Gun Control 2023 (V) - ATF Shenanigans, States Fight Back!

[Caurus]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-20
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/act ... 0.pdf/view
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/act ... 1.pdf/view

first source is the one Paddy mentioned. The next two are pdfs about active shooter incidents.

I give sources about shootings in 2023.
I get told those don't count; only the FBI counts.
I ask for the FBI's numbers for 2023.
What's delivered is the FBI's numbers for 2019.

This is bad comedy.

Considering that the year is still young, I imagine that the FBI numbers aren't published yet. Instead. here is last year's data.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/act ... 3.pdf/view
While there has been an increase between 2018 to 2020 by about 52.5%, there has been an 18% decrease since 2021.

[Galloism]

Except that you conveniently forget that vehicles harm more people in the US each year then guns do. Now who's not being intellectually honest......

You do realize we have regulations on vehicles right? And cars weren't made with the intent to kill or cause harm.

We do. We have far fewer regulations on vehicles than guns, but we do have regulations on vehicles.

The intent in creation doesn't matter overmuch - most guns are not made with the intent to kill either, if you think about it for a second. Given the vast quantity of guns, the amount of death via gun is very low.

[American Legionaries]

You do realize we have regulations on vehicles right? And cars weren't made with the intent to kill or cause harm.

We do. We have far fewer regulations on vehicles than guns, but we do have regulations on vehicles.

The intent in creation doesn't matter overmuch - most guns are not made with the intent to kill either, if you think about it for a second. Given the vast quantity of guns, the amount of death via gun is very low.

Funnily enough, an individual automobile is more likely to kill than an individual firearm.

[Galloism]

Roads are a good example to apply to this situation. We know that roads give us more freedom - freedom of travel, much further, faster, and easier, than traveling overland.

We also know they have a cost. Tens of thousands of lives.

Now we could quite easily (and by easily, i mean 'legislatively') ban all roads and tear them up, and that would save tens of thousands of lives in car crashes. But we also know it would severely harm our freedom of travel.

So what do we do?

Paddy's example of equating vehicles to guns is better, frankly. Traffic accidents do not track at all to deliberate mass shootings, and excluding using them to threaten other people, guns don't help you commute to work. Not especially helpful with deliveries, either, unless we wander into the realm of t-shirt cannons, and I'll pick that thread up when someone deliberately t-shoots a group of people to death. The net loss of destroying all roads is incomparable to the net loss of gun control.

Indeed fair - they track more closely to intentional vehicle ramming attacks, which are absurdly common but don't get near as much press (usually).

[Galloism]

We do. We have far fewer regulations on vehicles than guns, but we do have regulations on vehicles.

The intent in creation doesn't matter overmuch - most guns are not made with the intent to kill either, if you think about it for a second. Given the vast quantity of guns, the amount of death via gun is very low.

Funnily enough, an individual automobile is more likely to kill than an individual firearm.

By a fairly wide margin, actually.

[Ryemarch]

Considering that the year is still young, I imagine that the FBI numbers aren't published yet. Instead. here is last year's data.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/act ... 3.pdf/view
While there has been an increase since 2020 by about 52.5% since 2018, there has been an 18% decrease since 2021.

I deeply appreciate that you provided a direct, courteous response. Seriously, compared to the absolute circus of mental gymnastics and goalpost-moving I've been blasted with all day, this is a drink of cool, clear water.

[Mallorea and Riva]

*snip*

Okay, so you're trolling. Gotcha.

Knock it off with the trollnaming - if you think they're trolling, report them. If you don't want to do that, then put them on ignore and move on.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Funnily enough, an individual automobile is more likely to kill than an individual firearm.

By a fairly wide margin, actually.

Huh...

Learn something new every day.

[Grinning Dragon]

If FBI works like most law enforcement does then they don't publish full numbers until the following year so 2023 wouldn't be available yet. 2022 would be the most recent.

Yes, they like getting the statistics correct, not willy-nilly lumping in shit like gang violence and airsoft shootings with actual mass shootings...

To add. The FBI and CDC when compiling their data from police departments is well after the facts have been determined and the investigation has been closed and use the standard 4 or more killed that is unconnected to other crimes. gva uses 3 persons or more either killed or injured and doesn't matter if those were unconnected or not to any other type of crime and rely solely on initial media reports and as we all know the media gets shit wrong as they want to be the first to report and don't have all the facts.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Yes, they like getting the statistics correct, not willy-nilly lumping in shit like gang violence and airsoft shootings with actual mass shootings...

To add. The FBI and CDC when compiling their data from police departments is well after the facts have been determined and the investigation has been closed and use the standard 4 or more killed that is unconnected to other crimes. gva uses 3 persons or more either killed or injured and doesn't matter if those were unconnected or not to any other type of crime and rely solely on initial media reports and as we all know the media gets shit wrong as they want to be the first to report and don't have all the facts.

Let's not forget as well that some of those "Shootings" were not even done with actual firearms, aka Airsoft/Paintball.

[Ryemarch]

Indeed fair - they track more closely to intentional vehicle ramming attacks

A much better comparison, aye.

which are absurdly common but don't get near as much press (usually).

That article lists five attacks for 2023 so far. Even if we assume it's only caught a third of VRAs so far and that the source I found on mass shootings overstated matters tenfold, that would leave us with fifteen VRAs and nineteen mass shootings for the year-to-date. In my opinion, that would leave mass shootings as the bigger of the two problems. If those turned out to be accurate numbers, would you agree?

(Of course I freely admit that the 15 v. 19 thing is pure guesswork.)

Knock it off with the trollnaming - if you think they're trolling, report them. If you don't want to do that, then put them on ignore and move on.

Roger that. Already done the latter, will do the former as soon as I can.

[Galloism]

By a fairly wide margin, actually.

Huh...

Learn something new every day.

Helps to understand there's a lot more firearms than vehicles in the US.

There's 275,000,000 vehicles registered in the US (about - source for that), and thought to be about 433,900,000 firearms (about, it's fuzzy - source for that too.

38,824 people died in crashes in 2020, while there were 19,384 gun homicides. Let's include accidents which we know there are a few hundred a year, and round to 20,000 gun deaths that are homicide or accident.

That makes the following ratios:

38,824 / 275,000,000 = 0.000141 - or about 0.0141%
20,000 / 433,900,000 = 0.000046 - or about 0.0046%

[Galloism]

Indeed fair - they track more closely to intentional vehicle ramming attacks

A much better comparison, aye.

which are absurdly common but don't get near as much press (usually).

That article lists five attacks for 2023 so far. Even if we assume it's only caught a third of VRAs so far and that the source I found on mass shootings overstated matters tenfold, that would leave us with fifteen VRAs and nineteen mass shootings for the year-to-date. In my opinion, that would leave mass shootings as the bigger of the two problems. If those turned out to be accurate numbers, would you agree?

(Of course I freely admit that the 15 v. 19 thing is pure guesswork.)

I think the important factor here is that vehicle ramming attacks can be a deadly form of violence that can be chosen in alternative to firearms by literally anyone. Just today, there was what appears to be a vehicle ramming attack in Texas, killing at least 7 so far.

If you fail to take care of the underlying issues, you'll just result in people using different weapons.

[Grinning Dragon]

To add. The FBI and CDC when compiling their data from police departments is well after the facts have been determined and the investigation has been closed and use the standard 4 or more killed that is unconnected to other crimes. gva uses 3 persons or more either killed or injured and doesn't matter if those were unconnected or not to any other type of crime and rely solely on initial media reports and as we all know the media gets shit wrong as they want to be the first to report and don't have all the facts.

Let's not forget as well that some of those "Shootings" were not even done with actual firearms, aka Airsoft/Paintball.

Well when it's a group of anti gun wanna be researchers who just want to push propaganda of course they are gonna stretch it and of course our media will lap that shit up like a crack addict getting their fix, which only further pushes the idea that gva is a legitimate source.

[Juansonia]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-20
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/act ... 0.pdf/view
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/act ... 1.pdf/view

first source is the one Paddy mentioned. The next two are pdfs about active shooter incidents.

I give sources about shootings in 2023.
I get told those don't count; only the FBI counts.
I ask for the FBI's numbers for 2023.
What's delivered is the FBI's numbers for 2019.

This is bad comedy.

I don't think that the FBI has published numbers for 2023.

[Ryemarch]

I think the important factor here is that vehicle ramming attacks can be a deadly form of violence that can be chosen in alternative to firearms by literally anyone.

That is an excellent point, but I'd say it's drifting away from the purview of gun control.

If you fail to take care of the underlying issues, you'll just result in people using different weapons.

On that we completely agree. I'll say no more than that: optimism v. pessimism, and all.

[Galloism]

I think the important factor here is that vehicle ramming attacks can be a deadly form of violence that can be chosen in alternative to firearms by literally anyone.

That is an excellent point, but I'd say it's drifting away from the purview of gun control.

If you fail to take care of the underlying issues, you'll just result in people using different weapons.

On that we completely agree. I'll say no more than that: optimism v. pessimism, and all.

It's actually directly on point.

There's lots of things that can be used as weapons at any local store, many of which are far deadlier than guns.

The proposals repeatedly made to ban weapons based on their cosmetics is actually useless towards combating this problem. There are things to do - we aren't helpless - but we shouldn't waste time and energy on things that won't work, and take away peoples oldest natural right in so doing it.

[Ryemarch]

It's actually directly on point.

There's lots of things that can be used as weapons at any local store, many of which are far deadlier than guns.

Most of them, I'd say, are better described as "can be" deadlier than guns, rather than "are". And for most things sold in most stores, the core design philosophy is not the extinguishing of life. I could whip up some napalm tomorrow, but to do so I'd be combining various things that have wholly other intended uses. While guns can be used for target shooting, their intended function (as a group) is to kill, whether for food or for combat. A vehicle's intended function is transport.

The proposals repeatedly made to ban weapons based on their cosmetics is actually useless towards combating this problem. There are things to do - we aren't helpless - but we shouldn't waste time and energy on things that won't work

Absolutely. "Oh no, this accessory makes it so much worse!" is ignorance at best and performative political timewasting at worst.

and take away peoples oldest natural right in so doing it.

Now there's a statement that could easily lure me into the weeds, raising questions of the very nature of rights as well as history. I'll resist the temptation.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The proposals repeatedly made to ban weapons based on their cosmetics is actually useless towards combating this problem. There are things to do - we aren't helpless - but we shouldn't waste time and energy on things that won't work, and take away peoples oldest natural right in so doing it.

Case in point, the recent laws in my state. Gun violence isn't a problem in 95% of the state and in the few areas where it is an issue (Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, Vancouver) it's overwhelmingly committed with handguns by poor people with no prospects in life. Instead of trying to fix these areas and address the problems driving these people to crime, however, the state Dems rammed through an assault weapons ban despite the fact that we have record low levels of gun crime with such weapons. Back in 2018 there was a grand total of 1 murder with a rifle in the state. The bill very clearly wasn't passed to save any lives or prevent any shootings with these weapons, because it already functionally never happens, it was just political theater that won't work at anything except making Inslee and Ferguson look good in liberal media.

Oh, and my favorite part, after Inslee spent so much time talking about how this is an emergency we need to address right now he ended up waiting almost a week after it was passed to sign it so he could fly all the rich gun control advocates out to the capital for a photo shoot. Yeah, such an emergency lol.

[American Legionaries]

It's actually directly on point.

There's lots of things that can be used as weapons at any local store, many of which are far deadlier than guns.

Most of them, I'd say, are better described as "can be" deadlier than guns, rather than "are". And for most things sold in most stores, the core design philosophy is not the extinguishing of life. I could whip up some napalm tomorrow, but to do so I'd be combining various things that have wholly other intended uses. While guns can be used for target shooting, their intended function (as a group) is to kill, whether for food or for combat. A vehicle's intended function is transport.

The proposals repeatedly made to ban weapons based on their cosmetics is actually useless towards combating this problem. There are things to do - we aren't helpless - but we shouldn't waste time and energy on things that won't work

Absolutely. "Oh no, this accessory makes it so much worse!" is ignorance at best and performative political timewasting at worst.

and take away peoples oldest natural right in so doing it.

Now there's a statement that could easily lure me into the weeds, raising questions of the very nature of rights as well as history. I'll resist the temptation.

Why does the intent matter? If I design a device to change light bulbs and it actually kills far more people than weapons, are they less dead because I was intending to make a machine that changes light bulbs?

[Ryemarch]

Why does the intent matter?

Aside from being one of the core differences between accidental manslaughter and murder in most judiciaries?

If I design a device to change light bulbs and it actually kills far more people than weapons, are they less dead because I was intending to make a machine that changes light bulbs?

They are not less dead, and given that most lightbulbs are fairly easy to replace manually, I would definitely favor a total ban on your lightbulb replacer. Especially if it was frequently taken into schools and other gathering places and used in deliberate, fatal mass unscrewings.

But sure, cars and guns are the exact same objects. You go, girl. /s

[American Legionaries]

Why does the intent matter?

Aside from being one of the core differences between accidental manslaughter and murder in most judiciaries?

The design intent of the murder weapon has no part in the legal classification of the crime.

If I design a device to change light bulbs and it actually kills far more people than weapons, are they less dead because I was intending to make a machine that changes light bulbs?

They are not less dead, and given that most lightbulbs are fairly easy to replace manually, I would definitely favor a total ban on your lightbulb replacer. Especially if it was frequently taken into schools and other gathering places and used in deliberate, fatal mass unscrewings.

But sure, cars and guns are the exact same objects. You go, girl. /s

Moving from one point to another is something that's very easy to do manually. As a matter of fact, the ability to do that is an important developmental milestone in babies. So why don't you advocate for a ban on automobiles?

[Galloism]

It's actually directly on point.

There's lots of things that can be used as weapons at any local store, many of which are far deadlier than guns.

Most of them, I'd say, are better described as "can be" deadlier than guns, rather than "are". And for most things sold in most stores, the core design philosophy is not the extinguishing of life. I could whip up some napalm tomorrow, but to do so I'd be combining various things that have wholly other intended uses. While guns can be used for target shooting, their intended function (as a group) is to kill, whether for food or for combat. A vehicle's intended function is transport.

I don't think this matters. An airplane's intended function is transport, but I don't think 9/11 was less serious of an event than this mass shooting we're currently discussing because the original intent of the weapon was different.

The proposals repeatedly made to ban weapons based on their cosmetics is actually useless towards combating this problem. There are things to do - we aren't helpless - but we shouldn't waste time and energy on things that won't work

Absolutely. "Oh no, this accessory makes it so much worse!" is ignorance at best and performative political timewasting at worst.

and take away peoples oldest natural right in so doing it.

Now there's a statement that could easily lure me into the weeds, raising questions of the very nature of rights as well as history. I'll resist the temptation.

Your weeds, sir.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Republicans should be forced to watch the footage of all these mass shootings. Another mass shooting happened in Texas. This is PREVENTABLE.

[Ryemarch]

I don't think this matters. An airplane's intended function is transport, but I don't think 9/11 was less serious of an event than this mass shooting we're currently discussing because the original intent of the weapon was different.

See, that's the wild thing about the US: flying has never been the same since it happened, with all kinds of regulations added, the creation of Homeland Security, and more knock-on effects. And that's with a fatality count of 2,996.

I can beat that number with the FBI's report on gun violence in 2019, and I don't even need all of the states. 1,142 from California, 1,064 from Texas, 647 from Illinois, and 367 from Georgia take us comfortably over the threshold. And yet here we are: individual gun murders and mass shootings keep happening, virtually unchecked. I guess because they aren't as flashy as flying into a building, and because the deaths are more spread out. I honestly believe that this country's a lost cause.

The current gun situation in this country is far from the well-regulated state militias that the Founding Fathers had in mind, and I read posts like "my right to guns beats people's right to life" (I'm paraphrasing because I can't be assed to go dig up the exact post).

At this point I have a headache, partly from the topic, partly from dealing with posters less courteous than yourself, and partly from not hydrating properly.

I think you and I both want fewer Americans to die, even if we disagree on the details of how to get there. I'll content myself with that.

Your weeds, sir.

You are now officially my weeds guy.