OT: Safety is an Illusion

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CAR/all: Thank you both for the kind words, I appreciate them.

CAR: When were we ever on opposing sides? 🙂

[CA renter]

Very rarely, maybe once or twice, and I can’t think of a particular issue at the moment, but remember we’ve had some spirited debate in the past. It’s a good thing, since you force people (me!) to brush up on their knowledge and sharpen their debating skills.

A good debate with a formidable opponent is always a lot of fun. That’s why I want you to stick around. There are a handful people who can really hold their own in a debate, and you’re one of the best. 🙂

(SK is another favorite.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Blogstar]So, is it correct to call it an epidemic at this point in time?[/quote]

Yes. I have it too. I just don’t like to whine.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CAR: Geez, I’ll definitely stick around for that kind of flattery! I agree on the SK assessment, too. I’d never admit this in polite company, but he’ s gotten me to rethink my position on more than a few issues.

Back in the day, that was a true strength of this board. It boasted several Center-Left and Left thinkers, including SK, afx, Gandalf and arraya, all of whom were articulate, thoughtful, and prepared posters. No ad hom, no trash talking and none of the fact-free posturing that came to dominate the site. That was when I called it a day. If I want stupidity, I can find it locally.

[paramount]

[quote=all][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=all]It’s good to see a post by Allan again, regardless of the content.[/quote]

Thanks.

I think.[/quote]

It was a compliment 🙂

I did not have time to read through the recent posts. I was just happy to see your handle on the page. I might not agree with you on some issues, but I always like the style and depth of your posts and how you engage some other smart people on this board.[/quote]

We’re still waiting for your in-depth posts…

[all]

[quote=paramount]
We’re still waiting for your in-depth posts…[/quote]

Did I ever promise one?
I am too shallow to do an in-depth post.

[desmond]

[quote=zk][quote=desmond][quote=zk][quote=desmond]

zeek, Thanks I try not to make sense, or I don’t really have to try……[/quote]

If you don’t expect yourself to make sense, that’s fine. But to expect others to make sense (which you certainly appear to) while not expecting yourself to make sense…doesn’t make sense. Which makes sense, since you already said you don’t make sense. Make sense?[/quote]

Zeek,
Just getting discussions going. What really does not make any sense is reading the same posts before the recent gun control vote and the same ones after the recent vote.[/quote]

Just getting discussions going? That’s a copout. “I don’t make sense. But I expect everybody else to. I only do it to get discussions going.” What a bunch of bs.

The recent gun control vote does not, by any means, negate all previous posts.[/quote]

zeek,

Everybody knows where I stand on guns. I dug this topic up, posted a couple of times to get things going. Look what happened, it brought Allan out of his football film study room and a lot smarter people than me took over the conversation. I got tired of reading about refrigerators in garages…….

[Jazzman]

[quote=desmond]What happened? Really now. You will never be able to scream and demand gun control (a la POS Morgan). All the belittling, emails, stats, celebrities, etc, are just a waste of time. And I think they just are feel good measures not to accomplish anything but look at me actions.[/quote]

I don’t believe this to be true in every instance. Piers Morgan stepped over the line as a foreigner telling the US how to run its country, but his reaction is a natural one coming from a country that does not have the same gun culture. Keeping the debate alive for as long as possible is tactical, not (just) theater. I personally laud anyone with the courage to ask the questions that so many are either fearful of asking, or don’t wish to become unpopular by asking, or worse, didn’t know they should ask.

[desmond]

[quote=Jazzman][quote=desmond]What happened? Really now. You will never be able to scream and demand gun control (a la POS Morgan). All the belittling, emails, stats, celebrities, etc, are just a waste of time. And I think they just are feel good measures not to accomplish anything but look at me actions.[/quote]

I don’t believe this to be true in every instance. Piers Morgan stepped over the line as a foreigner telling the US how to run its country, but his reaction is a natural one coming from a country that does not have the same gun culture. Keeping the debate alive for as long as possible is tactical, not (just) theater. I personally laud anyone with the courage to ask the questions that so many are either fearful of asking, or don’t wish to become unpopular by asking, or worse, didn’t know they should ask.[/quote]

Laud all you want. The problem is what does somebody like PM actually know about guns? From what I hear from him-nothing. If needed changes are to be made, and they need to be, loud mouth know-it-alls need to change their approach, as I said above. btw, that is not “courage” and it demeans the real people with actual courage.

[Jazzman]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Jazzman]

I care neither one way, nor the other, so am completely dispassionate and divorced from the event. From where I am standing, the pro-gun arguments are completely sterile in the face of a rationale profound in its simplicity. Attempts to derail the truth, with puerile, and hackneyed arguments, or demands for factual evidence that clearly needs no evidencing are as misguided as they are unhelpful. The world watches on in total bewilderment as brokers of fictitious nonsense ply their craft, in an episodic pantomime. The absurdity is so wearisome, most prefer to rise above the fray, in the (fairly) safe knowledge that time will allow the truth its moment of glory. The question is how do you wish your legacy to read? The world was flat?

FYI, violent crime statistics in the UK are distorted by a large number of kid-on-kid assaults over cell phones. This is just another example of an untruth being manipulated to serve an end. I’ve heard all these arguments over and over, and have read enough statistics and facts that have satisfied my own curiosity.[/quote]

What “ficticious nonsense”? With every anti-gun argument so far, it’s based entirely on emotional, hysterical nonsense. I have yet to see any facts or data to back up the pro-gun argument. If you don’t believe that facts and statistics have a place in this argument, that’s entirely your choice; but don’t think that it entitles you to push for legislation that would very negatively affect other people’s lives just because the anti-gun position makes you feel better.

I’ve made this point before, but will make it again: My mother and almost all of her friends lived through WWII in Austria, Germany, Poland, etc. They had to live through horrible atrocities because they were not able to defend themselves (against soldiers from all sides, since they were all guilty of committing crimes against the citizens there). Why? Because, in the early stages and prior to the war, Hitler and others decided that the people needed to be disarmed “for their own safety.” I do not trust any entity/government that thinks it should be able to overpower the masses, and I’m especially cynical when they claim it’s “for our safety.”

Additionally, for three years I had to deal with a stalker who had threatened to kidnap me and take me to Mexico to have his “Jesus babies.” I had never had relations of any kind with him, but he was convinced that I was his “wife” and even expressed his beliefs to the police. I slept with a gun under my pillow every single night, and that was the only thing that got me through that period of time. Under no circumstances do you or anyone else have the right to take away my ability to defend myself or my family.

If a person doesn’t like guns, don’t buy guns, but do NOT think you have the right to push your beliefs (which are based exclusively on “feelings,” and not facts or evidence) on others who strongly disagree with your “logic” and opinions.[/quote]

So what is the above if not an emotional response? I don’t see much in the way of factual evidence from you either. And as to my rights to express my opinion, that will be equal to yours, yes? However, I do respect your personal situation and understand how you felt threatened. The gun may have made you feel safer, but would you have used it? Would you have been prepared to face the consequences and emotional ordeal of taking a life? In respect of war time, your argument is weak.

I pulled up some interesting data that may be of interest. They are the least biased I could find, but add weight to the anti-gun debate. Crucially, much factual evidence needs to be considered in the light of the severe restrictions placed on research in this area, which has been outlawed (see below).

Direct quote:

The dubious distinction of having the most gun violence goes to Honduras, at 68.43 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people, even though it only has 6.2 firearms per 100 people. Other parts of South America and South Africa also rank highly, while the United States is somewhere near the mid-range. Still, America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.

While the United States has the highest level of gun ownership per capita in the world, its rate of gun homicides, about three per 100,000 people, is far lower than that of Honduras, the country with the world’s highest gun homicide rate (roughly 68 gun murders per 100,000 people).

But America’s homicide rate varies significantly by city and metro area…

The pattern is staggering. A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.

If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.

Detroit’s gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).

Baltimore’s rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).

Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).

Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).

Atlanta’s rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).

Yes, it’s true we are comparing American cities to nations. But most of these countries here have relatively small populations, in many cases comparable to large U.S. metros.  

The sad reality is that many American cities have rates of gun homicides comparable to the some of the most violent nations in the world.

With less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35-50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns…

U.S. gun violence has had several decades-long cycles over the past three centuries, but shows a long-term downward trend. Overall homicide rates were similar to Western Europe until the 1850s, but since then violence has declined more slowly in the U.S.

It’s tempting to plot the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence across countries, but recent research suggests that gun violence is shaped by “socio-historical and cultural context,” which varies regionally, meaning that it’s not always possible to make direct comparisons. However, it’s still reasonable to compare places with similar histories, and more guns still correlate with more homicides in Western nations. Meanwhile, in developing countries, cities with more guns have more homicides.

We lack some of the most basic information we need to have a sensible gun policy debate, partially because researchers have been prevented by law from collecting it …the Centers for Disease Control, the main U.S. agency that tracks and studies American injuries and death, has been effectively prevented from studying gun violence, due to a law passed by Congress in 1996.

NRC report, and additional data up through 2006, and reaffirmed that there is no evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce crime. …other studies have suggested that reduced access to guns would result in less crime. These studies compared homicide rates with gun availability in various states and cities. The most comprehensive estimate is that a 10% reduction in U.S. households with guns would result in a 3% reduction in homicides.

Background checks are promising because a high fraction of future killers already have a criminal record. In one study in Illinois, 71% of those convicted of homicide had a previous arrest, and 42% had a prior felony conviction.

In 1968, Franklin Zimring examined cases of knife assaults versus gun assaults in Chicago. The gun attacks were five times more deadly. …many homicides are unplanned. The outcome depends, at least partially, on the weapon at hand. In that restricted sense, guns do kill people.

The U.S. has one of the highest rates of violent crime and homicide, per capita, of any developed country. According to 2008 figures compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the U.S. homicide rate for 2010 is 5.1 per 100,000 people. Only Estonia’s is higher, at 6.3. The next most violent country is Finland, which has a homicide rate of 2.5, half that of the U.S. The remaining 28 developed countries are even lower, with an average of 1.1 homicides per 100,000 people.

End direct quote.

The biggy here is the research issue, or lack thereof. I believe there are moves to reverse that law.

I read another very interesting report that highlights the partisan distinctions. Democrat gun-ownership has seen a marked drop over recent years, compared to Republican gun-owners. It makes you wonder how different the post Sandy Hook gun-debate would be shaping under a Republican watch.

IMO, a major obstacle is the very large number of guns already in circulation, but all things being equal I don’t see that as insurmountable.

Another very salient point I hear often is raised by spokesmen for the police who are unhappy about putting their lives on the line when facing the large number of armed criminals. I feel the police should have some input here.

If the US can dispatch its armed forces on a revenge mission to kill terrorist at a cost of 4-6 trillion dollars, for the deaths of 3,000 people, then why can’t it divert some of those resources to reducing the 10,000 annual gun-related deaths on its home turf?

I believe the gun-debate is as complex or as simple as you wish to make it. The more politicized the more complex. The more simple the approach, the more effective the outcome.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jazzman: Not asking this facetiously, but what questions do you feel still need to be asked?

There was a ban on assault weapons that included a reduction in magazine capacities to less than 10 rounds. Subsequent to the ban’s sunset, groups as diverse as the National Institute of Justice (NIJ, the research arm of the Department of Justice), the CDC and the National Research Council, all issued reports on the effectiveness of the ban. Nearly universally, it was held to not have worked, largely because those weapons deemed as “assault weapons” are infrequently used in gun murders. Also, reduced capacity magazines did not negatively impact gun murder rates, either.

There has also been similar reportage on universal background checks, which found that due to strawman purchases (47%) and theft (26%), the efficacy of such checks would be reduced. Implementing a universal background check that solely focused on minimizing strawman purchases was held to be of benefit, but hugely costly and cumbersome.

Coming so shortly on the heels of the Newtown strategy, the president’s push for gun control was political theater (especially with his pervasive use of either children or first responders at his various speaking venues), combined with opportunism. Obama is a skilled orator and campaigner and undoubtedly struck while the iron was hot. If anything demonstrates the sheer muscle of the NRA, it was this Senate vote.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jazzman: Not asking this facetiously, but what questions do you feel still need to be asked?

There was a ban on assault weapons that included a reduction in magazine capacities to less than 10 rounds. Subsequent to the ban’s sunset, groups as diverse as the National Institute of Justice (NIJ, the research arm of the Department of Justice), the CDC and the National Research Council, all issued reports on the effectiveness of the ban. Nearly universally, it was held to not have worked, largely because those weapons deemed as “assault weapons” are infrequently used in gun murders. Also, reduced capacity magazines did not negatively impact gun murder rates, either.

There has also been similar reportage on universal background checks, which found that due to strawman purchases (47%) and theft (26%), the efficacy of such checks would be reduced. Implementing a universal background check that solely focused on minimizing strawman purchases was held to be of benefit, but hugely costly and cumbersome.

Coming so shortly on the heels of the Newtown strategy, the president’s push for gun control was political theater (especially with his pervasive use of either children or first responders at his various speaking venues), combined with opportunism. Obama is a skilled orator and campaigner and undoubtedly struck while the iron was hot. If anything demonstrates the sheer muscle of the NRA, it was this Senate vote.[/quote]

Isn’t the assault weapon ban argument related to the mass killings arena, and not the general debate on gun murders?

If background checks are hugely expensive, what are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? My understanding is these wars were fought to protect the American people.

I believe (maybe naively) the President actually wants to do something to prevent gun violence. The theatrics seem to be on both sides, but the pro-gun lobby is going for the Oscar.

As my post above points out, a major obstacle would appear to be that research into the whole gun issue was banned by law. Much of the debate therefore is vulnerable to bias, and you are never quite sure who to believe. To me, the overwhelming number of anti-gun reports align more readily with conventional wisdom. The pro-gun lobby seems to have been very active in presenting facts (or otherwise) that support their argument. I am hard pressed to take them seriously, especially since we know how much ($$$) is at stake.

Look, death is an unpleasant business, and if you don’t believe so, society has no place for you. Minimizing death is the calling, and the quickest, most effective start in that direction is reducing access to deadly weapons. I would be very suspicious of any ‘impartial’ research that would purport to prove otherwise. The other more complex causes such as socio-economic should be tackled, but will take longer.

It’s regrettable the issue has become politicized.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jazzman: You have a post above showing the homicide rates in some major American cities. I’d like to point out some additional statistics as well, but the current Politically Correct doxa prevents me from doing so, lest I be accused of racism.

Let’s face it, in certain American cities, gun violence (and violence in general) is not the problem, it’s a symptom and one that is studiously ignored. Thus we have a president wading into the Trayvon Martin shooting, but saying absolutely nothing about the epidemic of gun violence in his adopted city of Chicago. Why? We all know why, but no one will.openly broach the topic.

Criminals are not securing weapons through legal and legitimate sources and I don’t think anyone will dispute that. Until we are willing to discuss the destruction of the black family and the resultant collapse of social order, along with issues related to the prescription of certain behavior modifying drugs and the woeful state of mental health care in this country, the killings will continue.

[Jazzman]

I agree it is a symptom, and you need to look at the wider socio-economic aspect; demographics, employment rate, media violence and so on. There is a plentiful supply of potential contributing factors, but the more you wade into the minutiae, the further you remove yourself from resolving the problem. There is prima facie evidence in the form of a tangible object (guns) that would be much simpler to tackle, than a restructuring of a social order, and would likely yield quicker results.

I would favor a incremental gun control policy, backed up by research and education. Within a generation you would be able to enforce a complete ban on all guns, and reduce deaths dramatically. It should form part of a wider policy to eradicate the more indirect causes. It would be healthier for all.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]I agree it is a symptom, and you need to look at the wider socio-economic aspect; demographics, employment rate, media violence and so on. There is a plentiful supply of potential contributing factors, but the more you wade into the minutiae, the further you remove yourself from resolving the problem. There is prima facie evidence in the form of a tangible object (guns) that would be much simpler to tackle, than a restructuring of a social order, and would likely yield quicker results.

I would favor a incremental gun control policy, backed up by research and education. Within a generation you would be able to enforce a complete ban on all guns, and reduce deaths dramatically. It should form part of a wider policy to eradicate the more indirect causes. It would be healthier for all.[/quote]

Jazzman: Complete agreement with you on all fronts, save the complete ban part. However, that stands in direct opposition to your observation that gun control is a highly politicized topic, considered by many politicians to be a “third rail” in American politics. There was a good reason that Obama avoided even the mention of gun control in his first term and that Senate vote illustrated why vividly. Obama had the bully pulpit, media support and public polling numbers behind him and still got hammered.

Where I take exception with the ban has nothing to do with my 2nd Amendment rights (a huge and completely separate issue), but rather the fact that I am a responsible gun owner and have been for the better part of 30 years. Why am I penalized for the actions of others? Why am I deprived of my ability to defend myself and my family, especially in the instance of a civil disturance (1992 LA riots) or natural disaster (Hurricane Sandy or Katrina), when first responders are either not there or tied up with more serious problems?

There’s a great expression that goes: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. I don’t keep any loaded guns in the house and don’t believe in doing so for protection. I have four dogs (the world’s best alarm system) and a very sharp SOG single edge that I’m quite adept with (again, thanks to the US Army) for home defense.

However, in a case like the LA riots, I also have a Remington 870 Police shotgun and some nice 3″ Magnum buck and slug loads. During the Fallbrook fires some years back, the Sheriff’s Department was openly advising keeping a loaded gun at hand, due to looters (several of which were shot and killed during the fires). I have a right to self-defense and the means and the will, if necessary. This is where I part company with those that advocate ceding that to the police. I have a quite a few friends in law enforcement, both local and federal and, in private, they all say the same thing that Joe Biden did: Arm yourself and protect yourself.

[Author]

Posts