# Gun control post mortem debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126 "2013-05-12T03:57:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/21 "2013-05-14T01:26:57Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Gun enthusiasts have had a run where US gun laws became weaker and weaker. But, judging by this animation, the shall-issue permit trend peaked about three years ago: > > [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif) > I’m mildly optimistic. The “shall issue” trend had to peak. There is now a provision for CCW in every single state, with 36 of them being “shall issue” and 5 of them being “unrestricted”. What, you’re optimistic that no other state will pass CCW legislation? So am I, there aren’t any left. Incidentally, given that to get a permit you have to self-identify to the police and undergo a background check (at the minimum), and the fact that gun-related crime is very rarely committed by a permit holder, how does that constitute “weakening” of gun laws? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/22 "2013-05-14T01:38:00Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Gun enthusiasts have had a run where US gun laws became weaker and weaker. But, judging by this animation, the shall-issue permit trend peaked about three years ago: > > [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif) > I’m mildly optimistic. How do you figure? Your cartoon shows “shall issue” is almost everywhere, and is only starting to being overtaken by “unrestricted” which if you didn’t know means gun laws are weaker still. In those states it is legal to carry concealed without a permit. BTW, how has violent crime trended over the course of your animation? ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/23 "2013-05-14T02:18:01Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > How do you figure? Your cartoon shows “shall issue” is almost everywhere, and is only starting to being overtaken by “unrestricted” which if you didn’t know means gun laws are weaker still. In those states it is legal to carry concealed without a permit. > > BTW, how has violent crime trended over the course of your animation? I’m certain it has gone up dramatically. I was warned as each and every one of these states considered shall-issue laws, that if they were to pass, there would be blood in the streets, wild-west gun fights, arguments over parking spots escalating into gun fights, and carnage on an unimaginable scale. I can’t be bothered to check the statistics. I’m sure it is so. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/24 "2013-05-14T02:28:12Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Your cartoon shows “shall issue” is almost everywhere That’s partly because big, relatively empty, states are all shall issue. My Pennsylvania is also shall issue. But not the other states I frequent, New Jersey and New York. Of the five most populous US states, only two are shall issue or unrestricted. > [@](#): > > BTW, how has violent crime trended over the course of your animation? Crime statistics are iffy, except for homicide. As for homicide, it’s down, even in places with strong gun control like New York City. Actually, especially there. Violent death has been going down world-wide for centuries. This is separate from the gun issue, which requires doing comparisons at the same point in time. Most gun deaths are suicide. I realize that homicide gets more headlines, but dead is dead, and I don’t like dead (with caveat of the small proportion of gun suicides by people with avanced terminal illnesses). > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Incidentally, given that to get a permit you have to self-identify to the police and undergo a background check (at the minimum), and the fact that gun-related crime is very rarely committed by a permit holder, how does that constitute “weakening” of gun laws? More guns, more death than there would otherwise have been. Where guns laws are weak, there’s, on average, more violent death. With the extremely rare exception of homemade guns, every gun used in a suicide or crime started out legal. That’s the problem – legally produced and sold guns that wind up killing people. Virtually no gun owners put in their will a provision to destroy their guns at their death. So high quality guns will be transferred from owner to owner until they kill someone, and are likely then destroyed. If you never transfer a gun, and have a provision in your will for destruction of your guns, great, but few gun owners do. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/25 "2013-05-14T02:43:11Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > More guns, more death than there would otherwise have been. Where guns laws are weak, there’s, on average, more violent death. > > With the extremely rare exception of homemade guns, every gun used in a suicide or crime started out legal. That’s the problem – legally produced and sold guns that wind up killing people. > > Virtually no gun owners put in their will a provision to destroy their guns at their death. So high quality guns will be transferred from owner to owner until they kill someone, and are likely then destroyed. If you never transfer a gun, and have a provision in your will for destruction of your guns, great, but few gun owners do. What does that have to do with “shall issue” CCW policies? Cite that such policies increased gun purchases? Cite that deaths have increased per annum since the “shall issue” CCW trend picked up? There is zero correlation there. None. Good luck in finding one. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/26 "2013-05-14T02:47:34Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > That’s partly because big, relatively empty, states are all shall issue. Ok, so it peaked because it’s almost universal. What was your point again? > [@](#): > > Crime statistics are iffy, except for homicide. As for homicide, it’s down… Great, so we increase guns on the street and violent crime goes down regardless. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/27 "2013-05-14T02:49:03Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Virtually no gun owners put in their will a provision to destroy their guns at their death. So high quality guns will be transferred from owner to owner until they kill someone, and are likely then destroyed. If you never transfer a gun, and have a provision in your will for destruction of your guns, great, but few gun owners do. Why in the blue hell would I put a provision requiring the destruction of any weapons I may or may not presently or one day own in my will? Quite a few families consider guns to be family heirlooms. They get passed down from Grandfather to Father to Son to Grandson, etc. Some of those guns have significant antique/collector/historical value. Some have only sentimental value. Some are just nice weapons. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/28 "2013-05-14T02:53:17Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > What does that have to do with “shall issue” CCW policies? Cite that such policies increased gun purchases? Cite that deaths have increased per annum since the “shall issue” CCW trend picked up? > > There is zero correlation there. None. Good luck in finding one. As noted before, per annum, on average, deaths by almost all causes are down for centuries. The thing is to look at is – do guns make you more safe, or less safe at the same point in time? (And also, in terms of your will, how can I make sure my guns remain in safe hands for all time?) Re correlation, see this new peer-reviewed study: [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390](http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390) > [@](#): > > A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/29 "2013-05-14T04:03:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “post mortem”? So, this is over? That’s it, all done? Did you have a nice Mother’s Day? Yep, the gun debate is over for now. Maybe your side won’t fuck it up next time. However, considering how many people on your side seem to think it was all the NRA and had nothing to do with how stupidly THEY handled the issue, I wouldn’t bet on any more success trying to turn the next tragedy into a any sort of meaningful legislation. Hell, I don’t think they know what sort of legislation would be meaningful. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Even without the AWB, does anyone think the NRA would be for gun control? No but without the AWB, noone would have cared. The AWB gave them credibility and a purpose. > [@](#): > > The NRA would never have let any bill get through The NRA wouldn’t have had a choice, they were about a hair’s breadth away from becoming almost as irrelevant as the John Birch society. But you guys saved them. They really ought to thank you guys. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Gun enthusiasts have had a run where US gun laws became weaker and weaker. But, judging by this animation, the shall-issue permit trend peaked about three years ago: > > [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif) > > I’m mildly optimistic. That’s not a peak, thats called saturation. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > That’s partly because big, relatively empty, states are all shall issue. 41 states are shall issue or unrestricted. Wanna guess what percentage of the population lives in shall issue or unrestricted states? > [@](#): > > More guns, more death than there would otherwise have been. Where guns laws are weak, there’s, on average, more violent death. And you don’t think it matters at all who owns those guns? > [@](#): > > Virtually no gun owners put in their will a provision to destroy their guns at their death. So high quality guns will be transferred from owner to owner until they kill someone, and are likely then destroyed. If you never transfer a gun, and have a provision in your will for destruction of your guns, great, but few gun owners do. Why in the hell would anyone do that? Guns don’t float around until they kill someone. Do you know what policemen do with their guns when they don’t want them anymore? They sell them. My Colt Python was originally issued to law enforcement. Maybe you should tell the cops that guns just float around until they kill someone. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > As noted before, per annum, on average, deaths by almost all causes are down for centuries. The thing is to look at is – do guns make you more safe, or less safe at the same point in time? (And also, in terms of your will, how can I make sure my guns remain in safe hands for all time?) > > Re correlation, see this new peer-reviewed study: > > [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390](http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390) So where do you get the notion that owning a gun makes you less safe? Or are you saying that having guns in society makes us less safe? Too many of the arguments from the gun control crowd logically leads to confiscation of all guns. And you wonder why a proposed AWB ruffles people’s feathers. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/30 "2013-05-14T04:03:39Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > We were not allowed to discuss the actual background of these disturbed individuals or their psychological problems, or medications, because of privacy you know. Actually, I recall rather a lot, at the various times. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/31 "2013-05-14T05:03:30Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Re correlation, see this new peer-reviewed study: > > [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390](http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390) If you bothered more than the abstract of you’re own study you would see the correlation is really just for suicides. Homicides show hardly any effect at all. Probably why violence declined in spite of all the CCW out there. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/32 "2013-05-14T05:45:00Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Naturally. America is a nation devoted to selfishness and brutality; there’s nothing more American than spreading death and suffering and destruction. A true American is someone who will willingly sacrifice his or her children and those of others to death by guns, because guns are important, while children are only of use in that they can eventually be used to fire guns. How does it feel to wake up every single day in a place you hate? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/33 "2013-05-14T10:11:31Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > What sort of evidence would you possibly accept of a hypothetical outcome? We could start with absolutely any evidence whatsoever. Otherwise the most parsimonious explanation is that they voted exactly as they would have anyway, which is entirely consistent with what their existing position was, in accord with what the NRAs position also already was. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/34 "2013-05-14T10:14:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “post mortem”? So, this is over? That’s it, all done? Well, if the Democrats know what’s good for them, because otherwise advocating for change is a really dumb PR move. You know they don’t know anything about guns right? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/35 "2013-05-14T12:59:32Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > We could start with absolutely any evidence whatsoever. Such as? I already pointed out Sen. Manchin’s conclusion, which included remarks to the effect that [the NRA was lying to members about what was in his bill](http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/294483-manchin-nra-is-lying-to-members-about-background-check-amendment), and you didn’t address it. > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Otherwise the most parsimonious explanation is that they voted exactly as they would have anyway, which is entirely consistent with what their existing position was, in accord with what the NRAs position also already was. Start with this question, then: could confusion about what exact language was in each exact bill have played any role in opposition to _all_ bills? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/36 "2013-05-14T13:54:43Z")
That has fuck all to do with the assertion that because the Democrats introduced an AWB, they ruined their chances at passing a universal background check bill. The NRA would lie about any gum control bill presented at any time in any context. It’s their raison d’etre. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/37 "2013-05-14T14:26:26Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > That has fuck all to do with the assertion that because the Democrats introduced an AWB, they ruined their chances at passing a universal background check bill. > > The NRA would lie about any gum control bill presented at any time in any context. It’s their raison d’etre. I never said they had a chance at universal background checks, though they had a chance at _something_, like a badly-needed overhaul of NICS. Ok, second question: did the existence of an AWB bill make the deception easier, harder, or make no difference? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/38 "2013-05-14T16:00:33Z")
So its the Dem’s fault that the NRA is lying about them? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/39 "2013-05-14T16:03:15Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I never said they had a chance at universal background checks, though they had a chance at _something_, like a badly-needed overhaul of NICS. The assertion that spawned the current thread was in reality **Damuri Ajashi’s** oft-repeated claim that the universal background check bill failed BECAUSE the Democrats proposed the AWB. He has specifically struggled to support that argument, relying instead on simply observing that the AWB discussion came before the background check bill. In re-reading this thread’s OP, I see that he has reframed it as “getting anything done.” I still very much disagree with this assertion, but I have less interest in playing whack-a-mole about all possible combinations of “the AWB preceded this particular outcome so prove it didn’t cause that outcome.” > [@](#): > > Ok, second question: did the existence of an AWB bill make the deception easier, harder, or make no difference? Like this. There’s no reason to believe it had anything to do with the NRA’s deception. They always deceive, and their adherents are pre-fooled to go along. On the other hand, evidence against your position is that the NRA is now having to spend money in New Hampshire to try to protect Ayotte. And yes, they are doing this deceptively, trying to portray her as somehow moderate on the issue. So, the alternative explanation is this: The NRA opposed all of the realistic regulations that were proposed, and they would have done no matter whether or when an AWB was discussed. The politicians beholden to the NRA went along as always because that has been a safe and comfortable position for them. This time, it’s caused many of them significant damage, and they are scrambling to try to control the problem. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/40 "2013-05-14T16:24:34Z")
As far as the issue being dead goes: I wish. There is some truth to the assertion that a lot of this recent energy was generated by the shock and horror of Newtown. What makes anyone think it won’t happen again? And people make bad decisions when they are emotionally charged up. The NRA should have grabbed this while they had the chance, they should have postured themselves as reasonable and willing to compromise. Then, at least, when it does happen again, they can say “Hey, we did our part, it doesn’t work, not our fault!” They could have accepted this pale and weak set of regulations with little or no real loss. Now, when it does happen again, and you can bet it will, the pressure for change will be doubled, or more. Instead of taking the deal and falling back to a defensible position, they went all in. They have adopted the stance that says we cannot be compromised with, we will not reason, you either let us have our way all the way, or you crush us. And if nothing like Newtown ever happened again, that would work. And I’d love to think so, but I don’t think so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126.md?page=3)