

KeithE wrote:The only thing you showed was about timing; nothing about the increased fire power (e.g. # of potentially dead people) involved with assault rifles and multi-shot magazines.

That's right...it was about timing, because the folks out to ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds argue from the premise - implied if not stated outright - that the capacity of the magazine would somehow significantly alter the outcome in these situations. If there is only a 2 or 3 second difference in a shooter using 10 round magazines instead of 15 round magazines in the course of 30 shots, then it's silly to believe that banning the 15 in favor of the 10 will significantly alter the outcome. Thus, restricting magazine capacity becomes symbolism over substance....law based on rhetoric and not reason, logic and evidence.

In the article linked above, pick up reading at page 38. After the Civil War, firearms with "increased fire power" - transitioning from single-shot to multi-shot firearms - became widely available. Based on your argument (and that of many others), the result should have been an increase in violence. That was not the case:
"...over the immediate post-Civil War years 'the country was awash with military pistols' and rifles of the most modern design....Thus the period 1866-1900 saw a vast diffusion of commercial and military surplus revolvers and lever action rifles throughout the American populace. Yet, far from rising, homicide seems to have fallen off sharply from the 1870s through the end of the 19th Century." (p. 42-43)

What is argued today is we have an "epidemic of gun violence" due to "assault rifles" and "increased firepower" of modern "military style" firearms, so we have to restrict or ban magazine-fed firearms to reduce "gun violence". Yet after the Civil War, the homicide rate did not increase when "military style firearms" (repeaters, revolvers, lever-action) with "increased firepower" were sold as surplus to American civilians, yet no mass carnage with an increase in firepower and availability.

KeithE wrote:Try the Columbine mass murder for one. 40% of guns purchased are purchased through gun shows. 3/4 of the states have this loophole.
Sandy wrote:Keith mentioned Columbine. I believe that some of the weapons used in the Aurora theater shooting were also purchased at gun shows. The shooter in the school in Pearl, Mississippi and Jonesboro, Arkansas were as well, I believe. And Tucson.

From your linked article: "...they purchased through acquaintances who had visited a local gun show".
To have a significant role in the crime, it's not enough to say they were purchased at a gun show and therefore the background checks would have prevented the shooting. While one of the friends of the Columbine shooters testified she would have not purchased the guns if a background check had been required, there's no reason to believe that guys who spent time building 99 IEDs (which thankfully didn't work) for their rampage would have been stopped by such a small hurdle.

At best, a gun show background check most likely would have only caused the firearms to be purchased illegally or stolen. People intent on doing evil will find a way to get what they need to carry out their plans.

I'm not rabidly against background checks for private sales, but I think it's just window dressing and a feel-good policy without any evidence to support the goal that it is supposed to achieve. Meanwhile, it creates expense and inconvenience for a large number of folks that buy and sell their stuff each year and never cause a problem.

KeithE wrote:Meanwhile ~ 30,000 people die from guns each year about 60% of them suicides.

Fetuses are not the only lives that have “sanctity”.

Yep, but more stringent gun regulations doesn't do anything for sanctity of life in relation to suicides. From the study referenced above:
Though this article devotes much less space to suicide, the mantra more guns = more death/fewer guns = less death is also used to argue that "limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides.” Once again, this assertion is directly contradicted by the studies of 36 and 21 nations (respectively), which find no statistical relationship: overall suicide rates were no worse in nations with many firearms than in those where firearms were far less widespread.
***
Guns are just one among numerous available deadly instruments. So banning guns, or making them less available, cannot reduce the amount of suicide. Once again, all it reduces is the number of suicides by firearms. Suicide committed in other ways increases to make up the difference. To reiterate, data from across the world show no relationship between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership. People do not commit suicide because they have guns available. They kill themselves for reasons they deem sufficient, and in the absence of firearms they just kill themselves in some other way. (p. 49, 50)
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: More data....

Postby ET » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:29 pm

More from the study I referenced in my previous post:
In 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from an review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own. It could not identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in a 2003 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then-extant studies. (p. 11)

***
However unintentionally, the irrelevance of focus on weaponry is highlighted by the most common theme in more guns = more death arguments. Epitomizing this theme is a World Health Organization (WHO) report solemnly asserting, “The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates.” The authors apparently assume that (for instance) if denied firearms potential suicides will decide to live rather than turning to knives, poisons, hanging, jumping from great heights or the numerous other available suicide mechanisms. The evidence, however, indicates that all that is accomplished by the removal of one particular means from people who are motivated to suicide by social, economic, cultural or other circumstances is their killing themselves by some other means. Thus it is not just the murder rate in gun - less Russia that is four times higher than the American rate; the Russian suicide rate is also about four times higher than the American.

(ET: in response to Keith's statement: "Ergo tight gun control leads to less fatal gun violence." Apparently he runs with a crowd of neurotics who fear death by gunshot more than death by any other means) :D
There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns = more death mantra seem oblivious to it. One study solemnly asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world’s other 35 “richest nations.” While this is literally true, it is irrelevant except, perhaps to people who are neurotically terrified not of death per se but just by gunshot. A fact of greater concern to normal people – but which the study fails to mention -- is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the U.S. as in several of those other wealthy nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing and/or beating is much more frequent.
***
In any event, there is no reason for laws against gun possession by ordinary, law abiding responsible adults since they virtually never murder. Since such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them is not just unproductive but counter-productive. (p. 25)
***
Thus we believe that both sides of the gun prohibition debate are wrong in seeing the availability of guns as a major determinative factor in the incidence of murder in any particular society. We recognize, however, that many people believe that gun availability has great importance in explaining homicide rates. To those who prefer that belief we offer an admonition based on the historical, geographic, and demographic evidence explored in this article. Whether gun availability be viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. This pattern simply cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns = more death and fewer guns = less. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns = less murder and other violent crime. We now proceed to further examine that consistent international pattern. Even if one is inclined to think that gun availability is an important factor the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns = more death and fewer guns = less. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns = less violent crime.(p. 29-30)

Have a great day. :)
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby KeithE » Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:00 am

Here's a take down of the Kates/Mauser “study".
It showed DATA like

Image

and this guns owned per 100 people DATA

United States 89
Switzerland 46
Finland 45
Sweden 32
Canada 31
France 31
Norway 31
Austria 30
Germany 30
Iceland 30
New Zealand 23
Northern Ireland 22
Belgium 17
Luxembourg 15
Australia 15
Denmark 12
Ireland 09
UK (England and Wales) 06
Netherlands 04


Year after year the US has the highest murder by guns rate ( by a factor of five more than any other developed country - Lichenstein in 2007 is an outlier- read “take down” link). Instructive that Switzerland with the second largest gun ownership has second largest firearms homicide rate in 2010 for the developed nations shown (dark blue bars - look at plot in article for clearer picture).

Yet ET would still have us believe, we don’t have a gun problem in the US.

Kates and Mauser greatly misrepresent the 2003 CDC and 2004 NAS reports (read them yourself):

2003 CDC “First Report” on Gun Law Effectiveness
Executive Summary: During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

They went on to say more effective gun laws are needed.

The 2004 NAS Report was mainly a plea for better data and the difficulty in causal associating gun ownership rates with firearms homicides and suicides. It does not say that as Kates and Mauser summarized it:
In 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from an review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own. It could not identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.
In fact it said wrt to suicides that
higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide

but it was inconclusive wrt to the link of gun laws to firearm homicides wanting more data of other factors to show a causal link.

2013 NAS Report: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence largely echoes the 2004 Report. We still have not collected the DATA to explain the reasons for the US’s very high rate of firearm homicides or created effective laws to curtail it. But the facts above remain - we have greater than 5x the firearm homicides than any other developed country and we have nearly twice the gun ownership than any other developed country.

No doubt gun laws are not the only answer but reducing the number of guns would no doubt help. Glorified violence, desperation due to poverty, poor marriages, mental health are no doubt other factors in the US murder rates. The following would also help, imo.
1) censoring/not allowing advertising of violent movies/ video games
2) min wage increases and more jobs,
3) attention/intervention into spousal abuse situations, and
4) more identification of troubled people for mental health care.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby Timothy Bonney » Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:51 am

Strong stats on the gun violence issues that so many US citizens just don't want to admit. We have become a very gun violent society. Are we going to do something about it? Or are we going to descend into the kind country were violence like in some parts of Mexico is common place? Are we going to become a country where police have to carry high powered weapons as in the middle east just to keep up? Is this what we want the US to become?
Tim Bonney
Blog - http://circuitwriter.org
User avatar
Timothy Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Sioux City, Iowa

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby ET » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:27 pm

Well, I'm sorry my "study" is not as good as your "studies". :roll: There's probably not a study that's ever been done that someone, somewhere hasn't taken issue with with some point. Fine, you're free to post "rebuttal witnesses". However, you didn't venture to address the issues that are far more relevant to this discussion than whether Liechtenstein is a valid data point. Those issues would be the ones raised from these excerpts:
The authors apparently assume that (for instance) if denied firearms potential suicides will decide to live rather than turning to knives, poisons, hanging, jumping from great heights or the numerous other available suicide mechanisms. The evidence, however, indicates that all that is accomplished by the removal of one particular means from people who are motivated to suicide by social, economic, cultural or other circumstances is their killing themselves by some other means.
***
There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns = more death mantra seem oblivious to it.
***
... data from across the world show no relationship between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership. People do not commit suicide because they have guns available. They kill themselves for reasons they deem sufficient, and in the absence of firearms they just kill themselves in some other way

You won't solve a thing with gun control as it relates to suicide, and probably only can make a weak argument at best as it relates to homicide. Yes, in some instances some people won't die because a gun was not readily available, but the trade-off is that some people will die, be raped or assaulted because one is NOT available because they have been prevented from owning one or must keep it locked away where it is of no practical use.

Back to the suicide issue. Based on wikipedia data for suicides and this compilation of firearms ownership by the U.K. Guardian, here's the suicide rates of the U.S. and some other countries (first column) compared to firearms ownership numbers (second column):
    Japan________21.7_____0.6
    Russia_______19.6_____8.9
    Austria______15.45____15
    France_______14.7_____31
    U.S._________12_______89
    Norway_______11.9_____32
    U.K._________11.8_____6.2 (Eng/Wales), 5.5 (scotland)
    Canada_______11.5_____31
    Denmark______11.3_____12
    Sweden_______11.1_____32
    Switzerland__11.1_____46
    Australia____10_______15
    Germany______9.9______30
This data goes directly to the point the authors of my study (or "study" if we use Keith's term) assert: taking away the gun doesn't do anything for suicide rates. France has 1/3 the number of firearms, but a higher suicide rate. Japan has very few guns, but the highest suicide rate in the world. The U.S. has a huge number of firearms, yet just barely is ahead of a lot of countries with far fewer firearms and all the countries ahead of it have much lower number of firearms.

Per the Salon.com article, 2/3rds of the "gun deaths" in this country are suicides. Take away the guns and we'll still have 21,000 or so people killing themselves each year, just not as a result of "gun violence". They've just been moved to a much more apparently palpable "suicide by some other means" column.

You also bring up the tired old tripe:
KeithE wrote:"...higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide,"

And higher rates of suicide with rope will be more prevalent in houses that have rope. I bet there's even a higher rate of stabbings in homes that have sharp, pointy objects. Probably a higher rate of drowning toddlers in homes that have swimming pools. We're in "Captain Obvious" territory, here.

keithe wrote:They went on to say more effective gun laws are needed

Of course they did. One should never expect them to say anything but that.

Timothy Bonney wrote:Strong stats on the gun violence issues that so many US citizens just don't want to admit. We have become a very gun violent society.

And if we are able to wish away the guns tomorrow, what makes anyone think we just won't be a plain old violent society, minus the gun adjective?

Take a look at this article from the U.K.: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. (NOTE:a caveat here. The U.K. more broadly defines violent crime than most other countries, so I don't think the U.K. is as "violent" as it would appear from this article because of their broader definition of what constitutes a violent crime.)

The U.S. has a violent crime rate of 466 per 100k. Keith's beloved Sweden has more than double the U.S. at 1123. Canada rates at 945, France at 504 and the Netherlands at 676. Finland brings in 738. Austria has a rate of 1677.

Since in the U.K. they don't have much "gun crime", they've got "knife crime" sections in their papers (well, at least one of them :lol: ). Whereas many states have mandatory jail time for gun crimes, the U.K. has evolved to trying to do the same for "knife crime".

And why would anyone think we would become like Mexico? Mexico only has a gun ownership rate of 15 per 100 people, which is 17% of ours (89). However, they have a firearm homicide rate (9.97) more than three times ours (2.97). (from the previously linked U.K. Guardian info)

Total thread drift here:

So, Keith, ever played any of the RTJ golf courses? I'm shuttling some of the girls on my daughter's HS volleyball team to a camp at UAB next week. Considering trying to work in a round at one of the Muscle Shoals courses or at B-ham. A former neighbor of mine said he remembered the Muscle Shoals courses to be better.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby KeithE » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:59 pm

ET wrote:So, Keith, ever played any of the RTJ golf courses? I'm shuttling some of the girls on my daughter's HS volleyball team to a camp at UAB next week. Considering trying to work in a round at one of the Muscle Shoals courses or at B-ham. A former neighbor of mine said he remembered the Muscle Shoals courses to be better.


Yes I play the RTJ courses; played the Schoolmaster at the Shoals RTJ on July 4th. It ate my lunch on the front nine (57) but I recovered nicely (for me) with a 43 on the back nine.

The best but most expensive course ($100+) is the Ross Bridge course in B’ham. I would agree that the Shoals courses are a little better than the Oxmoor Valley courses; but all RTJ courses are good - I’ve played them all. Ridge Course at Oxmoor is better (more scenic, more specular holes, but tougher) than the Valley Course. https://www.rtjgolf.com

If you want to play together, give me your choice and a date/time and I’ll try to be there. I do work full time but can work very flexible hours. It would be fun to shoot (no pun intended) a round (also no pun intended) together.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby ET » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:51 pm

If I get everything set, I'll be down there on Tuesday morning (15th) to play and would like to be in B-ham by 3 as the camp is supposed to end at 4 and I'd like a little cushion. Once I find out for sure when the camp ends, I'll PM you and we can see if we can get it arranged. Probably shoot for a tee-off between 8:30 and 9:30 and guessing about a four hour round.

There's a chance my former next door neighbor might come along, but I haven't heard anything back from him on it, so that's just a possibility at the moment. I'll talk to you soon. :)

If it works out, I'll make the reservations online. We can discuss which of the two to play. We not too far off on skill level, either. On a typical course I can shoot anywhere from 43-50, so given one of the RTJ courses will probably be a step up in difficulty than the stuff I regularly play, we should have a good time.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence

Postby KeithE » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:58 pm

ET wrote:If I get everything set, I'll be down there on Tuesday morning (15th) to play and would like to be in B-ham by 3 as the camp is supposed to end at 4 and I'd like a little cushion. Once I find out for sure when the camp ends, I'll PM you and we can see if we can get it arranged. Probably shoot for a tee-off between 8:30 and 9:30 and guessing about a four hour round.

There's a chance my former next door neighbor might come along, but I haven't heard anything back from him on it, so that's just a possibility at the moment. I'll talk to you soon. :)

If it works out, I'll make the reservations online. We can discuss which of the two to play. We not too far off on skill level, either. On a typical course I can shoot anywhere from 43-50, so given one of the RTJ courses will probably be a step up in difficulty than the stuff I regularly play, we should have a good time.

Are you thinking Shoals or Oxmoor or Ross Bridge? If Shoals better make that tee time early. Could take 4.5 to 5 hours to play and Shoals to Birmingham is about 2.0-2.5 hours.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest