Is America finally ready to talk about guns?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

A statement without any backup.

You need backup that Americans are murdering each other at a much higher rate than the rest of civilized world?

Quote

A statement without any backup. What alcohol control law had the effect of reducing DUI's and by how much?

Yeah, you go first. You stated laws did not have any effect. So what laws were passed and what was the effect on DUIs. What other possible contributing factors were there? You made the starting statement. Back it up.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You need backup that Americans are murdering each other at a much higher rate than the rest of civilized world?

Quote

Are they? Both seem to happen quite frequently, specially the shooting someone part. Americans seem to have a significant problem with self control.

Is the rate increasing? Decreasing? Or staying the same?

What is happening to the rate of gun sales? Increasing, decreasing, or staying the same?

Quote

Yeah, you go first. You stated laws did not have any effect. So what laws were passed and what was the effect on DUIs. What other possible contributing factors were there? You made the starting statement. Back it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

I am beginning to suspect you are more concerned about gun control laws than reducing firearms violence, mass shootings, etc.

When Bill Von shows what worked for reducing DUI's, you don't seem to take an interest as to how the same winning formula could be applied to guns.

Controlling alcohol was not the solution just as gun control is not the solution. Education, enforcement of the laws, and stiff(er) penalties for those that do break the laws dramatically reduced the rate of DUI's.

Why could this not work with guns? I would support it and I would think that pro-gun groups would as well. It would have no impact on law-abiding gun owners.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

From a 2003 discussion on a wing load BSR;

Bill Von wrote: "I've got nothing against people making mistakes. I am in favor of them surviving them, through education - or, if they refuse that, regulation."

Kalends wrote: "In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation?

I think BASE is too risky and I won't do it. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to BASE jump?"

Derek V

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

When Bill Von shows what worked for reducing DUI's, you don't seem to take an interest as to how the same winning formula could be applied to guns.

Controlling alcohol was not the solution just as gun control is not the solution. Education, enforcement of the laws, and stiff(er) penalties for those that do break the laws dramatically reduced the rate of DUI's.

A while ago (post 277) I discussed why DUIs are not a good model to compare to using guns to commit felonies. You didn't respond. At the risk of wasting bandwidth, I'll repeat those reasons here:

"Education and enforcement worked to the extent that it did for DUI because the target audience was largely people like us**: people for whom a DUI conviction would have major negative consequences. At one time drunk driving was seen as not a very serious offense. "One more for the road" was something almost everybody accepted as normal. Education and penalties changed the dynamic. Now a DUI conviction could result in severe financial penalties and suspension of your driver's license at best, at worst jail time. Multiple offenses certainly will result in jail time. For most of us, losing your license and being put in jail (so you can't go to work) results in loss of your job. In my case it would mean throwing away a career for which I spent 12 years in University. Without a job, I will certainly lose the house and property I have invested many years in. The penalty I would pay would go far beyond the mere fine/sentence the court would impose, it could include everything I have worked for all my life. Since I have a lot to lose, so you can be sure I keep a close eye on my alcohol consumption. I am sure the same is true of the great majority of the population. For such people, education about penalties (in other words, deterrence) is an excellent tool.

Now lets look at your average armed robber or drug dealer. Young, male, poorly educated. No job, no house to lose. Likely belongs to a social group (or gang) where everybody has pretty much the same lifestyle. Violence is an everyday human interaction. Nobody gives much thought to the future, nobody expects to live very long. Going to prison is no big deal, it happens to everybody. Some even find a measure of safety in prison, compared to life on the street. Deterrence has no meaning in that context.

Here in Georgia, felons found in possession of a firearm are prosecuted. The penalty is one to five years in prison, and that time (which averages towards the 5 year end of the scale) is served in full. Using a firearm during the commission of a felony adds five years to the sentence on top of the sentence for the underlying felony. Everybody knows this. Criminals simply do not care. We have tried education and deterrence for years and it has no effect on the target audience, the career thugs and criminals. The only people who are deterred are the already law-abiding. In the meantime the toll of dead, maimed, and traumatized keeps growing."

Education and penalties (=deterrence) can work only when people weigh reward vs risk and decide the risk is not worth the potential reward. It is a mistake to believe that everybody weighs things the same way you (and I) do. What seems like a great risk to us (a long prison sentence + losing your career/home/retirement/social standing) is a non-issue to people who have not invested in those things, and who inhabit social groups in which it is normal/expected that they will spend years of their lives locked up. It's not that they are unaware of consequences, it's that those consequences don't seem all that bad. Also we should keep in mind that after prison they almost always return to the same communities they lived in before they went to prison, and so even if they don't plan a return to a life of crime, abiding by the law (and so being unarmed) may present much more of a risk than any prison sentence (if they are caught) ever could.

Don

**I choose to assume you are law abiding and self-supporting. I also assume that since you can afford to skydive you have a decent income, which means you have probably taken the time/effort to develop the skills/education needed to command a well paying job. That puts you in the group that plans for the future, takes care of your needs yourself, and otherwise are an upstanding member of society.

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Don-

I apologize. Your post is well thought out and brings up good points. It deserves an honest response.

Basically you are saying that the formula that worked for DUI's won't work for segment of society that is not deterred by laws and their associated penalties. I agree with you. Ironically this is partly why I think universal background checks are pointless and only affect already law abiding citizens.

So where to go from here?

Honestly, I don't know. More police patrolling these areas (AKA enforcement)? I do know that increased gun control laws won't have an impact in these areas any more than education and stiff penalties. It does remind me of the war on drugs. A battle we cannot win, but we can lose it. Making drugs illegal hasn't stopped drugs any more than prohibition stopped drinking. How big of a problem is this segment of society?

In 2004 Kallend wrote; "It's really simple - if I walk into Cabrini Green or Austin at night I am (a) stupid, and (b) asking for trouble. So I don't go there. I wouldn't go there even if armed to the teeth. If you think you could go there and be safe because you're carrying, you're stupid too. The gang bangers are all armed and they mostly shoot each other.

In the other 99% of the city and suburbs, I'd walk anywhere and not expect to be bothered by anyone. This is based on 26 years living and working there."

Seems to me that there is a very small area of Chicago that should be avoided (and should be patrolled more heavily), but otherwise guns are not a problem in Chicago. Annual homicide in 2004 were 453. In 2015, 488.

I think the media is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The conversation is emotion driven. 'We must act." We must do something." The debate always heats up after an event, driven by the media.

At some point, we hit diminishing returns on gun control laws. I am very curious to see what happens with CA's new 10-round magazine limit law without grandfathering in current magazines and no bullet buttons.

With the last AR ban which included a magazine size limit, people switched from 9mm to .45. They figured if they had to go to smaller capacity magazines, might as well go to a larger round.

A full size 9mm Glock 17 has a 17-round magazine.

A full size .45 Glock 21 has a 13-round magazine.

A sub compact .45 Glock 30 has a 10-round magazine.

So if you had a Glock 17 before, you would buy a sub compact Glock 30. It holds 7 less rounds, but hits much harder with the larger round and is much easier to conceal. I doubt the writer of the law understood this.

The Colorado congresswoman who sponsored the Magazine limit law, Rep. Diana DeGette, did not understand that magazines can be reloaded:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

Derek V

[kallend 2,148]

rushmc

***

Quote

I am saying that regulating liquor did not have the desired effect.

A statement without any backup. In my opinion it did have the desired effect. It reduced DUIs.

***Laws against drunk driving, etc have had an effect.

Yes, they have also had an effect.

Quote

Drunk driving vs. shooting someone: these laws are effective.

Are they? Both seem to happen quite frequently, specially the shooting someone part. Americans seem to have a significant problem with self control.

and yet as we buy more and more guns the trends of murder by gun are going down.

Hmmmm
Seems the tool has nothing to do with it.

The number of households with guns is going DOWN. What is going up is the number of guns in households with guns. I doubt even top marksmen like you can use 8 guns simultaneously.

Link.

Link.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Hooknswoop

From a 2003 discussion on a wing load BSR;

Bill Von wrote: "I've got nothing against people making mistakes. I am in favor of them surviving them, through education - or, if they refuse that, regulation."

Kalends wrote: "In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation?

I think BASE is too risky and I won't do it. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to BASE jump?"

Derek V

You don't see a difference between accepting risk for yourself and putting other people at risk? We don't have 9,000+ skydivers murdering other citizens with their rigs every year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You don't see a difference between accepting risk for yourself and putting other people at risk? We don't have 9,000+ skydivers murdering other citizens with their rigs every year.

Quote

If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation?

Of course there is a difference. Where I don't see a difference is someone else's opinion prevailing over mine through regulation.

Derek V

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Hook,

Thanks for the civil discussion. I do believe we all want to see a solution to the problem, even though we may disagree on what the elements of that solution might be. Of course none of us are in a position to make laws/policy, so likely all of this has been a typical internet waste of time, but maybe something of value might come just from having a rational back-and-forth.

Cheers,
Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

The number of households with guns is going DOWN. What is going up is the number of guns in households with guns. I doubt even top marksmen like you can use 8 guns simultaneously.

The PRECENTAGE of households with guns is going down. (well, taking these poll values at face value) The number of households with guns, otoh, is not.

50% of 229.5M (1981) = 114.75M
36% of 318.9 (2016) = 114.8M

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

kelpdiver

***
The number of households with guns is going DOWN. What is going up is the number of guns in households with guns. I doubt even top marksmen like you can use 8 guns simultaneously.

The PRECENTAGE of households with guns is going down. (well, taking these poll values at face value) The number of households with guns, otoh, is not.

50% of 229.5M (1981) = 114.75M
36% of 318.9 (2016) = 114.8M

You touch on an important point:

Taking those polls at face value.
I doubt they are all that accurate, and are becoming less so. A lot of people won't publicly admit to being a gun owner. Especially to random strangers. For a variety of reasons.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Hooknswoop 19]

Do you still feel that 99% of Chicago is safe, based on living and working there for 38 years?

In 2004 Kallend wrote; "It's really simple - if I walk into Cabrini Green or Austin at night I am (a) stupid, and (b) asking for trouble. So I don't go there. I wouldn't go there even if armed to the teeth. If you think you could go there and be safe because you're carrying, you're stupid too. The gang bangers are all armed and they mostly shoot each other.

In the other 99% of the city and suburbs, I'd walk anywhere and not expect to be bothered by anyone. This is based on 26 years living and working there."

Derek V

[kallend 2,148]

Hooknswoop

Do you still feel that 99% of Chicago is safe, based on living and working there for 38 years?

In 2004 Kallend wrote; "It's really simple - if I walk into Cabrini Green or Austin at night I am (a) stupid, and (b) asking for trouble. So I don't go there. I wouldn't go there even if armed to the teeth. If you think you could go there and be safe because you're carrying, you're stupid too. The gang bangers are all armed and they mostly shoot each other.

In the other 99% of the city and suburbs, I'd walk anywhere and not expect to be bothered by anyone. This is based on 26 years living and working there."

Derek V

Yes. The shootings are overwhelmingly gang bangers offing each other in retaliation for being "dissed", and are located in a few neighborhoods in the city and a couple of suburbs. Unfortunately their marksmanship is none too good and neighbors get hit too. Almost all black on black.

I wouldn't go into Englewood, Garfield Park or Austin after dark. I'd go pretty much anywhere else in the city.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yes. The shootings are overwhelmingly gang bangers offing each other in retaliation for being "dissed", and are located in a few neighborhoods in the city and a couple of suburbs. Unfortunately their marksmanship is none too good and neighbors get hit too. Almost all black on black.

I wouldn't go into Englewood, Garfield Park or Austin after dark. I'd go pretty much anywhere else in the city.

That is a very interesting observation. When I was in Chicago, Rosemont and Naperville, I felt very safe as well.

I believe the statistics agree with your observation, even if the media sensationalism portrays it differently. Reminds me of the home security system commercials. They never show a rough neighborhood, they always show a housewife home alone in a nice house when the security system saves the day. Poor people don't buy security systems. Marketing. Sensationalism. Playing to the emotions of the viewer.

Gun control laws is going to have little to no effect in the rough neighborhoods of Chicago, or anywhere else.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Where do you live and do you feel safe walking around? What percentage of area do you not feel safe walking around?

Derek V

[normiss 895]

I see it right there in the second.
"Well regulated"
Right now it isn't yet it should be.

[normiss 895]

I'm in the city where the Travon Martin shooting happened.
It's a beautiful waterfront city with large lots and beautiful homes, an all American historic district, a vibrant small downtown with bars and restaurants, largest city in the county.
A few rough, poor, crime ridden neighborhoods, some crime, some rundown areas.
Pretty much good old American small town.
I don't feel "unsafe" anywhere I go to be honest. I'm not paranoid.

I've been all over this country and happily and safely lived in some very intimidating neighborhoods.....

What's your point?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I see it right there in the second.
"Well regulated"
Right now it isn't yet it should be.

The militia is not well regulated right now? Is that what you mean by "it"?

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What's your point?

My point is trying to define the issue.

If Chicago is so bad when it comes to guns, why does Kallend feel safe walking around 99% of it based on living and working there for 38 years?

You don't feel unsafe anywhere you go.

Why do you feel feel there should be more gun control laws?

Derek V

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Is the rate increasing? Decreasing? Or staying the same?

What is happening to the rate of gun sales? Increasing, decreasing, or staying the same?

Crime rates are decreasing. As they are in most of the rest of the civilized world. Maybe they are decreasing because Americans are buying more guns, because they are so stupid they actually believe Obama is going to take them away?

Quote

Controlling alcohol was not the solution just as gun control is not the solution.

You keep saying that, but you don't provide any proof.

But, I am fine with controlling guns the same way as alcohol is controlled.

Can't carry it in public, unless unusable. Illegal to use in public. Can't carry in car, unless out of reach and unusable. If you get caught, 24 hours in the gun tank and confiscation of product. Only very light weapons excluded from the state legislation, but banned at the municipal level. Deal?

Quote

I am beginning to suspect you are more concerned about gun control laws than reducing firearms violence, mass shootings

Interesting comment from you. You have already indicated you don't care about reducing mass shootings, nor the high murder rate. You simply see it as a price to pay for your right to have a gun.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Crime rates are decreasing. As they are in most of the rest of the civilized world. Maybe they are decreasing because Americans are buying more guns, because they are so stupid they actually believe Obama is going to take them away?

You do realize that Anyone living in California is going to have to surrender any magazine holding over 10 rounds?

Quote

You keep saying that, but you don't provide any proof.

I guess you missed the link to prohibition. You can scroll up or google it.

Quote

But, I am fine with controlling guns the same way as alcohol is controlled.

I can buy anything I want, as much as I want, and only have to show an ID that say I am over 21 years of age? Deal.

Quote

Interesting comment from you. You have already indicated you don't care about reducing mass shootings, nor the high murder rate. You simply see it as a price to pay for your right to have a gun.

Not true. I am willing to support efforts to reduce mass shootings and/or the murder rate as long as it doesn't restrict the 2nd amendment. I realize that there is a balance between the two and after looking at the statistics, I am comfortable with the current level of balance. I suspect that others, including you, are willing to make any sacrifice of gun rights for small or no gains in the rate of mass shootings and/or the murder rate.

Derek V

[kallend 2,148]

Hooknswoop

Quote

What's your point?

My point is trying to define the issue.

If Chicago is so bad when it comes to guns, why does Kallend feel safe walking around 99% of it based on living and working there for 38 years?

You don't feel unsafe anywhere you go.

Why do you feel feel there should be more gun control laws?

Derek V

Because it's not all about how I or Normiss feel.

There are 9,000+ families EACH YEAR whose members were shot dead to consider.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Because it's not all about how I or Normiss feel.

There are 9,000+ families EACH YEAR whose members were shot dead to consider.

Right, but if the area of concern is 1% of Chicago, that is where the resources should be concentrated. Seems like a lot of gains could be realized by focusing on that 1%. Double the police patrols in the area, or even triple them. Add beat cops. Create jobs in the area. Spend the money.

Derek V

[kallend 2,148]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Because it's not all about how I or Normiss feel.

There are 9,000+ families EACH YEAR whose members were shot dead to consider.

Right, but if the area of concern is 1% of Chicago, that is where the resources should be concentrated. Seems like a lot of gains could be realized by focusing on that 1%. Double the police patrols in the area, or even triple them. Add beat cops. Create jobs in the area. Spend the money.

Derek V

There are more votes to be gained by keeping taxes low than by providing tax-funded services to the bad neighborhoods.

Politicians know this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You do realize that Anyone living in California is going to have to surrender any magazine holding over 10 rounds?

Oh no, how will they make it through the day?

Quote

I guess you missed the link to prohibition.

Your evidence is that since there was drinking throughout prohibition laws banning alcohol had no influence on DUIs? That logic is incredibly laughable. Guess banning murder is useless too, I mean people still murder each other. Actual in your society it seems hard for people not to murder each other. Even toddlers get in on the act.

Quote

I can buy anything I want, as much as I want, and only have to show an ID that say I am over 21 years of age? Deal.

Absolutely, you just can't have it in public and is transported out of reach and unusable. Oh and each brand is covered by one single wholesaler, no competition.

Quote

comfortable with the current level of balance

I find that sickening.