America's """Gun""" Problem...

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

How about we make so NOBODY can get a gun. It worked in Australia after Port Arthur and in the UK after Dunblane.

Neither the UK nor Australia has seen a major change in their overall homicide rate. But sure we can pretend the gun bans actually did something.

What about gun related homicides?

Which is a lot cheaper than the boogieman Black Market that keeps being brought up as an argument against all gun regulations.

Well since you have to illegally purchase the gun, interstate transfers must go through an FFL, I think this would have to be black market.

A black market heavily tracked by the authorities would find it hard to operate.

[Big Jim P]

You are correct, it was the second amendment, part of a group of ten that was required by a number of states before they would agree to the original constitution. Oh plus once it is amended into the constitution it is a constitutional right. That is how amendments work.

So we vote to change it.

Good suggestion. One I make in fact. See my sig. Good luck getting enough support.

[Xadufell]

You are correct, it was the second amendment, part of a group of ten that was required by a number of states before they would agree to the original constitution. Oh plus once it is amended into the constitution it is a constitutional right. That is how amendments work.

So we vote to change it.

Something like 95% of mass shooting's happen in gun free zones.

And jet fuel cant melt steel beams.

1. Changing an amendment isn't going to solve anything. Instead of adding more laws we should just better enforce the ones that matter.

2. "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" Sure, but it can cause bending which leads to structural instability.

Also, what?

[Big Jim P]

Neither the UK nor Australia has seen a major change in their overall homicide rate. But sure we can pretend the gun bans actually did something.

What about gun related homicides?

What about guns used in self-defense? Oh yeah, that's America.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

So we vote to change it.

Good suggestion. One I make in fact. See my sig. Good luck getting enough support.

Based on recent events I'd say we'd have a lot of support.

[Neu Leonstein]

Considering that most shooting is far from criminal, more of it would not be an issue.

What is wrong with people legally shooting their own guns?

Nothing. But, just like with people driving their cars very fast, sometimes there's no way to avoid there being public policy-relevant externalities. The combination of gun and ammunition is one such thing. I fully accept that almost all gun owners don't have any nefarious plans and won't do anything bad with their guns. I fully accept that most shooting is neither criminal nor hurts anyone. But accidents, thefts and bad apples exist and it's not reasonable to treat gun ownership as a purely private matter. Society as a whole has an interest in how may guns and how much ammo there is in private hands, just like it has an interest in whether you built yourself a bomb in your backyard or whether you drive your car at 150mph through the city. I don't think anyone reasonably disagrees with this outside the most hardcore libertarians.

In the US, the 2nd amendment and the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it puts a wide boundary around where society (as represented by the government) can legally interfere on private gun ownership. In other countries much less so. Unless that changes, it's the world we all live in (me being less immediately affected, not being in the US). Again, I think this is not something we really disagree on.

Wherever that boundary is placed in your country, until you get to that point it's purely about where you see the reasonable costs and benefits of trying to deal with the externalities involved in private gun ownership. People have that argument all the time, and I'm not too keen on spending my argument rehashing the statistics - we've both seen them all before. Suffice it to say that I am pretty much convinced that living in a society where fewer people own guns and ammo is better than living in one with more. That implies a restriction on freedom, but just like I would like to be able to drive a fast car everywhere really quickly, I would accept the public policy imperative that makes it bad idea for me to be able to so.

On a personal note, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy shooting - I haven't been often (only open days at shooting ranges, really) but I enjoyed it. But for me, it would be a hobby and I would be happy to keep my gun, if I owned one, at a safe at a range and use it for that and nothing else. So make of that what you will.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Car crashes kill 30,000 and injure 2 million.
Alcohol kills 80,000.
Cigarettes kill 200,000, of which 40,000 are non smokers.
In comparison I think mass shootings are a minor issue, yes. There tragic, but they aren't a problem warranting your response

B-but those aren't meant to kill people like guns are!

Makes you wonder then, about how doctors are supposed to save people but end up being the third highest death causer in the US due to malpractice.

[Spirit of Hope]

Neither the UK nor Australia has seen a major change in their overall homicide rate. But sure we can pretend the gun bans actually did something.

What about gun related homicides?

Does it matter? If overall homicides (including those that use a gun) don't change then banning guns hasn't done anything.All ti could arguably have done was change the method of homicide. And for that you have taken away 300,000,000 legally owned guns in the US from 60,000,000-100,000,000 people.

Well since you have to illegally purchase the gun, interstate transfers must go through an FFL, I think this would have to be black market.

A black market heavily tracked by the authorities would find it hard to operate.

Because that is working so well for the DEA and drugs.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Good suggestion. One I make in fact. See my sig. Good luck getting enough support.

Based on recent events I'd say we'd have a lot of support.

Yes, cause getting shot down over and over and over again surely says JUST that.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Good suggestion. One I make in fact. See my sig. Good luck getting enough support.

Based on recent events I'd say we'd have a lot of support.

You say a lot of things, not many of them true.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

And I'm sure the 60,000,000 gun owners love that you want to take there property away because of a statistically minor problem. Also a problem that won't be solved by taking the legal gun owners firearms, what with drug cartels proving how easy it is to smuggle things into the US. Plus those same terrorists proving they can carry out attacks even in places with much stricter gun control measures.

More than 100 million by latest estimates. 400+ million guns too. We should have half a billion guns in private hands in a short time. And crime keeps going down too.

So much for the gun-grabber mantra of more guns equaling more crime.

You just want another Orlando don't you?

[Xadufell]

Neither the UK nor Australia has seen a major change in their overall homicide rate. But sure we can pretend the gun bans actually did something.

What about gun related homicides?

Well since you have to illegally purchase the gun, interstate transfers must go through an FFL, I think this would have to be black market.

A black market heavily tracked by the authorities would find it hard to operate.

So the Deep Web, which has millions of black market sites, which is also a place where the authorities have massive presence finds it hard to operate? Alright and Hillary Clinton cares about women as well!

[Paddy O Fernature]

More than 100 million by latest estimates. 400+ million guns too. We should have half a billion guns in private hands in a short time. And crime keeps going down too.

So much for the gun-grabber mantra of more guns equaling more crime.

You just want another Orlando don't you?

You say a lot of things, not many of them true.

[Big Jim P]

Good suggestion. One I make in fact. See my sig. Good luck getting enough support.

Based on recent events I'd say we'd have a lot of support.

Based on recent polls, gun-right enjoy the support of a majority. This is supported by both the record setting pace of gun sales, and the loosening of carry restrictions in more and more states.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You just want another Orlando don't you?

You say a lot of things, not many of them true.

Bam, pro-gun stock quote 2016. You are just beautiful, Pret.

[Spirit of Hope]

Considering that most shooting is far from criminal, more of it would not be an issue.

What is wrong with people legally shooting their own guns?

Nothing. But, just like with people driving their cars very fast, sometimes there's no way to avoid there being public policy-relevant externalities. The combination of gun and ammunition is one such thing. I fully accept that almost all gun owners don't have any nefarious plans and won't do anything bad with their guns. I fully accept that most shooting is neither criminal nor hurts anyone. But accidents, thefts and bad apples exist and it's not reasonable to treat gun ownership as a purely private matter. Society as a whole has an interest in how may guns and how much ammo there is in private hands, just like it has an interest in whether you built yourself a bomb in your backyard or whether you drive your car at 150mph through the city. I don't think anyone reasonably disagrees with this outside the most hardcore libertarians.

In the US, the 2nd amendment and the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it puts a wide boundary around where society (as represented by the government) can legally interfere on private gun ownership. In other countries much less so. Unless that changes, it's the world we all live in (me being less immediately affected, not being in the US). Again, I think this is not something we really disagree on.

Wherever that boundary is placed in your country, until you get to that point it's purely about where you see the reasonable costs and benefits of trying to deal with the externalities involved in private gun ownership. People have that argument all the time, and I'm not too keen on spending my argument rehashing the statistics - we've both seen them all before. Suffice it to say that I am pretty much convinced that living in a society where fewer people own guns and ammo is better than living in one with more. That implies a restriction on freedom, but just like I would like to be able to drive a fast car everywhere really quickly, I would accept the public policy imperative that makes it bad idea for me to be able to so.

On a personal note, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy shooting - I haven't been often (only open days at shooting ranges, really) but I enjoyed it. But for me, it would be a hobby and I would be happy to keep my gun, if I owned one, at a safe at a range and use it for that and nothing else. So make of that what you will.

The problem here is you are assuming that legally owned guns are contributing to the issue of crime. Which they simply aren't.
40% of homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out those who legally can not own a gun.
30% of first time offenders who use a gun got it illegally. With a further 30% coming from questionable sources.

Simply put legally owned guns aren't the issue, guns in the hands of criminals is the issue. Placing restrictions on legal gun owners does little to stop the real issue, but does put a burden on legally owned guns.

Society does have an interest in these issues, but pretending that the choices being made by the California legislator are good is stupid. They target all the wrong things, in part because the legislators have no clue what they are regulating. That is my problem here.

[Big Jim P]

More than 100 million by latest estimates. 400+ million guns too. We should have half a billion guns in private hands in a short time. And crime keeps going down too.

So much for the gun-grabber mantra of more guns equaling more crime.

You just want another Orlando don't you?

Loving those strawmen, aren't you?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You just want another Orlando don't you?

Loving those strawmen, aren't you?

Makes good tinder you know.

[Neu Leonstein]

The problem here is you are assuming that legally owned guns are contributing to the issue of crime. Which they simply aren't.
40% of homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out those who legally can not own a gun.
30% of first time offenders who use a gun got it illegally. With a further 30% coming from questionable sources.

Do you know what I mean by the term "externality"?

[The balkens]

More than 100 million by latest estimates. 400+ million guns too. We should have half a billion guns in private hands in a short time. And crime keeps going down too.

So much for the gun-grabber mantra of more guns equaling more crime.

You just want another Orlando don't you?

Which i already have a solution.

Arm the gays.

[Neu Leonstein]

Which i already have a solution.

Arm the gays.

Heh - given George Takei's declaration, the NRA might want to try anything to defuse the situation.

Anyway, an excuse to post a (satirical, and obviously straw man-y) humourous blog post: America finally passes meaningful gun control legislation

[The balkens]

Which i already have a solution.

Arm the gays.

Heh - given George Takei's declaration, the NRA might want to try anything to defuse the situation.

Anyway, an excuse to post a (satirical, and obviously straw man-y) humourous blog post: America finally passes meaningful gun control legislation

I mean, the 2nd amendment doesn't discriminate.

[Spirit of Hope]

The problem here is you are assuming that legally owned guns are contributing to the issue of crime. Which they simply aren't.
40% of homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out those who legally can not own a gun.
30% of first time offenders who use a gun got it illegally. With a further 30% coming from questionable sources.

Do you know what I mean by the term "externality"?

I am actually aware of what the term means. My response goes back to what started this discussion, California's recent legislation.

You see I can completely understand,and support, restrictions and rules for buying and owning guns. They do after all present a possible danger to society. My problem is that none of California's recent legislation actually targets the problem of guns as it exists in the United States. Instead of taking measures to combat the actual issue of handguns in the hands of criminals, illegal transfers of guns, questionable transfer of guns, and other issues California placed further restrictions on rifles and magazines. Neither of which are an actual issue. California stepped up it's assault weapons ban, even though "military style semi autos" represent less than 10% of crime. It is demanding the handing in of all magazines over ten rounds, even though the average number of rounds fired is under 4. It is requiring all ammo sales have a background check, even though most guns are already acquired in questionable or strait illegal means that can also transfer the ammo, in addition to the fact that crime does not need much ammo to happen (less than 4 rounds).

[Neu Leonstein]

I am actually aware of what the term means. My response goes back to what started this discussion, California's recent legislation.

You see I can completely understand,and support, restrictions and rules for buying and owning guns. They do after all present a possible danger to society. My problem is that none of California's recent legislation actually targets the problem of guns as it exists in the United States. Instead of taking measures to combat the actual issue of handguns in the hands of criminals, illegal transfers of guns, questionable transfer of guns, and other issues California placed further restrictions on rifles and magazines. Neither of which are an actual issue. California stepped up it's assault weapons ban, even though "military style semi autos" represent less than 10% of crime. It is demanding the handing in of all magazines over ten rounds, even though the average number of rounds fired is under 4. It is requiring all ammo sales have a background check, even though most guns are already acquired in questionable or strait illegal means that can also transfer the ammo, in addition to the fact that crime does not need much ammo to happen (less than 4 rounds).

Right, fair enough. I am personally also concerned with the issue of gun burglaries, in which legally-owned guns are stolen to be sold to criminals, but that's another story.

I'd be interested to hear what specific ways you would support to limit those externalities and the transfer of guns.

[Friderlands]

Nothing. But, just like with people driving their cars very fast, sometimes there's no way to avoid there being public policy-relevant externalities. The combination of gun and ammunition is one such thing. I fully accept that almost all gun owners don't have any nefarious plans and won't do anything bad with their guns. I fully accept that most shooting is neither criminal nor hurts anyone. But accidents, thefts and bad apples exist and it's not reasonable to treat gun ownership as a purely private matter. Society as a whole has an interest in how may guns and how much ammo there is in private hands, just like it has an interest in whether you built yourself a bomb in your backyard or whether you drive your car at 150mph through the city. I don't think anyone reasonably disagrees with this outside the most hardcore libertarians.

In the US, the 2nd amendment and the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it puts a wide boundary around where society (as represented by the government) can legally interfere on private gun ownership. In other countries much less so. Unless that changes, it's the world we all live in (me being less immediately affected, not being in the US). Again, I think this is not something we really disagree on.

Wherever that boundary is placed in your country, until you get to that point it's purely about where you see the reasonable costs and benefits of trying to deal with the externalities involved in private gun ownership. People have that argument all the time, and I'm not too keen on spending my argument rehashing the statistics - we've both seen them all before. Suffice it to say that I am pretty much convinced that living in a society where fewer people own guns and ammo is better than living in one with more. That implies a restriction on freedom, but just like I would like to be able to drive a fast car everywhere really quickly, I would accept the public policy imperative that makes it bad idea for me to be able to so.

On a personal note, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy shooting - I haven't been often (only open days at shooting ranges, really) but I enjoyed it. But for me, it would be a hobby and I would be happy to keep my gun, if I owned one, at a safe at a range and use it for that and nothing else. So make of that what you will.

The problem here is you are assuming that legally owned guns are contributing to the issue of crime. Which they simply aren't.
40% of homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out those who legally can not own a gun.
30% of first time offenders who use a gun got it illegally. With a further 30% coming from questionable sources.

Simply put legally owned guns aren't the issue, guns in the hands of criminals is the issue. Placing restrictions on legal gun owners does little to stop the real issue, but does put a burden on legally owned guns.

Society does have an interest in these issues, but pretending that the choices being made by the California legislator are good is stupid. They target all the wrong things, in part because the legislators have no clue what they are regulating. That is my problem here.

Uhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a good thing if gun regulation reduces homocides by 30%?