|
I'm not sure why the year 1 statistics should be used to justify inaction. To make up numbers, if it's 10,000 lives lost going door to door to get all guns off the streets, that's absolutely bad. But if, for example, this saved 1,000 lives a year from suicide/shootings, then we can calculate the ROI to be 10 years. If we continue the ban in perpetuity then at year 11 we've saved 1,000 lives. The people who would be affected are those who choose not to turn in their guns (now illegal under the law) and police officers who can choose to quit this profession at any point. We're not sending grandma into the firefight.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:well yeah statistically, mass shootings just arent' a major cause of death in the country. This. For so many peoples pet issues, its always this in the end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:Okay... So... just to be clear here: In a confiscation scenario, how many people in California do you think would be non-compliant? As in how many are going to be involved with possibly violent confrontations with the state? Let's say over a 3 year period of confiscation or something. If the answer is "I don't know" I mean ballpark how many people you were imagining when you wrote that. Well, also just to be clear, this would have to be a nationwide ban, just confiscating assault rifles in California would be pointless as previously mentioned. I imagine that we'd have a handful of Waco-like situations nation wide, plus probably dozens of smaller cases of people choosing to fight rather than let the federales in to search & seize guns. But it's such a theoretical question! In theory, this could only happen if there was political will to make it happen: which requires the voting public's opinion to also have shifted hugely from where it is now; which in turn suggests that the number of people who would resist might be smaller? Really we just have no idea, and it's entirely academic. The real, broad argument I'm trying to push towards is a package of complaints about how toxic and stupid our culture is, about how we as a voting polity nationwide and yeah statewide are far too easily swayed and convinced by appeals to fear, our public policies and especially our laws are irrational and inconsistent as a result. Those of us who support gun control - and I'm definitely among the group - are best served advocating for controls that are both within the realm of actually being possible to pass in today's political climate, and, actually capable of being effective. And so while Dead Reckoning may be really terrible in whatever ways you like, he's correct that California's ban on the sale of assault weapons is transparently ineffective. I argued that he's incorrect in the assertion that no ban on assault weapons could ever be effective, or that it'd be inherently immoral to criminalize a thing that was previously not criminal on the basis that this makes criminals of the innocent. And I argued that ultimately, I agree with the majority in this thread that assault weapon style guns are really not something american civilians need, even for the sorts of uses that a majority of americans seem to think justify gun ownership such as hunting, sporting, or "personal protection." But that to actually get rid of them, we'd have to engage in confiscation, which I think if we could actually agree as a country to do that, would be justifiable even if it meant the likelihood of violent resistance by those unwilling to comply with that new law. But that last paragraph is all just wishful thinking and hand-wringing about impractical and theoretical situations we can't possibly face in the near future. I probably made a mistake just to engage with the ideas there, because it detracted from the important points; that while horrifying, mass shootings are not a major or leading or statistically significant cause of death, and our policies and laws should rationally focus on the most significant deaths and how to prevent them. When it comes to violent deaths related to guns, that's suicides first and foremost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I don’t agree with dead reckoning on this policy, but this statement is not actually false. According to most criminologists the variable most strongly related to crime rates, including violent crime, is the likelihood that a person committing a crime is caught, or at least the perception of the likelihood of being caught. So putting more cops on the street, increasing the size and scope of the surveillance state, and convincing people to report more crimes, are more likely to reduce homicide than new gun laws. Also policies that eliminate black markets for drugs like drug legalization are likely to reduce violent crime rates, because it allows black market participants to settle disputes in courts instead of with violence. do these criminologists have anything to say about rehabilitation vs incarceration Leperflesh posted:well yeah statistically, mass shootings just arent' a major cause of death in the country. can't believe the liberals are trying to take guns away from diabetes and cancer researchers
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:can't believe the liberals are trying to take guns away from diabetes and cancer researchers The chart also looks like a gun. Makes you think...
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with diabetes is a good guy with diabetes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Hey guys if only there was a thread for this
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:do these criminologists have anything to say about rehabilitation vs incarceration I don’t remember. I’m thinking of the transcript of some round table I read and they basically all agreed incarceration sometimes prevents people from committing crime, but the US does it way too much. They were nearly calling for emptying the prisons and turning all the prison guards into cops. In particular they singled out really long sentences as particularly inefficient, because after someone turns 28 they become much less likely to commit violent acts regardless of their past. They basically age out of violent crime, so there’s no utility in keeping them in prison. At least from a crime fighting perspective, justice is a different matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Environmental regulations can't prevent all pollution related deaths. And even in California with some of the strictest anti-pollution laws you have companies like Chevron or even small time gold miners flaunting the law and getting away with it. Isn't it time we admit that environmental regulations have failed? Sure you could send jackboot thugs into every business to confiscate polluting chemicals, but they can just make more and think of all the deaths that would be caused by spills etc in the process. When will liberals admit that we should stop trying to prevent people from polluting when it just won't work. We instead need to focus on issues like education and poor community zoning that are the bigger drivers of why people ingest toxins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Anti-gun control arguments are the stupidest poo poo. America is not the only developed country that has poor mental healthcare. America is not the only developed country that has poverty. America is not the only developed nation that has a less than ideal education system. America is not the only developed country that has immigration and economic “anxiety”. America IS the only developed country with insane gun fetishizing culture, few restrictions on ownership, and regular mass shootings. I’m betting that’s related.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Anti-gun control arguments are the stupidest poo poo. My reply: *posts 5 paragraph explanation of why data isn't correct that already got shut down in the gun thread*
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
If 410,757,864,350 gun nuts and cops die in the shootouts I'm cool with that to save firearms-related victims. Then make police carry a baton like in Britain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
Yes, this. Though I'm going to finish my point, since I only wanted to address this one thingLeperflesh posted:But that last paragraph is all just wishful thinking and hand-wringing about impractical and theoretical situations we can't possibly face in the near future. I probably made a mistake just to engage with the ideas there, because it detracted from the important points; that while horrifying, mass shootings are not a major or leading or statistically significant cause of death, and our policies and laws should rationally focus on the most significant deaths and how to prevent them. When it comes to violent deaths related to guns, that's suicides first and foremost. Right. I always try to imagine other people as engaging in good faith, so I believe that you and I are imagining different levels of non-compliance, hence why I wanted an idea of what you were imagining, and like you say: It is highly theoretical and there's not a great way we can estimate what kind "cost" that a newly defined "Assault Weapon Ban" would have. I imagine non-compliance would be... substantial. While I understand you're talking about a federal ban so as to try and cover scenarios where firearms flow in from out of state... I talk about California specifically because we did have another AWB (passed in 2016) recently, and while you brought up that it isn't very effective, I think we can glean a bit from numbers and compliance. Bear with me as I link the Firearm's Policy Coalition. They made this page with an infographics about the registration and how the registration is a failure, etc etc. Of those stats, they estimate that compliance (That is, people that attempted to register) is about 3%. This is a -bit- dubious because they compare the total number of AW applications (64,612) to the number of firearms sold that would theoretically fall under this ban (1,300,000) along with an estimate of "home-built" firearms that would fall under the ban (500,000) for a total of ~1,800,000 new firearms in California from 1/1/2000 through 12/31/2017. I believe the 1,300,000 number comes from comparing the data from the referenced CA Open Justice Page on firearm sales, which lists about ~5.31 million long gun sales and ~5.28 handgun sales for that period, and further separates out new versus used firearm sales... and from what I've read elsewhere they compared these total long gun sales to industry sales data from the NSSF (which isn't completely available to the public), probably of various models that are "California Compliant" firearms with bullet buttons, and came up with that 1,300,000 number. Most of these falling under the ban, probably like 90%, are rifles (There's a lot to be said about various laws surrounding handguns that makes the sale of "Assault Weapon" handguns much less likely during that period). No idea where they got the 500,000 home-made firearms number, though I imagine they contacted stores selling 80% lowers (or as DeLeon likes say "Ghost Guns") and got some idea on sales data. They then took that 64,612 and divided it by 1,800,000. I say it's a bit dubious because you're dividing applications, which is people registering as applications can contain multiple firearms (and a single person can make multiple applications), by the number of gun purchases, which is just firearms transferred without any data on how many to one person or whatever. It should be a person to person comparison if you make that claim, however, that data is probably not available, or at least not easily available. If you were making a firearms to firearms comparison, there were 68,848 firearms registered (Not sure of that how many were ultimately successful), of the purported 1,300,00 and 500,000, which brings the number of firearms registered from the possible pool to 4%. However! That doesn't take into account how many people bought compliance devices, similar to bullet buttons, that allow them to comply with the new statute and regulation. It also doesn't take into account those who decided to sell, disassemble, or move out of state their affected firearms so as to not violate the law. This data is not easy to come by. Thus, the pool of compliance would be larger than 4%. This is further complicated by the fact that the state spent no money on educating people about the registration process or deadlines; none of these ads like from 1991 (lol). Only notice given was on the CA DOJ website and if people read stories or saw it mentioned on the news by outlets. Now, the reason I went through all this is we have imperfect data, but it gives us some rough bounds about how compliant people might be with one of these California AWBs that allow for registration and keeping the firearm until their death (at which point it must be sold, transferred or moved out of state, converted to a legal version, or destroyed/turned into police). We know that (if we accept the above numbers which are hard to verify) that the pool would be larger than 4% for people that used compliance devices and what have you, and if there were more education and information campaigns (thinking about it... I should probably look up what the estimated compliance rate was for the 91 CA AWB), the compliance is higher 4% but we're not how much. How does that change with a proposed ban like you mentioned where the firearms are confiscated instead of grandfathered until the end of their life, and it's done house to house at gunpoint. Kind of related to this topic: I don't think that the confiscating officers would be local law enforcement (as there would be a lot of non-compliance I think from local agencies). I don't know what agency would actually go through with this, and if it's some sort of military (even National Guard), that brings about another level of.... social complexity? TL;DR: I think that the level of noncompliance would still be very high, and I also think that the level of violence would be higher than... Leperflesh posted:(snipped some context here) BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Aug 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Environmental regulations can't prevent all pollution related deaths. And even in California with some of the strictest anti-pollution laws you have companies like Chevron or even small time gold miners flaunting the law and getting away with it. We should eliminate speed limits and food/drug inspection while we're at it. (just kidding, this is libertarian nonsense).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:We should eliminate speed limits and food/drug inspection while we're at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:We should eliminate speed limits and food/drug inspection while we're at it. I do think they should have forcibly removed those gold miners instead of letting them keep polluting and just racking up the millions in fines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Environmental regulations can't prevent all pollution related deaths. And even in California with some of the strictest anti-pollution laws you have companies like Chevron or even small time gold miners flaunting the law and getting away with it. The first one is easily shown to have had massive effects. The problem is that the changes started before the internet, and the loudest screechers around didnt grow up in the area to remember how bad it was. http://www.greenbuildinglawblog.com/2014/11/articles/2014-election/extreme-makeover-epa-edition/ quote:CIRES conducted a study on what caused the reduction in air pollution. Although population has tripled in LA since 1968, according to lead study author Ilana Pollack: https://timeline.com/la-smog-pollution-4ca4bc0cc95d?gi=9d486788e5ca quote:Photos: L.A.’s mid-century smog was so bad, people thought it was a gas attack
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 09:30
|
|
|
I hate THIS loving TRAFFIC
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I hate THIS loving TRAFFIC stop going to work?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:stop going to work? I would but then I'd be homeless
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I would but then I'd be homeless Win win. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:However, as you say, there's a lot of variables that would change things to even get to the point where there was the political will to even institute such a measure. Either way, I hope this is found helpful or interesting. That was useful, thank you. I agree that the methodology used there was not great, but probably due to the lack of data... and perhaps one of the "gun control" changes we most urgently need is laws that radically improve the data we have about what guns are still out there and who has them. I also think compliance and registration etc. is so low in part because it's basically totally unenforced. Here's a secret: I have no idea if my own gun is even registered, and if it is, it's registered to my stepfather, not me. He would have bought it at San Francisco Gun Exchange, a long-gone gun store that used to be in downtown SF, circa 1987. What were the laws then? Does the state still keep whatever records were created with that sale? Was I supposed to do something when he gave my rifle to me when I was in my late 20s and had moved into a situation where I was finally able to store it securely and safely? It's only a bolt action .22 rifle, and I haven't shot it in many years, and I don't have kids, and it's stored securely, so from my own perspective I kinda don't give a poo poo whether it's properly registered. But perhaps more importantly, since I don't frequent gun stores or gun forums or whatever, I simply don't know what the law is, and there's been zero state level outreach about those laws that has penetrated my apathy to inform me. Maybe they post notices at gun ranges and stores, that I would see if I was more immersed in gun culture? I pretty much don't have to give a poo poo about the laws here, because the chances I'll ever interact with those laws are super low. If that's the level of complaince that's typical just for basic gun registration laws, I think that's illustrative of the present futility of those laws. But on the other side of that: if we were debating, seriously, a national assault rifle ban that was going to include confiscation, you can bet your rear end it'd be debated loudly and at length on every news channel and newspaper and online news source in the country, for months if not years. It'd be all but impossible not to hear about it, and to pick up the details. And that in turn would - hopefully - drive compliance to much higher levels. I suspect that a lot of the most ferocious resistance would occur in advance of passing such a law. I suspect we'd actually have to debate such a thing for many years, maybe decades, and deal with protests by the people who would be affected, perhaps a resurgence in membership in militias, etc. etc. This is basically a science fiction near-future novel in the writing, yeah? We'd need to be a significantly different country than we are now, to get to the point where the popular pushback against door-to-door gun seizure was weak enough that such a law could get through congress and signed by the president. It's a fantasy, and my point, which I think you've actually helped underline, is that is such a difficult scenario to take seriously today, that it really highlights how pointless and performative California's current AW ban is. It's just a way for politicians like Dianne Feinstein to make a big deal about being pro gun regulations and build a career on relentlessly going after assault weapons, while not actually accomplishing much in terms of actually making people safer. Just imagine how much money and political capital has been spent to ensure that the Garlic Festival shooter had to get their gun in Nevada instead of California. I wonder how many lives could have been saved if all that money and effort had gone towards, say, helping to get guns out of the homes of teenagers struggling with depression. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Aug 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I hate THIS loving TRAFFIC Take public transportation, shitpost on the forums while you commute
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
I think the value of gun confiscation is easily overstated. If you want to reduce gun prevalence its just much more important to reduce how many new guns are entering the population. Most guns used in homicides are relatively new, only a few years old, have rapidly passed through multiple hands, and are quickly discarded, broken, or confiscated. That means if you cut off supply the prevalence of guns is going to drop relatively quickly, especially within populations at risk of violence, even if you aren't actively taking guns out of the system. Eliminating a gun that's just going to sit on some libertarians shelf for 30 years isn't going to be very valuable, because they don't hurt anyone while they're collecting dust. The dangerous gun is the one some idiot 18 year old buys on impulse, stopping those purchases will eventually accomplish the same goal as confiscation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
yeah maybe so although when you ban new ones of a thing, the old ones of that thing go up in value and that prompts people to take care of them and refurbish them etc. Just look at how cubans have tons of beautifully upkept classic cars because they had to deal with decades of no car imports But maybe most of those grandfathered guns would be in the hands of people who both wouldn't go on shooting sprees, and also would do a great job of keeping them from being stolen or trafficked to those who would? I wonder how you'd test that idea
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Take public transportation, shitpost on the forums while you commute Lol what public transportation 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Take public transportation, shitpost on the forums while you commute Since I started taking public transportation the quality of the posting on the forums has reached new lows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Lol what public transportation What are you up in Simi? Though yeah it's not great if you live anywhere affordable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:well yeah statistically, mass shootings just arent' a major cause of death in the country. Leperflesh posted:The occurrance of these kidns of indiscriminate mass shootings are rare enough that it's tough to draw statistical conclusions from them: we cannot really know if the federal assault weapons ban prevented, say, 10 mass shootings that otherwise would have happened, becuase that would not have appreciably skewed the statistical outcome that we actually saw. Leperflesh posted:I know there are, as you put it, "disciplines" that are focused on ARs and other assault-style rifles; but I personally don't find those to be necessary for civilians and I think that anyone interested in target shooting or hunting could do either or both without needing semiautomatic rifles. Or even semiautomatics at all. Leperflesh posted:I'm not sure we need to dive into the details of "personal protection" with guns: I disagree with the idea an AR is the ideal home protection gun, but I don't think that particular disagreement is germaine to the overall question of California's gun laws, prevention of mass shootings, or broadly whether or why we should have various forms of gun control. Leperflesh posted:
Enforcing the law is inherently violent, as you seem to understand. Behind every statute is the threat of the sheriff or the Marshal, and possible death at the hands of the state if the lawbreaker will resist all attempts to make them comply. My point is that this power should be exercised with humility and caution. It's not inherently immoral to criminalize something. It is inherently immoral to criminalize something or use the force of law without ensuring that what you are doing is proportionate, and the least restrictive means of achieving a valid goal of government. Your desire to criminalize and violently sieze "assault weapons" is immoral because you've readily admitted that the people likely to bear the burden of state violence are otherwise law abiding, and aren't hurting anyone. You've admitted that spree shootings are vanishingly rare events that kill far fewer Americans every year than social ills we readily tolerate, and that reaction to them is based on unreasonable, disproportionate fear. Yet you still support the idea of sending armed police door-to-door in support of a policy you admit you don't know the actual benefits of. Why? For social engineering? Because you don't like "gun culture?" Because you, personally, have deemed that Americans don't need AR-15s? Americans don't need cigarettes either. How would you feel about a violent house to house sweep to confiscate all Americans cigarettes? It would save an order of magnitude more lives than confiscating all semi-automatic rifles. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Please, for the love of guns, take this to the gun thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Given that this is a free country lol Jaxyon posted:Please, for the love of guns, take this to the gun thread. But we're so close to a breakthrough on this issue! And there was just a shooting in California, so it's as on topic as debating the right way to refer to freeways or which part of California has the best burritos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Please, for the love of guns, take this to the gun thread. The gun is good, the chat is bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
Ban all guns and all chat. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
gently caress SNEEP posted:Ban all guns and all chat. Problem solved. State troopers kicking in my door, making me log off of Something Awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What are you up in Simi? San Diego County, I have to drive on the I5 every day and there's not really a bus line or anything I could be taking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:State troopers kicking in my door, making me log off of Something Awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:San Diego County, I have to drive on the I5 every day and there's not really a bus line or anything I could be taking. Metrolink goes to Oceanside but I think only like twice a day and if you live in SanDiego proper than lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:San Diego County, I have to drive on the I5 every day and there's not really a bus line or anything I could be taking. Oh, SD, I was figuring LA with that comment. Yeah, you're screwed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
In other news, my House Rep, Salud Carbajal, just tipped the House Democratic Caucus over the halfway point, as far as supporting impeachment is concerned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:this is a free country hahahaha, most obvious troll you've posted yet
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 21:46
|
|