US Politics Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2021

[TheLoveBandit]

And using the australian institute of criminology data from 89 to 18 for homicide by weapon per capita, I created the following graph. (this is actually the original source of your earlier graph from guninfo. The original source data can be found in table A22 of the homicide incidents data release, I'll link if requested.

Always good to simply link the source when you are referencing it. You already have it, and linking saves the ask-request-refind-post. Thank you, though, regardless. The data shown does help the conversation.

For interests sake, I added together all the various types of non-firearm data so that the chart was clearer. But if you want the full chart of all homicide weapons I'll put it up, but I checked what specifically caused that big spike around 03ish. It was caused by the hand and feet homicides having a good year causing the numbers to drop, then it returned to normal the next year, which also coincidentally had above average knive homicides, causing the apparent spike, which then makes it look like there's a huge drop, when in fact it is just artifacts in the data.

I have not done the research, but am led to believe the US is very similar to your chart in that the per capita deaths by guns is dwarfed several times over by the homicide by other means. Yet, there remains such a focus on 'gun control'. I do not believe gun control is the answer - the focus belongs where you and others have put it, which is on the mental health aspects.
EDIT - from the statista links, it seems handguns far outpace all other means combined, at least in the US 2019.

What I would call a success is if it had reduced the frequency of homicides or robberies. My research leads me to believe that wasn't the case though.

For the record before anyone says it. I don't give a shit what the rates of gun homicides did. It's worthless if those decline while other causes of homicide just increase by the same or greater amount.

Amen. Decrease of crime should be the goal. Guns are a part of that picture, but not the big lever to pull and make a reasonable difference.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

every single time a Democrat holds the presidency, conservative fear media makes people like you convinced that they're going to come to their door and take their guns.

As you mentioned (and I did not quote, but wish to acknowledge) BOTH sides use fear mongering. BOTH feed off the messages the other espouses. Only ONE has the MSM in their pocket (or vice versa).





How in the HELL are all those locales using the exact same headline, verbatim, and it is just a coincidence? Crap like this feeds the right wing theories.

 

[Jabberwocky]

This statement loses me. How many deaths are attributed to sporting shooters? Or even someone 'borrowing' their guns? The sport actually would cultivate both a respect for the power of the weapon AND general safety practices that anyone should learn. If anything, sport shooting helps lessen the chances of such deaths, IMO. Removing the sport would not remove the guns, if that was your implication. And given guns cannot be removed at this point in time, groups like sport shooters are an aide to living safely in society with such weapons.

I think you missed the “if” in “if it can be proved”. Since it can’t be proved and is exceedingly unlikely for many of the reasons you stated I’m happy to keep blasting away on the range.
The point I was trying to make was I don’t think my recreational interests (whatever they should be) should trump a single human life.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I think you missed the “if” in “if it can be proved”.

Probably true. Riding a coffee high, things get blurred. Apologies. Though, I'll admit, I wasn't taking your statement as a fact more of a personal view on your part.

I don’t think my recreational interests (whatever they should be) should trump a single human life.

Ah, the 'if it saves one life' argument. This was the other half I forget to address in my high speed responses. This is such a bullshit qualification, IMO. We could save ALL lives that are killed annually by lightening (49/yr in the US) if we all simply stayed indoors 24/7/365. We could save ALL lives that are killed annually by cars (1.35m worldwide) by outlawing ALL vehicles. Neither is realistic, and we as a global population we accept a certain amount of risks, of annual deaths, for these activities. As an individual, I support anyone's view that removal of all guns will prevent all gun deaths; but it is both unrealistic (we cannot eradicate existing guns) and mis-focused (homicides will still continue, perhaps at a lower rate but they WILL STILL CONTINUE). So for anyone feeling gun removal is the answer, I smile and nod and let them have their opinion whilst I know it is not the solution. The focus needs to be not on the tools used for homicide, but the reasons driving the homicide.


Apologies (again) if the last sounds like I'm yelling at you. That's not my intention, I'm just too f'n high on coffee right
:sigh: had to replace keyboard batteries. Lost 5min feverishly typing to no effect
Not intending to 'shout' at you or downplay your opinions. I'm just fired up and quite likely MISfiring again. You didn't say gun removal, which I seem to have gone off on. You indicated cancelling sport shooting....I made that leap, which was not what you indicated. I need to gtfo.
:hugs:

 

[JessFR]

Ah, the 'if it saves one life' argument.

The problem with the 'if it saves one life' argument is that it is statistically insignificant and thus can't really be established.

Like.. ok, lets say gun control can be said to have probably saved 1 life, lets go further and say 3 or 4. With such small numbers it wouldn't be hard to establish that gun control had cost a couple lives here and there too. People who otherwise would have been able to defend themselves but found themselves unable too. Especially with regards to gun free zones.

Since it's such small numbers, it's kinda pointless to argue over. Which is why you should look for larger impacts in the statistics.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

As you mentioned (and I did not quote, but wish to acknowledge) BOTH sides use fear mongering. BOTH feed off the messages the other espouses. Only ONE has the MSM in their pocket (or vice versa).

How in the HELL are all those locales using the exact same headline, verbatim, and it is just a coincidence? Crap like this feeds the right wing theories.

The media has always been a bit strange with these kinds of stories. I remember back at the height of the "mass shooting" thing, before coronavirus, they were putting out this statistic that there were something like several hundred mass shootings, with several hundred victims or something like that. It was just an odd statistic to me, like how there could be several hundred mass shootings resulting in only several hundred casualties...

 

[JessFR]

like how there could be several hundred mass shootings resulting in only several hundred casualties...

Easy, you cheat with the statistics and make the definition of mass shooting stupidly broad :D.

 

[Xorkoth]

Bit of a nitpick maybe but this at least as I read it isn't really true. We can have the same guns we had before the AWB. Not more powerful.

That's what I meant, I guess I wasn't clear. I meant you can have more guns than before the ban expired, not that you can have more guns than ever before.

As you mentioned (and I did not quote, but wish to acknowledge) BOTH sides use fear mongering. BOTH feed off the messages the other espouses. Only ONE has the MSM in their pocket (or vice versa).

Indeed. However I would say that, although "MSM" is probably inclusive of more liberal leaning media sources than conservative (by "is probably", I really mean "is"), there are some pretty mainstream media outlets (Fox News is the biggest example) that are extremely conservative. The fact is that there are tons of "news" outlets for both sides at this point, so much so that there are 2 separate versions of reality, each with their own very official-seeming narrative. It just depends on what you watch/read.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

@JessFR,

Like I said the onus is on you to prove that the gun amnesties failed to reduce homicide by 5%. I didn't say they did. You said they didn't... At the end of the day, you agreed they massively reduced mass gun killings. That was their stated purpose. So, I don't see how you could deem gun control in Australia a failure.

I've personally never been in a situation in which I needed a gun for self-defence. In America, they are used in self-defence against other guns.

I realize the US is more complicated. It's much harder to take away guns and it's much harder to enforce lockdowns and mandatory masks. I'm not pretending that it's easy, but I also don't believe that nothing should be done.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I think pretty much everybody on this thread believes in some level of gun control, the question is how much control is necessary. Guns are still legal in Australia and NZ. Some guns are illegal in the USA.

I don't think gun control is "the answer" to the gun problem in America and I don't think mental health screening is "the answer" either.

I am very confident I'm not going to be shot where I live. I don't feel the need to carry a gun to protect myself against other guns. But NZ never had a big gun problem in the first place.

I was having an argument about guns with an Australian friend of mine IRL recently and they got upset when I pointed out that there are 12 states in the US with lower homicide rates than the state of Victoria. Most Australians tend to think of the US as a gun-toting nightmare, but there are many places in the US that are safe relative to Melbourne.

For the record: I don't think gun control will magically fix the homicide issue in the US. There are certain areas that have insanely high homicide rates (they rival war torn countries) and this isn't going to change overnight. If I lived in Detroit, I would want a gun for self defence. I understand the counter argument.

But, there are areas of the US like NZ and Australia that don't have massive issues with gun related homicides. If I lived in one of these areas, I'd rather people didn't have access to unnecessarily powerful guns.

How many bullets do you need in a magazine for self-defence?

Everybody in this thread (correct me if I'm wrong) is arguing for different degrees of gun control. Some want less guns on the street. A lot of people want it to remain exactly as it is... Does anyone want more guns on the street? Is anyone actually in favour of no gun control whatsoever?

 

[Xorkoth]

For the record, though I am against high-capacity magazines and semi-auto and automatic weapons, I do not live in fear of being shot, in fact I never think about it, other than a brief period as a quite young child where I saw someone get shot in a soap opera my mom was watching and I thought I was going to get shot through every open window at night and wouldn't walk by them without holding my mom's hand.

If I lived in various other places in the USA, I would be more scared, but I live in a smaller city, where violent crime is low.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

@Xorkoth
You're against all semi-automatic weapons?

 

[JessFR]

@JessFR,

Like I said the onus is on you to prove that the gun amnesties failed to reduce homicide by 5%. I didn't say they did. You said they didn't... At the end of the day, you agreed they massively reduced mass gun killings. That was their stated purpose. So, I don't see how you could deem gun control in Australia a failure.

I've personally never been in a situation in which I needed a gun for self-defence. In America, they are used in self-defence against other guns.

I realize the US is more complicated. It's much harder to take away guns and it's much harder to enforce lockdowns and mandatory masks. I'm not pretending that it's easy, but I also don't believe that nothing should be done.

I can't prove that. You're asking me to prove a negative. I mean... even if the gun death rates had stayed absolutely constant after the buyback, that wouldn't absolutely prove that they had failed, there may have been another policy change in government around the same time that I'm overlooking that made things worse, cancelling out the crime reduction.

All I can do is show that there is no evidence of a reduction in deaths caused by the laws. Which means either there was no reduction, or there was but it's smaller than can be established with the available data.

But we all live under the rule of law and modern legal principles and philosophy, which includes the principle that everything which is not forbidden is allowed. The assumption is that you SHOULD have the ability to own guns. And there must be cause to pass laws to remove that ability. The assumption isn't that it's illegal and government has to decide if it should be made legal.

So I shouldn't be required to absolutely prove gun control didn't work (which as I just explained is not something I could do regardless). If there is no evidence in the data that it saved lives, how can the loss of freedoms be justified?

How many bullets do you need in a magazine for self-defence?

Everybody in this thread (correct me if I'm wrong) is arguing for different degrees of gun control. Some want less guns on the street. A lot of people want it to remain exactly as it is... Does anyone want more guns on the street? Is anyone actually in favour of no gun control whatsoever?

It depends on the self defense scenario. In the prototypical man on the street trying attacking you that the pro-2a types invariably use (in spite of it being one of the rarer ways you might be attacked), then you only need a handgun, and 10 bullets would probably be plenty. But what if they have an accomplice? What if you miss the first few? Or they aren't effective? Generally people are trained to keep shooting until the person stops being a threat.

Police forces used to use revolvers but they all switched to semi-automatics. one state in australia (victoria I think) held out longer than the others until an officer died because he ran out of bullets, then they switched over.

Most pro-2a types, assuming they gave you a serious answer and not some silly "I need however many I need which is my right SHALL NOT INFRINGED!" answer, would probably argue for what the police tend to carry, which is probably about 30 bullets or so. Pretty unlikely you'll ever need more than that.

Lordofthisworld seemed like he might have been arguing in favor of more guns. But no to my knowledge none of the other posts including my own is actually against more gun control. We are just arguing for different kinds of gun control.

Ironically while I've taken upon kind of the pro-gun side in this argument, my opinion would be considered well onto the extreme side of gun control by pro-2a types. While they don't exactly want an assault weapon ban, deep down they know it's just going to be an economic hit that they hate on general principle. My answer would actually involve making gun ownership arguably not a right at all. It's just that I don't believe in banning specific guns but in controlling who gets them.

So basically my argument is "your gun control is stupid, my gun control would be far superior!"

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I shouldn't be required to absolutely prove gun control didn't work

Then don't say it didn't work?

You said you did research and you concluded that it didn't work. You didn't say that the research was inconclusive. Since making that statement, you agreed that it worked to prevent mass shootings... which (as I've said three times now) was the stated purpose of the buyback program.

I don't want to go in circles again with you.

If there is no evidence in the data that it saved lives, how can the loss of freedoms be justified?

You've already agreed that there is evidence that it saved lives.

none of the other posts including my own is actually against more gun control. We are just arguing for different kinds of gun control.

That's what I'm saying. Everybody is pro gun control.

I don't believe in banning specific guns but in banning who gets them.

This is where I get confused. Does this apply to all weaponry? If not, why not? What's the difference between a grenade and a gatling gun?

Surely you think some guns should be banned?

So basically my argument is "your gun control is stupid, my gun control would be far superior!"

 

[JessFR]

In the US, the process to own fully automatic weapons (and a shotgun or rifle with a shortened barrel, and a few other miscellaneous things) is an involved one including registering it with the feds. With fully automatics, the process is especially arduous because ones made after 1989 aren't eligible for civilian ownership, causing the price to skyrocket due to laws of supply and demand. The cheapest one will set you back about $15,000, a desirable one 2-3 times that at least. Particularly collectible ones (and that's why people own them) 10 times more easily. Heck, they are an investment. The price is only going up. There has apparently been exactly one case of one of these being used in crime, and ironically enough it was a dirty cop who did it. Full auto guns used by criminals obtained on the black market do exist but are very rare even among cartel members and such, unlike in the movies.

This is another element of gun control in the US nobody talks about. That automatic weapons are legal yet virtually never used in violent crime.
It suggests one excellent method of gun control may just be to raise the costs until an ar-15 is the price of a car. :D
Well and make people get a class iii.

There's no problem with automatic weapons in america. I would just leave them alone. The situation is self limiting and under control.

 

[Droppersneck]

TLB I was just pointing out that the this last shooter got a lot of initial coverage by the neo liberal establishment press bc they were duped into believing it was a white trump supporter. Of course they immediately memory holed it once they figured it out, but I think the strategy for those right leaning media influencers needs to be to always call the shooter as a white male Trump Supporter, so they cover it. this last shooting got a bit of traction at least due to their screw up. This 100% needs to be part of the modern conservatives play book imo

 

[JessFR]

Then don't say it didn't work?

You said you did research and you concluded that it didn't work. You didn't say that the research was inconclusive. Since making that statement, you agreed that it worked to prevent mass shootings... which (as I've said three times now) was the stated purpose of the buyback program.

I don't want to go in circles again with you.

I agreed it MIGHT have worked to prevent shootings. As I said earlier, I didn't consider mass shootings statistically worth investigating since they're so uncommon and so hard to nail down a clear definition for.
And fine... if you want me to be extra pedantic. My research led me to conclude that gun control ALMOST CERTAINLY didn't work because the evidence failed to show improvement that could plausibly be contributed to the buyback.

I thought about looking into the mass shootings question again but quickly gave up again because as I've said before the data is highly problematic. Mass shootings can't be tracked until they're defined and any sensible definition either gives you so few mass shootings that it's impossible to say if there's been a downward trend, or so many that it makes the gun control look ineffective again.

That specific enough?!

You've already agreed that there is evidence that it saved lives.

I did not. The most I've said is that it might have reduced mass shootings, but it's just an intuition, that's not enough to justify a law like this IMO.
And it probably had a modest impact on suicides, which I'd want to check the data on again to be sure, but if so.... I dunno if I really think that's a good enough justification either. But reasonable minds can disagree on exactly how much positive impact is needed to justify these kinds of laws.

But as I have said before. This is a false dilemma. Because even if we accept these positive results of the gun buybacks that doesn't mean that the buyback was the best way to handle it. For all we know if we'd implemented my favored form of gun control we would have saved even more people with less impact on freedom.

All we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty is that the positive benefits of the 96 and 03 gun buybacks have been extremely modest and highly exaggerated.

That's what I'm saying. Everybody is pro gun control.

Almost everybody here probably, but this is a drug forum, go to one of the gun forums and ask the same question and see what happens. I would prepare for a lot of shouting of "shall not be infringed" and being called a libtard.

This is where I get confused. Does this apply to all weaponry? If not, why not? What's the difference between a grenade and a gatling gun?

Surely you think some guns should be banned?

Well, as I've implied I'd create a system whereby you have to be extensively vetted to get a license. Background investigation, mental health report, etc. If that all comes back clear, you get a license. And that license can be renewed with a simplified check every.. iunno, 5-10 years?.

Once that license is obtained, you can buy pretty much all small arms you want. Rifles, submachine guns, pretty much whatever. Maybe up the price of some of the more dangerous items.
Silencers/suppressors would also be legal. It's silly that they're not. They're legal in new zealand with no problem, they don't work like in the movies. Really they should be health and safety equipment. It's just hollywood induced fear that they're not legal to start with.

This is the part when people tend to call me crazy, but, a lot of people don't realize that a lot of what is perceived as the most dangerous shit is already in private hands anyway and you never hear of crimes committed with them at all. Unsurprisingly what poses the greatest threat (semiautomatic rifles) is very different to what people perceive the greatest threats to be. Reality is always very different to common perception.

For instance hypothetically I'd rather go against an untrained person with an automatic rifle than a semi-automatic rifle. Chances are he'll have run out of bullets inside of 15 seconds and have missed me entirely. With a semi-automatic he will be much more likely to hit me. But most people would probably choose the opposite.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

@JessFR
I accept your apology.

The most I've said is that it might have reduced mass shootings, but it's just an intuition, that's not enough to justify a law like this IMO.

It has clearly MASSIVELY reduced mass shootings. There is no question. You're wrong about the data. The data for homicides is difficult to determine one way or the other, but (if anything) the numbers suggest the amnesty had a positive impact. I'm happy to call the data inconclusive. The data for mass shootings is not inconclusive. It is very clear. We're going to have to agree to disagree at this point about whether or not essentially solving the mass shooting problem in Australia means the amnesty was worthwhile. The vast majority of Australians are on my side on this one. You are a lone American in a predominantly anti-gun country.

This is where I get confused. Does this apply to all weaponry? If not, why not? What's the difference between a grenade and a gatling gun?

Surely you think some guns should be banned?

Well, as I've implied I'd create a system whereby you have to be extensively vetted to get a license. Background investigation, mental health report, etc. If that all comes back clear, you get a license. And that license can be renewed with a simplified check every.. iunno, 5-10 years?.

Once that license is obtained, you can buy pretty much all small arms you want. Rifles, submachine guns, pretty much whatever. Maybe up the price of some of the more dangerous items.
Silencers/suppressors would also be legal. It's silly that they're not. They're legal in new zealand with no problem, they don't work like in the movies. Really they should be health and safety equipment. It's just hollywood induced fear that they're not legal to start with.

This is the part when people tend to call me crazy, but, a lot of people don't realize that a lot of what is perceived as the most dangerous shit is already in private hands anyway and you never hear of crimes committed with them at all. Unsurprisingly what poses the greatest threat (semiautomatic rifles) is very different to what people perceive the greatest threats to be. Reality is always very different to common perception.

For instance hypothetically I'd rather go against an untrained person with an automatic rifle than a semi-automatic rifle. Chances are he'll have run out of bullets inside of 15 seconds and have missed me entirely. With a semi-automatic he will be much more likely to hit me. But most people would probably choose the opposite.

I'm not sure if you answered any of the questions you quoted.

You either think some people should be able to buy napalm and gatling guns or you don't... If there is a vetting process that basically ensures nobody can own a particular kind of gun (like SMGs in California) that gun is essentially illegal.

You've put forward reasonable and well constructed arguments throughout most of this thread. We disagree on some stuff, but (as you said) it makes sense for people to have different opinions. What I don't understand is how you could possible argue that all weaponry should be legal. If you don't believe this (I can't imagine you honestly do) then you believe in some sort of weapon control beyond vetting.

 

[JessFR]

Show me the data for mass shootings please.

@JessFR
You either think some people should be able to buy napalm and gatling guns or you don't... If there is a vetting process that basically ensures nobody can own a particular kind of gun (like SMGs in California) that gun is essentially illegal.

You've put forward reasonable and well constructed arguments throughout most of this thread. We disagree on some stuff, but (as you said) it makes sense for people to have different opinions. What I don't understand is how you could possible argue that all weaponry should be legal. If you don't believe this (I can't imagine you honestly do) then you believe in some sort of weapon control beyond vetting.

I told you what I think. If you pass the vetting process you can own at least all small arms. And probably a bunch of other stuff too. The whole point of the vetting process is to determine you can be trusted with dangerous weapons.

Frankly I didn't go into more specifics because I don't trust that you actually know enough about these specific weapons to accurately judge how dangerous they are and I didn't wanna get bogged down into stupid minutiae.

For instance, exactly what do you mean by a gatling gun? I'm assuming you aren't talking about a machine gun out of the 19th century but rather some kind of motorized minigun. The kind that costs as much as $40 per second to fire and would have to be mounted on the back of a truck to have any hope of using in any kind of mobile way.

No, I'm not especially worried about it. That kind of weapon is totally impractical for a mass shooting. We don't live in a hollywood movie. What weapons are the most dangerous in reality don't always match what you'd assume from TV. In fact TV gets pretty much everything wrong about everything.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

List of massacres in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I didn't ask if you were especially worried about it. I asked you if you think the modern incarnation of gatling guns / chain guns should be legal for any civilian to own in the US and you're still not answering the question... Should any civilian be legally permitted to own grenades? What about napalm? A tank? A nuclear warhead? I'm being silly obviously. My point is, you must draw the line somewhere...?

Just to be super clear: I'm not suggesting that chain guns pose a significant threat statistically. I'm intentionally choosing absurd weaponry to make a point.