No, I’m saying the burden of proof is on those who claim that massacres are being “instrumentality” driven; and no, the mere existence of guns doesn’t count.
Access to guns is not easier. The guns, themselves, are not more lethal than they have ever been. The much maligned and greatly feared AR-15 has been commercially available since 1963.
You’re simply wrong here. Your interpretation is plain as day. Let’s rewind the tape. (my bold in all of the quoted sections)
In post #160, obbn makes the following statement to which you quote and respond to in post #161.
You later state in post #175that you were questioning the claim that obbn made in #160, referenced above:
So your interpretation, if it could be called that at all, of the following statement: “The vast majority of firearm owners are law abiding citizens who use their weapons for recreational shooting and have them for the rare chance that they might be used in defense of self and family.” was “recreational shooting is such a widespread event that most people that own guns participate in it?”
It’s obvious that your interpretation was wrong. The way I laid out the statement separated into each of its elements in post #170 is vastly superior to what you offered. I’m not sure why you’d stick to your presentation when it is so clearly not accurate. Then you continue to beat it, asking for cites for as of yet no apparent reason, when the information you seek is so readily available. So I’m not sure if your mistake was unintentional or you had some ulterior motive, or some other reason. Perhaps you posted without considering that you were wrong. Either way, there is no folly in admitting error, but it is surely foolish to cling to error after it has been pointed out as some kind of shield forged in ignorance.
The number of people that participate in a particular activity in a given year would not be an indication as to the purpose people use firearms for. I can purchase a sweet Benelli M2 solely for hunting, and use it once every 5 years. The purpose of that firearm would 100% be for hunting, but in any given year I could have actually hunted with it zero times.
You’d like to cherry-pick your data? What are the figures for 2005 anyway?
Look, I don’t doubt that there is a culture and “fashion” component to spree shootings and they may well wax and wane,
However, the fact that you have easy access to guns means that when the fashion comes around it is trivially easy for people to act upon it. I’m sure there are unbalanced kids in the UK with itchy trigger fingers and and a whopper of a grudge but thankfully they have very little opportunity to get hold of a firearm.
And it any case, whatever year you choose as an example of low mass-shootings will still be an order of magnitude more than anything we’ve seen in the UK.
Well, it seems a little disingenuous to point to the one set of data then, if it reflects an aspiration, or more likely a socially desirable response rather than the truth.
It would only be disingenuous if the claim was as Czarcasm misstated and you further appended. Since you agree that Czarcasm did so, the set of data I presented comports to the criteria in the actual claim in post #160. The actual claim did not contain a temporal element - you added that parameter.
(1.)I picked 2005 because it was after the end of the Assault Weapons Ban, and because it was long ago enough that I presume predates the current surge in slaughter shootings.
(2.) Thank you; a lot of people on this board wouldn’t even acknowledge the point.
(3.) My point in raising the whole issue is what other posters in other threads have repeatedly pointed out: once upon a time guns weren’t a problem. High schools had shooting clubs, students had shotguns and hunting rifles in the cars they drove to school, guns could be ordered by mail, no FFL requirement, no waiting period requirement. What changed wasn’t the guns, it was the social structures that had previously supported social behavior and strongly punished anti-social behavior. We’re told that the gun violence we currently experience is an inevitable result of the presence of guns; but for decades that just wasn’t true.
Well I’d say it is inevitable that a country with plentiful guns, easy access and little restriction will see a lot of deaths due to guns. I can’t imagine that anyone can disagree with that.
But you are suggesting there was a time when there were less guns but more violence. is that correct? if so can you point me to those stats please?
The opposite.
Excellent point about the change in social structure; “individual rights” has superseded and displaced discipline, manners, and respect for others. Thank you liberalism.
more guns and less violence?
well here is chartthat shows homicides by weapon type over that last 40 years and certainly there are blips but the numbers killed by guns in 1976 are comparable to today.
In 1976 the population was 2/3rds of today’s figures so the rate per capita of gun homicides was higher.
As for gun ownership, the number of households with a gun was higher 40 years ago
So at least for the last 40 years the general trend seems to be less gun ownership and and lowering of the gun homicide rate.
I can’t find reliable figures past that historical point but to go much further back than that we are into a much different culture anyway.
I don’t claim a direct linear relationship link between the actual number of guns and gun violence but I do suggest that above a certain level you have a society equipped with all the tools required for bad stuff to happen.
Well I think Lumpy’s point is that the country has always been awash with guns, but the trend of mass shootings is a relatively recent one that doesn’t necessarily track with gun ownership. If you’re looking at homicides in general, I think that might show a different correlation than just looking at mass shootings.
I think Lumpy’s point is accurate, for what it’s worth. Our country has also been awash with Sudafed for a long time, but people weren’t always using it to make meth. At some point the trend changed, but we didn’t start blaming the Sudafed. We say we have a meth problem, not a Sudafed problem.
Of course, what we did do was try and make Sudafed harder to get. There’s a big difference here, in that access to OTC drugs is not constitutionally protected. But I don’t see anyone stockpiling Sudafed in their houses and then acting shocked when their kids start using it to make meth.
That’s sorta where I’m at with the whole thing. I don’t think the government can or should do anything about guns because mass shootings are a people problem and not a gun problem, but that doesn’t mean that gun owners can’t or shouldn’t do anything about it. What baffles me is that so many of them have this “it could never happen to me” mentality about it. In the wake of Sandy Hook, how many parents of teenage males voluntarily sold their guns and found a new hobby? I’m guessing exactly 0, because they’ve built this mythology up about their guns and giving them up would be tantamount to treason.
Those asserting an increasing rate: what is the rate of increase, and over what period? Has this increase been consistent or nonlinear?
Or is this more of a licking your finger and sticking it in the air assessment of the matter?
It’s more of an “I’m not a statistician but that’s what the studies seem to be saying” sort of thing. Critique away, I didn’t realize “mass shootings are getting more common” was a contested position.
And I didn’t realize I said it was. I don’t in fact contest that position.
But it becomes relevant when you start linking one phenomenon to another phenomenon and then drawing conclusions about whether there is a problem, what the mechanism might be and what we ought to do about it. It’s fine to just pull stuff out of your ass if you’re clear that’s what you’re doing. It makes it clear that your conclusion is independent of the reality of the matter.
That’s why it’s important to measure the things we’re trying to draw conclusions about.
ETA: I have concluded that the mechanism we need to focus on is weight gain among white men. If we can lower the number of pudgy white guys, the market for guns will dry up. My evidence is photos of gun shows.
Hentor, I’m afraid you’re being entirely too vague for me. Can you respond to a specific post if you have a problem with something that someone has said?
As a point of information, there are two separate sources you’re referring to, but you’ve only linked to the NY Times and USA Today articles about them. Here is the FBI reportand here is the Congressional Research Service report. The FBI summarized their own report here .
I’m not sure what conclusions can be drawn from the data, but I don’t think it’s as straightforward as concluding that mass shootings are getting more common. I’ve read critiques of the data when the reports first came out, but I would have to refresh my memory on those.
I pretty specifically asked you how you knew the fact you were asserting. What’s so vague about that?
Just for your own edification? For the benefit of the thread? Why? You said you don’t contest my assertion, so, having now cited a source, I’m trying to figure out how else I can contribute. What, if anything, did I conclude or say that you disagree with?
No, I can’t give you a cite other than my own experience. I am friends with 40 or 50 gun owners. We shoot almost every weekend and we shoot targets. Some of my friends hunt (I don’t) and all of us keep them in hand for defense I’d the need arises. But I think my statement is pretty easy to understand. There are millions of gun owners her, MILLIONS. If you think we don’t target shoot, then what do you think we do with the guns we own? Randomly murder people for entertainment?
Yes, firearms are used in the commission of crimes, but it’s pretty easy to figure out that while there are millions of guns only a very small percentage of them are used for evil. How do I know that? Because you and I aren’t tripping over bodies in the street.