Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting [and gun control]

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Have to be 21 to buy a gun, do you? Are minors not allowed in stores that sell guns?

Yes, you have to be 21 to buy a handgun. You also have to go through a waiting period and pass a background check. In most states you have to be 21 to buy alcohol and the restrictions for that are by hour of day and sometimes Sunday.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The handgun restriction hardly counts. It's not as though you can drink beer at 18 but not hard liquor (except in Louisiana).

[Lumpy]

They are trying to outlaw guns: the calls both on this board and elsewhere for bans on "assault weapons", or "automatic pistols", or the recent comment by Maryland's First Lady that no one should own an "arsenal" (which is what- more than three guns?).

[Really Not All That Bright]

Who cares if they ban "automatic pistols"? They're already illegal. I agree with Maryland's first lady, too, but that sounds more like a value judgment than a policy statement.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The handgun restriction hardly counts.

well then if doesn't count we should do away with it.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Well one they weren't complete failures. Two regulating drugs and alcohol has been pretty effective.

Very few people are advocating for outlawing guns. Most people think we should be regulating them.

I fail to see why we need guns to have less restrictions on their sale then that of alcohol.

Are you really saying prohibition and the war on drugs has been successful?

That is not what the republicans will see, you only want to ban things based on arbitrary "feelings" and just like after the AWB it will hand the legislative branch to the Right.

And if regulation has been successful you should be able to provide empirical data showing it has been.

Can you provide a cite?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Magiver

well then if doesn't count we should do away with it.

I agree.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Who cares if they ban "automatic pistols"? They're already illegal. I agree with Maryland's first lady, too, but that sounds more like a value judgment than a policy statement.

Machine guns are quite legal at a federal level, they just have a simple background check and a $200 tax.

Note, you get a tax stamp not a "licence"

This has been true from the beginning the National Firearms Act was meant to keep them from the poor.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Where are they legal at the state level?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Yes, you have to be 21 to buy a handgun. You also have to go through a waiting period and pass a background check. In most states you have to be 21 to buy alcohol and the restrictions for that are by hour of day and sometimes Sunday.

Point of clarification, you have to be 21 to buy a handgun from a licensed firearm dealer. You can still own and possess one if it is, for example given to you as a gift or buy from a private party. (depending on your local state laws)

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Where are they legal at the state level?

If you are asking about machine-guns google says:

AL, AR, AK, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, MA, ME, MD, MS, MT, ND, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WI, And WY.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Er... really?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Er... really?

Yes, and IIRC there has only been one crime committed by a legal machine gun post 1934 and that was by a police officer.

Full auto is far less useful than you probably think it is, TV, movies and video games have presented a twisted reality.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I don't think it's particularly useful. I just don't know of anyone who owns an automatic weapon.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I agree.

That will certainly save people a lot of time and bother.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I don't think it's particularly useful. I just don't know of anyone who owns an automatic weapon.

It is not something you mention in general public, they are worth a lot of money and most of the public is too ignorant to realize they are for the most part only useful for converting money into noise.

Also, if you pay the tax (and deal with safe storage laws which is harder) you can own destructive devices.

(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device.

Short barreled rifles, shotguns and suppressors also require payment of a federal tax to transfer but are legal.

And to add to the oddness, flame throwers are unregulated.


(Note, I do not own nor do I wish to own any of these items)

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Are you really saying prohibition and the war on drugs has been successful?

No, as you can read English you already knew that. I assume you know the difference between 'not a complete failure' and 'successful.'

That is not what the republicans will see, you only want to ban things based on arbitrary "feelings" and just like after the AWB it will hand the legislative branch to the Right.

Some Republicans being blinded by ignorance is kinda what we are talking about and why we can't reach the level of regulation even most gun owners advocate.

And if regulation has been successful you should be able to provide empirical data showing it has been.

Can you provide a cite?

Since I think you're goal is to send me on a fishing expedition can you at least be specific in what you want cited? Are you looking for how regulating drugs or alcohol has been successful? Gun regulation? Regulation in general? Also what do you consider to be 'empirical data' I doubt I could show you that for anything we are discussing as we lack a parallel universe to compare results in. I can show correlation pretty easily.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

No, as you can read English you already knew that. I assume you know the difference between 'not a complete failure' and 'successful.'



Some Republicans being blinded by ignorance is kinda what we are talking about and why we can't reach the level of regulation even most gun owners advocate.



Since I think you're goal is to send me on a fishing expedition can you at least be specific in what you want cited? Are you looking for how regulating drugs or alcohol has been successful? Gun regulation? Regulation in general? Also what do you consider to be 'empirical data' I doubt I could show you that for anything we are discussing as we lack a parallel universe to compare results in. I can show correlation pretty easily.

Both sides are "blinded by ignorance" The Republicans by fear of total bans and Dems who will cut off their nose to spite their face by passing do legislation that doesn't fix the problems but does rally the republicans to the polls.

I am asking for what I said, any empirical evidence that any gun control legislation that restricted the access of firearms to law abiding citizens has reduced the rate of violent crime.

This is not a fishing expedition, this should be simple if what you claim is true.

But I will give you a hint, to my knowledge there is not a good study that show that lawful gun ownership has any correlation on violent crime, either positive or negative.

But there is evidence that it hands elections to the Republicans.

I will go as for to say that Roe v. Wade probably had more to do with reduceing violent crime than any gun law ever passed.

[XT]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

If you are asking about machine-guns google says:

Do you have a link? Because either you are being very disingenuous or my understanding of the law is flawed. My understanding is that, sure, you can legally own a machine gun (i.e. a fully automatic weapon), if you can get the correct papers (or, if the weapons is grandfathered in). But that GETTING those papers is not very easy to do unless you have the right credentials. So, fight my ignorance and show me a link to how easy it is for Joe Citizen to get a fully automatic weapon...legally. Don't tell me how un-useful they are, don't provide some text that you might or might not have Googled, but SHOW me the cite with a link.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by XT

Do you have a link? Because either you are being very disingenuous or my understanding of the law is flawed. My understanding is that, sure, you can legally own a machine gun (i.e. a fully automatic weapon), if you can get the correct papers (or, if the weapons is grandfathered in). But that GETTING those papers is not very easy to do unless you have the right credentials. So, fight my ignorance and show me a link to how easy it is for Joe Citizen to get a fully automatic weapon...legally. Don't tell me how un-useful they are, don't provide some text that you might or might not have Googled, but SHOW me the cite with a link.

One needs to pass the federal background check, get local LEO signoff and pay the taxes. If your local police chief is a dick, it's hard to do. If not, it's pretty easy. The thousands of guns currently in private hands is proof.

Affording the guns is a completely different challenge. No FA gun made after 1986 can be legally owned by a civilian for the most part. Simple supply and demand dictates that these pre-86 guns are usually priced well into the tens of thousands of dollars.

[JXJohns]

Here is a link showing how easy it really is, in AZ anyway:

Link

[XT]

Doesn't look that easy to me...and there are some hefty fines and jail time implied in that link. I wonder how many chiefs of police are 'a dick' and won't sign the form. I'm betting a lot of them, since it's their ass if they sign and someone they signed for uses a machine gun in a crime.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by XT

Doesn't look that easy to me...and there are some hefty fines and jail time implied in that link. I wonder how many chiefs of police are 'a dick' and won't sign the form. I'm betting a lot of them, since it's their ass if they sign and someone they signed for uses a machine gun in a crime.

YMMV I guess. Filling out some paperwork and paying a fee or two to be able to obtain some full auto fun doesn't seem too big of a deal to me. Follow the link I provided and it details how to avoid the "my police chief is a dick" syndrome.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by XT

Doesn't look that easy to me...and there are some hefty fines and jail time implied in that link. I wonder how many chiefs of police are 'a dick' and won't sign the form. I'm betting a lot of them, since it's their ass if they sign and someone they signed for uses a machine gun in a crime.

There are big fines for copying DVD's too...that isn't that hard either.

The class3 dealer makes sure things are good to go, really it is no more complex than going to a new doctor.

Also LEO signoff only applies to individuals, most people set up a trust, that removes the fingerprinting and LEO signoff requirement.

I didn't wan't to link to weapons sites because browsers preload data now and I know some work places have huge issues with them.

If you google for "class 3 trust" you will see what I am talking about.

[Lumpy]

Ask The Guy With Machine Guns

[Lumpy]

Here's a preview of how successful gun bans will be: Philippine gun makers take aim from the backyard to the production line

"Bootlegger" will come to mean someone carrying in an ankle holster.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Can you provide any empirical data that shows that restricting legal access to firearms by law abiding individuals has reduced violent crime in any place in the world?

Or even easier, can you make a real correlation with empirical data that links the number of firearms and the number of violent crimes?

In 2006, the Harvard School of Public Health reviewed the scientific literature loking for any correlation between gun-availability and homicide. They found strong evidence to suggest a link between the two.

In 2011, economist Richard Florida deep-dived data related to firearm deaths and social indicators. A number of factors were identified, but according to his analysis--even if you account for other factors, there is a statistical correlation between gun-control laws and fewer gun-related deaths. As he himself notes, correlation is not causation, but it's at least meaningful.

As you are no doubt aware, the Harvard study has made head researcher David Hemenway a target of the NRA (I haven't found a similar objection to Mr. Florida, but I didn't look very hard). Personally I find their objections laughable, but it does illustrate the problem whenever a politically powerful organization wades into statistical or scientific questions: Their goal is often just to muddy the waters enough that unengaged observers assume nothing is really determined. It's the same strategy followed by Intelligent Design advocates and global warming deniers.

[XT]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

In 2006, the Harvard School of Public Health reviewed the scientific literature loking for any correlation between gun-availability and homicide. They found strong evidence to suggest a link between the two.

Not being snide here, just an observation...this is the equivalent of saying that more cars means more automobile deaths, and less cars would mean less deaths. That's true, and not really in question. I don't know of anyone making the argument that the US crime rate would be unchanged if you actually managed to ban all guns from the country (and, somehow magically accomplish getting them all or even a large percentage out of the hands of US citizens).

I will say that, based on a link I gave earlier, the US is a pretty violent place even without guns, so it would probably be less than the idealists would wish if they actually got their dream. I mean, yeah...over 8000 murders are done using guns a year, but over 4000 murders happen in the US by non-firearm related weapons too, and at a guess you aren't simply going to eliminate all of those 8000 by removing the firearms...some non-zero percentage of them are still going to happen each year, just using something other than a gun (or, probably not, as criminals aren't going to be as concerned about being arrested for having a gun that is most likely illegal for them to have anyway...even leaving aside the whole 'it's illegal to murder folks with or without a gun' angle).

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

In 2006, the Harvard School of Public Health reviewed the scientific literature loking for any correlation between gun-availability and homicide. They found strong evidence to suggest a link between the two.

In 2011, economist Richard Florida deep-dived data related to firearm deaths and social indicators. A number of factors were identified, but according to his analysis--even if you account for other factors, there is a statistical correlation between gun-control laws and fewer gun-related deaths. As he himself notes, correlation is not causation, but it's at least meaningful.

As you are no doubt aware, the Harvard study has made head researcher David Hemenway a target of the NRA (I haven't found a similar objection to Mr. Florida, but I didn't look very hard). Personally I find their objections laughable, but it does illustrate the problem whenever a politically powerful organization wades into statistical or scientific questions: Their goal is often just to muddy the waters enough that unengaged observers assume nothing is really determined. It's the same strategy followed by Intelligent Design advocates and global warming deniers.

The 2006 "review" from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center used studies which have already been discredited.

E.G.

"Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

They chose the 1988-1997 dates for very good reason, it was good cherry picking and:

It was the peak of violent crime in the US

That paper falls flat when you try to explain why the trend went down despite increasing gun sales.

Firearm crime in the UK actually outpaced the rise of violent crime in the country in the years after their ban.

Australia's ban also didn't reduce the rise of fire arm related murders. In fact the 15 years before the ban homicides dropped by 66% then rose sharply after the ban.

both sides cherry pick, the reality is at this point in time there doesn't seem to be a link.

And yes, they have still failed to release their numbers.

As for Richard Florida's "research" yes...he included "accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes." And here is a reality check for you, firearms are a fairly good way to commit suicide.

Japan, a country with a tiny murder rate and lots of gun control has a combined suicide/murder rate of about 21 deaths per 100,000 people per year.

Guess what the US's rate is with our massively higher rate of gun ownership and gun related homicide? About 21 deaths per 100,000 people per year.

His study does show that improved education helps reduce crime. But by chasing after ineffective gun legislation we cause more Republican's to be elected and this means:

Less money and more restrictions on reproductive health.
Less movement forward with services for mental health and homelessness.
Less money and resources for sex education.
Decreased money and resources for secular education.

All of these items have been shown to have a larger impact on poverty or violent crime.

[rat avatar]

It should also be noted that in the US active euthanasia is illegal. In the rural town I grew up in it was an (anecdotal) reality that if an older person who lived at home had a closed casket funeral they probably committed suicide to avoid the home.

Thus with poverty, lack of opportunity and firearm accessibility the rate goes up in rural areas. But if you look at the murder rate it is tiny compared to places with lots of gun control....because people pass gun control in high crime areas in a misguided attempt to control crime.

"Not because guns prevent crime as some claim"

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Yes, and IIRC there has only been one crime committed by a legal machine gun post 1934 and that was by a police officer.

Do you have a cite for this?

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Do you have a cite for this?

Looks like it might actually be two.


Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns