Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-16-2020, 09:22 PM
Loggins is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 17

They want to take away our guns, for what use?


What is the american charm with guns and mass murders? Why does americans want guns, what er they protecting them against. If it is the government that seems unlikely. So whats going on?
  #2  
Old 05-16-2020, 09:45 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,844
A meaningful factor is racial resentment.


https://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/114085...white-identity

https://psmag.com/social-justice/stu...-control-69381

As America becomes more and more multi racial, multi cultural, full of Latino immigrants, etc some white people get more and more uncomfortable and use guns to feel safe from a world they see as unsafe and that is leaving them behind.

Many gun owners are ok with more gun control. But I doubt we'd do what places like south Korea did to resolve their gun issues. Even in blue states we don't have that level of restriction.

https://www.koreaexpose.com/how-sout...d-gun-problem/

Also crime is more serious here than in many other developed nations. A lot of people own guns to feel safe against crime.

There is a growing pro gun trend among the left from what I've seen though. As the right becomes more authoritarian and people feel the police can't be trusted to protect them, people on the left want guns to stay safe from the right.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #3  
Old 05-16-2020, 09:51 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 44,086
There is no American "charm" for mass murder. Try again.
  #4  
Old 05-16-2020, 09:52 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 26,637
Moderator Action

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
  #5  
Old 05-16-2020, 10:22 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loggins View Post
What is the american charm with guns and mass murders? Why does americans want guns, what er they protecting them against. If it is the government that seems unlikely. So whats going on?
Generally speaking, a substantial majority of American gun owners, when polled, cite self-defense, not against "the government", but against violent criminals.

From 2005 from Gallup, the top things gun owners used their guns for were "crime protection (67%), target shooting (66%), and hunting (58%)". (Obviously a person can own a single gun for multiple reasons; "target shooting" may be a fun hobby, but it may also overlap with "crime protection"--a gun isn't much protection if you have no idea how to use it--and the same gun used to hunt with can be used in an emergency to protect your home.)

Again from Gallup, in 2013, in response to the question "There are many reasons why some people choose to own guns and others do not. What are some of the reasons why you own a gun?" "Personal safety/protection" was the answer given by 60% of respondents, followed by "Hunting" at 36%. None of the responses match "May need to overthrow the government some day"; only 5% gave "Second Amendment right" as a response.

In August 2019, Gallup reports that "Personal safety/protection" had gone up to 63%--"Hunting" had also gone up, to 40%, although I'm not sure if either of those changes is actually significant--while "Second Amendment right" remained steady at 5%. Also from 2019 (October) Pew Research reports that 67% of gun owners cited "protection" as "a major reason why they own a firearm". That article from Pew does also cite results from 2017 that 74% of gun owners believe the right to own guns "is essential to their own sense of freedom". But that doesn't get into why gun ownership "is essential to their own sense of freedom"; it might be "May need to overthrow the government some day" but it might also be "May need to protect myself and my family from violent criminals same day"--a kind of "freedom from victimization".

Bottom line, for most of this century at least, American gun owners have pretty consistently said that they mostly (by up to a two-thirds majority) own guns for personal self-defense.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #6  
Old 05-16-2020, 11:55 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,419
There were not constant mass murders in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s the way there are today. Guns were still widely available in those decades and in some cases there were fewer restrictions on them (I've read about people ordering guns by mail-order catalog with no background check whatsoever, in previous decades.) The plague of shooting sprees is a more recent phenomenon. There was more street crime in previous decades, but I don't think that's what you mean by "mass murder." Something has changed in society to increase the frequency of spree shootings, is the only conclusion that I can draw.
  #7  
Old 05-17-2020, 09:15 AM
Mark Finn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 101
Are there counts (in a recent year) available for:

1) For civilians who own a firearm strictly for self-defense - how many accidental shootings killing (or injuring) someone unintentionally? One 2014 source says 2,549 children died and 13,576 children were injured accidentally in a recent year.

2) For civilians who own a firearm strictly for self-defense - how many crimes were successfully stopped? How many stopped involving the death (or injury) of the intended victim(s)? Did any involve the death (or injury) of innocent people?
  #8  
Old 05-17-2020, 10:59 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,475
I don't think anyone is going to be able to distinguish between firearms owned "strictly for self-defense"; and firearms owned for hunting, collecting, or other recreational purposes.

From the CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Deaths: Final Data for 2017 there were 486 deaths from accidental discharge of firearms in that year. That includes 62 children killed who were 14 years old or younger. The next age cohort, 15-24, includes both children and also adults (albeit young adults); the total number of deaths from firearms accidents in that group was 117.

For accidental injuries from firearms, I don't think the data is all that good. From FiveThirtyEight (Nate Silver's website) we have the article "The CDC Is Publishing Unreliable Data On Gun Injuries. People Are Using It Anyway"; not only are FiveThirtyEight not a pro-gun source (or an anti-gun source, necessarily) but they quote David Hemenway (definitely not a pro-gun guy) as saying "No one should trust the CDC’s nonfatal firearm injury point estimates". For what it's worth, the CDC reported "more than 116,000" nonfatal firearms injuries in 2016; that, of course, isn't just "accidents" but also deliberate assaults (crimes). That's also all ages, not just children or teenagers.

Data on crimes stopped by civilians with guns is even worse. For "defensive gun uses" you can easily find estimates ranging from as low as 60,000+ a year, or as high as over 1 million a year. Clearly, the great majority of defensive gun uses don't result in anyone being killed; for 2018 the FBI reported 353 total justifiable homicides by private citizens, of which 298 used firearms of all kinds.

Trying to break out "death (or injury) of innocent people" resulting from defensive gun uses by private citizens is also going to be tough to impossible. Those are probably going to be lumped in with "accidental deaths"--which as noted are very low, for deaths, and "no good data" for injuries--or possibly included in the statistics for crimes (if the "defensive" gun user was sufficiently negligent in his or her use).
  #9  
Old 05-17-2020, 11:12 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
There were not constant mass murders in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s the way there are today. Guns were still widely available in those decades and in some cases there were fewer restrictions on them (I've read about people ordering guns by mail-order catalog with no background check whatsoever, in previous decades.) The plague of shooting sprees is a more recent phenomenon. There was more street crime in previous decades, but I don't think that's what you mean by "mass murder." Something has changed in society to increase the frequency of spree shootings, is the only conclusion that I can draw.
Well, what do we know about what sorts of guns were widely owned in previous decades?

From 1994 to 2004, we had a ban on sales of assault weapons in effect. And whatever criticism one may aim at the way the law defined assault weapons, it seems to have kept a lid on the number of weapons of mass slaughter available to civilians during that time: the plague of AR-15s has largely happened since 2004. AFAICT, there weren't a whole lot of such weapons in circulation before the ban. And battles over gun control in the 1970s and 1980s largely centered on handguns - Saturday Night Specials and the like. Memory's fuzzy at this point, but IIRC, that was a time when long guns were generally hunting rifles that few of even the most passionate gun control advocates had any issue with.

ETA: These are my recollections of how things were between a quarter and a half century ago. I don't claim they're precise, and welcome correction on any point.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 05-17-2020 at 11:15 AM.
  #10  
Old 05-17-2020, 11:44 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well, what do we know about what sorts of guns were widely owned in previous decades?

From 1994 to 2004, we had a ban on sales of assault weapons in effect. And whatever criticism one may aim at the way the law defined assault weapons, it seems to have kept a lid on the number of weapons of mass slaughter available to civilians during that time: the plague of AR-15s has largely happened since 2004. AFAICT, there weren't a whole lot of such weapons in circulation before the ban. And battles over gun control in the 1970s and 1980s largely centered on handguns - Saturday Night Specials and the like. Memory's fuzzy at this point, but IIRC, that was a time when long guns were generally hunting rifles that few of even the most passionate gun control advocates had any issue with.

ETA: These are my recollections of how things were between a quarter and a half century ago. I don't claim they're precise, and welcome correction on any point.
I both agree and disagree. I agree that prior to 1994, AFAIK, so called "assault weapons" really were not that popular. They were considered cheap, lower grade rifles that were useless toys for turning money into noise. But once they were banned, then like everything else you are told you cannot have, you just had to have one. Guns that were previously around $100 were now $700 or $800. And when the ban was lifted, people kept buying them because every year since then there has been noise about making them illegal again.

After every mass shooting, sales of assault type weapons go through the roof because you better get them while you can and before the new ban comes!

But I don't see how that had any appreciable effect on mass shootings. From 1968-1993 you could walk into any gun store, verify that you were not a prohibited person, and walk out with the gun, no background check or verification of what you put on the form at all. Prior to 1968, there were generally no prohibited persons. You could have just done a 10 year stint for a serious felony and walk into a store and buy a gun. Prior to 1934 you could buy fully automatic weapons out of the Sears catalog.

So for a person intent on committing a mass shooting, the ease of getting a weapon wouldn't seem to be any burden at all even though statistically fewer people owned them.
  #11  
Old 05-17-2020, 12:20 PM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loggins View Post
What is the american charm with guns and mass murders? Why does americans want guns, what er they protecting them against. If it is the government that seems unlikely. So whats going on?
Aside from utilitarian purposes like hunting and sport shooting, the Right buys guys to protect them from...basically anything they are afraid of. And it ranges. On one side of the spectrum, it's just mundane home defense stuff. A pistol or shotgun to defend against a home intruder or potential attacker. Particularly if you live someplace relatively isolated where police have a long response time.

But at the other extreme end, you have paranoid conspiracists who want to maintain an arsenal to defend against pretty much anything you can think of - criminals, terrorists, drugged out drifters, overly Liberal political agendas, the coming race war, the collapse of civilization as we know it. Those are the people who you see out there carrying AR-15s and wearing T-party themed balaclavas. For the most part, it's mainly posturing. They don't expect to get into a shootout with local SWAT teams and fight off an FBI / ATF tasks force. They are banking on law enforcement thinks it's not worth it to create a mass media shit storm enforcing some minor zoning law or whatever.

But yeah, more generally conservatives see guns as a means to defend themselves and not have to rely on the competency and good nature of government for protection.
  #12  
Old 05-17-2020, 12:29 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And when the ban was lifted, people kept buying them because every year since then there has been noise about making them illegal again.

After every mass shooting, sales of assault type weapons go through the roof because you better get them while you can and before the new ban comes!
A testament to the effectiveness of right-wing media. Certainly hasn't been much noise that I've heard during that time that suggested there was much chance of an assault weapons ban.

When even after the Newtown massacre, even a set of pretty trivial gun control measures couldn't get through Congress, most of us pro-gun-control folks threw in the towel. But apparently we continued to be an effective bogeyman on Fox News, talk radio, etc.
  #13  
Old 05-17-2020, 01:17 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
From 1994 to 2004, we had a ban on sales of assault weapons in effect. And whatever criticism one may aim at the way the law defined assault weapons, it seems to have kept a lid on the number of weapons of mass slaughter available to civilians during that time.
This is absolute horseshit.

The 1994 ban did not prohibit the sale nor possession of firearms manufactured prior to the ban. And there were tens of millions of them available as well as tens of millions of high capacity magazines. It would have taken nearly a century for the supply of pre-ban “assault weapns” and magazines to get sold out.

Manufactures tweaked features like bayonet lugs or the flash suppressor and bada bing, a post ban assault rifle that could accept a pre-ban high cap magazine. But hardly nobody bought a post ban model as pre-ban models were easily available for just a little more money.

That ban did not in any way, shape, or form prevent anyone from legally getting their hands on a so called assault weapon.
  #14  
Old 05-17-2020, 02:48 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,419
I have some old issues of Soldier of Fortune from the early 80s that I bought in a vintage magazine lot on eBay. They're full of ads for all kinds of semi-automatic versions of military rifles with large magazines and all the other features that would be classified as "assault weapons" - they were definitely available back then and they might not have been sold at your local gun shop but they did have a strong following. There weren't constant mass shootings with these weapons in the 80s. Not even by the type of people who read Soldier of Fortune.
  #15  
Old 05-17-2020, 02:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Finn View Post
..

2) For civilians who own a firearm strictly for self-defense - how many crimes were successfully stopped? How many stopped involving the death (or injury) of the intended victim(s)? Did any involve the death (or injury) of innocent people?
No good counts, sorry. Sure when the citizen shoots a perp, there is a statistic, but not when he uses it to scare off a intruder or attacker. I used to have to carry a gun for self defense, and used it twice, once to save a woman from being assaulted. In neither case was the police notified.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/60214...n-self-defense

One of the most commonly cited estimates of defensive gun uses, published in 1995 by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, concluded there are between 2.2 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually.

I want to point out that altho that was a good study, the numbers are pretty soft. Definitions are fuzzy. They number could be as low as 1/10th that, say 200k.

Still, that is well beyond accidents caused by owning a gun.
  #16  
Old 05-17-2020, 02:51 PM
sitchensis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: revillagigedo
Posts: 2,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Aside from utilitarian purposes like hunting and sport shooting, the Right buys guys to protect them from...basically anything they are afraid of. And it ranges. On one side of the spectrum, it's just mundane home defense stuff. A pistol or shotgun to defend against a home intruder or potential attacker. Particularly if you live someplace relatively isolated where police have a long response time.

But at the other extreme end, you have paranoid conspiracists who want to maintain an arsenal to defend against pretty much anything you can think of - criminals, terrorists, drugged out drifters, overly Liberal political agendas, the coming race war, the collapse of civilization as we know it. Those are the people who you see out there carrying AR-15s and wearing T-party themed balaclavas. For the most part, it's mainly posturing. They don't expect to get into a shootout with local SWAT teams and fight off an FBI / ATF tasks force. They are banking on law enforcement thinks it's not worth it to create a mass media shit storm enforcing some minor zoning law or whatever.

But yeah, more generally conservatives see guns as a means to defend themselves and not have to rely on the competency and good nature of government for protection.
Republicans that own or live in a house that has a gun, 56%
Independents, 48%
Democrats, 25%

A quarter of the democratic party and nearly half of independents own or live in a house with a gun.
  #17  
Old 05-17-2020, 02:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well, what do we know about what sorts of guns were widely owned in previous decades?...
Well, back in the 20's and 30's you could buy a tommy gun or BAR by mail.

Several war surplus semi-automatic guns were cheap and easy to buy in the 1950- 1970's, such as the Garand and M1 carbine. You can get a 30 round magazine for the M1.

I blame the media for the upsurge in mass shootings.
  #18  
Old 05-17-2020, 03:06 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,419
Not to mention that anyone with just a shotgun and a bunch of buckshot could seriously fuck up a crowd of people, and you certainly don't have to jump through many hoops to acquire that.
  #19  
Old 05-17-2020, 03:29 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
A meaningful factor is racial resentment.


https://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/114085...white-identity

https://psmag.com/social-justice/stu...-control-69381

As America becomes more and more multi racial, multi cultural, full of Latino immigrants, etc some white people get more and more uncomfortable and use guns to feel safe from a world they see as unsafe and that is leaving them behind.

Many gun owners are ok with more gun control. But I doubt we'd do what places like south Korea did to resolve their gun issues. Even in blue states we don't have that level of restriction.

https://www.koreaexpose.com/how-sout...d-gun-problem/

Also crime is more serious here than in many other developed nations. A lot of people own guns to feel safe against crime.

There is a growing pro gun trend among the left from what I've seen though. As the right becomes more authoritarian and people feel the police can't be trusted to protect them, people on the left want guns to stay safe from the right.
This and the NRA has become increasingly radicalized, pushing a false narrative that stokes white fears.
Quote:
To advance its mission, the NRA deploys a disinformation campaign reliant on fearmongering and the systematic discreditation of opposition voices in order to secure its position as a powerful lobbyist for the gun industry. The NRA has masterfully constructed a narrative based on gun rights propaganda, evoking images of a society devoid of rule of law and under constant threat of attack from an unidentified but ever-present enemy....

In addition to discussing the perceived challenges facing gun owners, NRATV’s coverage has expanded beyond just discussing gun Irights. In 2017, Wayne LaPierre’s speech at CPAC focused more on the need to support newly elected President Donald Trump than protecting gun rights, matching the programming’s expanding focus on other policy debates within the United States—such as immigration and women’s rights.... For example, commentator Dana Loesch recently used her platform as the host of “Relentless” to criticize efforts to increase gender and racial diversity on children’s TV program “Thomas the Tank Engine,” depicting the animated characters in Ku Klux Klan hoods...
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...uns-lies-fear/
  #20  
Old 05-17-2020, 03:36 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
This and the NRA has become increasingly radicalized, pushing a false narrative that stokes white fears.


https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...uns-lies-fear/
That is a Op/Ed.

To be fair to the NRA, it wasnt until recently that the left has been screaming about Gun control, even passing measures in three cities that effectively banned all guns. (Overturned by courts)

Responsible gun owners now face the spectre of their valuable tool being taken away, with no recompense.

Several Dem candidates pushed for door to door gun confiscation.

Most of the new war on guns is based upon the Media and the way they push mass shootings. Oddly, few of the restrictions would prevent mass shootings- in fact, none would, outside of a outright ban and door to door warrantless searches.

Mind you, certainly some restrictions could reduce violent crime by a bit.
  #21  
Old 05-17-2020, 03:43 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
The fact is, America has a gun problem unlike any other western country. The fact is the NRA routinely uses imagery and messaging designed to stoke white racial fears that do not align with reality. There is a radicalized entrenched pro-gun movement in America that is impervious to facts and which votes on this single issue in large numbers.
  #22  
Old 05-17-2020, 04:21 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Finn View Post
1) For civilians who own a firearm strictly for self-defense - how many accidental shootings killing (or injuring) someone unintentionally? One 2014 source says 2,549 children died and 13,576 children were injured accidentally in a recent year.
According to Wikipedia, in 2013 there were a total of 505 accidental firearm related deaths in the United States. I doubt the number of deaths suddenly increased by more than two thousands just for children the following year.

Quote:
2) For civilians who own a firearm strictly for self-defense - how many crimes were successfully stopped? How many stopped involving the death (or injury) of the intended victim(s)? Did any involve the death (or injury) of innocent people?
That's not an easy question to answer. If someone is attempting to gain access through the sliding door in my kitchen and they flee when I point a pistol at them is that a successful use of a firearm? I didn't actually shoot them and it's possible they would have fled at the mere sight of me so how should we count that?
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #23  
Old 05-17-2020, 04:26 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
This and the NRA has become increasingly radicalized, pushing a false narrative that stokes white fears.
I am a gun owner who has grown less enamored with the NRA over the last 10-15 years. I've been disappointed with their increasingly alarmist rhetoric, their lack of defense of Philando Castile, and the fact that the most recent court victories in favor of our 2nd Amendment rights were not championed by the NRA.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #24  
Old 05-17-2020, 04:50 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,419
The NRA is just a wing of the Republican Party at this point. And a lot of gun owners are obviously OK with that. Even ones who are not doctrinaire hard-line conservatives might still support them just because of their perceived legal abilities to fight against any further gun control. However, with increasing number of liberal Democrats now becoming interested in guns - something I've observed first-hand, and attribute to well-justified fear of Trump's government and of right-wing vigilante violence - I expect other gun-advocacy groups to spring up that are more apolitical.
  #25  
Old 05-17-2020, 05:04 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 15,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loggins View Post
What is the american charm with guns and mass murders? Why does americans want guns, ...
First of all, the OP is incorrect about "Americans want guns".

80% of Americans own no guns at all. None.
All the guns are owned by the remaining 20% minority. And something like a third of them own only sport hunting weapons. So that leaves something like 1 out of 7 Americans who own guns, and they own several guns each.

But that minority of Americans makes a lot of noise, especially about this issue. So people in other countries end up thinking "Americans want guns". And that is incorrect, for most Americans.
  #26  
Old 05-17-2020, 05:21 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
I am a gun owner who has grown less enamored with the NRA over the last 10-15 years. I've been disappointed with their increasingly alarmist rhetoric, their lack of defense of Philando Castile, and the fact that the most recent court victories in favor of our 2nd Amendment rights were not championed by the NRA.
Your post demonstrates that the NRA is dentrimental to a rational discussion on gun violence in America. The cartoon strawmen they created of a) the majority of Americans who want some kind of control and b) the threat to people’s safety during a period of historically low crime have done nothing but further their radical agenda. I wasn’t surprised when it turned out they were taking Russian government money to destabilize our society.
  #27  
Old 05-17-2020, 05:52 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
First of all, the OP is incorrect about "Americans want guns".

80% of Americans own no guns at all. None.
All the guns are owned by the remaining 20% minority. And something like a third of them own only sport hunting weapons. So that leaves something like 1 out of 7 Americans who own guns, and they own several guns each.

But that minority of Americans makes a lot of noise, especially about this issue. So people in other countries end up thinking "Americans want guns". And that is incorrect, for most Americans.
Close- https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...united-states/

Three-in-ten American adults (30%) say they personally own a gun, and an additional 11% say they live with someone who does....Protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners have a gun, according to the same survey. Two-thirds of gun owners (67%) say this is a major reason why they own a firearm. Considerably smaller shares say hunting (38%), sport shooting (30%), gun collecting (13%) or their job (8%) are major reasons. While men and women are about equally likely to cite protection (65% and 71%, respectively) as a major reason they own a gun, women are more likely than men to cite protection as the only reason (27% of women vs. 8% of men).
  #28  
Old 05-17-2020, 05:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Your post demonstrates that the NRA is dentrimental to a rational discussion on gun violence in America. The cartoon strawmen they created of a) the majority of Americans who want some kind of control and b) the threat to people’s safety during a period of historically low crime have done nothing but further their radical agenda. I wasn’t surprised when it turned out they were taking Russian government money to destabilize our society.

If we are in a period of historically low crime , then why do we need more gun control?

Yes, the NRA got some Russian $- less than $5000. Part of it was a Life membership fee.
  #29  
Old 05-17-2020, 05:56 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
There were not constant mass murders in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s the way there are today. Guns were still widely available in those decades and in some cases there were fewer restrictions on them (I've read about people ordering guns by mail-order catalog with no background check whatsoever, in previous decades.) The plague of shooting sprees is a more recent phenomenon. There was more street crime in previous decades, but I don't think that's what you mean by "mass murder." Something has changed in society to increase the frequency of spree shootings, is the only conclusion that I can draw.
I believe that a major factor is the deinstitutionalization that occurred, for a multitude of reasons, in the 1950s and 1960s.
  #30  
Old 05-17-2020, 07:02 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Your post demonstrates that the NRA is dentrimental to a rational discussion on gun violence in America. The cartoon strawmen they created of a) the majority of Americans who want some kind of control and b) the threat to people’s safety during a period of historically low crime have done nothing but further their radical agenda. I wasn’t surprised when it turned out they were taking Russian government money to destabilize our society.
It's not just the NRA though. The pro-gun side has been calling me a coward and racist for many years while occasionally demonstrating an uncomfortable penchant for speculating about the close personal relationship I have with my penis. I fully concede that the pro-gun side of the argument makes such statements as well.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #31  
Old 05-17-2020, 08:08 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
It's not just the NRA though. The pro-gun side has been calling me a coward and racist for many years while occasionally demonstrating an uncomfortable penchant for speculating about the close personal relationship I have with my penis. I fully concede that the pro-gun side of the argument makes such statements as well.

pro-gun? Pro-gun?

Generally on this board, it's the anti-gunners who insult the pro-gunners. But yes, on other boards, etc the anti-gunners get some flack.
  #32  
Old 05-17-2020, 08:12 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,475
I think maybe the first "pro-gun" was probably supposed to say "anti-gun".
  #33  
Old 05-17-2020, 08:34 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
I think maybe the first "pro-gun" was probably supposed to say "anti-gun".
It was supposed to say pro-gun control. My bad.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #34  
Old 05-17-2020, 08:48 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
The fact is, America has a gun problem unlike any other western country. The fact is the NRA routinely uses imagery and messaging designed to stoke white racial fears that do not align with reality. There is a radicalized entrenched pro-gun movement in America that is impervious to facts and which votes on this single issue in large numbers.
This is correct, and let me add that if you're an ammosexual who's afraid that Obama's minions are going to break down your door and take your guns (never mind that he's not the president any more), you're probably precisely the kind of person who should not have them, and in addition, if you believe this, it's also not a good idea to brag on social media that you have them.
  #35  
Old 05-17-2020, 10:05 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No good counts, sorry. Sure when the citizen shoots a perp, there is a statistic, but not when he uses it to scare off a intruder or attacker. I used to have to carry a gun for self defense, and used it twice, once to save a woman from being assaulted. In neither case was the police notified.
It works the other way too. I chased a burglar out of my house without a gun, and reported it to the police. I'm sure that had I had a gun I would have told all of my friends that the only reason I survived was that I was armed at the time. Thank god for guns. Even though in actuality a gun would have made no difference.

As to why Americans like guns so much, I think it really goes back to the American mythology of being a country of revolutionaries, pioneers and entrepreneurs. The idealized American only relies on himself. To require the aid of others is viewed as weak and lazy. So when it comes to keeping ones safe from a hostile world, a personal firearm is viewed as more reliable than an municipal police force. Its that same reason we don't have an economic safety net, and universal health care.
  #36  
Old 05-17-2020, 11:27 PM
sisu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oi, oi, oi
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
This and the NRA has become increasingly radicalized, pushing a false narrative that stokes white fears.


https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...uns-lies-fear/
What is amazing is that yes today it is about white fear but the push for open carry originally came from the Panthers to oversee cops arresting African Americans in California, in those days the NRA supported gun control to get them out of their hands!

So Ronald Raygun decided to introduce Mumford act and wallah the fight against gun control was born, at this stage the NRA had a coup and we have what we have today.
__________________
My opinions may or may not reflect the truth.........
  #37  
Old 05-18-2020, 12:18 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
It works the other way too. I chased a burglar out of my house without a gun, and reported it to the police. I'm sure that had I had a gun I would have told all of my friends that the only reason I survived was that I was armed at the time. Thank god for guns. Even though in actuality a gun would have made no difference.....
Absolutely. The other time I had to draw my gun is when two homeless guys lurched out of a alley, one of them with a board with a nail, the other with a knife, and demanded money. Maybe I could have ran, maybe talked them down. or- maybe not.

And the woman I saved from being assaulted? If I had a baseball bat it would have likely done the job also. Except- i didnt have a baseball bat, and they are hard to carry around with you all the time.

There is always a maybe.


But what I know- is that me pulling the gun worked. And no one got hurt or shot (the woman was kinda knocked around and very shook up, but Ok, she didnt want to call the cops)
  #38  
Old 05-18-2020, 12:21 AM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
As to why Americans like guns so much, I think it really goes back to the American mythology of being a country of revolutionaries, pioneers and entrepreneurs. The idealized American only relies on himself. To require the aid of others is viewed as weak and lazy. So when it comes to keeping ones safe from a hostile world, a personal firearm is viewed as more reliable than an municipal police force. Its that same reason we don't have an economic safety net, and universal health care.
I have had occasion to dial 911 for multiple reasons over the years and some of the reasons include the following: gun shots alarmingly close to house, a strange man chased my sister as she was coming home from work at 1:00 a.m., my neighbor waking me when he drunkenly threatening to kill his wife , a brawl involving 15+ teenagers in my front yard, a woman shrieking because her significant other was beating her, and someone who was in my garage late, late at night.

Do you know how many times I called the police and they arrived in time to do anything useful? Just once and it was with the 15+ teenager reenacting their favorite Wrestlemania in my front yard. In each case the police arrived within a reasonable amount of time but not within enough time to be helpful if someone was being attacked. I don't say that as a dig against the police either as they cannot be everywhere at once. But when seconds count the police are often minutes away.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #39  
Old 05-18-2020, 05:15 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,672

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
This is correct, and let me add that if you're an ammosexual who's afraid that Obama's minions are going to break down your door and take your guns (never mind that he's not the president any more), you're probably precisely the kind of person who should not have them, and in addition, if you believe this, it's also not a good idea to brag on social media that you have them.
I'm going to just give this a note, nearwildheaven, but it could easily be a warning.

Sexualizing issues as a means of denigrating other posters is one of our more obscure rules but it is a rule. Please don't do so again.
  #40  
Old 05-18-2020, 09:37 AM
Joeu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Absolutely. The other time I had to draw my gun is when two homeless guys lurched out of a alley, one of them with a board with a nail, the other with a knife, and demanded money. Maybe I could have ran, maybe talked them down. or- maybe not.

And the woman I saved from being assaulted? If I had a baseball bat it would have likely done the job also. Except- i didnt have a baseball bat, and they are hard to carry around with you all the time.

There is always a maybe.


But what I know- is that me pulling the gun worked. And no one got hurt or shot (the woman was kinda knocked around and very shook up, but Ok, she didnt want to call the cops)
This puzzled me when you mentioned it before, so thanks for clarifying that the woman didn't want to call the cops. That helps me to understand a little why you didn't notify the police, but still only a little.

In both these cases, what puzzles me is why wouldn't you call the cops? You used a gun to prevent a serious crime from happening (and good for you--I don't criticize that at all).

But what about the other people, who don't have a gun, who now have to encounter those same bad guys? Because you didn't notify the police, while you might have solved the immediate issue, those bad guys are still running around, ready to find the next victim, without the police even having a chance to try to catch them or even be on the lookout.

OK, if the woman didn't want police involved, that adds a little more context and at least arguably makes it more acceptable...but I would certainly argue the other side.

If people are defending themselves with guns and then figuring "OK, all done, scared away, nobody shot, life goes on," that's not a good outcome to me at all. It's better than you or the woman you protected getting hurt. But it's not good. I would argue that the responsible move in cases like this would always be to let the police know about it afterwards. I don't want people going around armed thinking that's the whole solution. Because it just could make things worse.
  #41  
Old 05-18-2020, 12:06 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
I have had occasion to dial 911 for multiple reasons over the years and some of the reasons include the following: gun shots alarmingly close to house, a strange man chased my sister as she was coming home from work at 1:00 a.m., my neighbor waking me when he drunkenly threatening to kill his wife , a brawl involving 15+ teenagers in my front yard, a woman shrieking because her significant other was beating her, and someone who was in my garage late, late at night.

Do you know how many times I called the police and they arrived in time to do anything useful? Just once and it was with the 15+ teenager reenacting their favorite Wrestlemania in my front yard. In each case the police arrived within a reasonable amount of time but not within enough time to be helpful if someone was being attacked. I don't say that as a dig against the police either as they cannot be everywhere at once. But when seconds count the police are often minutes away.
And yet somehow people live in countries with stronger gun laws or who live in the US but don't own guns fail to be raped and murdered in significantly higher numbers than US gun owners.
  #42  
Old 05-18-2020, 01:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
It was supposed to say pro-gun control. My bad.
You said "pro-gun" twice, whereas clearly one of them was likely anti-gun.
  #43  
Old 05-18-2020, 01:41 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I've read about people ordering guns by mail-order catalog with no background check whatsoever, in previous decades.
That's how Old Lee Harvey got his bolt action Italian job.
  #44  
Old 05-18-2020, 01:53 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
And yet somehow people live in countries with stronger gun laws or who live in the US but don't own guns fail to be raped and murdered in significantly higher numbers than US gun owners.
What does that have to do with me in the United States? It might surprise you to know that the police have no constitutional duty to protect me from harm here in the US. But it's great that people in Great Britain, Germany, and France can rely on the police to respond quickly enough to help out in the middle of a brutal assault but in my experience I cannot rely on the police here in the states. I couldn't rely on them in Dallas, Colorado Springs, or Little Rock and I don't trust them to protect me elsewhere.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #45  
Old 05-18-2020, 02:37 PM
Mk VII is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 3,043
Foreign persons may not be aware just how rural much of America is. In much of it, if you call the cops it will be half an hour or more before you can expect anybody to arrive, especially at night - and that's if they aren't already dealing with something else at the other end of the county.
  #46  
Old 05-18-2020, 03:26 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,506
Note that I also referred to non-gun owners in the US (maybe you missed that part). If the only way to defend yourself from predators is with a gun, then presumably it would be easy to show that the crime statistics against gun owners are much lower than against non gun owners, but that doesn't appear to be the case. All you get are anecdotal counts of defensive gun use which as I indicated above may have resolved exactly the same way (or better) without a gun.

Some statistics on the subject.
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun...rus-gun-sales/
Quote:
In 2015, David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and Sara Solnick, an economist at the University of Vermont, analyzed national government surveys involving more than 14,000 people and reported that guns are used for self-protection in less than 1 percent of all crimes that take place in the presence of a victim. They also found that people were more likely to be injured after threatening attackers with guns than they were if they had called the police or run away.
  #47  
Old 05-18-2020, 04:06 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Note that I also referred to non-gun owners in the US (maybe you missed that part). If the only way to defend yourself from predators is with a gun, then presumably it would be easy to show that the crime statistics against gun owners are much lower than against non gun owners, but that doesn't appear to be the case. All you get are anecdotal counts of defensive gun use which as I indicated above may have resolved exactly the same way (or better) without a gun.
I don't know if anyone here has argued that firearms are the only way to defend against predators. I find it's very helpful to remain mindful of my surroundings, remain sober, and avoid unnecessary confrontations all of which are my preferred methods of risk mitigation. It also helps that I don't view a firearm as a magical device rendering invincibility.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #48  
Old 05-18-2020, 07:17 PM
Nauplius's Avatar
Nauplius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You said "pro-gun" twice, whereas clearly one of them was likely anti-gun.
which is why he corrected himself:

pro-gun control = anti gun
  #49  
Old 05-19-2020, 01:09 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
I don't know if anyone here has argued that firearms are the only way to defend against predators. I find it's very helpful to remain mindful of my surroundings, remain sober, and avoid unnecessary confrontations all of which are my preferred methods of risk mitigation. It also helps that I don't view a firearm as a magical device rendering invincibility.
Gun owners do all that you mentioned and also do not view a gun as a "magical device rendering invincibility."

I'm sure you could cite anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but we don't ban cars because a handful of idiots in a country of 320 million people drive at 180 mph or ram other cars, nor do we ban airplanes because sometimes pilots fly drunk.

These mass shootings are statistical blips (unless you redefine mass shootings into ordinary crime) and should not be the basis of policy change, but psychological study.

ETA: On review, you may be agreeing with me, but I'm not sure.

Last edited by UltraVires; 05-19-2020 at 01:10 AM.
  #50  
Old 05-19-2020, 09:55 AM
Mdcastle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Finn View Post
Are there counts (in a recent year) available for:

1) For civilians who own a firearm strictly for self-defense - how many accidental shootings killing (or injuring) someone unintentionally? One 2014 source says 2,549 children died and 13,576 children were injured accidentally in a recent year.

2) For civilians who own a firearm strictly for self-defense - how many crimes were successfully stopped? How many stopped involving the death (or injury) of the intended victim(s)? Did any involve the death (or injury) of innocent people?
3) How many crimes did not occur because criminals know they could be shot dead if they try kicking down a door of an occupied house in order to commit a murder, rape, or home invasion?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017