(February 12, 2016 at 5:14 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I have read every post in this thread (and admittedly snarked at a few) and I think I at last see the core of the issue:  The trouble seems to be that USians view gun ownership as a right, while much of the rest of the developed world sees it as a privilege.  My own country is awash in firearms, even though it is made very difficult to obtain small arms, and your license to own them can be removed for a number of reasons.  As I understand it, VERY few firearms licenses are suspended or revoked, as EnZeds take gun ownership as a serious responsibility.

Without getting into the legal niceties of the Second Amendment, mightn't it be wise to at least consider that your FF got this one wrong?

Boru

Americans wanted guns so that they could suppress any slave uprisings on the plantations.  So they made it a law that they could have them.  In the meantime the English in England couldn't have guns because they might use them against the monarchy and install a democratic government.

(February 12, 2016 at 2:57 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 12, 2016 at 2:24 am)Gawdzilla Wrote: Why are people okay with laws limiting the possession of poisonous snakes?

Because that's not much of a constituency would be my guess.

But they're less dangerous than handguns, primarily because there are far fewer of them around.

(February 11, 2016 at 9:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I have to stop you here, higher rates of gun ownership -do not- equal higher rates of gun related death, in the US..precisely the opposite.  Again, most guns and gun owners in the US are in areas with -lower- rates of gun death.  As in more than 9 out of 10.  It is a fantastically small minority of the public -and- guns that is being grossly over-represented in our overall stats.  I cannot stress this enough, our gun problem is a cops and robbers problem, not an ownership problem.

(February 11, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: There has been a continual growth in gun ownership in America, yet the firearms death and injury rates have continued to fall. If gun deaths are directly proportional to the number of guns available (on a rough basis, of course), should we not be seeing a spike in gun deaths?

The opposite is true in Australia and almost every other country: almost universally, the ones with the lowest gun ownership rates have the lowest gun-related death rates. The metadata is staggeringly clear on this and we shouldn't be surprised: at an over-simplistic level, if all guns were gone there would be no gun-related death. But I don't pretend that ownership is the sole factor. The stats for the US are equally as clear as the metadata (thanks for the link Thump, I'll assume for the sake of argument that the trend continues past 1997, your numbers didn't go further): something is being done in the US which is counteracting the nominal relationship between ownership & death. Has that analysis been conducted?

(February 12, 2016 at 5:14 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I have read every post in this thread (and admittedly snarked at a few) and I think I at last see the core of the issue:  The trouble seems to be that USians view gun ownership as a right, while much of the rest of the developed world sees it as a privilege.  My own country is awash in firearms, even though it is made very difficult to obtain small arms, and your license to own them can be removed for a number of reasons.  As I understand it, VERY few firearms licenses are suspended or revoked, as EnZeds take gun ownership as a serious responsibility.

Without getting into the legal niceties of the Second Amendment, mightn't it be wise to at least consider that your FF got this one wrong?

Boru

RE the comments which you have snarked at, which would be chiefly mine, guess your reading comprehension is weak. The core of the issue which presented by ME has been that gun ownership is a geographic necessity for many Americans, therefore it is justified!

(February 12, 2016 at 5:34 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(February 12, 2016 at 5:14 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I have read every post in this thread (and admittedly snarked at a few) and I think I at last see the core of the issue:  The trouble seems to be that USians view gun ownership as a right, while much of the rest of the developed world sees it as a privilege.  My own country is awash in firearms, even though it is made very difficult to obtain small arms, and your license to own them can be removed for a number of reasons.  As I understand it, VERY few firearms licenses are suspended or revoked, as EnZeds take gun ownership as a serious responsibility.

Without getting into the legal niceties of the Second Amendment, mightn't it be wise to at least consider that your FF got this one wrong?

Boru

Americans wanted guns so that they could suppress any slave uprisings on the plantations.  So they made it a law that they could have them.  In the meantime the English in England couldn't have guns because they might use them against the monarchy and install a democratic government.

Americans wanted guns so that they could suppress any slave uprisings on the plantations.  So they made it a law that they could have them.  In the meantime the English in England couldn't have guns because they might use them against the monarchy and install a democratic government.

Ok, Shithead! How do you expect guns in the hands of slave owners to be any less a liability in homes where slaves serve than a control device, in event that slaves rebelled against their masters under the influence of any political climate which existed prior to the 1850s? How then do you expect any people who have been kept illiterate and isolated from each other to possibly succeed in organizing a successful revolt?

There was but one, and only one successful slave revolt in the Americas, and that was in Haiti. It would not have succeeded had it not taken place on their own land which they knew, and where they were already their own people. Also, it helped a bit that they were up against no brighter culture than the French.

(February 12, 2016 at 9:28 am)Ben Davis Wrote: The opposite is true in Australia and almost every other country: almost universally, the ones with the lowest gun ownership rates have the lowest gun-related death rates. The metadata is staggeringly clear on this and we shouldn't be surprised: at an over-simplistic level, if all guns were gone there would be no gun-related death. But I don't pretend that ownership is the sole factor. The stats for the US are equally as clear as the metadata (thanks for the link Thump, I'll assume for the sake of argument that the trend continues past 1997, your numbers didn't go further): something is being done in the US which is counteracting the nominal relationship between ownership & death. Has that analysis been conducted?

Our data would -likely- reflect yours in the absence of drug war contributions to the stats which, by their inclusion, make the high ownership areas relatively safer despite having more guns and gun owners.  As far as our data goes, it shows that gun ownership is not a relevant metric to the question at hand...which is why changing gun ownership rates would not solve the problem we wish to solve.  We have, ofc, tried to restrict and ban firearms before, and the data from that practical application dovetailed entirely with the conclusion one might have reached from comparing ownership and crime/death.  It didn't work.  Our restrictions did not reduce gun crime or gun death, they did not reduce violent crime or crime overall.  They did profit black market dealers and straw purchasers greatly, while costing the taxpayer dearly, however. From a law enforcement standpoint, it was a complete failure, despite the incredible political capital created and consumed.....part and parcel thereof, has been a great deal of misinformation about the US, Guns, and the US gun problem.

@Boru, doesn't matter whether the FF "got it wrong". We USians feel privileged to live in a country where a great many things are considered our rights, including gun ownership, yes. We can have the privilege of acting upon those rights withheld from us as the consequence of committing a crime, for example. As an american, I'm not sure that the reduction of the rights of the entire public is a prudent way to handle those members of our society who break our laws, or the situation their actions create. We're basically saying lets get rid of guns to "stop" 6 suicides and hope that some portion of the remaining 4 individuals feel compelled to murder people by means not made otherwise illegal......ignoring that all ten of these individuals comprise only a tiny fraction of gun owners and an even tinier fraction of guns.

(February 12, 2016 at 6:36 am)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(February 12, 2016 at 2:57 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Because that's not much of a constituency would be my guess.

But they're less dangerous than handguns, primarily because there are far fewer of them around.

How many votes can a stance on the right to keep and bear snakes win? How many NRA donations will it net?

I think you'll find your answer there.

That handguns are dangerous at all is a subtle conceit.  Guns used in crimes, or guns that ever fire a round into a person for any reason, are an exceedingly small rarity.  Even if you were to buy 100 black market pistols, the chances of any single one of them having ever been used in the commission of a crime -other- than it's sale to you is slim to none. What the ATF and many investigators have found, is that guns used in the commission of crimes are often used in the commission of others...even by different perps. A small subset of a small subset being passed around within a specific demographic. A two tier system of black market procurement. They've realized that cracking down on distributors and straw purchasers pursuant to existing federal law has a greater effect on the number of small arms at the lower level of the scheme, and thus gun crimes.

Take care not to slip back and forth between two types of danger. The danger, at the level of a national problem to be addressed by federal law...is not in the operation of a handgun, but in it's manner of use.

I've just today heard 4 more stories of gun injury locally just this morning. One was a kid playing with a legal firearm .

(February 12, 2016 at 9:28 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(February 11, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: There has been a continual growth in gun ownership in America, yet the firearms death and injury rates have continued to fall. If gun deaths are directly proportional to the number of guns available (on a rough basis, of course), should we not be seeing a spike in gun deaths?

The opposite is true in Australia and almost every other country: almost universally, the ones with the lowest gun ownership rates have the lowest gun-related death rates. The metadata is staggeringly clear on this and we shouldn't be surprised: at an over-simplistic level, if all guns were gone there would be no gun-related death.

Of course. But I was asking you to explain this real-world contravention of your clear claim that fewer guns result in fewer gun deaths, not this useless oversimplification. If there were no computers, there would be no online debates, either.

(February 12, 2016 at 9:28 am)Ben Davis Wrote: But I don't pretend that ownership is the sole factor. The stats for the US are equally as clear as the metadata (thanks for the link Thump, I'll assume for the sake of argument that the trend continues past 1997, your numbers didn't go further): something is being done in the US which is counteracting the nominal relationship between ownership & death. Has that analysis been conducted?

No, but you're focusing on it in your statement upthread, and at that point it was apt to point out that your statement is not accurate for America, at all.

Here's more up-to-date info; the trend does hold: http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/defau...n-2015.pdf

As for other factors? Perhaps it has to do with violent crime dropping in general. Perhaps it has to do with higher education levels. Perhaps emergency rooms are getting better at treating gunshot wounds. Or perhaps people just aren't shooting each other at the expected levels.

Put it this way: between 1993 and 2014, gun ownership rose by 150%, roughly. Were ownership such an important factor as you had implied upthread, we should expect a concomitant rise in gun deaths and injuries over the same period. Can you explain this discrepancy?