Too many guns

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

Moderator: Jon Estes

Too many guns

Postby KeithE » Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:07 am

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?

Look at the plot at the leadoff of the link above (it does not copy well).

The United States has 270 million guns and had 90 mass shooters from 1966 to 2012.
No other country has more than 46 million guns or 18 mass shooters.

When the world looks at the United States, it sees a land of exceptions: a time-tested if noisy democracy, a crusader in foreign policy, an exporter of beloved music and film.

But there is one quirk that consistently puzzles America’s fans and critics alike. Why, they ask, does it experience so many mass shootings?

Perhaps, some speculate, it is because American society is unusually violent. Or its racial divisions have frayed the bonds of society. Or its citizens lack proper mental care under a health care system that draws frequent derision abroad.

These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

Underline bold mine.

Second amendment? Blooey, that was for a day when we had state militias and the guns were for their use.

Don’t politicize gun control before the funerals? Double blooey! At the very least:
1) End purchase of assault style weapons by individuals and recall any that are out there now.
2) Universal background checks for any gun purchase with a decision threshold moved to be much more restrictive
3) Have voting record on gun control measure pervasively publicized. The American public are for 1) and 2) by large majorities.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2501
95% in favor of universal background checks, 65% in favor of banning assault weapons.

And consider
4) Disallowing any contributions from the NRA to any candidate.
5) Ending the shoot-em-up movies/video games fouling up our culture.
6) Pay for at least two guards at each school over a certain size. Hey such middle wage ($15-$40/hour) jobs are also good for the economy.
7) More public calls for reporting of mentally deranged people by parents, and social media “friends” - with active intervention of possible shooters before the shootings (at least take away their guns, put them on a no-buy list and get them subsidized mental health counseling). We have far more such people in this country than “foreign terrorists”.
Last edited by KeithE on Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Too many guns

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:35 am

KeithE wrote:Second amendment? Blooey, that was for a day when we had state militias and the guns were for their use.
Your opinion, but not that of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms...The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment...Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion...Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Too many guns

Postby KeithE » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:56 am

Rvaughn wrote:
KeithE wrote:Second amendment? Blooey, that was for a day when we had state militias and the guns were for their use.
Your opinion, but not that of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms...The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment...Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion...Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."

Times change and the second amendment needs to be updated. That is why the Constitution is amendable - that should be initiated ASAP and worked hard. The SCOTUS should be in front of that, in many cases - this being one. Even this SCOTUS ruling suggests that the right to a gun is listed specifically for the purpose go that gun purchase. If it is an assault style automatic gun or bump-stock purchase, we should deny that purchase on this basis while legislation is being completed.

Question for someone who has recently bought guns. Do they even ask why the gun is being purchased?

All previously bought assault rifles should be recalled as best we can. If it can’t be done perfectly, do it anyway.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Too many guns

Postby William Thornton » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:30 pm

Gun control lobby gets shellacked even after these horrific events. Does any sane person think it possible to get 38 states to ratify?
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12027
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Too many guns

Postby Tim Bonney » Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:44 pm

We have a problem. We have more guns per capita than any other civilized country. We have more mass shootings than any other civilized country. We have had 18 school shootings this year and 29 mass shootings of all kinds since January 1. There is a mass shooting in the US now at a rate of one about every 60 hours.

We have a problem with guns and violence and instead of addressing any of it we are just going to sit around and argue while children die. Yep, that is what we are going to keep doing. We are going to watch children die month after month and not do a da*n thing.

I think we need to stop the partisan bickering, stop our fetishizing the possession of guns and actually do something.

Every time a congress persons says the phrase "thoughts and prayers" I now get nauseated. "Thoughts and prayers" has become an excuse for doing nothing. It time for prayers and actions.

The next time someone calls this country a "Christian nation" I may vomit.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Too many guns

Postby Haruo » Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:02 pm

They can take all the guns away as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't infringe upon my sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear Personal Tactical Nuclear Weapons.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12174
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Too many guns

Postby Jon Estes » Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:14 pm

If Pew is correct, the majority of citizens either have a gun or can see themselves owning a gun.

FA008A92-60DB-4F38-BF70-CC0622FED341.png


Do we take away vehicles when the number of “drive into a crowd and kill people” rises?

Why the silence when non-mass shooting are happening at a much quicker rate? Over 17,000 (not all by gun) murdered in 2016.

I think making this tragedy political and not seeking a practical solution will be the failure of the argument... again.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Too many guns

Postby Haruo » Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:22 pm

A large percentage of Americans own guns, but very few own semi- or fully-automatic guns. Most of these mass shootings seem to involve them, though.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12174
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Too many guns

Postby Jon Estes » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:12 pm

Haruo wrote:A large percentage of Americans own guns, but very few own semi- or fully-automatic guns. Most of these mass shootings seem to involve them, though.


And an imbalanced person who is going to kill will do so without a semi automatic weapon. Removing them does not stop the killing. It just causes them to choose a different gun.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Too many guns

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:05 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:We have had 18 school shootings this year ...
According to WAPO No, there haven’t been 18 school shootings in 2018. That number is flat wrong.
Everytown has long inflated its total by including incidents of gunfire that are not really school shootings. Take, for example, what it counted as the year’s first: On the afternoon of Jan. 3, a 31-year-old man who had parked outside a Michigan elementary school called police to say he was armed and suicidal. Several hours later, he killed himself. The school, however, had been closed for seven months. There were no teachers. There were no students.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Too many guns

Postby Sandy » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:31 pm

Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8751
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Too many guns

Postby Jon Estes » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:28 pm

Sandy wrote:...stricter laws lead to less shooting.


The same can be said concerning immigration laws.

Fact - If every illegal who killed someone in the US were not in the US, those persons killed would be alive.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Too many guns

Postby KeithE » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:08 am

Jon Estes wrote:If Pew is correct, the majority of citizens either have a gun or can see themselves owning a gun.

FA008A92-60DB-4F38-BF70-CC0622FED341.png


Do we take away vehicles when the number of “drive into a crowd and kill people” rises?

Why the silence when non-mass shooting are happening at a much quicker rate? Over 17,000 (not all by gun) murdered in 2016.

I think making this tragedy political and not seeking a practical solution will be the failure of the argument... again.

Let’s make a comparison of murders via guns vs murders via cars “drive(n) into a crowd and killing people” as well as the remedies that would be involved to improve the situation.

In terms of numbers of murders in the US via guns:

There were approx 8124 homicides via guns in the US in 2014 and 11, 079 in 2010 out of approx 17250 homicides in 2016 - Jon's "Over 17,000 (not all by gun)” is about all that Jon had correct. (I say “approx” to say these stats are not that precise and I’m sorry about the various years cited - all I could easily find this morning- I’m still jet lagged).

There were 11 murders by vehicle (not all cars) ramming in the US since 2000 (8 of those in this NYC attack in May 2017): Look at and count the “kills" here and here. More of a problem in the Middle East and Europe but even there, pales in light of the US gun deaths.

That is less than 1/yr deaths by vehicle ramming as opposed to 8000 - 11,000/year by guns (“at least” 267 by assault style rifles in 2016)

In terms of remedies to curtail the murders
Eliminating deaths by banning assault weapons (an offensive weapon): Very few honorable people affected by a banning assault rifles and those can learn to use simple rifles for sport shooting of animals.

Eliminating deaths by banning handguns (both offensive and defensive weapon): There are many people who think handguns protects their homes and themselves; they may be right - but I doubt their effectiveness when you consider gun accidents (633 deaths/year) and suicides by gun (21,386 deaths/year). To those I say use any of 10 proven non-lethal weapons for home-protection.

Eliminating deaths by vehicle ramming: Jon's sarcastic suggestion is that we would have to eliminate cars. Most all Americans are reliant on cars. Remedying by eliminating cars would be extreme to same. (But we could be worked on as well - another subject (mass transportation)).
************
Jon’s attempted equivalence between vehicle ramming murders and gun murders (either assault rifles or less lethal firearms) does not show so well to say the least (i.e it is specious). You will have to come up with some other arguments to make you case that gun control is not needed and is long overdo.

The argument that no remedy will be 100% effective is also specious. If it is 30% effective, it would be worth it, imo.

Just what is your “practical solution” Jon? I’m ready for anything that would help.

Avoid Russian bots (twitter and facebook) on this subject - they are continuing to drive wedges between our people.

But thanks for making this specious argument since it made me look at the facts. In light of these facts, I'll
1) Enhance my call from merely banning assault style weapons to a national call to replace home protection by gun with non-lethal weapons (particularly in the light of gun accidents and ease of suicide).
2) I'll advocate for more mental health funding (instead of what Trump has done - 26% cut in funding in his 2018 Budget and I’ve ordered his 2019 “An American Budget” to see what is planned for 2019).



More info for your perusal at American Gun Culture in 10 charts.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Too many guns

Postby Rvaughn » Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:28 pm

KeithE wrote:Times change and the second amendment needs to be updated. That is why the Constitution is amendable - that should be initiated ASAP and worked hard.
All are welcome to this opinion and to work hard toward achieving it. I'm with William; getting 38 states to ratify something that jettisons the second amendment does not seem to be a practical or even remotely possible solution.

As you correctly noted in the ruling, SCOTUS ruling says that gun rights -- like any other right -- is not unlimited. So it seems the best solution is to work hard to find a solution that works with the second amendment, which probably isn't going anywhere.

We also need to work toward people solutions -- which may be the hardest of all. People drive cars into buildings and make bombs out of hardware store fertilizer -- finding means to their ends. Why do they desire those ends? How can we treat the causes and not just the symptoms?
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Too many guns

Postby KeithE » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:00 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
KeithE wrote:Times change and the second amendment needs to be updated. That is why the Constitution is amendable - that should be initiated ASAP and worked hard.
All are welcome to this opinion and to work hard toward achieving it. I'm with William; getting 38 states to ratify something that jettisons the second amendment does not seem to be a practical or even remotely possible solution.

As you correctly noted in the ruling, SCOTUS ruling says that gun rights -- like any other right -- is not unlimited. So it seems the best solution is to work hard to find a solution that works with the second amendment, which probably isn't going anywhere.

We also need to work toward people solutions -- which may be the hardest of all. People drive cars into buildings and make bombs out of hardware store fertilizer -- finding means to their ends. Why do they desire those ends? How can we treat the causes and not just the symptoms?


I agree modifying the Second Amendment will be extremely difficult. But the Mueller indictments (just made) on how they influenced the American mind (especially "Right Wing ethno-nationalistic” groups as Malcolm Nance just used on TV) may change things. I am hopeful that RW Americans will see how much they have been snookered. Nance had it right in his book The Plot to Hack America: How Putin’s Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election Paperback – October 10, 2016. He was right! But will the RW believe these facts?? And even more doubtful will it change the gun control politics.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Too many guns

Postby ET » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:46 pm

If there are too many guns, then how is the graphic below explained given these facts:

1) Per FBI data, the homicide rate now is approximately what it was in the early 1960s (graph in next post)
2) The number of semi-automatic rifles has grown significantly over the last 20 years even as the violent crime rate has dropped
3) Deaths by rifles constitute fewer than 300 homicides a year per FBI data in a nation of 310,000,000+

While I do not believe as a general rule that more guns equals less crime, I do not find any evidence that more guns leads to more crime. That has certainly not been the case in the U.S. as the graphic shows.
Attachments
percent_changes_since_1993_-_number_of_firearms_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993-2013.png
firearms vs homicidte rate
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2805
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: Too many guns

Postby ET » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:52 pm

Historical graph of homicide rate in the U.S.:
homicide_51yr.jpg
historical homicide rate

On a side note, the graph is also problematic for those that argue that increases in violent crime are a result of "taking prayer out of school", but that's another discussion and just shows that the rhetoric over many policy issues is simplified and largely useless.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2805
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: Too many guns

Postby KeithE » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:10 pm

ET wrote:Historical graph of homicide rate in the U.S.:
homicide_51yr.jpg

On a side note, the graph is also problematic for those that argue that increases in violent crime are a result of "taking prayer out of school", but that's another discussion and just shows that the rhetoric over many policy issues is simplified and largely useless.

ET’s graph by the AEI.
Image

Note that gun ownership before 1993 was also increasing since at least 1976. So much for that theory (gun protection cause less homicides) as a total explanation. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - source of ET's first plot - shows selective plotting by starting in 1993 when more data is available.

Image

I see that homicide rate by blacks peak years (1975, and 1991) exactly match that of the overall homicide rates.

Image

Image

The thing that must be explained is why. I suggest the better economic conditions as it affects minorities in the Clinton years (1993-2001) contributed to the drop in overall homicide rates since 1993. Obama years have seen decrease as well.

But I know it is not that simple. My main concern is about mass murders as they relate to assault weapons.

I too doubt the ending of school prayer by school officials had anything to do with the increased homicide rates after 1963.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Too many guns

Postby ET » Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:09 pm

Sigh. :wall: Some things don't change.
KeithE wrote:Note that gun ownership before 1993 was also increasing since at least 1976. So much for that theory (gun protection cause less homicides) as a total explanation. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - source of ET's first plot - shows selective plotting by starting in 1993 when more data is available.

Keith, I knew that whatever response you made, it would include some comment attacking the source of that graph. The reason I posted it anyway is because it showed the two opposing trends on one graph. The numbers are good and since the point of the argument was to show that an increase n the number of firearms does not correlate with an increase in violent crime, a twenty year period is quite valid since violent crime has been dropping since a peak in 1993. I do not argue in support of the popular pro-gun rhetoric that "more guns=less crime".

In the end, the graph shreds some standard anti-gun rhetoric:
* more guns leads to more violent crime - if that were true, the lines would not diverge
* the U.S. has an "epidemic of gun violence", in the context of implying that violent crime is increasing or has increased in the recent past, which an uniformed public believes

KeithE wrote:My main concern is about mass murders as they relate to assault weapons.

And when you wave your magic wand, make all semi-automatic rifles disappear and the criminal shows up at a school with a pump shotgun and a couple of revolvers tucked in his belt, then what? There's no reason to believe you won't seek to ban those because no one with a tiny amount of common-sense is going to believe that when these wackos show up with a shotgun and a revolver that folks are going to console themselves with "well, at least he didn't use an AR-15" or "well, the body count could have been so much higher with an AR-15".

KeithE wrote:Second amendment? Blooey, that was for a day when we had state militias and the guns were for their use.

And I guess by extension the First Amendment shouldn't apply to anything not printed on paper. TV, radio and the internet should not have First Amendment protections. Your computer and/or cell phone should be freely available to be confiscated and searched by law enforcement without a warrant. They had none of these things back in the day, so by your argument such protections only apply to things in existence at that time.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2805
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: Too many guns

Postby KeithE » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:41 pm

ET wrote:Sigh. :wall: Some things don't change.
KeithE wrote:Note that gun ownership before 1993 was also increasing since at least 1976. So much for that theory (gun protection cause less homicides) as a total explanation. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - source of ET's first plot - shows selective plotting by starting in 1993 when more data is available.

Keith, I knew that whatever response you made, it would include some comment attacking the source of that graph. The reason I posted it anyway is because it showed the two opposing trends on one graph. The numbers are good and since the point of the argument was to show that an increase n the number of firearms does not correlate with an increase in violent crime, a twenty year period is quite valid since violent crime has been dropping since a peak in 1993. I do not argue in support of the popular pro-gun rhetoric that "more guns=less crime”.

In the end, the graph shreds some standard anti-gun rhetoric:
* more guns leads to more violent crime - if that were true, the lines would not diverge
* the U.S. has an "epidemic of gun violence", in the context of implying that violent crime is increasing or has increased in the recent past, which an uniformed public believes


Yes things (our attitudes towards guns) have not changed. And yes I did point out that the conservative AEI was the source of this data - but I did not end there. I pointed out what they did in this analysis and it was not honest data analysis - it was selective timewise. What they were trying to show (prove?) was that more privately owned guns mean a lower homicide rate. So they created this plot.

Image
Note this data starts in 1993 and ends in 2013.

Let’s look at the DATA over much broader time frame.

Number of privately owned guns (1945 -2013) in the US has constantly grown far more than our population

Image

Homicide (not just guns) rate (1950-2014) has peaks in 1974, 1980 and 1991.
Image

Clearly the AEI started their plot when the homicide rate started to drop. That is selective analysis. And if the AEI had looked at the years 1963 until 1991, their case that more privately owned guns lower homicide rates would be discredited. But of course, they only show DATA that supports their case. Their case is certainly not established (increased guns does not always lower homicide rates); and increased guns in a country does not always increase homicide rates). I checked it even if we are talking only about gun homicide rates, same conclusion.

I’d look elsewhere for an explanation of the homicide rate changes over the years. Some ideas
- 1) Economics? I agree with you that the homicide rate did fall during the Clinton years - 1993-2000 (usually associated with the better economics among the desperate). It has stayed essentially constant since 2000 until today. Look at ETs AEI plot above. And I agree most Americans do not realize this - they are more impressed with the increase in mass murders. See below.
- 2) Black violence (of some sort) seems to be a likely explanation. Look at the peak years for “homicide offending by race” 1980 and 1991 - see plot below - are the same peak years for overall homicide rate - see plot above .

Image

However the subject of this thread is about mass murders (after the Parkland incident which used assault weapons).
KeithE wrote:My main concern is about mass murders as they relate to assault weapons.

And when you wave your magic wand, make all semi-automatic rifles disappear and the criminal shows up at a school with a pump shotgun and a couple of revolvers tucked in his belt, then what? There's no reason to believe you won't seek to ban those because no one with a tiny amount of common-sense is going to believe that when these wackos show up with a shotgun and a revolver that folks are going to console themselves with "well, at least he didn't use an AR-15" or "well, the body count could have been so much higher with an AR-15”.[/quote]

Mass murders have a sporadic history since 1980. But the trend is upward especially after the assault rifle ban was lifted in 2004.

Image

To fill this plot out with recent data, we had 208 deaths in mass murders in 2017 and so far (less than1/4 of a year elapsed) and have had 46 deaths in mass murders in 2018 - projected that would be 224 mass shootings - God forbid. So you can imagine on the chart above one bar of height 208 in 2017 and another bar with height of 224 in 2018 (projected).

The problem is clearly on the rise whether due to copy cat acts or whatever. When we had the assault weapon ban (1994-2004), we averaged less than 20 mass murder deaths /year (and never over 44 mass murder deaths / year).

Clearly we need an assault weapon ban to limit the rising mass murder of innocents and non-fatal carnage (be they at schools, churches, concerts, or potentially at mass demonstrations and sporting events, ...). And there is no good reason for ordinary citizens to have an assault weapon, not for hunting or self-defense.

And I do not advocate only for assault weapons bans; there are several other approaches I would recommend to include increasing funding to mental health, universal gun registration, better defenses at schools, more reporting of troubled individuals, more responses to those reportings, ... probably not arming teachers. Btw, Trump’s budget has cut funding for mental health and school safety.
Trump's latest budget would slash the major source of public funds for mental health treatment, the Medicaid program serving more than 70 million low-income and disabled people. The budget also calls for a 36 percent cut to an Education Department grant program that supports safer schools, reducing it by $25 million from the current level of $67.5 million.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Too many guns

Postby ET » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:40 pm

Well, rock on my friend. I may go shop for an AR. :) The graph shows exactly what it needs to show. That an increase in the number of firearms doesn't lead to an increase in violent crime. Other factors are in play that are independent of the number of firearms.

I might put it in the corner and watch it and document how many folks it assaults. :D

It's quite telling that you didn't answer what your plan would be when the guy shows up with a revolver and shotgun. Only logical to assume you'll come for those too. No reason to believe otherwise. It's common-sense.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2805
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: Too many guns

Postby KeithE » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:31 pm

ET wrote:Well, rock on my friend. I may go shop for an AR. :) The graph shows exactly what it needs to show. That an increase in the number of firearms doesn't lead to an increase in violent crime. Other factors are in play that are independent of the number of firearms.

I might put it in the corner and watch it and document how many folks it assaults. :D

It's quite telling that you didn't answer what your plan would be when the guy shows up with a revolver and shotgun. Only logical to assume you'll come for those too. No reason to believe otherwise. It's common-sense.

I did answer that an assault weapon ban would not in all likelihood end mass shootings; but it would reduce in number killed in any one incidence (if an assault weapon is not available). And in concert with the other approaches to curb gun violence, the incidence of mass shootings and carnage involved would be improved.

Perhaps before buying your AR (and reveling in it), you may want to suggest what you would do about the increasing problem.

Wrt the truncated graph, I am reminded of the Simon and Garfunkel song The Boxer when it says “a man hears (sees) what he wants to hear (see), and disregards (not even plot it) the rest”.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Too many guns

Postby ET » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:17 pm

Somehow I doubt many folks will find consolation in "well, at least he didn't use an AR" when the body count rolls in at some point in the future should such rifles ever be removed from society. Since in almost any of these instances the criminals are noted to have stated that they were looking to inflict the most carnage, they will just spend more time in planning how to get around the lack of a modern semi-automatic rifle if one is not available.

KeithE wrote:their case that more privately owned guns lower homicide rates would be discredited

Except that is not the point I am arguing, nor was the orginal article arguing such a point. Even though I am "pro-gun" as they say, I don't believe that more firearms necessarily results in lower crime. I just believe that, as the graph shows, an increase in the number of firearms does not lead to an increase in homicides. However, in contrast to some NRA and other rhetoric, I don't believe that it is proven that the decrease in homicides is tied to the increase in firearms. The point is that more privately owned firearms DOES NOT correlate with an increase in violent crime/homicides. Firearms are just tools used by those who decide to commit crimes.

Furthermore, NYC is an example that violent crime/homicides can decrease significantly without any large increase in the number of firearms available.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2805
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Jeff Duncan and FBC Laurens SC

Postby Stephen Fox » Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:46 pm

founding member of the US House Second Amendment Caucus I hope some of the Parkland Students can join him in SS this summer or fall. And Will Ainsworth of Grace Prez in Marshall Co Alabama runnin for LT governor in Bama.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9134
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron