Cite?
I think a lot of what you said is gibberish, but I want to focus on this easily-quantifiable point first.
Gallup has been asking Americans “Do you have a gun in your home?” since 1959 and it has NEVER had 70% answer “no”.
WTF!!! So protecting myself from a criminal with a gun is REALLY just me using a gun to force the criminal to stop doing criminal things? This makes sense to you as an argument in response to the comment that gun rights advocates don’t want to force people to do anything because they don’t want to force people to own or carry guns?
He uses the word preference. Where does he say he wants to force anyone to do anything?
[quote=“Bone, post:310, topic:725345”]
[LIST]
[li]The current system is…not effective. NICS reporting isn’t mandatory, some people get false positive hits nearly every purchase, and even those found to be prohibited are rarely prosecuted. [/li][/quote]
That is not a problem with background checks, that is a problem with enforcement. Are you really saying we should do away with background checks because the current system has some flaws?
[quote]
[li]Why not extend it? Because it’s unnecessary to concede anything. That’s not a real answer though, it’s just the strategic one. The real answer is there is a risk when you put the government as an intermediary between constitutionally protected transactions. If people really wanted universal checks, the system could be made available to all so we don’t need to go to an FFL to use it. I’m not sure the negatives on that one, but the less opportunity for the information to be centralized, stored, and abused, the better.[/li][/quote]
The transaction is not constitutionally protected. the right is. There is NO constitutional prohibition to a registry under the second amendment. What is the risk you are concerned about?
[quote]
[li]Why would it have to be destroyed? Because at some point the records will be abused. Like lists of CCW permit holders being published, records being hacked, or even the local government coming to confiscate weapons during a natural disaster. It’s a sign of good faith that there is no intent to abuse the information. It’s not like there is any trust whatsoever.[/li][/quote]
CCW lists were public information. The registry would not have to be. You can pass laws that protect the confidentiality of the information and criminalize the use or abuse of that information. The IRS keeps confidential information on taxpayers, even when there is a lot of incentive to make that information public no one hacked Mitt Romney’s 2009 tax return, no IRS employee revealed anything on that tax return.
First off, you said that that it is not viable for the government to keep a list of what you own. There is no constitutional restriction preventing a registry.
And there are no non-nefarious reasons to maintain a gun registry?
A registry is constitutional. Clearly constitutional. So your arguments are based on your preferences and fears. What less invasive method do you propose of tracking every gun used in a crime to the person who sold the gun to the criminal?
Do you really think that the federal government will EVER confiscate your guns? Or provide local government with the means to do so?
70% came from here:
The long-running General Social Survey, maintained at the University of Chicago, has been asking about gun ownership since its inception in the 1970s. It has found that the number of people who say they have a gun in their home is at an all time low – hovering around 30 percent, from a high of 50 percent in the 1970s.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/how-many-people-own-guns-in-america-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/
However these other reports based on the GSS peg the number of non-gun households at 68% – so either the above site was quoting slightly different data or they were rounding:
Those are all from the GSS. Pew Research puts the number of non-gun households a little lower, at 66% overall, 73% in the populous northeast.
They all say basically the same thing with a few percentage points difference – a clear majority, roughly two-thirds – of US housholds is gun-free, and the number of armed households has been declining.
What else did I say that was “gibberish”? That just a very tiny fraction of the population are NRA members? That Wayne Lapierre is a deranged extremist? That a shit load of gun nuts comprising a relatively small but vocal minority is responsible for most of the activism and blocking of efforts at gun control?
No, I’m saying there’s no reason to extend the system that is currently ineffective. Much less invasive steps could be taken to make the current system effective, before doubling down on ineffective measures.
I’m not sure why you think I take the position that a registry is unconstitutional. I don’t believe that. I think a registry could be upheld rather easily. That doesn’t mean that I would welcome one. The right is constitutionally protected - that right includes the purchase, ownership, possession, and practice. Commerce is more likely covered by other rights, but I would not be in favor of the government acting as an intermediary for the purchase of legal, constitutionally protected arms between private individuals. NICS can be made available to the public.
The risk is that the process is used to burden the ability to purchase or own firearms.
The IRS had a data breach 2 months ago. Realistically, with proper safeguards the risk of data loss is probably quite low. Even still I think the benefit achieved is not worth the cost. More on that from your next point.
I’m sure there are non-nefarious reasons to maintain a gun registry. I don’t value those reasons more than I value not having a registry. Like I said, I’m not arguing against a registry on a constitutional basis. It’s not fear, just precaution. Just like having a fire extinguisher does not mean you are afraid of fire - it’s simply a way to mitigate risk.
I don’t propose tracking of every gun used in crime to the person who sold the gun. I think that’s a fool’s errand.
You’ve made the point in the past that the **federal **government will not confiscate guns. Maybe, maybe not. I’m sure there were folks in Australia who felt the same way. From the point of view of the individual, there is no reason to delineate between the federal, state, or local government when it comes to confiscation. Do you think any level of government will ever confiscate guns if they had the opportunity? Not having a registry makes this much more difficult.
Ultimately, as I said earlier in this thread - I could easily live with background checks and a registry - hell that’s what I have now in CA. It hasn’t stopped gun crime yet. But there is strategic value in opposing all gun control. I am essentially a single issue voter, and I donate to my causes.
Alright, tell us what you consider the appropriate level of gun control that will never be extended. Also, please explain what rule or principle distinguishes that level of restriction from more stringent ones.
He was not a minor, a convicted felon, or had been involuntarily committed to mental treatment. If you think that suspicious behavior should be included, good luck finding a way to not stigmatize the mentally ill.
No, the restrictions I listed are not for the purpose of discouraging general gun ownership; they are intended to keep guns out of the hands of people who cannot or have failed to meet legal standards of responsibility. Whereas from your previous posts you evidently feel that gun laws should exert prior restraint- no one should be trusted with a gun except for specially vetted people.
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
Those are all from the GSS. Pew Research puts the number of non-gun households a little lower, at 66% overall, 73% in the populous northeast.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen between 30-40% so that seems about right to me, thought polls vary as you seem to acknowledge.
So, I have to ask you…what’s the problem then? It seems to me that this issue is naturally finding a level. Total number of households are declining, gun violence as well as crime in general seems to be GENERALLY trending downward overall (it obviously varies from state to state and city to city over time). A majority of Americans still believe in the concept of a protected right to keep and bear arms even while the majority CHOOSE not to exercise this right of their own free will. Seems like it’s a problem that doesn’t need a nuclear solution at this point…and one that is purely subjective and based on sensational headlines about nutters doing crazy shit and killing people sensationally. Overall, the trend is downward in deaths and injuries but the perception, as in many things, is that the country is going to hell in a hand basket (just ask my dad if you want to endure several hours of ranting and Fox News talking points :p). As with alcohol, we as a society have chosen to take the trade off of allowing a choice that will certainly entail a non-zero number of deaths and injuries.
Well, it’s a small number of gun CONTROL nuts that are responsible for most of the activism on the other hand as well…and, frankly, I think that gun control nuts of the past are more than partially responsible for unhinging our gun rights nuts by their past slimy actions. However, the key thing here is that the majority of Americans, who, as you’ve pointed out don’t even have guns (like yours truly…I don’t own a gun nor keep one in the house) still agree that the right to keep and bear arms should be a protected right and broadly allowed. In addition, gun nuts make up a pretty small but vocal minority…and the vast majority of these guys aren’t the ones committing but a fraction of the murder or injury stats you keep trotting out. Your average NRA member, while a huge pain in the ass to the gun control guys, isn’t going to be making the news or add to the stats.
That’s true. It’s also true that states where most people are armed, like Alaska, have been known to experience crime. More relevant is the relationship between gun ownership and deaths.
California ranks 42nd in the rate of firearms fatalities among the 50 states.
And California ranks 41st in the rate of firearms ownership among the 50 states.
Just one data point – but you are the one who suggested California as a counter-example to the claims of those who link gun ownership with violence.
Sources:
Warning about last link: Sample sizes for low-population states are small, likely explaining the implausible results for Delaware and Hawaii. I picked that study because it is the newest, and I think that the ranking for a high-population state like California isn’t much affected by random errors in small state placement.
Asked and answered. One hell of a problem, the scope of which becomes apparent when compared with first world nations.
Seems we have bigger issues.
So do your oh so civilized other nations:
So deal with more than one issue at one time, rather than assert that massive numbers of gun injuries and gun deaths are not a problem. Man up and deal with it.
You want to discuss alcohol deaths, by all means open a thread on it. Not being an alcohol drinker myself, I might even find the thread interesting, however, this is not the alcohol control thread. This is the gun control thread, so do try to stay on topic.
Not my point, but nice try. And it was on topic. If you feel it’s not, feel free to flag down a mod and get them to make a ruling…man up, as you say, or get yourself a Mod appellation and a badge. Otherwise, debate the point or ignore it. I really don’t care which, frankly.
You are bad at math (well, statistics at least). It’s not 100% - 32% = 68%.
Here’s the actual GSS data: 31% with gun, 65.7% without gun, 3.2% refused to answer, 0.2% don’t know.
The Pew data was worse for your side still: 34% yes, 63% no, and 3% no answer.
Gallup finds even worse results for you: 42% with gun in home, 2% elsewhere on property, 52% no gun, and 4% no opinion.
Depending on which poll you believe, it’s 65.7%, 63% or 52% of American households that don’t own a gun (or at least don’t keep it at their residence). It’s a majority, but it’s not 70%, and I’m doubtful it’s even 2/3.
So I describe gun crime, and you introduce suicide (code X72 in the referenced table) as well. I find that misleading - is that intentional? I couldn’t readily find 2013 data to do a comparison for the same time period, but based on 2010 data, for just homicide, CA ranks 13th among the 50 states. On this same measure, Alaska ranks somewhat in the middle at 28. Kind of a different picture right?
The thing is, I’m not making an argument based on crime statistics. Even if the results were lopsided against my position (they’re not), my argument would remain unchanged. Ownership, possession, and carry are civil rights.
Again - just no. I suggested CA as an example of a state that has a full on universal background check system as well as a gun registry. If I were to make any claims about gun crime as it relates to lawful gun ownership using CA as an example, I would not be so foolish as to use statewide data. CA is actually interesting to look at. It has no provision for the right to arms in its constitution, so many aspects of gun control that people push for have already been enacted here. And while there is statewide preemption of local laws, there is a wide variety of circumstance that are greatly different depending on what area of the state you are in.
For example, CCW is issued on a county by county basis. Some counties are virtually no issue (SF, LA, Alameda), while others are virtually shall issue. Of course, those that are dominated by gun control advocates tend to line up with more populated areas. It’s hard to draw conclusions from the data available since other variables like rural vs. urban, income, etc. have an impact on the figures as well. Suffice to say, CA has many of the aspects of gun control that is popularly pushed for, and we still have gun crime. Oakland smack in the middle of no-issue Alameda County was ranked the 2nd most dangerous city in the country and the most dangerous in the state.
If you’d like to look at county by county data for CA that shows causes of death, including homicide and suicide, that info can be found here. Since CCW issuance in CA is determined by county, CCW issuance is an interesting metric by which to compare different counties within the state. Essentially it will tell you that the data are completely inconsistent with the hypothesis that CCW issuance will lead to more murders or other crimes as gun control proponents suggest.
What less invasive steps could be taken that would have the same or similar results?
You know my proposal is licensing and registration. What do you propose would be just as effective that would be less invasive. And if you think NICs checks are ineffective then why do you propose using them elsewhere?
OK at least we agree on that.
Well clearly. I don’t think there is any additional regulation you would welcome (except perhaps some additional regulation dealing with mental illness) and you would like to get rid of some of the regulations we already have. If this is about preferences, its not going to be much of a debate. If this is about what the best policies are for achieving particular policy goals, then we can debate what the policy goals should be and the best way to pursue them.
You don’t see any privacy concerns with making the NICs system available to the general public?
And we have a second amendment to protect against that. I understand we are not yet at the point where you can feel comfortable that we will be applying intermediate scrutiny to the second amendment but it is clear we are heading in that direction.
Why is that a fool’s errand? I don’t think we can realistically track every bullet to a gun but if we catch a criminal with a gun, why can’t we track that gun back to someone the person who sold that gun to the criminal. Sure sometimes the gun will have been stolen but more often than not, it was sold tot he criminal. I am far more in favor of mandatory sentencing for selling a gun to the wrong person than selling marijuana.
ITSM the only reason you don’t want a registry is because you think it will give someone a way of confiscating ALL your guns. How about a registry just for handguns?
We can make it a federal offense to use the registry in this way. We can have federal laws pre-empt the field and get rid of all local regulation of firearms.
I don’t think it will stop gun crime immediately but over time you will choke off the supply of guns into criminal hands. Can we at least agree that this is a worthy policy goal?
I think further study is warranted to determine how much of that gun crime is committed by people who lawfully posses firearms and those who do not.
Why is stopping gun crime a worthy goal? What is it about gun crime that makes it worse? Is a murder with a gun worse than a murder with a knife? Is a rape committed with a gun worse than a rape committed with a knife?
I’d say the goal ought to be overall crime reduction. That seems like a worthy policy goal to me.
What results are you targeting? Similar results of however you envision is not the purpose of the NICS check. The sole purpose is to determine whether or not a purchaser is a prohibited person at the time of sale. Increased mandatory reporting to NICS is a step towards making the system more effective at accomplishing its purpose. You propose to expand the purpose of this system towards other ends - I don’t.
I think this is a solvable problem.
I don’t share your optimism on multiple fronts.
First - for the vast majority of people in CA, there is no ability to carry. San Francisco has a city ordinance that requires firearms to be rendered inoperable with a trigger lock in the home when they are not being carried on a person, in direct contradiction to the ruling in Heller. SCOTUS denied cert in the litigation. How is the second amendment protecting against these burdens?
Second - It is not clear we are heading in the direction of intermediate scrutiny. I don’t know what basis you use to form that conclusion. Yes, intermediate scrutiny was applied in the 2nd circuit, and in Palmer in DC, but that is no panacea. In the 4th circuit the strict scrutiny went the other way than it did in the 2nd circuit, but SCOUTS elected not to resolve the split. In the 5th circuit, the federal appellate courts conduct analysis that renders scrutiny decisions moot, saying that certain conduct doesn’t even burden the 2nd amendment - like the complete prohibition of 18 year old adults to purchase handguns for possession in the home. So not only is it not clear that intermediate scrutiny is the direction we are heading, it’s also not clear that intermediate scrutiny would be sufficient.
Marijuana is not germane to this topic, except that it’s imported into the country illegally at times. Firearms would be too. Burdening the vast majority of gun owners who are not criminals, in a way that purports to be benign but is really a mechanism that can be used to confiscate, is not worth the potential benefit that IMO, would be unlikely to be realized.
No. No difference. I would not countenance the division of firearm owners by targeting specific weapons only - this is the method of gun control advocates who wish to divide the support blocks. Not this gun, but only ‘that’ gun. Not hunters or police, just other people. No.
Good luck with preempting all state laws. I don’t think this is realistically possible - and could easily be changed by a future legislature. About the only way I would ever consider supporting a registry, is if it was in exchange for a constitutional amendment making firearm ownership, possession, and carry a suspect class, and that any law related to this class was subject to strict scrutiny. Strict - not intermediate.
It would certain limit some supply. How much would be replaced by firearms obtained from other means? Reducing guns in the hands of criminals, reducing gun crimes, and reducing all crimes - these are worthy policy goals. There are lots of worthy policy goals. It’s just a question of priorities and what you’re willing to give up.
Again Bone you’re arguing from reason, which isn’t going to impress the antis. They consider wanting to own an instrument designed to kill borderline sociopathic, they’re certain 99% of the population has no “need” for guns, they sneer at reports of defensive uses as apocryphal, and want deadly force to be solely in the hands of the government (which of course will NEVER misuse it). Gun proponents coined the term hoplophobe for a reason- you can’t argue with people who have a visceral unthinking fear of guns and don’t understand why anyone else wouldn’t.
A few things about that.
First, I acknowledge your point. I was quoting the converse from the media numbers without having seen the actual survey, and didn’t know there was a few percentage points of “did not respond”.
But I don’t know why you’re making a big deal over it or how it equates to being “bad at math”. Do you see a significant difference between saying 65.7% of households don’t have guns vs. saying 68% don’t have guns, or saying (accurately) that 68% either don’t have guns or didn’t answer the question? None of that changes my premise that the majority of households don’t have guns, that the gun-household trend has been downward in recent decades, and that – by extension – that it’s a minority of gun nuts that are creating the present toxic political climate against rational gun control.
But getting back to your nitpicking over precise percentages, I looked more closely at the methodologies used by NORC in the GSS. As small as the percentage of “refused to answer” is, the question of how this kind of missing data would affect the numbers is an interesting one. Obviously, even if every single one of the refusals turned out to be a gun owner, it doesn’t change the strong majority of households that have no guns. But further details are quite interesting. Here is some of what they said.
On one hand, and in support of your attempt to show that there are more gun households than are being reported, they believe that the majority of non-responders would turn out to represent households with guns. IOW, that 3.2% would add more to the gun-household numbers than to the non-gun numbers.
But there appears to be another and more dominant factor, and that is those who decline such surveys at all, in their entirety. These are large numbers – IIRC, the GSS had something like a 25% decline rate, while those who do telephone surveys typically see as high as 90% declines. This is what they conclude:
… there is no evidence that gun owners are more likely to be nonrespondents than non-owners. In fact, gun owners generally have socio-demographic profiles that make them more likely to be respondents than non-gun owners (e.g. being more likely to be homeowners and married) (Dimock, Doherty, and Christian, 2013; Jelen, 2002; Jones, 2013; Smith, 2010). In particular, since rural residents are both much more likely do surveys and to own guns, it is non-owners rather than gun owners who are likely to be underrepresented in surveys.
http://publicdata.norc.org:41000/gss/documents//MTRT/MR123%20Gun%20Ownership.pdf
Now, I don’t know how the other pollsters do their surveys – there was certainly a time when Gallup primarily did telephone surveys. I do get the impression that the GSS is exceptionally well controlled, and if others like Gallup rely on cohorts with a high decline rate, it may explain why they show lower non-gun households than the GSS. All of this is really incidental to the indisputable point that all surveys agree on, and I’m just speculating about the details. But it does suggest that you ought to rethink your belief that “I’m doubtful it’s even 2/3” of households that don’t own guns.