Abortions vs. Guns

[thegreekdog]

There was a North Carolina study (I don't have it, but someone around these here CC parts might have it) that showed that some large percentage of gun deaths in North Carolina were committed by people with felonies on their records (i.e. they were not legally able to purchase guns). I always thought that kind of thing was relevant to discussion and not discussed enough - when gun control does not achieve the intended effect, is more and similar gun control going to be effective?

I mean isn't the main problem in the States that even if New York state enacts really tough gun laws, traffickers can just get a load of guns from somewhere else and ship them into New York without any difficulty?

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/20 ... mes_c.html

Kinda like how moving factories out of Beijing didn't really help solve Beijing's air pollution, because all that happened was the factories moved to neighboring provinces and then pollution from them just blew across to Beijing all the same.

For a proper trial you'd have to enact the same gun control laws in every single state and then see what effect that has.

I agree that if DC enacts a gun law banning assault rifles, a DC resident could legally purchase an assault rifle in a city that does not outlaw assault rifles. But, and this is the problem the North Carolina study showed, as far as I can tell, felons cannot purchase guns anywhere in the United States; so whether or not Raleigh has stricter gun laws than Atlanta is irrelevant because the law is the same everywhere in the country. The point the NRA makes is that passing stricter gun laws doesn't curb criminals getting guns and using them; it just restricts law abiding citizens from getting guns.

There was a North Carolina study (I don't have it, but someone around these here CC parts might have it) that showed that some large percentage of gun deaths in North Carolina were committed by people with felonies on their records (i.e. they were not legally able to purchase guns). I always thought that kind of thing was relevant to discussion and not discussed enough - when gun control does not achieve the intended effect, is more and similar gun control going to be effective?

Actually, the truth is that we don't have much reliable data on guns. The best data we have is from polls and the like. Attempts to collect data have been thwarted by the NRA -friendly legislators. This may change soon, as several of the harder line folks in congress are starting to see that having good data benefits everyone. There is still a question over what will be called "good" data, but it may be an improvement.

Anyway, yes, I remember seeing that study posted, but it was at least months, if not a year or two ago. Not going to even try and dig it up at this point here.

I don't think it matters how long ago the study was. It makes logical sense to me. Someone who uses a gun with malice aforethought is not going to be put off by laws restricting the ownership of guns.

There is a fascinating editorial by an NRA muckity-muck on politico (that's where I got the North Carolina thing; unfortunately I can no longer find it) that states precisely the opposite of your position. He proposes that the Center for Disease Control is putting out gun data that only helps their own political agenda. Even if I agreed with the writer, I would still say "Pot, please meet kettle."

[Dukasaur]

Duk...missed your question earlier re: breakins / staying home 24/7.

We lock up our guns that arent being used; I, for example, have 2 commercial 7' safes that weigh over 3000 lbs each. Good luck perp.

When I am home, I have 6 loaded weapons between my house and shop. When I am away, they go in the safe. Lastly, most of us live in relatively crime free areas, luckily. Dad and brother have each been broken into once in the last 40 years; they live in the boonies. I have never had a problem in the 25 years I have had this home in West Linn...leave my keys in my truck, leave my front door unlocked....lucky to be able to live here and all my signs around that indicate what will happen to perps help

Also helps that I am here damn near 24/7.

We don't have hunting accidents or target shooting accidents.

Fair enough.

If everyone followed your example, there would probably be fewer problems. Lot of people buy a gun, put it in their night table drawer, leave it there for the burglars when they go to work.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, the truth is that we don't have much reliable data on guns. The best data we have is from polls and the like. Attempts to collect data have been thwarted by the NRA -friendly legislators. This may change soon, as several of the harder line folks in congress are starting to see that having good data benefits everyone. There is still a question over what will be called "good" data, but it may be an improvement.

Anyway, yes, I remember seeing that study posted, but it was at least months, if not a year or two ago. Not going to even try and dig it up at this point here.

I don't think it matters how long ago the study was. It makes logical sense to me. Someone who uses a gun with malice aforethought is not going to be put off by laws restricting the ownership of guns.

I actually agree with your assessment. The trouble is that without a clear, widespread and objective study, its too easy for the nay-sayers to claim its inaccurate and worthless. And, truth is, they have a point (even if logic seems to indicate no study should actually be needed...)

There is a fascinating editorial by an NRA muckity-muck on politico (that's where I got the North Carolina thing; unfortunately I can no longer find it) that states precisely the opposite of your position. He proposes that the Center for Disease Control is putting out gun data that only helps their own political agenda. Even if I agreed with the writer, I would still say "Pot, please meet kettle."

That article might be a tad old. That charge was made a few years ago and, as a result, there was actually a change made to limit what data the CDC can collect. Doctors, for example, used to regularly ask if there were guns in a house during a pediatric exam. Some doctors may still ask, but the data was not collected. I cannot remember the exact details. If you wish, I can try to find that study, but not right now (just came off a late work shift-- not at my best)
Anyway, now at least some of the legislators are doing a semi about face and saying that they want to go away from prohibiting data collection (others are saying there never was an absolute ban, just that they wanted the data to be unbiased) to supporting specific, scientific and objective studies to really show what actually causes gun violence, how we can prevent it, etc.

In either case, my position is probably similar to yours in that too often of late legislators seem unable to distinguish "good science" from "science that gives results I like". Actually, that seems to be more of a problem with people, in general.

[mrswdk]

There was a North Carolina study (I don't have it, but someone around these here CC parts might have it) that showed that some large percentage of gun deaths in North Carolina were committed by people with felonies on their records (i.e. they were not legally able to purchase guns). I always thought that kind of thing was relevant to discussion and not discussed enough - when gun control does not achieve the intended effect, is more and similar gun control going to be effective?

I mean isn't the main problem in the States that even if New York state enacts really tough gun laws, traffickers can just get a load of guns from somewhere else and ship them into New York without any difficulty?

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/20 ... mes_c.html

Kinda like how moving factories out of Beijing didn't really help solve Beijing's air pollution, because all that happened was the factories moved to neighboring provinces and then pollution from them just blew across to Beijing all the same.

For a proper trial you'd have to enact the same gun control laws in every single state and then see what effect that has.

I agree that if DC enacts a gun law banning assault rifles, a DC resident could legally purchase an assault rifle in a city that does not outlaw assault rifles. But, and this is the problem the North Carolina study showed, as far as I can tell, felons cannot purchase guns anywhere in the United States; so whether or not Raleigh has stricter gun laws than Atlanta is irrelevant because the law is the same everywhere in the country. The point the NRA makes is that passing stricter gun laws doesn't curb criminals getting guns and using them; it just restricts law abiding citizens from getting guns.

If someone can buy a gun in Florida in order to sell it to someone in New York who shouldn't have it, I don't see why someone can't buy a gun in Florida to sell it to a felon in Florida who shouldn't have it.

If 'passing stricter gun laws doesn't curb criminals getting guns and using them' then why aren't guns common amongs criminals in London, Paris or Berlin?

[thegreekdog]

If 'passing stricter gun laws doesn't curb criminals getting guns and using them' then why aren't guns common amongs criminals in London, Paris or Berlin?

I mean, because guns are illegal in those places? Unless I'm missing something, there has been no law proposed that would ban guns nationwide. If you want to deal in strange fantasy land, then yes, banning the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States, as well as the collection and destruction of all privately held firearms, will result in a lack of gun violence. But since that hasn't been proposed by anyone in Congress or the executive branch, I would prefer to talk about reality, where the solution to gun violence is on the one hand "More guns!" and on the other hand "Make it harder to get guns even though it's already illegal for criminals to get them!"

I can't remember the story in any great detail, but in one of the mass shootings (I think it was the Connecticut school), the shooter stole the guns from his mother. The question I asked my more liberal friends was - "Apart from banning all guns, which no one is proposing, what law would you pass that would have prevented the mass shooting?" I think one of them said make the clips hold less bullets. That was the best answer I got. And it would not have preventing the shooting, just made the casualties less. I'm not saying this is not a valid reason to pass a law; I'm saying it does not solve the problem, only makes it less problematic (for some).

[mrswdk]

If 'passing stricter gun laws doesn't curb criminals getting guns and using them' then why aren't guns common amongs criminals in London, Paris or Berlin?

I mean, because guns are illegal in those places?

Is making them illegal not the enactment of a stricter gun law?

Unless I'm missing something, there has been no law proposed that would ban guns nationwide. If you want to deal in strange fantasy land, then yes, banning the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States, as well as the collection and destruction of all privately held firearms, will result in a lack of gun violence. But since that hasn't been proposed by anyone in Congress or the executive branch, I would prefer to talk about reality, where the solution to gun violence is on the one hand "More guns!" and on the other hand "Make it harder to get guns even though it's already illegal for criminals to get them!"

If banning all guns is the only viable solution then people need to start talking about that. Otherwise all you do is compromise for the sake of I-don't-know-what, end up arguing about something minor like whether or not assault rifles should be legal, and never actually touch on and proposals that could actually help you make some progress.

[thegreekdog]

If 'passing stricter gun laws doesn't curb criminals getting guns and using them' then why aren't guns common amongs criminals in London, Paris or Berlin?

I mean, because guns are illegal in those places?

Is making them illegal not the enactment of a stricter gun law?

Unless I'm missing something, there has been no law proposed that would ban guns nationwide. If you want to deal in strange fantasy land, then yes, banning the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States, as well as the collection and destruction of all privately held firearms, will result in a lack of gun violence. But since that hasn't been proposed by anyone in Congress or the executive branch, I would prefer to talk about reality, where the solution to gun violence is on the one hand "More guns!" and on the other hand "Make it harder to get guns even though it's already illegal for criminals to get them!"

If banning all guns is the only viable solution then people need to start talking about that. Otherwise all you do is compromise for the sake of I-don't-know-what, end up arguing about something minor like whether or not assault rifles should be legal, and never actually touch on and proposals that could actually help you make some progress.

I mean, fine, you've posted all this here. But, again, no one, not Democrat, not Republican, is proposing to ban guns. So, again, passing stricter gun laws like longer waiting periods or less ammo does not solve the problem that those things are intended to solve. Not sure what else you want me to say here.

[tzor]

I mean, fine, you've posted all this here. But, again, no one, not Democrat, not Republican, is proposing to ban guns.

Any guns or "ALL GUNS." Because the NY State "SAFE" Act does in fact bad guns based on purely cosmetic reasons.

[thegreekdog]

I mean, fine, you've posted all this here. But, again, no one, not Democrat, not Republican, is proposing to ban guns.

Any guns or "ALL GUNS." Because the NY State "SAFE" Act does in fact bad guns based on purely cosmetic reasons.

All guns. The purely cosmetic thing doesn't really help anything. I looked (for 10 minutes) but could not find anything on gun-related deaths in New York in 2012 vs. 2013 (SAFE Act passed) vs. 2014. In any event, the SAFE Act was a response to the Connecticut shooting and just changed how many bullets one could carry in a gun in one state.

[2dimes]

Koolnewt, what does your mrs do when you are playing guns with the boys out at the cabin? I'm thinking of bringing the kids down next summer. We'll need some loaners because I'm not dragging anything across the border. That's too silly. Is there any trout near by?

[patches70]

All guns. The purely cosmetic thing doesn't really help anything. I looked (for 10 minutes) but could not find anything on gun-related deaths in New York in 2012 vs. 2013 (SAFE Act passed) vs. 2014.

Are you serious?

An interactive map for your use, to find out how many people have been shot near your location recently. Scroll down a little bit, type in "New York", hit submit and it takes you to a jazzy interactive map where you can zoom in an out anywhere in the nation and see gun shootings, including deaths, recently.
You can look anywhere in the US. It zooms into street level maps so you can see exactly where these shootings happened.

New York City alone for instance has some 30 gun deaths this year and hundreds of shootings. Go ahead, I double dare ya to check it out. Each gun death has a link to exact details and dates, in fact, every single shooting has details attached to each and every one of them. And all these shootings are from Dec 2014-Dec 2015.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-dea ... -map-2015/

[mrswdk]

If 'passing stricter gun laws doesn't curb criminals getting guns and using them' then why aren't guns common amongs criminals in London, Paris or Berlin?

I mean, because guns are illegal in those places?

Is making them illegal not the enactment of a stricter gun law?

Unless I'm missing something, there has been no law proposed that would ban guns nationwide. If you want to deal in strange fantasy land, then yes, banning the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States, as well as the collection and destruction of all privately held firearms, will result in a lack of gun violence. But since that hasn't been proposed by anyone in Congress or the executive branch, I would prefer to talk about reality, where the solution to gun violence is on the one hand "More guns!" and on the other hand "Make it harder to get guns even though it's already illegal for criminals to get them!"

If banning all guns is the only viable solution then people need to start talking about that. Otherwise all you do is compromise for the sake of I-don't-know-what, end up arguing about something minor like whether or not assault rifles should be legal, and never actually touch on and proposals that could actually help you make some progress.

I mean, fine, you've posted all this here. But, again, no one, not Democrat, not Republican, is proposing to ban guns. So, again, passing stricter gun laws like longer waiting periods or less ammo does not solve the problem that those things are intended to solve. Not sure what else you want me to say here.

Why get involved in the debate just to tell everyone their current proposals are insufficient, then refuse to support the only proposals that would actually be sufficient?

[Metsfanmax]

Why get involved in the debate just to tell everyone their current proposals are insufficient, then refuse to support the only proposals that would actually be sufficient?

I thought that's what the internet is for.

[PLAYER57832]

Why get involved in the debate just to tell everyone their current proposals are insufficient, then refuse to support the only proposals that would actually be sufficient?

Right to gun ownership is one of the fundamental values upon which the US was founded. You can debate it, but not on the pretense of US legal possibilities. Its not just that its a waste of time, its also that this is the main claim many on the right try to make against any attempt to actually limit guns... that any limit is just an attempt to lead us to no guns. Trying to insert that claim here is not just distracting, its dishonest and inappropriate. When you do so in a thread you ALREADY tried to sideline with your claim that discussing killing children belongs in an abortion thread, it amounts to harassment.

If you wish to debate that, then fine.. but its a different debate. AND, you have a history of taking any issue and rather than discussing decently and reasonably, just inserting the most extreme possible comment, then dominating the thread, insisting people respond to your claims rather than any real discussion. Your actions are not anything close to intelligent debate. Continuing is nothing more than bullying and harassment. A bit sad, because I believe you have the ability to actually debate honestly, but somehow have decided you have to be the focus of this whole forum.

[riskllama]

MREOW' cat fight!!!!

[tzor]

Looks more like a MMA match to me.

[thegreekdog]

If 'passing stricter gun laws doesn't curb criminals getting guns and using them' then why aren't guns common amongs criminals in London, Paris or Berlin?

I mean, because guns are illegal in those places?

Is making them illegal not the enactment of a stricter gun law?

Unless I'm missing something, there has been no law proposed that would ban guns nationwide. If you want to deal in strange fantasy land, then yes, banning the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States, as well as the collection and destruction of all privately held firearms, will result in a lack of gun violence. But since that hasn't been proposed by anyone in Congress or the executive branch, I would prefer to talk about reality, where the solution to gun violence is on the one hand "More guns!" and on the other hand "Make it harder to get guns even though it's already illegal for criminals to get them!"

If banning all guns is the only viable solution then people need to start talking about that. Otherwise all you do is compromise for the sake of I-don't-know-what, end up arguing about something minor like whether or not assault rifles should be legal, and never actually touch on and proposals that could actually help you make some progress.

I mean, fine, you've posted all this here. But, again, no one, not Democrat, not Republican, is proposing to ban guns. So, again, passing stricter gun laws like longer waiting periods or less ammo does not solve the problem that those things are intended to solve. Not sure what else you want me to say here.

Why get involved in the debate just to tell everyone their current proposals are insufficient, then refuse to support the only proposals that would actually be sufficient?

Because I'm trying to get people to understand that the gun debate has very little to do with gun violence. If it did, one side would say "ban all guns" and the other side would say "ban no guns" (maybe the second side is saying that). But they aren't saying that. The gun control advocates in Congress are saying things like "We need to make waiting periods 3 weeks longer" as if that's going to solve any problems. The reason gun control advocates are saying things like that is so they can get elected, get money, etc. The reason the gun rights advocates are doing there thing is for the same reason.

Plus, what mets said.

[PLAYER57832]

Because I'm trying to get people to understand that the gun debate has very little to do with gun violence. If it did, one side would say "ban all guns" and the other side would say "ban no guns" (maybe the second side is saying that). But they aren't saying that.

Not true at all -- at least on the gun control side. Those wanting to control guns and the few who want to do away with guns entirely each really do want to control violence. Those on the "ban no guns" side don't see that limiting guns will limit violence, either feel it just won't help or feel it may actually cause harm. But even then, not that the most vocal group, the NRA is officially accepting limits for the worst of convicted criminals and the insane. So, even they are not truly saying "no guns" (I guess the alternate position is that even most anti-gun folks are OK with police and the army having them), though there are certainly some "outliers" who take the more extreme positions.

The gun control advocates in Congress are saying things like "We need to make waiting periods 3 weeks longer" as if that's going to solve any problems.

There are studies/statistics that do show these things limit particular kinds of violence.. domestic violence and such. That is not insignificant when you realize that a large percentage of gun violence is domestic violence and other more opportunistic type crimes. There are similar studies, with mixed results, on other types of controls. That is, not mixed as in each study is inconclusive or that there are always conflicting studies, but mixed in that even when the data is pretty clear, we don't always know why the results are what they are, we can only guess. For example, a limit to guns may very well result in a reduction of violence in one area, but that does not mean it will work in another. The data is pretty spotty and the studies done are often too limited, have "partisan" designs and that is the REAL problem.

The reason gun control advocates are saying things like that is so they can get elected, get money, etc. The reason the gun rights advocates are doing there thing is for the same reason.

I would essentially disagree. That is, of course people take these positions to get elected, BUT I think the key is that up until very recently, each has felt (at least held publicly) that their position was "proven" and more or less "infallible", more and more are recognizing that what we really need is more research to actually find out what truly does and does not work.. in all violence issues, not just gun control, but particularly in the case of guns.

[PLAYER57832]

Though that's not really what I argued. I am talking about understand the scientific method. I say that based on my own experience talking to people, and because I have no good reason to suspect that understanding of the scientific process itself should have a partisan bent.

These is true even among supposedly highly trained scientists. It is partly a factor of the heavy specialization in some fields. It takes so many classes, so much time to delve into the specialized subjects too many simply wind up not spending the time really and truly understanding such "basic" concepts as sampling design. I cannot count the number of folks who seem to think that simply using randomization is enough to make data "real", etc. It can be a catch-22. More often than not you have to actually understand a fair amount of a subject to truly set up a good design, but by the time you get enough knowledge, you are often so trained in particular lines of thought that bias interferes with results.

On the public side, scientists have rested to long on their "we know better" laurels and, with some exceptions, not taken the time to make sure elementary kids and the general public really understands. Folks like Bill Nye and so forth tend to be ridiculed, not celebrated. And, not to bring in another tangent, but a lot of scientists utterly fail to understand issues like Creationism and why these things have overtaken so much of society. The tendency to say "oh, religious... pffff" is even worse than the tendency to dismiss simple explanations. Most people are not stupid, they just don't have the time and energy to delve into subjects outside their work and daily lives. Even when they actually do lack intelligence, telling them so does not further your cause or generate respect/belief.

And... to bring in another topic, this is particularly true with women. Women, particularly any over 40, but probably still today, have very often been sidelined not because of lack of intelligence, but because of "the way things were". AND, they are often less likely to say what they really know, particularly when facing men, than other men. That and, lets be honest, too many males still, today seem to think their gender automatically makes them more intelligent or at least better able to understand certain types of information.

[KoolBak]

Well, obviously my dear. I mean, I was born knowing how to rebuild my 454 and you were born knowing how to serve me beer

[PLAYER57832]

Well, obviously my dear. I mean, I was born knowing how to rebuild my 454 and you were born knowing how to serve me beer

Well, if you mean I was born with a propensity to make shrimp alfredo and wine, while you were born to tighten bolts.. you might have a point.

[2dimes]

You spelled "whine" wrong.

My wife does not want to learn how to weld. My daughter does. Will either become a welder? Doubt it.

[PLAYER57832]

You spelled "whine" wrong.

That comment is beneath you.. I hope.

My wife does not want to learn how to weld. My daughter does. Will either become a welder? Doubt it.

I wanted to, but my parents discouraged me from taking the classes when I was in high schools since it too much for supplies. Later, I was too busy compressing 4 years into 3 since I spent one overseas.

Kids rarely wind up doing everything they say they want to do, but who knows. Welding can be a very lucrative profession. A nice hobby for that matter, from what I understand.