Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?

[gah]

Or maybe murder by firearms has little to do with existence of guns or how easily they are accessed.....

did you read what you just wrote?

I was a bit confused by this as well.

[PIE-GUY]

I can't stand Ann Curry who apparently sparked this whole thing, but I'm doing it.

26 random acts of kindness in memory of the 26 fallen in Newtown, ct. I'm already on my fourth act... Giving blood as we speak.

Facebook.com/26acts

[VDB]

I'm certainly no Huckabee fan, but it's a bit of a rhetorical stretch to say that he "blames gays for the Newtown massacre" (Salon's headline). He's blaming society's overall moral decadence, as he sees it, and he rattles off a few symptoms of that decline, including among other things our increasing tolerance for homosexuality/gay rights. It's a version of the Jerry Falwell/Fred Phelps schtick -- preacher types righteously thundering that we've lost our way as Christians and turned our backs on a life of godliness, and that's why bad things happen to us. There are no revelations here in terms of exposing Mike Huckabee's philosophy -- we already knew where he (and members of the religious right like him) stood on homosexuality and how tolerance for that is an affront to god's teachings. It's just particularly disgusting to hear people trot out that judgmental, holier-than-thou intolerance within the context of scolding us for being so anti-Jesus and using tragedy to try and frighten us back into more penitent ways.

In a sense, he's making a similar argument you are, GAH (I'm not really trying to be provocative here -- OK, maybe just a little  :wink:) -- that society's values (or lack of them) as a whole are part of the bigger cause here. Y'all are just seeing that depravity manifested in different ways.

But still, yeah, fuck Mike Huckabee.

I wasn't trying to make an argument regarding where society's values are or should be. While I might have an opinion regarding that, it's not the point I was trying to make. (Unlike that comment from Huckabee or Stein where their opinion IS the point they're trying to make).

I was simply stating that if you're offended by what happened yet choose the route of inaction, you are contributing to the policies or lack thereof that make this type of incident possible. Not that if you don't do anything, you're not allowed to be upset by it, but we could debate all day on here and come up with a working solution the 20 or so of us can live with, but it doesn't make a difference. If you feel strongly about something, let those that represent you know. Societal change starts at the individual level.

I gotcha. All very valid.

[twatts]

I love guns.  I hate the killing innocent people.

I live in one of the most lax gun law areas of the country outside of Alaska.  You don't need concealed carry permits, you can buy guns and walk out of the store with one that day, AR-15s are very popular for "Varmit" hunting.

I own 15+ guns, both pistols and rifles.  I am all for gun reform to keep horrible shit like this happening.

From the rhetoric in this thread about how lax gun laws allow murderers to easily obtain guns and commit their vile offenses....

they don't?  how do these people get guns then?

"Those people" obtain guns like you or I do - they are NOT criminals and they buy them legally.  Then they commit a criminal act.

Or they buy them illegally, which (by definition) is illegal.

Or maybe murder by firearms has little to do with existence of guns or how easily they are accessed.....

did you read what you just wrote?

LOL!  Ok I concede that sounds really bad in retrospect!  But really, if all it took were in inordinate number of guns in a population to make murder by guns rise, then we should see a huge amount of murder in WY.  But there isn't.  Is it because of a smaller population?  More of a gun culture?  Perhaps.  Or maybe its b/c the fact that you have large numbers of guns that are easily accessible doesn't mean the number of murders automatically rises.

Terry

[rowjimmy]

Terry, are you really unable to conceive of the possibility that gun violence may be related to a combination of accessible guns AND mental illness?
Are you also aware of the fact that some people are just assholes but not necessarily mentally ill and they too sometimes use guns to hurt people?

Addressing a single element of the problem will not fix anything.

[twatts]

Terry, are you really unable to conceive of the possibility that gun violence may be related to a combination of accessible guns AND mental illness?
Are you also aware of the fact that some people are just assholes but not necessarily mentally ill and they too sometimes use guns to hurt people?

Addressing a single element of the problem will not fix anything.

I understand all those things - you are right, without guns there is no gun violence.  But other than a few posts, this whole thread has been about further gun control. 

Short of banning all guns (and driving them to the black market), how are you going to stop the a$$holes or the mentally ill persons that bought a gun last year from shooting up something next year? 

How about if we make murder illegal?  Done.  How about we limit who can buy guns, excluding former felons, minors, etc.  Done.  How about we institute waiting periods and background checks.  Done.

What else would you suggest we do?  B/c you're right.  Focusing on one issue, like the availability of guns, doesn't address the issue in whole.  I'll be happy to talk about how we need to increase funding for and availability of State Mental Health Services. 

Terry

[rowjimmy]

How about we limit who can buy guns, excluding former felons, minors, etc.  Done.  How about we institute waiting periods and background checks.  Done.

Everybody knows these laws are ridiculously full of holes. so I'd say that shit is not remotely "Done".


Anyway, has anyone linked this article from the Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

I'd like to quote one section in particular:

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:




"The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state," explains Florida. "It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. 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)."

This shows a correlation between gun control legislation and reduced deaths. Not a significat one but I'd say that this is likely because the laws do not go far enough.


Also, this:

I'll be happy to talk about how we need to increase funding for and availability of State Mental Health Services. 

Terry

No one is dismissing that. I think we all agree on that.
But you're the one who keeps dismissing expanding the discussion to gun control.

[gah]

A novel idea I heard elsewhere was some form of gun insurance. Actually, here's an article on it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/breakingviews/2012/12/18/congress_should_push_for_mandatory_gun_insurance.html

Moreover, the market should be efficient at weighing the risks. Insurers specialize in figuring out the odds of something going wrong and charging the appropriate amount.
...
So a shotgun owner who has hunted for years without incident could be charged far less than a first-time owner purchasing a semi-automatic. In other words, people would be financially discouraged from purchasing the most risky firearms and encouraged to attend gun safety classes and use trigger locks. And the insurance could provide some restitution for those hurt by guns.

Yeah, the idea of throwing your hands in the air and saying we've "Done" all we can doesn't really make sense to me. There's other options than just saying  ban all guns, which btw terry, I don't think anyone on here has proposed (but I could be wrong, don't feel like reading the entire thread again)

[twatts]

How about we limit who can buy guns, excluding former felons, minors, etc.  Done.  How about we institute waiting periods and background checks.  Done.

Everybody knows these laws are ridiculously full of holes. so I'd say that shit is not remotely "Done".

Which is why I mentioned earlier that those hole needs to be plugged:

Are there loop-holes?  Certainly, and they should be closed.  Should we update and reinstate the Fed Assault Weapons Ban, of course.  Should we seek to change our society and culture to look for non-violent ways to express ourselves?  That's a no-brainer!

And here:

I do support closing the loop-holes and adapting laws as times change.

Anyway, has anyone linked this article from the Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

I'd like to quote one section in particular:

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:




"The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state," explains Florida. "It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. 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)."

This shows a correlation between gun control legislation and reduced deaths. Not a significat one but I'd say that this is likely because the laws do not go far enough.

Let's not confuse firearm deaths with murder by firearms.  Child locks will not prevent someone that owns a gun from taking it off and murdering someone.  BTW that's a great article...

Also, this:

Doesn't this just demonstrate that perfect normal people (who can buy a gun legally - someone like you or I) sometimes commit criminal acts with guns? 

I'll be happy to talk about how we need to increase funding for and availability of State Mental Health Services. 

No one is dismissing that. I think we all agree on that.
But you're the one who keeps dismissing expanding the discussion to gun control.

Point out a specific facet of gun control we need to change and we can talk about it.

Terry

[twatts]

A novel idea I heard elsewhere was some form of gun insurance. Actually, here's an article on it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/breakingviews/2012/12/18/congress_should_push_for_mandatory_gun_insurance.html

I've also seen talk about making the manufacturers liable...  That would increase their own margins making guns more expensive, and limit the number of big-bangers produced (since they would have a higher level of liability)...  Why sell a gun that you might have to pay for in the future???  They'd all start selling nerf-guns fairly quickly...

Terry
 

[gah]

A novel idea I heard elsewhere was some form of gun insurance. Actually, here's an article on it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/breakingviews/2012/12/18/congress_should_push_for_mandatory_gun_insurance.html

I've also seen talk about making the manufacturers liable...  That would increase their own margins making guns more expensive, and limit the number of big-bangers produced (since they would have a higher level of liability)...  Why sell a gun that you might have to pay for in the future???  They'd all start selling nerf-guns fairly quickly...

Terry

Why would they have to pay for it in the future?

[twatts]

A novel idea I heard elsewhere was some form of gun insurance. Actually, here's an article on it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/breakingviews/2012/12/18/congress_should_push_for_mandatory_gun_insurance.html

I've also seen talk about making the manufacturers liable...  That would increase their own margins making guns more expensive, and limit the number of big-bangers produced (since they would have a higher level of liability)...  Why sell a gun that you might have to pay for in the future???  They'd all start selling nerf-guns fairly quickly...

Terry

Why would they have to pay for it in the future?

What do you mean, that's what "liability" means...  If manufacturer's were liable for future uses of the gun, they would be more reluctant to sell them presently.  If a manufacturer feels that a certain type of gun is more likely to produce results that force the company to pay, they will quit making that gun.   

Terry

[twatts]

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:




"The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state," explains Florida. "It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. 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)."

Interestingly enough, CT is one of those Yellow/Slashed States... 

Terry

[gah]

A novel idea I heard elsewhere was some form of gun insurance. Actually, here's an article on it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/breakingviews/2012/12/18/congress_should_push_for_mandatory_gun_insurance.html

I've also seen talk about making the manufacturers liable...  That would increase their own margins making guns more expensive, and limit the number of big-bangers produced (since they would have a higher level of liability)...  Why sell a gun that you might have to pay for in the future???  They'd all start selling nerf-guns fairly quickly...

Terry

Why would they have to pay for it in the future?

What do you mean, that's what "liability" means...  If manufacturer's were liable for future uses of the gun, they would be more reluctant to sell them presently.  If a manufacturer feels that a certain type of gun is more likely to produce results that force the company to pay, they will quit making that gun.   

Terry

That's my point. What are those "results" that you're talking about? The gun not being used for its intended purpose?

I agree, you're right. The manufacturers being held liable would limit the number of "big-bangers" produced and sold, but for those that are in the market for such an item because that's the only thing that will get the job done, they'd be willing to pay that larger amount. It wouldn't have to cut into their profits as they'd make up for in price point what they lose in volume.

ETA: so I don't think they'd "quit making the gun", they'd just make less of them, mark it up to make up the difference and cover the liability. We'd have less fo the "big bangers" and only in the hands of those that really "need" them.

[twatts]

That's my point. What are those "results" that you're talking about? The gun not being used for its intended purpose?

Yeah, that's what I mean.  Specifically, damage to personal property and injury.  Shooting a deer doesn't carry an liability, shooting up a house or person does. 

I agree, you're right. The manufacturers being held liable would limit the number of "big-bangers" produced and sold, but for those that are in the market for such an item because that's the only thing that will get the job done, they'd be willing to pay that larger amount. It wouldn't have to cut into their profits as they'd make up for in price point what they lose in volume.

ETA: so I don't think they'd "quit making the gun", they'd just make less of them, mark it up to make up the difference and cover the liability. We'd have less fo the "big bangers" and only in the hands of those that really "need" them.

Isn't that a "win" for all players???  Manufacturers will still be able to pull in their profit and fewer guns on the street...  All without passing legislation further limiting a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun, ie "gun control".

Perhaps we can find a model in the Tobacco Law Suits.  Why should health insurers pay for all the "damages"?  Why not make the manufacturer's pay for some of it, even if owning and using tobacco is entirely voluntary by a third party, namely the individual citizen. 

Terry