(February 20, 2018 at 6:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: For those who can't compare numbers, I give you... numbers!

The problem with American statistics, is that America isn't uniform.  If you live in a poor minority neighborhood in the south, you're fucked.  If you live in a rural northern state, you get numbers in line with Scandinavian countries, where they also have a lot of access to guns.

It's also why national laws are kind of silly.  Taking away Vermonters guns will have almost no impact on Vermonters, because they aren't killing each other to much to begin with.  It's what Bernie was saying and getting hammered for.  Louisiana's problems are Louisiana's problems.  Not America's problems.  We're not a uniform nation.  It's why these statistics are often so dopey.  It's like telling someone in Iowa not go swimming because people are drowning in the ocean.

It's why that famous Newsroom speech was misleading.  Where he listed off how the US isn't ranked well in a number of areas.  America isn't the greatest country on earth for all Americans.  But if you've got enough money to live in one of the nice places, it's pretty great.  For the dumb blond who asked the question, she's going to be more than alright, despite the 'bad' rankings.

(February 20, 2018 at 10:20 am)wallym Wrote:

(February 20, 2018 at 6:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: For those who can't compare numbers, I give you... numbers!

The problem with American statistics, is that America isn't uniform.  If you live in a poor minority neighborhood in the south, you're fucked.  If you live in a rural northern state, you get numbers in line with Scandinavian countries, where they also have a lot of access to guns.

It's also why national laws are kind of silly.  Taking away Vermonters guns will have almost no impact on Vermonters, because they aren't killing each other to much to begin with.  It's what Bernie was saying and getting hammered for.  Louisiana's problems are Louisiana's problems.  Not America's problems.  We're not a uniform nation.  It's why these statistics are often so dopey.  It's like telling someone in Iowa not go swimming because people are drowning in the ocean.

It's why that famous Newsroom speech was misleading.  Where he listed off how the US isn't ranked well in a number of areas.  America isn't the greatest country on earth for all Americans.  But if you've got enough money to live in one of the nice places, it's pretty great.  For the dumb blond who asked the question, she's going to be more than alright, despite the 'bad' rankings.

Europe isn't uniform either.... heck, just some 80 years ago, we were punching each other right, left and center!
And yet... most of us managed to agree that it's better to heavily regulate the public's access to these devices that can easily kill other people.
It's a mentality issue.... coupled with present day proliferation of guns that does nothing to help ameliorate said mentality, I know.
Our cities also have crime ridden neighborhoods, we also get wide expanses of near lawlessness due to sparse population.
And, hey.... we do have to live with Russia right next door.

In my humble opinion, the one single thing that would reduce the homicide rate the most in the USA would be to stop the war on drugs and shift to a health-oriented approach to abusers. I doubt that would reduce mass shootings in schools significantly though.

Raising the minimum age to 21, requiring a violent-crime free criminal record and no prison time in the previous ten years, and a psych eval if you have mental problems might, though.

(February 20, 2018 at 10:33 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: In my humble opinion, the one single thing that would reduce the homicide rate the most in the USA would be to stop the war on drugs and shift to a health-oriented approach to abusers. I doubt that would reduce mass shootings in schools significantly though.

Raising the minimum age to 21, requiring a violent-crime free criminal record and no prison time in the previous ten years, and a psych eval if you have mental problems might, though.

I'd remove the violent from there.... just crime free criminal record... and confiscation as soon as that record became less free.
Periodic Psych and medical eval. Do you want someone who develops Parkinson's to handle the arsenal he's amassed while Parkinson's free? (just an example)


Also, there's a successful precedent > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opini...ation.html

Also in my humble opinion, we have to start with America as it is. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands, legally. Banning the weapons in circulation already will put a lot of citizens in the position of having to decide whether to turn in their guns or become criminals. I think we all know that many of them will choose to become criminals. There would be multiple Wacos, for similar reasons, as 'the government coming to get their guns' dovetails with their apocalyptic fears. That's a scenario to be avoided, I think. Whatever is done, we should be very smart about it. If gun proponents hear that AR-15s are going to be banned next month, they'll buy a million more before the legislation passes. That's not good. Whatever is done should be reasonable, gradual, and careful with an eye to anticipating unintended consequences.

The trend however, is for fewer households to own guns, as a percentage of the population. Millions more guns have been sold, but it's due to a smaller percentage of the population owning more guns. On average, gun owners have eight guns, but that's more like a thousand with one or two firearms per hundred with 20 or more. The needle is moving.

(February 20, 2018 at 10:31 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 20, 2018 at 10:20 am)wallym Wrote: The problem with American statistics, is that America isn't uniform.  If you live in a poor minority neighborhood in the south, you're fucked.  If you live in a rural northern state, you get numbers in line with Scandinavian countries, where they also have a lot of access to guns.

It's also why national laws are kind of silly.  Taking away Vermonters guns will have almost no impact on Vermonters, because they aren't killing each other to much to begin with.  It's what Bernie was saying and getting hammered for.  Louisiana's problems are Louisiana's problems.  Not America's problems.  We're not a uniform nation.  It's why these statistics are often so dopey.  It's like telling someone in Iowa not go swimming because people are drowning in the ocean.

It's why that famous Newsroom speech was misleading.  Where he listed off how the US isn't ranked well in a number of areas.  America isn't the greatest country on earth for all Americans.  But if you've got enough money to live in one of the nice places, it's pretty great.  For the dumb blond who asked the question, she's going to be more than alright, despite the 'bad' rankings.

Europe isn't uniform either.... heck, just some 80 years ago, we were punching each other right, left and center!
And yet... most of us managed to agree that it's better to heavily regulate the public's access to these devices that can easily kill other people.
It's a mentality issue.... coupled with present day proliferation of guns that does nothing to help ameliorate said mentality, I know.
Our cities also have crime ridden neighborhoods, we also get wide expanses of near lawlessness due to sparse population.
And, hey.... we do have to live with Russia right next door.

Our criminals have a lot on the line.  The illegal trade business in the US has to be well into the billions?  10's of billions?  Maybe 100's of billions? So the stakes are pretty high.  It's not about Bob taking a tv from Jim.  Fisticuffs isn't really a viable option when it's billions on the line, rather than Jimmy stealing Ma's nice silverware.

And those people are never giving up their guns.  And if someone tried to make them, they'd shoot whoever did.  And then import some new ones.  It's a bit ironic that the poor neighborhoods get so much financial backing when it comes to killing each other.

(February 20, 2018 at 10:15 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 6:44 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I love made up words.

unalienable  

[uhn-eyl-yuh-nuh-buh l, -ey-lee-uh-]    

adjective

1.

not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.

Origin of unalienable Expand

1610-1620
First recorded in 1610-20; un-1 + alienable

---

Ah, they made it up way back in 1610ish?

(February 20, 2018 at 10:36 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 20, 2018 at 10:33 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: In my humble opinion, the one single thing that would reduce the homicide rate the most in the USA would be to stop the war on drugs and shift to a health-oriented approach to abusers. I doubt that would reduce mass shootings in schools significantly though.

Raising the minimum age to 21, requiring a violent-crime free criminal record and no prison time in the previous ten years, and a psych eval if you have mental problems might, though.

I'd remove the violent from there.... just crime free criminal record... and confiscation as soon as that record became less free.
Periodic Psych and medical eval. Do you want someone who develops Parkinson's to handle the arsenal he's amassed while Parkinson's free? (just an example)

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/gun-bac...s-failure/

To a degree, what your'e asking for is already in place.  The practicality of confiscation, though, is tricky.  You want to send a bunch of cops into black neighborhoods to confiscate their guns on a regular basis?  I can imagine some undesirable side effects to that plan.

Going by the numbers.  The one single thing that would reduce the gun related homicide rate would be greater restrictions on handguns within city limits.  Right behind that, and related in that it overwhelmingly favors encounters with a handgun, transitioning from stand your ground to duty to retreat.  Those two things appear to be the difference between high gun crime rates and low ones even when comparing similar states rates of ownership, distribution, and regulations.  Some states..and the US is always compared as a whole agains other, smaller states*, are already model states /w regards to gun crime..their effective rate could be reduced to a statistically insignificant number with the assumption of the changes above....even when those states are among the highest in rates of ownership and distribution.  The gun crime and ergo gun homicide rate is a solvable problem in ways that others are not..at least in the current political climate.

Like most broad gun control suggestions, that's not likely to do much /w regards to school shootings even though it accounts for the majority of all crime committed with firearm.  Hiding beneath the morass of handgun death is the fact that school schootings are an aberration in the data - they'll require a more direct approach than broad gun restrictions meant to reduce gun crime.  There's precisely zero chance of anything effective being done about it in the near term.

*(allowing our greater number of heavily populated cities in comparison to any other single country to skew the data massively)

(February 20, 2018 at 10:51 am)wallym Wrote: Our criminals have a lot on the line.  The illegal trade business in the US has to be well into the billions?  10's of billions?  Maybe 100's of billions? So the stakes are pretty high.  It's not about Bob taking a tv from Jim.  Fisticuffs isn't really a viable option when it's billions on the line, rather than Jimmy stealing Ma's nice silverware.

And those people are never giving up their guns.  And if someone tried to make them, they'd shoot whoever did.  And then import some new ones.  It's a bit ironic that the poor neighborhoods get so much financial backing when it comes to killing each other.

I'd wager that criminals of that caliber would get easy access to black market weapons, so it's not that mentality that needs changing.