Whatcha gonna do with your little pop guns?

[CosmicBills]

No it's not silly. And most gun owners, even those with "assault weapons", whatever the hell that actually means, are law abiding citizens who do not start bloody rampages.

 

I honestly believe that regulation will not impact the miniscule percentage of rampages in a statistically significant way. Arguing regulation doesn't make sense to me, because this will not stop "crazy", which is the root cause of this problem. Not the guns. If a person is bound and determined to eliminate innocent people, they will find a way to do it.

 

I guess no one is arguing that we should repeal the 2nd, which is good, because that has about as much chance of happening as me getting a date with Megan Fox. As far as your bolded statement above, yes, you could reduce the risk, but the amount of people killed in "fun feuled massacres" is so minutely small already that I do not believe it is worth infringing on peoples rights to eliminate them. There are much, MUCH bigger killers out there that would do more people more good to focus on...

We'll keep it simple (mainly for my benefit) and use your argument:

 

Did the regulation and legislation of seat belt laws have an impact on the number of auto fatalities in our nation?

[RkFast]

We'll keep it simple (mainly for my benefit) and use your argument:

 

Did the regulation and legislation of seat belt laws have an impact on the number of auto fatalities in our nation?

 

Seat belts wont help stop the 50 car wreck.

 

The Newtown shooting is a 1,000 car wreck.

 

So stop.

[TheMadCap]

We'll keep it simple (mainly for my benefit) and use your argument:

 

Did the regulation and legislation of seat belt laws have an impact on the number of auto fatalities in our nation?

 

Greg, I don't want anyone to get killed, as I know you don't.

 

I suspect it had a HUGE impact on the numbers. But it's not really a good comparision, considering the massive difference in sheer numbers of car accident fatalties vs. gun massacres. Also, seatbelt legislation didn't really involve any additional infrastructure (not sure how much would be needed for fun legislation, to be honest) and did not infringe anyone's rights to own guns.

 

For the record, I do not own a gun, and cannot really see why I would need an M4 style rifle, but if you want to have one, more power to you. Who am I to say what others should do?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Seatbelt legislation has an unknowable impact, but I tend to suspect it's low as the laws are generally difficult to impossible to enforce.

 

I believe public awareness campaigns have likely had a much larger impact, much in the same way they have impacted smoking.

[RkFast]

Homicides by rifle in the U.S. via FBI statistics. Remember that this is ALL rifles including "assault" rifles:

 

1995 – 637

1996 - 561

1997 - 638

1998 - 548

1999 - 400

2000 – 396

2001 – 386

2002 – 486

2003 – 392

2004 – 403

2005 - 442

2006 – 438

2007 - 453

2008 – 380

2009 – 351

2010 – 358

2011 - 323

 

U.S. population circa 1995 = approx 262 million. 2011 = approx. 310 million.

 

Bolded are the years when original ASW was in place.

[TheMadCap]

Seatbelt legislation has an unknowable impact, but I tend to suspect it's low as the laws are generally difficult to impossible to enforce.

 

I believe public awareness campaigns have likely had a much larger impact, much in the same way they have impacted smoking.

 

Good point. As cultural attitudes change, behaviors change. That being said, I have no idea what can be done to chance the gun culture, as was put so in-eloquently by Bob Costas...

[RkFast]

These idiots dont want people to "buckle up"....they want to "ban cars"

 

Mindless.

[janicks]

Bolded are the years when original ASW was in place.

 

correlation != causation. besides, there seems to be a pretty strong downward trend downward since the introduction of the bill, according to your numbers and a noticable spike after its end.

 

***************

 

The NYTimes linked to these researchers' page today:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

basically claiming more guns = more death, and by a lot. I don't know anyting about these people or the journals they have published in, so I can't say if this is quality work or not.

[Jim in Anchorage]

correlation != causation. besides, there seems to be a pretty strong downward trend downward since the introduction of the bill, according to your numbers and a noticable spike after its end.

 

***************

 

The NYTimes linked to these researchers' page today:

http://www.hsph.harv...eath/index.html

basically claiming more guns = more death, and by a lot. I don't know anyting about these people or the journals they have published in, so I can't say if this is quality work or not.

What about the spike in 01-02? And why is 2011 lowest of all?

[3rdnlng]

correlation != causation. besides, there seems to be a pretty strong downward trend downward since the introduction of the bill, according to your numbers and a noticable spike after its end.

 

***************

 

The NYTimes linked to these researchers' page today:

http://www.hsph.harv...eath/index.html

basically claiming more guns = more death, and by a lot. I don't know anyting about these people or the journals they have published in, so I can't say if this is quality work or not.

 

Can you name the four years with the least fatalities?

[janicks]

I wrote correlation != causation for a reason; there is a good chance the law (as well as its expiration) had no effect. I linked to Steve Levitt's article a few pages back which claimed exactly this. I was only pointing out that that the small sample size could be twisted to make any claim one wants.

Edited December 20, 2012 by janicks

[3rdnlng]

I wrote correlation != causation for a reason; there is a good chance the law (as well as its expiration) had no effect. I linked to Steve Levitt's article a few pages back which claimed exactly this. I was only pointing out that that the small sample size could be twisted to make any claim one wants.

 

This what you wrote:

 

 

"correlation != causation. besides, there seems to be a pretty strong downward trend downward since the introduction of the bill, according to your numbers and a noticable spike after its end."

 

Don't try walking it back unless that walk back is going to say something about being wrong.

[sodbuster]

All of this talk about banning guns just shows the largest problem American has today. We live in a "victim" culture. Fat? It must be the fault of the soda and fast food companies. Die of lung cancer? The companies that pushed tobacco on you (even though you knew it was bad) must be punished. Don't make enough money? Rich people keepin' you down. Somebody shot a bunch of kids, lets blame guns.

Edited December 20, 2012 by sodbuster

[GaryPinC]

I know I'm just jumping in on this one, and there's no perfect solution but I feel strongly about a starting point.

 

With freedom comes responsibility, and as a gun owner I honestly feel there are too little responsibilities placed on gun owners. Mandatory safety and use training, secure storage laws, ammunition storage laws, and the liability of the gun owner in the event that weapon is used to commit a crime. It's one thing if the perpetrator steals a key and subsequently the gun, but if the thing is just lying around loaded that has always been a real problem for me and I'm sorry to say there are many trained NRA-types who seem to enjoy having a loaded gun easily accessable around the house.

 

As a gun owner, if you feel you need to have unsecured guns lying around, there needs to be legal consequences. Gun owners need to have a responsibility standard for storing and handling guns. This doesn't change who can own a gun, but it would clarify the responsibilities of that ownership.

 

If someone is mentally ill or disturbed in the household, it bears debate and discussion as to if stricter storage/accessability rules need to be put in place.

 

Background check data system should be updated instantly so waiting periods are unnecessary, then you can close the gun show loop.

 

I also believe there are much deeper issues here than guns. If someone blows up a school while hacking away at kids with a machete, will people finally stop fixating on the weapons and look at the motivation behind it?

[Jim in Anchorage]

I know I'm just jumping in on this one, and there's no perfect solution but I feel strongly about a starting point.

 

With freedom comes responsibility, and as a gun owner I honestly feel there are too little responsibilities placed on gun owners. Mandatory safety and use training, secure storage laws, ammunition storage laws, and the liability of the gun owner in the event that weapon is used to commit a crime. It's one thing if the perpetrator steals a key and subsequently the gun, but if the thing is just lying around loaded that has always been a real problem for me and I'm sorry to say there are many trained NRA-types who seem to enjoy having a loaded gun easily accessable around the house.

 

As a gun owner, if you feel you need to have unsecured guns lying around, there needs to be legal consequences. Gun owners need to have a responsibility standard for storing and handling guns. This doesn't change who can own a gun, but it would clarify the responsibilities of that ownership.

 

If someone is mentally ill or disturbed in the household, it bears debate and discussion as to if stricter storage/accessability rules need to be put in place.

 

Background check data system should be updated instantly so waiting periods are unnecessary, then you can close the gun show loop.

 

I also believe there are much deeper issues here than guns. If someone blows up a school while hacking away at kids with a machete, will people finally stop fixating on the weapons and look at the motivation behind it?

What is the gun show loop[hole]?

[janicks]

With freedom comes responsibility, and as a gun owner I honestly feel there are too little responsibilities placed on gun owners. Mandatory safety and use training, secure storage laws, ammunition storage laws, and the liability of the gun owner in the event that weapon is used to commit a crime. It's one thing if the perpetrator steals a key and subsequently the gun, but if the thing is just lying around loaded that has always been a real problem for me and I'm sorry to say there are many trained NRA-types who seem to enjoy having a loaded gun easily accessable around the house.

 

As a gun owner, if you feel you need to have unsecured guns lying around, there needs to be legal consequences. Gun owners need to have a responsibility standard for storing and handling guns. This doesn't change who can own a gun, but it would clarify the responsibilities of that ownership.

 

2 questions. Aren't there already legal consequences for this kind of behavior? Do you know how much crime can be attributed to gun owners not doing what you suggest?

Edited December 20, 2012 by janicks

[meazza]

I know I'm just jumping in on this one, and there's no perfect solution but I feel strongly about a starting point.

 

With freedom comes responsibility, and as a gun owner I honestly feel there are too little responsibilities placed on gun owners. Mandatory safety and use training, secure storage laws, ammunition storage laws, and the liability of the gun owner in the event that weapon is used to commit a crime. It's one thing if the perpetrator steals a key and subsequently the gun, but if the thing is just lying around loaded that has always been a real problem for me and I'm sorry to say there are many trained NRA-types who seem to enjoy having a loaded gun easily accessable around the house.

 

As a gun owner, if you feel you need to have unsecured guns lying around, there needs to be legal consequences. Gun owners need to have a responsibility standard for storing and handling guns. This doesn't change who can own a gun, but it would clarify the responsibilities of that ownership.

 

If someone is mentally ill or disturbed in the household, it bears debate and discussion as to if stricter storage/accessability rules need to be put in place.

 

Background check data system should be updated instantly so waiting periods are unnecessary, then you can close the gun show loop.

 

I also believe there are much deeper issues here than guns. If someone blows up a school while hacking away at kids with a machete, will people finally stop fixating on the weapons and look at the motivation behind it?

 

In this case, the gun owner paid the ultimate price for being sloppy.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

The elements of life that I'm able to control, I like to control. This includes reasonable preparedness.

 

That's hardly being paranoid.

 

By that logic Nancy Lanza should have been the safest person in America with the amount and types of guns she had. How did that work out for her?

[TakeYouToTasker]

By that logic Nancy Lanza should have been the safest person in America with the amount and types of guns she had. How did that work out for her?

That's absolutely true if we choose to eliminate every single variable she could have placed under her control other than her ownership of guns. Which is to say that it isn't true at all.

Edited December 20, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[GaryPinC]

What is the gun show loop[hole]?

 

Sorry, you're right, meant "loophole" http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm

 

2 questions. Aren't there already legal consequences for this kind of behavior? Do you know how much crime can be attributed to gun owners not doing what you suggest?

 

It's state law and that varies a lot. California supposedly has the toughest making the owner guilty of felony or misdemeanor for keeping an unsecured, loaded gun in the house if there's a child under 18 who obtains and uses it or takes it to a public place.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/tips But most state laws do not address how guns are handled and stored in private homes.

 

As far as crime numbers, i don't know. But just today an 11 year old brought a gun to school in Utah:

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_11-yr-old-utah-boy-takes-gun-to-school-after-connecticut-shooting_1779370

 

“The boy had an unloaded gun and ammunition in his backpack”, he said, adding: “The .22-caliber handgun had been left at the boy's home by a relative”.

 

This is garbage. No way should this kid have access.

 

Here's some data a few years old about accidental shootings: http://www.thesurvivorsclub.org/extreme/surviving-accidents/accidental-shooting Pretty much any shooting involving a child will involve an unsecured gun.

 

It's simply time to set some higher standards of responsibility for how gun owners store and restrict access to their firearms.