|
BRJurgis posted:The gun lobby won, we love the gun and we're saturated in it. A long fought victory over that issue is less and less possible, and would only serve as another massive wedge in the meantime while all of the other significant causes of our violence/decline go unaddressed. If mass approval/votes/action is what we need to achieve anything, I don't see how this cycle is any step forward at all given the state of things. The country’s already tearing itself apart on every level. Guns are just another front in the culture war for reactionaries to enjoy and crow about. I don’t know if they’re yet at the level of “lol lib, mad you got shot at the grocery store?” but we’re close.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
BRJurgis posted:The gun lobby won, we love the gun and we're saturated in it. A long fought victory over that issue is less and less possible, and would only serve as another massive wedge in the meantime while all of the other significant causes of our violence/decline go unaddressed. If mass approval/votes/action is what we need to achieve anything, I don't see how this cycle is any step forward at all given the state of things. Honest question, do you feel more defeated by gun violence than climate change? I ask, because I look at climate change and wonder how it's even possible to approach it on a global scale, since countries have different needs and are industrializing/expanding/etc at different stages/rates. But for gun violence, at least for our country, it seems almost/entirely localized to our approach/laws/culture. And it's easy to look at examples like Australia to see how to overcome it. Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jul 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Like maybe suing gun owners until they are bankrupt will cause some people to rethink their relationship with guns? I do wonder if someone will file a civil suit against the father and if it'll be successful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:04
|
|
|
Kalit posted:You made a claim, I simply asked you to back up the claim. Maybe you shouldn't make a claim that you don't know to be a fact? My argument is addressing the political ramifications of banning/confiscating property from people who have the legal right to own that property. Demanding absolute specificity of the number of Americans who have committed a gun related crime but have not been charged isn't productive. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:My argument is addressing the political ramifications of banning/confiscating property from people who have the legal right to own that property. Demanding absolute specificity of the number of Americans who have committed a gun related crime but have not been charged isn't productive. You realize these are contradictory things, right? And you're the one who stated a specificity of a number. I just asked you to back up that number. E: Also, what LT2012 stated below for your underlying point. Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jul 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:My argument is addressing the political ramifications of banning/confiscating property from people who have the legal right to own that property. Demanding absolute specificity of the number of Americans who have committed a gun related crime but have not been charged isn't productive. They don't have to actually confiscate every gun. Australia used to have a gun ownership rate only about 13% lower than the U.S. They just had gun buybacks, banned new purchases except for specific reasons, required a license to own one, and required all sales to be done through registered dealers who recorded and reported every sale. The gun ownership rate dropped by 1/3 in the first year and was down to about 8% 10 years later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
Kalit posted:You realize these are contradictory things, right? They maintain the legal right if they haven't been charged/convicted, so there's no contradiction. Again, I ask you to engage with the argument of political ramifications from confiscation. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They don't have to actually confiscate every gun. Australia used to have a gun ownership rate only about 13% lower than the U.S. They just had gun buybacks, banned new purchases except for specific reasons, required a license to own one, and required all sales to be done through registered dealers who recorded and reported every sale. Fair, what percentage of the population supported the Australian gun ban at the time it was passed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Australia used to have a gun ownership rate only about 13% lower than the U.S. Where'd you pull that number from? Pre-NFA Australia was sitting at about a third the number of homes with guns as current day America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They don't have to actually confiscate every gun. Australia used to have a gun ownership rate only about 13% lower than the U.S. They just had gun buybacks, banned new purchases except for specific reasons, required a license to own one, and required all sales to be done through registered dealers who recorded and reported every sale. Bishyaler posted:Fair, what percentage of the population supported the Australian gun ban at the time it was passed? If you or anyone else hasn't seen it, one of the best things John Oliver ever did was his Australia Gun Control series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FLsIzNxkI The Democratic political strategist's answer to what makes a politician successful is still the best. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Jul 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:They maintain the legal right if they haven't been charged/convicted, so there's no contradiction. Again, I ask you to engage with the argument of political ramifications from confiscation. Also, maybe you shouldn't claim a number/false claim if you can't back it up with sources.... Bishyaler posted:Fair, what percentage of the population supported the Australian gun ban at the time it was passed? quote:Prospects for the reduction of gun violence in Australia revolve around two basic issues: legislative reform and behavior modification. Elected officials will pass stricter gun control laws only if they perceive that a large number of voters support the proposition. To date, however, groups in favor of guns have been more successful in getting their message across than have been the gun control groups. The reasons for this are based partly on their greater understanding and use of marketing techniques. The gun lobby has defined its product more effectively and has better segmented its markets than have gun control advocates. Therefore, groups in favor of gun control should consider ways to better market their ideals and achieve their goals of fewer guns and stricter control laws. Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jul 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I hope you understand that just because someone hasn't been charged with a crime at the time it was committed, it doesn't make that person immune to any/all laws that take that prior act into consideration....... There's no download link for that article, availability is "in a library". Furthermore that study was published in 1993 so even if I could read it, its not "at the time of the ban". So what were you saying about not being able to back things up with sources?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:There's no download link for that article, availability is "in a library". Furthermore that study was published in 1993 so even if I could read it, its not "at the time of the ban". Why were you asking your initial question about the support of the 1996 gun reform laws? I assumed you were trying to compare that to current day USA gun reform law support. So, by going back a few years, I thought that would fit your implication, since it seems clear we won't pass any big federal reform for at least a few more years. If you were asking that for another reason, I'm sorry for my mis-interpretation. Also, nice non-response about you being the first to bring up a specific number about how many "gun owners in America who have broken no laws" exist Kalit fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jul 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:There's no download link for that article, availability is "in a library". Furthermore that study was published in 1993 so even if I could read it, its not "at the time of the ban". I googled it and I think I found the full version: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/1993/16.pdf Kalit posted:Also, nice non-response about you being the first to bring up a specific number about the "gun owners in America who have broken no laws" You guys are talking past each other. The point I think he was making is that the vast (vast vast) majority of gun owners are law abiding, or at least not out there committing crimes with their guns and might object to confiscation since they’ve done nothing wrong. I’d argue that’s pretty obviously true, so I’m not sure why you’re arguing about it, but it’s not particularly relevant given that there are options beyond the ATF going door to door taking guns away, as already noted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:You guys are talking past each other. The point I think he was making is that the vast (vast vast) majority of gun owners are law abiding, or at least not out there committing crimes with their guns and might object to confiscation since they’ve done nothing wrong. We are not talking past each other. While I'm unsure of the specific number, I strongly dispute that "nearly all"* are law abiding. IMO, this can be seen by the "self-defense" gun use numbers. My evidence: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.short quote:Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society. *Unsure where Bishayler got 80 million, this source says that ~72 million people in the US are gun owners. Kalit fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Jul 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:22
|
|
|
Kalit posted:We are not talking past each other. While I'm unsure of the specific number, I strongly dispute that "nearly all" are law abiding. IMO, this can be seen by the "self-defense" gun use numbers. My evidence: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.short It’s old but: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf posted:In 2011, a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal violent crimes were committed with a firearm This is even older: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/6676 posted:According to the ATF,* by the end of 1996 approximately 242 million firearms were available for sale to or were possessed by civilians in the United State’s So look at the scale: roughly half a million violent and non-violent crimes committed with a firearm. Hundreds of millions of guns. I think it’s unacceptable and we should have gun control, but I think it’s pretty clear that most American gun owners aren’t out there committing crimes with them unless you think the number of crimes is underreported by roughly 3 orders of magnitude. And yes, I know that many people own many guns, but we’re still talking about a *huge* gap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It’s old but: That number is the reported number of crimes to the police. Meanwhile, millions of "self-defense gun uses" per year is reported: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/. I hope you don't think that all, or even close to all, illegal gun escalations are reported to the police....
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
Kalit posted:We are not talking past each other. While I'm unsure of the specific number, I strongly dispute that "nearly all"* are law abiding. IMO, this can be seen by the "self-defense" gun use numbers. My evidence: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.short bruh are you literally disputing the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty"? they have not been charged and convicted of a crime that has resulted in the confiscation of their firearms. By definition they are therefore not guilty of said crimes, this is a bedrock principle of America's system of laws
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:38
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:bruh are you literally disputing the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty"? I'm assuming Kalit expects there to be a gap of people who have guns and have committed crimes. I don't know how exact numbers impact any of these arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
Kalit posted:That number is the reported number of crimes to the police. Meanwhile, millions of "self-defense gun uses" per year is reported: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/. I see nothing on this page that gives a number of “self-defense gun uses”, which is what you’d need to support that argument. Maybe I missed it. Kalit posted:I hope you don't think that all, or even close to all, illegal gun escalations are reported to the police.... In order for your point to be valid the number of crimes reported to the police would have to be thousands of times less than the number reported. Your source doesn’t support that either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I see nothing on this page that gives a number of “self-defense gun uses”, which is what you’d need to support that argument. Maybe I missed it. quote:1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense DeadlyMuffin posted:In order for your point to be valid the number of crimes reported to the police would have to be thousands of times less than the number reported. Your source doesn’t support that either. quote:4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
Kalit posted:The second point in the link. If most of the millions of claims are illegal, then that's easily much more than thousands of times more than the ~500k reports you included in your link. these claims are not illegal because they have not been proven in a court of law you cant just handwave that step
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:49
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It's literally the first point in the link I provided....... No, it isn’t, but I went to one of the sources, and it looks like the number of gun owners who report a self defense use case is small (2% in 1996, 3.6% in 1999) 3.6% of hundreds of millions is still millions, but it's still a small fraction. So even if every one of those was illegal, which is a hell of a stretch, it is still true that the vast majority of American gun owners are not out commiting crimes with them. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730664/pdf/v006p00263.pdf 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No, it isn’t, but I went to one of the sources, and it looks like the number of gun owners who report a self defense use case is small (2% in 1996, 3.6% in 1999) This is only with self-reported gun uses. I provided my source as a starting point. Meanwhile, the original claim of "80 million gun owners in America who have broken no laws" goes unsubstantiated without any evidence....
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This is only with self-reported gun uses. I provided my source as a starting point. Meanwhile, the original claim of "80 million gun owners in America who have broken no laws" goes unsubstantiated without any evidence.... The graph in my last post was literally from the references in yours. I went to the references because the page you posted had no numbers beyond "millions". You've latched onto the 80 million number (which wasn't from me) but nothing you've posted really refutes the claim that the vast majority of American gun owners aren't commiting crimes with them. I think you can make a solid argument for gun control without that claim being true, and making an easily disproven one hurts, rather than helps that overall argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 06:13
|
|
|
Kalit posted:That number is the reported number of crimes to the police. Meanwhile, millions of "self-defense gun uses" per year is reported: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/. Do they track by number of reported uses or number of reporters? Because I can easily imagine the type of person who “defends” himself mostly by using a gun to threaten others ten times a year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 06:26
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:The graph in my last post was literally from the references in yours. I went to the references because the page you posted had no numbers beyond "millions". ....if you're going to make a claim, can you please actually read the source? From that study that you linked (removed source numbers for formatting purposes, look at the source for them): quote:Many smaller, one shot private surveys have asked one or more questions about self defense gun use. Estimates of self defense gun use from such surveys are an order of magnitude higher than the NCVS estimates. Two features of these private surveys probably explain most of this diVerence: (1) responses are unbounded and (2) all respondents are asked about defensive gun use, not just those respondents who report that they have been the victim of an attempted crime. These two features should also make private survey estimates of gun victimization higher than the NCVS estimates. The source linked behind this statement: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/surveys.course/Hemenway1997.pdf Kalit fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Jul 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 06:27
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:these claims are not illegal because they have not been proven in a court of law you cant just handwave that step By that logic no one can even be arrested before they are found guilty at trial since nothing that happened was illegal before the trial. But you are missing the bigger point that Kalit is posting in a dead comedy forum and not a court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 06:32
|
|
|
Kalit posted:....if you're going to make a claim, can you please actually read the source? From that study that you linked (removed source numbers, look at the source for them): Nothing in that statement refutes the claim that the vast majority of American gun owners aren't commiting crimes with their firearms. Both things can easily be true: 1. The number of self defense uses are wildly overreported and may even be criminal 2. The vast majority of American gun owners aren't commiting crimes with their firearms I think #1 is the point of the paper I linked. It says nothing that I can see about #2 DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jul 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 06:36
|
|
|
Going by avatar, I think Kalit has the authority to declare people guilty, anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 06:37
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:By that logic no one can even be arrested before they are found guilty at trial since nothing that happened was illegal before the trial. the point being argued was about the so-called "80 million gun-owning americans that have committed no crime" and kalit responded with the assertion that they actually were committing crimes (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 07:54
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Honest question, do you feel more defeated by gun violence than climate change? I ask, because I look at climate change and wonder how it's even possible to approach it on a global scale, since countries have different needs and are industrializing/expanding/etc at different stages/rates. But for gun violence, at least for our country, it seems almost/entirely localized to our approach/laws/culture. And it's easy to look at examples like Australia to see how to overcome it. As things deteriorate in the US (including more mass shootings), I'm seeing people who weren't interested in firearms start to wonder about having one themselves. I don't have an article or chart, but surely you understand why a person might feel that way. I don't think our leaders or system have sufficient will or ability to meaningfully address the amount of guns in circulation, nevermind the increasingly radical and divisive culture war and idolatry of guns and violence. I don't have any faith that we can deal with climate change right now either, but it has to take priority for obvious reasons. Any hope at all would involve casting aside our typical political affiliations in order to achieve a large enough number of people to get real concessions from power. Meanwhile the TV and radio show our leaders begging and crying and singing and praying and passing some less-than-half-measure that will by no means stop this (gun violence) from happening and it feels like an insulting farce. I'd love if we passed actual meaningful effective federal gun control measures. Does anybody see that happening anytime soon? Does anybody think it would stop these mass shootings within a reasonable time frame? One more question, a crazy hypothetical: say republicans do indeed get majority control (rather than their current minority control) in a few years and themselves enact sweeping gun control or even targeted confiscation. Imagine! How would that go, who would be targeted, and would you ask people to cooperate? BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Jul 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 12:18
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:the point being argued was about the so-called "80 million gun-owning americans that have committed no crime" and kalit responded with the assertion that they actually were committing crimes If the number of claimed self defenses with guns and the number of reported crimes for which self defense would be justified are different, the gap has to come from somewhere. In any given case, either the drawing of a weapon was justified--meaning the crime that justified it went unreported--or the person was not justified in drawing--which is a crime, that went unreported.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 12:40
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:
It would start in blue areas first. One, to enable the red areas to visit more violence on a disarmed populace. They would cheer it and make jokes about making it safe to go into cities again. You'd even find some democrats agreeing with it. When they come to red areas later, most will rationalize it as "they lve made it safe they're not needed anymore". The local SWAT teams would be able to handle any actual force.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 13:02
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:As of this past Friday, the executive action that Trump signed kicked in requiring all insurers & self-insured employers to publicly post their negotiated prices with medical providers. Insurers are really bad at negotiating because medical providers have been consolidating for the last 30 years, and now instead of having the power of "do you want access to our 35% of the patient market in this region? then play ball", the providers are saying "do you want access to our 60% of the medical service providers in this region? then pay whatever the gently caress we say you will." But moreover, the whole system is flawed from the core and should be replaced with a single payer that pays for outcomes, not individual procedures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 13:08
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:Insurers are really bad at negotiating because medical providers have been consolidating for the last 30 years, and now instead of having the power of "do you want access to our 35% of the patient market in this region? then play ball", the providers are saying "do you want access to our 60% of the medical service providers in this region? then pay whatever the gently caress we say you will." I'm sorry you're not happy with incremental progress towards healthcare equity. That's how our system works and I have to assume you're being deeply unserious when you brush off steps to healthcare equity as not being enough because they didn't materialize medicare for all overnight. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 13:11
|
|
|
I love how everything is about 'high capacity magazines' and not 'maybe we should stop selling guns to people with serious mental illness history'
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 13:19
|
|
|
Diet Crack posted:I love how everything is about 'high capacity magazines' and not 'maybe we should stop selling guns to people' (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 13:20
|
|
|
Or that, can get behind it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
Diet Crack posted:I love how everything is about 'high capacity magazines' and not 'maybe we should stop selling guns to people with serious mental illness history' I'm so confused by how banning gun sales on the basis of "mental illness" became a popular plank, particularly when we're not even effectively keeping guns away from people with criminal records. I've always believed it's the worst solution and seems like it's only picked up steam because people have given up on anything coherent (like banning the sale of semiautomatic guns entirely), so why not go after the easy targets who we can easily get people to hate. At this moment, the court has (wrongly) determined that the individual right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. So this is suggesting that we should be able to eliminate constitutional rights based on an arbitrary extrajudicial list mostly pulled from the medical records of people who have voluntarily sought mental health treatment. I don't own a gun and don't want to and would still avoid seeking out mental health treatment if the government pulled that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Diet Crack posted:I love how everything is about 'high capacity magazines' and not 'maybe we should stop selling guns to people with serious mental illness history' It is by far a vastly easier step than banning or confiscating guns. Even if that were ultimately your goal, its not a bad thing to argue for banning magazines that can hold more than... 8 or whatever other number. It would also have an immediate effect of making it more difficult for mass shooters to effortlessly fire 70 rounds into a crowd. They would either need to buy expensive magazines from someone that got grandfathered in, or come prepared with a whole bunch to switch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 13:56
|
|
