Know what? FUCK your thoughts and prayers

[Kimstu]

@Omar_Little

And there are surveys that have been done supposedly showing that household gun ownership is in decline, but do you really trust surveys of people calling a household and asking if they own any guns for people to respond with honesty with all of the fear, mistrust and conspiracy theorists of the government trying to track gun ownership.

Do you have any specific criticisms of the NORC GSS survey on household gun ownership that incline you to think its results are untrustworthy?

I mean, you can speculate that people will under-report gun ownership because they’re scared the gummint’s gonna git 'em, but you could also speculate that people will over-report gun ownership because they think it’s badass. Unless you’ve got a specific reason to be skeptical of the data collection or analysis, I don’t think your reluctance to “trust” findings that you don’t want to be true is a reliable guide to their reliability.

For one thing, it’s pretty well documented that two characteristics that strongly correlate with gun ownership, namely, hunting and living in rural areas, have been trending downward in recent decades. So all other things being equal, we’d expect gun ownership rates to decline over the same period.

@Omar Little

Regardless, homicide by firearms rates are declining. Again, something must be working.

If that “something” is in fact the decline in the prevalence of gun ownership, will you be in favor of its continuance?

[Omar_Little]

@Kimstu

I mean, you can speculate that people will under-report gun ownership because they’re scared the gummint’s gonna git 'em, but you could also speculate that people will over-report gun ownership because they think it’s badass.

Clearly you have let your own bias about gun owners slip through with this comment. Your perception is that gun owners are either low educated conspiracy theorists or redneck show-offs. Not much point even trying have a reasonable conversation here.

[Kimstu]

@Omar_Little

Your perception is that gun owners are either low educated conspiracy theorists or redneck show-offs.

:dubious: Project much? You’re the one who asked “do you really trust surveys of people calling a household and asking if they own any guns for people to respond with honesty with all of the fear, mistrust and conspiracy theorists of the government trying to track gun ownership”.

So if anyone’s calling gun owners “low educated conspiracy theorists”, it appears to be you.

My own view is that it’s likely that people who lie about their gun ownership are either paranoid or show-offs. But then, I’m not the one groundlessly suggesting that large percentages of gun owners lie about their gun ownership. You are.

@Omar Little

Not much point even trying have a reasonable conversation here.

In other words, you find my question discomforting and you’re trying to duck out of answering it. Noted.

[Omar_Little]

@Kimstu

:
My own view is that it’s likely that people who lie about their gun ownership are either paranoid or show-offs.

Majority of Americans believe that stricter gun control laws will lead to the Federal government trying to take away guns from people that legally own them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/why-so-many-americans-think-the-government-wants-their-guns/

In a poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News in October, 52 percent of respondents said it was at least “somewhat likely” that “stricter gun laws will eventually lead to the federal government trying to take away guns from Americans who legally own them.”

CNN conducted two surveys of gun owners in 2013 on this question. In January of that year, a narrow majority of gun owners – 53 percent – said they felt the federal government was trying to take away their right to own a firearm. In April – after Obama and Vice President Biden had spent several months fruitlessly trying to convince Congress to expand the background-check program – that figure had increased to 62 percent.

If you fear that the government is moving towards confiscation of your guns, it is logical that reasonable people would lie to a survey company whose primary client is the federal government and funded by gun control advocates such as the Joyce Foundation.

[GIGObuster]

@Omar_Little

Majority of Americans believe that stricter gun control laws will lead to the Federal government trying to take away guns from people that legally own them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/why-so-many-americans-think-the-government-wants-their-guns/

If you fear that the government is moving towards confiscation of your guns, it is logical that reasonable people would lie to a survey company whose primary client is the federal government and funded by gun control advocates such as the Joyce Foundation.

I think you only demonstrated that **Kimstu **was right. IMHO the slippery slope argument used by the NRA is even weaker today considering how the supreme court has decided that the second amendment does apply to all Americans. And I do agree with that, only that indeed I also agree that that part of “well regulated” does also apply to all Americans. I does not mean that guns will be taken away.

[Omar_Little]

@GIGObuster

I think you only demonstrated that **Kimstu **was right. IMHO the slippery slope argument used by the NRA is even weaker today considering how the supreme court has decided that the second amendment does apply to all Americans. And I do agree with that, only that indeed I also agree that that part of “well regulated” does also apply to all Americans. I does not mean that guns will be taken away.

Majority of Americans are nutted because they believe that if given the opportunity, the government would confiscate guns? But these nutted Americans won’t lie on a poll when asked if they have guns in their homes?

[GIGObuster]

@Omar_Little

Majority of Americans are nutted because they believe that if given the opportunity, the government would confiscate guns? But these nutted Americans won’t lie on a poll when asked if they have guns in their homes?

Almost the same number think that evolution is false. But many are not nutters. For all your talk about others being ignorant it is clear that you do not know that an argument pointing to an appeal to the majority is a fallacy when it is based in fears that are, now more than ever, unfounded.

As for you implying that I’m calling them nutters, you are making a straw man there, look it up too.

[Absolute]

@ElvisL1ves

Says the guy who denies there’s a problem at all.

What is the rate of murders that you think we should consider acceptable? It’s at least 30,000 per year, as you’ve established, but is it more? Is there any number that would let you think there’s something wrong, instead of offering only derision of those who don’t accept your own number?

FYI You’d be the first of the board’s fetishists to answer that one at all, much less honestly. Right, Damuri?

Well, the rate of “murders” is about 10,000, since 2/3 of those 30,000 deaths are suicides.

I don’t think 30,000 deaths per year is acceptable, because I think there are some simple, rational reforms that could be made, which would be relatively low-cost and uncontroversial on their own, which would reduce the death rate without any meaningful infringement on the right to bear arms. Universal background checks is one example, along with a “no-buy list” as long as there is a legal mechanism for appeal.

If these reforms were passed and we ended up with 20,000 deaths per year, with 5,000 homicides and 15,000 suicides, I would say that is an acceptable number because I would not see any obvious way to reduce it without what I view as excessive further limitations on gun rights.

However, the problem in the US is that the anti-gun lobby is so vehemently, virulently hateful and irrationally biased against the very concept of private gun ownership, that gun owners simply do not believe that they will ultimately be satisfied with any level of regulation short of a complete ban, and are unwilling to concede any ground that would make such a ban easier.

The anti-gun lobby is just as responsible for creating the current situation as the pro-gun lobby, because the anti-gun lobby is willing to welcome people who advocate the most extreme position possible (complete ban and confiscation), rather than reject them as extremists. This leads gun owners to suspect that the people advocating for “common-sense, moderate” increased regulation are really just biding their time until they muster the political power to pass the more onerous regulations that their comrades are proposing.

[Little_Pig]

Here is a group that will be sympathetic to your needs…

[GIGObuster]

@Absolute

The anti-gun lobby is just as responsible for creating the current situation as the pro-gun lobby, because the anti-gun lobby is willing to welcome people who advocate the most extreme position possible (complete ban and confiscation), rather than reject them as extremists. This leads gun owners to suspect that the people advocating for “common-sense, moderate” increased regulation are really just biding their time until they muster the political power to pass the more onerous regulations that their comrades are proposing.

That may be the case, but I do think that is going for a false equivalence, in the sense that currently what is seen in places like Florida is to advocate and pass laws to relax gun laws further than many in general do not think it should be allowed.

US Candidates Target Gun Control Issue as States Relax Laws

The point here is that the extremists that are claimed to be demanding the draconian “take all guns” are not minded much, and they are even less present. However, looking at current conditions the point can be made that it is the extremists in favor of gun rights the ones that are running the place.

[Randolph]

@Gyrate

Guns okay. People with guns - still discussing.

You either love’em or hate’em.

Or think they’re okay.

[Lumpy]

@GIGObuster

IMHO the slippery slope argument used by the NRA is even weaker today considering how the supreme court has decided that the second amendment does apply to all Americans.

Heller and McDonald were passed 5-4 by a court led by a conservative who’s now dead. A pro-gun control Democrat will be running for President against a Republican candidate who is widely loathed. If Hillary becomes President, and succeeds in appointing a pro-gun control judge to the Supreme Court, than stare decisis not withstanding we would probably see a number of 5-4 decisions upholding gun control on some legalistic excuse or another.

And I do agree with that, only that indeed I also agree that that part of “well regulated” does also apply to all Americans. I does not mean that guns will be taken away.

If only “well regulated” in practice meant making sure that Americans who own guns receive proper training in firearms. What it’s likely to be taken as is “disqualify as many people as possible from owning guns”.

@Absolute

However, the problem in the US is that the anti-gun lobby is so vehemently, virulently hateful and irrationally biased against the very concept of private gun ownership, that gun owners simply do not believe that they will ultimately be satisfied with any level of regulation short of a complete ban, and are unwilling to concede any ground that would make such a ban easier.

The anti-gun lobby is just as responsible for creating the current situation as the pro-gun lobby, because the anti-gun lobby is willing to welcome people who advocate the most extreme position possible (complete ban and confiscation), rather than reject them as extremists. This leads gun owners to suspect that the people advocating for “common-sense, moderate” increased regulation are really just biding their time until they muster the political power to pass the more onerous regulations that their comrades are proposing.

Well said

@GIGObuster

However, looking at current conditions the point can be made that it is the extremists in favor of gun rights the ones that are running the place.

If only. The right to own and carry guns has had to claw its way up a vertical cliff face by the fingernails, and is currently hanging onto a one-inch wide ledge by the fingertips. The gains made by the pro-gun faction are shaky.

[madsircool]

@Kimstu

Do you have any specific criticisms of the NORC GSS survey on household gun ownership that incline you to think its results are untrustworthy?

I mean, you can speculate that people will under-report gun ownership because they’re scared the gummint’s gonna git 'em, but you could also speculate that people will over-report gun ownership because they think it’s badass. Unless you’ve got a specific reason to be skeptical of the data collection or analysis, I don’t think your reluctance to “trust” findings that you don’t want to be true is a reliable guide to their reliability.

For one thing, it’s pretty well documented that two characteristics that strongly correlate with gun ownership, namely, hunting and living in rural areas, have been trending downward in recent decades. So all other things being equal, we’d expect gun ownership rates to decline over the same period.
If that “something” is in fact the decline in the prevalence of gun ownership, will you be in favor of its continuance?

Interesting how you ignore urban gun ownership. How many immigrants do you imagine own guns and how many do you think would admit it in a phone survey? How many city dwellers would admit to owning a firearm that might be illegal in their city? No one has a clue as to the true number of gun owning households.

So, you think that people who lie about owning a gun during an anonymous survey are paranoid? Why would they honestly answer questions that are frankly nobodies business? Would you honestly answer anonymous questions about your sex life?

[GIGObuster]

@Lumpy

Heller and McDonald were passed 5-4 by a court led by a conservative who’s now dead. A pro-gun control Democrat will be running for President against a Republican candidate who is widely loathed. If Hillary becomes President, and succeeds in appointing a pro-gun control judge to the Supreme Court, than stare decisis not withstanding we would probably see a number of 5-4 decisions upholding gun control on some legalistic excuse or another.

And still nowhere close to “taking all guns” away.

@Lumpy

If only. The right to own and carry guns has had to claw its way up a vertical cliff face by the fingernails, and is currently hanging onto a one-inch wide ledge by the fingertips. The gains made by the pro-gun faction are shaky.

piffle, having an amendment and even many Democrats in favor of gun rights tells me that while many still do fall for the cries of “wolf!” what is happening is that more Americans are realizing that having just some common sense restrictions does not mean the end of the second amendment.

http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2358

Seven Quinnipiac University National polls conducted from February 7, 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, through November 5, 2015, show American voters support “requiring background checks for all gun buyers,” with support ranging from 88 - 10 percent to 93 - 5 percent.

Support for “a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons” ranges from 54 - 41 percent to 59 - 36 percent in four national polls by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe- ack) University Poll since February, 2013.

Support for background checks and an assault weapons ban remains consistently high and has not faded since the Sandy Hook massacre.

[Kimstu]

@madsircool

Interesting how you ignore urban gun ownership.

:rolleyes: Interesting how you can’t read. Of course I don’t “ignore” urban gun ownership, nor do I question its existence in any way.

I simply pointed out the undisputed fact that household gun ownership rates tend to be higher in rural areas, so with the increasing urbanization of US society over the past few decades we would reasonably expect to see a decline in household gun ownership rates, such as survey data in fact shows. If that mundane observation bothers you, you are really straining for something to be upset about.

[QUOTE=madsircool]
So, you think that people who lie about owning a gun during an anonymous survey are paranoid? Why would they honestly answer questions that are frankly nobodies business? Would you honestly answer anonymous questions about your sex life?
[/QUOTE]

Do you honestly believe that there’s no way to avoid truthfully answering unwanted questions except by making up lies? Of course I wouldn’t lie to an anonymous questioner about my sex life: instead, I would just say that such matters are none of the questioner’s business and I choose not to answer the questions.

Which, by the way, is exactly what some of the respondents to the household gun ownership survey in fact did say, as the linked survey report in my previous post makes clear.

You and Omar Little are the ones gratuitously speculating (on the basis of absolutely zero actual evidence) that large percentages of gun owners would be paranoid enough to respond to unwanted questions about their gun ownership by making up lies. And then you accuse me of disrespecting gun owners. :rolleyes:

@madsircool

No one has a clue as to the true number of gun owning households.

Well, nobody knows exactly how many there are. But as I noted, we do have some data about general trends in their variability over time. If you seriously want to challenge that data, you’re going to have to come up with a more coherent and evidentially supported critique of the survey methodology than “Well, but of course large percentages of gun owners are going to lie when asked if they own guns! It stands to reason!”

All that says is that you don’t want it to be true that rates of household gun ownership have been declining over the past few decades, so you’ve decided not to believe the findings of a reputable survey which indicates that they have.
And you know, folks, being defensive, belligerent, inattentive, obstinate, ill-informed, emotionally volatile and prone to go off half-cocked is not a good look when you’re trying to argue in favor of the benefits of expanding gun ownership.

[ElvisL1ves]

@John_Mace

And horrible as these mass killings are, they account for only about 1% of gun deaths in the US. Focusing our policy decision on mass shootings, while understandable due to media coverage, is missing 99% of the problem.

But it’s something achievable. So it’s a place to work on. Is that really not obvious?

If your contribution is merely your usual “If you can’t do everything at once, there’s no point in doing anything, now look at how above it all I am!” then you’ve reached the end of it.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Absolute

If these reforms were passed and we ended up with 20,000 deaths per year, with 5,000 homicides and 15,000 suicides, I would say that is an acceptable number because I would not see any obvious way to reduce it without what I view as excessive further limitations on gun rights.

So keeping your absolutism is worth 20,000 deaths per year to you. Assuming, that is, that none of them is you.

Well, you do get points for honesty on that, at least.

However, the problem in the US is that the anti-gun lobby is so vehemently, virulently hateful and irrationally biased against the very concept of private gun ownership

And there you lost it all. Pity.

[Lumpy]

@GIGObuster

And still nowhere close to “taking all guns” away.

Look at California and New York City. That’s the minimum a lot of gun control advocates would like to see. Before Heller Washington DC had a law that said you could “own” a handgun only as some non-functional disassembled pieces of metal. Of course there wouldn’t be zero guns, but the goal of gun control is to limit as much as possible the private possession of deadly force; while Second Amendment advocates say that the whole point is allowing such private possession.

piffle, having an amendment and even many Democrats in favor of gun rights tells me that while many still do fall for the cries of “wolf!” what is happening is that more Americans are realizing that having just some common sense restrictions does not mean the end of the second amendment.

The same amendment that some gun control proponents insist refers only to the states having a National Guard? The amendment that the court had to explicitly say "what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@faithfool

Good Lord, no offense, Damuri, but have you ever heard of the multi-quote feature? Or are you aiming for a personal best of 100 solo quotes in a row?

I used to do that but between my last mobile device not allowing multiquotes and the complaints I got about walls of text, I just respond to posts individually now.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Trinopus

Actually, even better odds, because many killings are multiple. In Florida, two guns killed 49 people.

On the other hand, 30,000 people is far too damned many, and something can be done to reduce this number.

The large bulk of that number is suicides and while I agree that something can be done to reduce suicides, access to guns does not seem to be a huge determining factor in suicide rates. Our suicide rates are lower than the global average and dead fucking average for wealthy industrialize nations.

Our murder rate is very high and frankly much of that is similar to the murder rate we saw during prohibition. So many gun deaths are related to the drug trade and gangs that deal drugs that its one of the first things you ask during a murder investigation.