Based on historical data, yes, it is automatic. Any time new legislation is passes, and someone is making a press statement or speech congratulating their supporters, there’s almost always a comment about how “This was a good first step” or “A step in the right direction.” Never once has someone said, “Our work here is done.”
Certainly this slope runs both ways. No one fighting to ease restrictions has stated that their work is done either.
Well, when you have famous, well-known national politicians from the most populous state in the country saying stuff like this on national TV, it’s hardly unreasonable to worry that whatever they’re asking for today is just the precursor to accomplishing their real goal.
I’ve made the statement before and I’ll say it again: Things will get worse before they will get better. I fully expect that in the initial stages of a ban, as law-abiding citizens turn over their guns, that guns will only be in the hands that by definition are criminals, some violent, some not. I’ll say honestly that I don’t know how long this will last or how bad it will get, but I’ll also say for certain that things will get better, for the reasons you’ve stated above. We as a society seem unwilling to pay that price for what is certainly a long-term lowering of gun violence
I’m not ignoring it, I just think its irrelevant to this discussion. I can agree that some guns are used to save lives, some are used to stop crime, and some are used harmlessly for sport and recreation. That we have so much violence as well overshadows that in my opinion and therefore I choose not to address it in my argument.
Don’t mistake my desire to ban guns as the only goal I’m willing to entertain. I’m very much for licensing and registration, and as a more realistic option, I’d happily end on that note if things were to fall that way and abandon stricter gun laws permanently.
That’s some good news then. I should go look up the latest…And there is absolutely no way I’d believe what the GOP says about guns. If they claim its biased, I automatically think its infallible. Given the recent history of the GOP, I think that stance is far more logical than assuming they are reliable
First paragraph is what I’m talking about, glad we at least see eye to eye on that. For the record, I also think its near impossible that the US government will go around confiscating guns from people’s homes. Yes, maybe if you’re arrested, maybe if they go searching in your house and find a stash of weapons, but the kind of dictatorial behavior I envision is not supported by isolated instances of gun confiscation of individuals. So I’m pretty cavalier on the whole slippery slope thing, I simply refuse to entertain that as a realistic option and don’t consider it at all
I think that’s an exaggeration by gun rights people. They tend to take any sort of small confiscation or gun regulation and yell as if the sky’s falling. I know they’re in power and there’s no reason they’d want to give that up, but I’d see their arguments as more convincing if they don’t overreact to every little thing.
It seems like there’s always someone, usually more than one someones, that like to bring up, when responding to some gun incident, the question of whether laws like background checks would have helped stopped this particular incident. I know perfectly well laws don’t stop all crime. I’ll stop using that argument when people stop telling me that background checks wouldn’t have stopped some specific crime though.
Probably not, but we weren’t talking about cops, just security. I’d want cops to be armed. I hold them to a different standard and accord them different rules than non-law enforcement citizens. I don’t think that creates a police state, I don’t have any problems with being unarmed in the face of an armed government, and I think we’d be just as fucked if the government decided to turn into a dictatorship if we were armed than if we weren’t
By definition, anyone who has guns would be criminals. But the difference would be in usage. Given 200 years of a gun ban, people wouldn’t be using it as openly as they do now. Plus, we likely wouldn’t have this gun obsessed culture that we do now, which is arguably one of the more damaging aspects of having such easy access to guns.
The gun deters people while its happening. But they still happen with alarming regularity
I don’t think your last sentence refutes the stat as you assume it would. The very fact that US states have completely open borders mean that if a state banned guns it would do little. Guns will come in from neighboring states. But if the whole country bans it and people are forced to smuggle it over the border, that would lead to a decrease. Real world cases of state bans will always be flawed because we cannot ban it from all states
Exactly right. The qualifier “… of course the guns could leak in through state borders …” is like saying you’ve built a wonderful safe ship, though of course it has a hole in it that you could drive a Mack truck through, so it will sink in a matter of minutes, but still – it’s a great ship that should be looked on as an object lesson in fine shipbuilding! 
If you look at the dynamics of gun policy in Canada, it should be no surprise that a high proportion of illegal guns come from the US, smuggled across the border. Because guns are tightly regulated and restricted in Canada, they naturally migrate from where everybody and his aunt and uncle and their cats and dogs all have their personal guns, with a few spares lying around. That border proximity is one of the major reasons that Canada has much higher gun fatality rates than, say, the UK, even though gun homicide rates are still about one-sixth of what they are in the US and handgun homicide rates less than one-tenth. If the US enacted sane gun laws, they wouldn’t have that problem, because they are the problem. They wouldn’t have such problem neighbors – even Mexico has a gun ownership rate of about 15 per 100, compared to almost 90 per 100 for the US, the highest by far in the civilized world.
The interesting thing about these gun threads is that if they go on long enough, one can always bring up the latest mass shooting – it doesn’t take long. I was once engaged in a rather lengthy one in which four or five mass shootings occurred during the course of the discussion, providing interesting intermediate digressions as the gun crowd continued insisting that guns were the solution, not the problem.
This particular thread started a few weeks after the Charleston shootings, on the same day as the Chattanooga shootings on July 16th, not sure if it was before or after the actual shootings. That’s the one in which 4 Marines and a sailor plus the gunman were killed and several wounded. Perhaps it was an attempt to deflect opinion after the latest mass shooting. Well, no such luck because it just happened again, another Auorora-like theater shooting in Lousiana. Let the spin begin. I’ll start. If the assailant had not had a gun, he would have used a can opener. :rolleyes:
CNN ran a good editorial on the subject:
[Following the Charleston shootings] rather than reciting the usual list of optimistic predictions about the possibility of Congress working together to achieve reforms, the President was brutally honest.
Obama said the gun manufacturers would “make out like bandits, partly because of this fear that’s churned up that the federal government and the black helicopters are all coming to get your guns.” The President argued the absence of common-sense gun safety laws was “unique” to this country. He said: “The grip of the NRA on Congress is extremely strong. I don’t foresee any legislative action being taken in this Congress.”
The President’s predictions were correct. In contrast to other shootings that the nation has witnessed, this time there didn’t even seem to be any momentum for gun reform. Few legislators in either party are willing to take a stand on the issue, while the opposition locks in almost as soon as the sound of the bullets starts to fade.
Why does gun reform fail, no matter how intense the outrage from horrendous attacks?
The most important and obvious factor is exactly what the President mentioned: the overwhelming power of the gun lobby.
So let’s see, this thread was started on the 16th, the day of the Chattanooga shootings. One week later the Lousiana theater shootings.
But here’s the thing. In that week, extrapolating average statistics, there would have been at least 230 gun homicides and a larger number of suicides by gun, their immediate, irreversible lethality guaranteed by how marvelously effective guns are at killing. Perhaps as many as 600 gun deaths this past week. And the last week. And the next. And every week. Like nowhere else in the civilized world. Nowhere. Not even close.
Let the spin continue.
How many alcohol related deaths in the same time period? I mean, it’s over 88k per year in the US, so I’m guessing it was more than one or two (there were quite a few this week alone on the local news). How many world wide this week? And many of those happened ‘in the civilized world’ (a.k.a. anywhere that isn’t the US :p). Keep tossing those big, scary stats out, as well as the hyperbole that we have no gun controls at all…
Yay, Canada!
I don’t know what the numbers are offhand, except that obviously they’re much too high. What I do know is that alcohol-related deaths, whether you mean impaired driving or just alcohol in general, is completely orthogonal to the gun issue. I mentioned earlier the ban on sharp-tipped metal lawn darts. Recently there was a story about a couple of incidents of Ikea dressers toppling over and killing or injuring several children. There was a big kerfuffle with the federal consumer safety commission and Ikea is providing securing wall anchors and safety stickers to all owners. I don’t think anyone said, “two kids? Hah! Do you realize how many people are killed by drunk drivers every year!”. Because it’s utterly irrelevant.
I’d have a few more words to say about drunk drivers but I’m already under the gun, so to speak, by Bone for apparently being some sort of crusading anti-American. Which I’m the farthest thing from. Just trying to point out the facts. Suffice it to say that in some jurisdictions the penalties for drunk driving are far more severe and long-lasting in their deterrents than in others.
Here’s the Neil McDonald editorial I mentioned before. You’ll notice that aside from the statement that “the tolerance for guns here, frankly, borders on insane” and a few comments about evangelical nutbars, the basic theme of the editorial is “Yay, USA!”. A lot of that reflects my own views. But, look, what can I say, with all respect, your gun politics are insane.
Frankly, I avoid making the comparison between the US and other countries because I don’t care. Good job, Canada - you think you have your shit together. I don’t care, it’s entirely unpersuasive as it relates to gun laws in the US.
Other country’s issues or virtues are irrelevant to gun laws in the US. If the topic is gun laws in Canada, UK, Australia, or wherever, then wonderful! Go you guys! Here in the US, though, this pleases me:
So far this year, 28 states have enacted legislation which expands protections of Second Amendment rights, and one state has enacted legislation to reduce those rights.
Only because you say so. The obvious point is that “a Thing was involved in Bad Event so let’s ban Thing” is simplistic, ridiculous logic, and the best example of this in U.S. history is the ridiculous attempt to ban alcohol, which caused far more problems than it solved, not to mention infringed on everyone’s right. Even though alcohol is related to a hundred deaths for every gun death, you (hopefully) understand that banning it is not the answer – that sometimes in the real world we do the least bad thing and don’t immediately ban everything found at a Bad Event scene.
I’m not sure why you’re so fixated on “this one person says guns in the U.S. are bad and we have to listen to him” but to follow up on the relevant issue of the U.S.-Canada comparison:
Page 47 of this documentwill inform you that there are 9.95 million firearms in private possession in Canada, a rate of 38 per 100 people. Canada is the #12 country in the world for private gun ownership. Legally, any Canadian adult is entitled to purchase a long gun after passing one safety course, or a handgun after passing two safety courses. It’s actually far EASIER to get a gun in Canada than it is in many U.S. states.
What does this evidence indicate, when taken in tandem with Canada’s far lower crime and murder rates? It indicates that gun laws and gun ownership are not correlated with crime and murder rates. If they were, then the U.S. and Canada would respond similarly to their similar gun laws and gun ownership rates. The obvious explanation is that other factors are at work. You want to say “U.S. gun laws affect U.S. crime rates” by looking at just those two things, instead of finding a control for your independent variable.
This is true, if you mean immediate neighboring states. Chicago has a problem with guns coming in from Indiana.
However, when you have a group of states that discourage gun bearing – no absolute ban needed, just discouragement – that group tends to have much lower gun death rates. The big example is New Jersey/New York/Connecticut. Sure, guns can be brought into NYC from gun-friendly states a couple hours drive away, but that doesn’t work for an impulse purchase. And a large proportion of gun deaths, whether homicide or suicide, come from impulses that, a few weeks, or even days, later wouldn’t have seemed like such a good idea.
New York City benefits by being between New Jersey and Connecticut. This is one explanation for New York City having less than half the national gun death rate. That’s not less than half the gun death rate of other big cities, but less than half the rate of the whole country:
Re all your talk of banning: Hardly any democratic countries do that. Their gun policies are much less draconian than that, and yet they often work.
Because “I say so”? No, actually I think it’s self-evident that idiots who drive drunk are a completely different problem from idiots shooting up the local school or the mall or the local theater, and that the two problems have no relationship whatsoever. And your analogy here is quite telling, because the critically important social matter of preventing people from driving drunk has absolutely nothing to do with banning alcohol and trying to reinstate 1920s Prohibition. Is that really how you see the world? A free-for-all, or an outright ban, and no rational possibilities in between?
There is no “page 47” in the link you cited, but I did find the following relevant information in it:
Gun ownership rate in Canada is 25% to 38%
Gun ownership rate in the US is 83% to 97%
This fits with the figures I cited before of gun ownership in Canada being around 30% and in the US around 90%.
In other words, the US has freaking three times more guns.
This is also consistent with the interpretation here from the same source that France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany have gun ownership rates averaging about 30 guns per 100 people.
Nice try trying to tell me how easy it is to own a gun in Canada. But it isn’t. You forgot to mention, for instance, that you can’t own a handgun at all without a demonstrated need – it’s a restricted weapon. Almost all guns in Canada are long guns. They’re used for hunting. Canadians don’t worship them, and they don’t carry them around on display – unless they’re interested in free accommodation at a federal institution for about a decade or so.
There’s essentially no such thing as concealed-carry (or any kind of “carry”) in Canada outside of law enforcement. What there is, in fact, is a set of really strict regulations around firearm transportation in any form, as there is in most countries. Let me try to explain this culture difference as clearly as I can. If I had a bunch of my male friends over – some of whom are the types that like high-performance cars and motorcycles and boats and other typical “dude” things – and showed them a nifty handgun I had just bought, it would not bring on the admiration and competitive comparisons that I’m sure many of my American counterparts might experience. I suspect, instead, that many of them would leave the house, some perhaps never to return, and many wondering what the hell was wrong with me. Perhaps some might feel obliged to notify the police. Handguns are restricted weapons that you can’t own at all without reason. The gun culture is incomparably different.
So is this the part where we get to “I want to ban handguns because they can be concealed, and long guns because they’re scary, but I don’t want to ban all guns, that’s crazy?” Or the part where I ask you, incredulously, if you believe people “showing off handguns” or getting concealed-carry permits are the ones responsible for murders involving firearms? Or where I ask you and Neil McDonald to get out of the CB Centre and actually realize that the average Canadian wouldn’t find gun ownership particularly remarkable, much less objectionable? Or I ask where on Earth you’re getting your notion of the handgun issue situation in Canada? Or again try to get you to comprehend the relationship between the alcohol and gun issues as it pertains to the potential pitfalls of blindly banning things because you don’t like them? Or ask why the fact that the U.S. has 3x as many guns as Canada matters since the relationship on crime and murder stats is not anything close to 3x but always much more or less? So many choices on educating you, and they just multiply exponentially every time you post…
And just who gets to decide which “culture” predominates?
See, I thought I was arguing that culture is the motivating factor, not gun laws, but wolfpup is so confused by his desire to throw 800 confused, contradictory anti-gun slogans at the wall and see what sticks that he’s actually arguing against himself from 3 days ago.
Whoa. Sorry to quibble over terminology but your wording suggests that it’s the percentage of the population who owns at least one firearm. It says “Low/high est. firearms per 100 people.” In other words, if a town, pop. 3 has two non-gun owners and one that owns 2, you can’t say that 67% of the population owns firearms. I certainly don’t know gun owners at that rate.
Incidentally, I don’t really understand why a statistic like this is considered meaningful. Owning more than one isn’t more inherently dangerous, and despite what John Woo films or the Matrix tell you, dual wielding 2 pistols doesn’t make you twice as deadly so much as an order of magnitude less accurate.
I think that we ought to return the favor, and make some compromises to take care of some of the loose ends in the 1st Amendment. It’s not fair that he has to carry all of the load himself.
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
I don’t know what the numbers are offhand, except that obviously they’re much too high. What I do know is that alcohol-related deaths, whether you mean impaired driving or just alcohol in general, is completely orthogonal to the gun issue. I mentioned earlier the ban on sharp-tipped metal lawn darts. Recently there was a story about a couple of incidents of Ikea dressers toppling over and killing or injuring several children. There was a big kerfuffle with the federal consumer safety commission and Ikea is providing securing wall anchors and safety stickers to all owners.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not really authorized to use or understand words like ‘orthogonal’, but to me it’s exactly the same thing. Societies sanction some actions, tools, what have you, even though there is a definite cost to them in terms of lives lost. Change the speed limit by 5 miles per hour upward and you are going to get a non-zero number of additional accidents leading to injuries or deaths. Allow your society to use alcohol and you are going to get a LOT of injuries and deaths. Same with guns. In the US, today, the personal ownership of firearms is sanctions by society. It’s protected by an amendment in our Constitution…though society, while sanctioning it and contrary to your own assertions, has in the past and today put restrictions on it, limiting access to some weapons and regulating others. This varies from state to state, and even within our states, since the Constitution merely lays out the broad outline that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This sanction, by it’s very action means that, indeed, some non-zero number of people will die. Just as our sanction of the use of alcohol. I’m unsure what a big word like ‘orthogonal’ means, of course, but I see it more as a continuity of action, and one that all societies make.
You’d be wrong. It’s really the same thing. Or, to put it a different way, if you were a prohibitionist and this were 1928 you would and could be making the exact same argument…in fact, you’d actually have more of a point, since alcohol then as now kills a hell of a lot more people, including kids. And if this were 1933, and despite the very visible gang violence stemming from stubborn Americans wanting a drink, you could point to the fact that though more folks are being killed in gang violence the reality is that less people are DYING period, because less are dying due to alcohol, even with the gang violence, and you could predict, quite accurately that when it was repealed later in that year there WOULD be a lot more deaths because of it. Yet we, as a society, did it anyway. And the blood bath due to that continues, and will continue as long as society sanctions the use of alcohol. Just as it will with guns.
This isn’t to say that regulation and restrictions of access to guns in the US is a bad thing btw. I’m not opposed, personally, to some tightening of regulation as long as it’s done above board and without infringing on the heart of the 2nd Amendment. I would oppose but would honor my fellow citizens if THEY decided to repeal the 2nd…it’s how our system is supposed to work, after all, and why we have the mechanisms in place TOO repeal amendments. It’s how we got rid of the 18th with the 21st, so the mechanism is there and can be used if the public really wants it. But we should do that, if we do it for the right reasons for US…not because our more civilized betters have done it and it works for them. After all, just like us they make their own choices, many of which have a non-zero effect on injuries and deaths in their societies, often causing as much or more carnage in real terms as our decision to continue to sanction private gun ownership does. Well, except in Canada, of course, since you guys are perfect. 
It appears that even your own President disagrees with you about the value of maintaining the status quo:
Brand diversification is part of the American Way – and so now we can add, to all our other smaller-portion spinoffs, a new American phenomenon: the mini-massacre, a gun killing that is horrific in its shock and numerous in its casualties but not sufficiently large enough in the number of dead to really register as a major event in the way that Newtown and Charleston, and, oh yes, Fort Hood, and, right, Aurora and Virginia Tech all did. These mini-massacres, which now occur regularly, are, indeed, perhaps more like what’s called, in branding, a line extension – the same product in a slightly different form. The gun massacre in Louisiana yesterday was one of those; a man with a handgun that was designed only to kill, killing helpless people in a movie theatre. Once again, it seems essential to give the young victims faces – Mayci Breaux, who was just twenty-one, and Jillian Johnson, who was thirty-three. Once more, one has the heart-breaking duty of imagining them dead on a night when they thought only of a small and silly pleasure.
… This genuinely insane circumstance – an ongoing national tragedy with an inarguably simple and available solution – once seemed to have merely depressed President Obama. But now, in this oddly rich harvest time of his Presidency, it seems to have properly outraged him, too. “It ought to obsess us,” he said about American gun violence after the Navy Yard gun massacre – remember that one? – “It ought to lead to some form of transformation.”
On Thursday, in an interview with the BBC, the President stated, eloquently and succinctly, the basic circumstance of American case: “The United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense gun-safety laws. Even in the face of repeated mass killings.”
… Indeed, Obama spoke to the BBC a few hours before the Louisiana shooting. Think of it: even as he was articulating his frustration at our collective failure to create common-sense gun laws to stop mass killings, another one was about to happen. Speak of gun deaths in the United States, and you are likely to superintend them.
Ah yes, “common sense.” The same thing that tells us that the sun revolves around the Earth, you get sick from cold temperatures, and vaccines cause autism. That explains your problems with basic concepts of statistics, I guess.