http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629989

Lott, in essence, believes that more guns leads to less crime. I find his argumemt at this stage to be unconvincing, and not widely-shared by pro-2A folks here and elsewhere. The evidence DOES show that the ofte-repeated TalkingPoint® of controllers, that "more guns=more crime" has not been substantiated. It is curious controllers seem to spend as much time propping up Lott's position as an NRA srawman Talking Point as they propping up their own latter meme.

have not.

Guns do not kill people.
People kill people.
But 68% of people kill people with guns.

Interesting.

and they don't typically use the guns that gun control advocates are fighting to outlaw. Of the 12,000 murders reported to the FBI in 2014, less than 250 involved any type of rifle. Which makes the obsession without outlawing the most popular rifles really strange, if the goal were actually to address criminal violence; it'd be far more effective to prosecute gun violations by violent criminals and traffickers, but making empty threats against scawwy rifle owners makes for better sound bites I suppose.

It is the gun-lover culture that is criminal - daily killings by toddlers and children...incredible!

Australia.....please help Americans learn how to end the gun carnage!

On a per-owning-household basis, swimming pools are ten to a hundred times more likely to kill a young child than a gun in the home is, depending on what age bracket you look at. Bicycles account for more accidental child deaths as well. If you factor out accidental shootings in the homes of criminals, who are disproportionately represented in the accident stats, the accident risk is even lower.

According to CDC WISQARS data (2012), of 4,147 accidental deaths of children aged 0-14, only 62 involved gun accidents (same number as falls). 708 kids drowned that year; 1,418 were killed either in motor vehicles, or from being hit by motor vehicles; 308 died in accidental fires; 94 died from accidental poisoning; and 1,118 died from accidental suffocation. Any of those are a parent's worst nightmare, and all of us take steps to prevent them. But pretending that gun accidents are a huge threat compared to the others is simply misinformed or lying; gun accidents account for less than 2% of child accidental deaths aged 0-14.

Gun homicides are concentrated in the same age demographic as gang activity is, late teens to mid 20's. Most criminal shooters have prior criminal records; murder or attempted murder is very rarely the first crime someone commits. Some gun control organizations pretend that young-adult gang members are "children" for better fundraising stats, but the fact is that if you are not involved in criminal enterprise, not a domestic abuser, and store your guns thoughtfully, guns in the home are not a significant threat to your kids, period. If you consider guns in the home uniquely threatening, you are certainly free not to own them and to bar your own kids from visiting homes of gun owners, but you don't get to make that choice for my home, thanks.

FWIW, for all age groups combined, reported bicycle accidents kill more Americans annually (722) than all gun accidents (600)---or rifle/"assault weapon"/shotgun murders (510)---and bicycle accident fatalities are probably underreported. For comparison, drowning kills 3,200 annually, and in my immediate family we've had several close calls with drowning over the years, yet I'd never demand that people be forced at gunpoint to give up their swimming pools or going to the beach.

Full stop...no further debate needed in the face of the stark reality of the gun carnage.

The debate has moved on from Why to How? About time!

100 million American citizens disagree with your dictates, though, and we'll continue to own them.

I'll probably hit the range this weekend with my eeeee-villlll guns, just like millions of others (and hundreds just in my small town). You and a certain Wall Street oligarch can fume about it all you want, but we have the right to choose differently, and we will exercise that choice, thanks.

Heck, you can pretend that the 2ndA protects the right of the government to arm its troops if you want. Or you can cling to the fiction that AR-15's kill more people annually than bicycles, pools, or knives. What you choose to believe and do is your own business, not mine, and vice versa.

But the fact remains that mentally competent citizens and legal residents with clean records have the right to choose differently than you. And we will exercise that right to choose, with or without your approval.

Last edited Sat Nov 7, 2015, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

1. "Gun lovers always protest too much..." - so are those protests unfounded? You said, in the same sentence, "...there are too many."
>>> WRONG Your assumption #1 is proven wrong by your own words. You (and others) have made no secret of the desire to see them gone.

2. "...guns are killing machines..." - since many objects may be used to cause death it is logical to conclude from your statement that guns are more deadly. Is someone who's been stabbed to death somehow less dead than someone who was shot?
>>> WRONG Your assumption #2 is without merit. Numerous items are used to murder and there will always be one on the list that is the most common choice. Were every gun on earth to suddenly vanish along with all the factories and hand tools, a new most common choice would emerge based mostly upon efficaciousness. Not to mention that numerous guns are used only for purposes not related to criminal assault.

3. "...there are too many." - assuming there are too many guns because too many (another unqualified comparative) are killed by guns.
>>> WRONG Your assumption #3 is completely of your own construction and prejudice. If not, prove it.

And the "gun carnage" you hyperbolically bleat about is declining. Steadily.

Only among gun control extremists has the debate moved on to "how." And no one is listening to you...

The HOW:

Plan A...
An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either:

• The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority (67 senators and 290 congress critters) in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary;
  
• OR
  
• A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (presently 34) of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):

• The legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any;
  
• OR
  
• State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any.

Plan B...
Get some land, declare independence, crown yourself king and do what you like.

In the mean time, remember to get along with others.

I'd expect much more. Not even a percent. The media is responsible for everyone fearing the gun when you can get killed in a car more often.

For once, take the obvious data and do the arithmetic, and quit blurting out a repeatedly-disproven meme.

thing shown to reduce gun violence because of too many guns....is the kind of logic only made possible by blood poisoning from lead.

It seems we here are the only ones not buying guns.

It's not just the last six months; it's a long-term trend, arguably kicked off by the ill-advised "assault weapon" law and backlash in the early '90s (thank William J. Bennett and Josh Sugarmann) and the wave of concealed carry licensure reform that resulted from that, and since circa 2008, the ban-more-guns crowd keeps pushing sales higher and higher.

Federal gun-sale background checks are a good proxy for changes in the rate (although they do not account for multiple purchases, individual sales by private citizens, purchases by carry license holders, and a few other scenarios):

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf

FWIW, I bought a new competition/HD pistol this past March, so some of us are buying guns (I am one of those eeevillll gun owners), but I have to live within my means, this economy still sucks, and I sold off about half my gun collection to pay for my son's medical needs a few years ago. A civilian AUG is next on my wish list, but hasn't been a financial priority in the 25 years I've wanted one...though if the Third Way keeps blathering about new bans, I might move it higher on the list, just because.

And I definitely don't think you are evil owning or buying guns. Good on you. We have so few rights that it's good to see you appreciating one of them.

after 3 open-hearts and miscellany, and he now has a functionally normal circulatory system even if the geometry is strange (RV-PA conduit up the front). Our last big "scare" was in December 2012, when we almost lost him to a volvulus, of all things, and after taking care of an ileostomy for 6 weeks I am in awe of the parents who do that day and night for years and years. They patched him back up in January 2013, and since then he's done well. He might have to have another heart surgery someday when his valve wears out, but he could be 40 by then. And thank God for Medicaid.

Thank you for the update and you are right thank God for Medicaid.

Lots of residual lead in the urban environment from lead paint, leaded gasoline and plumbing solder. All historical sources. Throw in Made in China toys and make up all laced with lead and heaven knows what else.

In most areas of the country there's really no excuse for not having the means to protect yourself and family.

Where's the statistics on suicides, assaults, rapes, kidnappings, robberies, accidental deaths & injuries with a firearm?

Follow them and then go to the TOC for the entire data set. If you do, you'll see that nonfatal violence also decreased for 2014, but those trends tend to track pretty closely with the homicide rate and vice versa.

IMHO, lumping suicide in with homicide as "violence" is a bit problematic, considering that if you lump murders and suicides together, the USA is a far less "violent" place than Japan, for example, and we have a comparable "violence" rate to Finland and Belgium most years. (And do you consider assisted suicide equivalent to murder?)

The FBI Uniform Crime Reports tracks violent crime, including gun violence, and Table 20 is the most comprehensive data set in existence with regard to what styles of weapons are used to kill in this country. I realize that it rather undermines the "black rifles are of the debbil" narrative, but if one is going to prioritize one's efforts, then it is certainly helpful to know that twice as many people were killed by criminals in the Chicago MSA alone as were killed by all rifles combined in the entire nation.

If you follow the link, the totals are based on "supplemental homicide data" which does not appear to be complete. The state of Alabama has reported only one murder in 2014. Are other state totals are accurate?

As far as the link leading to gun violence stats, there are no breakdowns of crime with firearms others than a type of murder weapon.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/cius-home

As to Alabama's placeholder, only ~46 states participate, so it is primary useful for tracking trends year to year, as the CIUS introduction clearly spells out, and you can project the overall rate very closely with a sample of 46 out of 50 states reporting. Only 2 states are listed as "limited supplemental data received" (Alabama and Illinois), so if you wish, ignore those and look at the rest, year to year; the trends are the same.

I know it is hard to accept that the most defended shibboleth of the gun control movement in the last 25 years (that rifles are the "weapons of choice of criminals" and widely used in homicide) is not supported by the facts, but if you truly want to get anywhere with regard to fighting gun violence (and hopefully all criminal violence) then you have to face that data. Most gun homicides are committed by people who are deep in the criminal culture, not the culture of lawful ownership; the weapons of choice are mostly illegal handguns, often low capacity, not small-caliber rifles; and magazine capacity restrictions are irrelevant.

Those are two measures that will deter the "criminal culture" from obtaining guns and have no effect on lawful ownership.

I don't agree with criminalizing temp transfers where possession doesn't change or between cohabitants (as some of the recent proposals have done, perhaps accidentally), but could put up with UBC if it weren't registration or a stepping stone to "bigger and better things." Heck, even the NRA was fairly friendly to the general UBC concept years ago, before the "assault weapon" brouhaha yanked the rug out from under the middle ground. It could happen again.

Here in NC, we actually have UBC for all handgun sales, albeit conducted in a Jim-Crow-era manner.

I am a law abiding gun owner. I have followed all state and/or local rules when purchasing firearms for almost 35 years.

However, I could travel about 30 miles from my home and be able to pick up any type handgun and most types of long guns, to include fully automatic weapons, I desire within just a couple hours of beginning my search. UBC and the "gun show loophole" are completely and totally useless in keeping weapons out of the hands of the "criminal culture."

Tightening the rules for UBC will not decrease gang useage. Just like locks only keep honest people honest, background checks only keep the law abiding following the law.

Please inform the local authorities of the illegal sale of automatic weapons, so that existing laws may be enforced.

As in "If only I could speak more clearly without misstatements and/or obfuscation, I would sway more people to follow my position."

I do not know exactly where I would find people to sell me fully automatic weapons, I just know that it is possible to do so in Southern California. I have no interest in doing so. And, you are right, if I knew someone selling fully automatic weapons here in CA, I would report them to the police. In NV or CO, where those weapons are legal for sale or purchase, I would not.

There are states where it is legal for persons under age 21 to purchase pistols, and others where it is not. Frankly, I don't care about the laws of other locales. If one of my children wish to borrow or permanently take over one of my weapons, I would be happy to give it to them. Fortunately, here in CA I can do that without having to do a paperwork shuffle.

So I cannot effect a "background check" using NICS. I can perform some due diligence to see that I am not selling to a career criminal (a few years back, a friend wanted a handgun for home protection, but I knew he had a felony conviction many years prior, so I could not sell him a gun (even under present law, No one can knowingly sell to an unqualified person). I suggested he look into black powder weaponry, or seek restoration of 2A rights in court.

It's a bogeyman just like the fixation on "assault weapons" --- which are not more lethal than other semi auto rifles and rarely used in murders as well.

Private sales can occur anywhere -- not just at gun shows -- and a background check EXEMPTION for a private sale is hardly a "loophole".

Further -- law enforcement stats have demonstrated that very few crime guns are traced to gun shows.

Do you truly believe that there is no political cost to the lies that Democrats tell w/regard to the gun violence issue? Seriously?!

is telling.

Thanks for waving the white flag of surrender so conspicuously!

The UBC version Bloomberg is pushing does not allow for family transfers or "lending" anyone a gun at the range or for a hunting trip.

For my CCW classes, I would not be allowed to let a student try different guns to find one that fit and worked better for them.

Bloomberg's (and a lot of gun control fans here) hope is that no one is paying attention to the actual details of the proposal. When it is brought up, you're told; "Don't worry about that, we'll work that out after it's passed" or my favorite; "That won't be enforced". Phrases that always make the hair on my neck stand up.

A clean UBC bill, untainted by Billionaire control freaks, that allows family transfers and loaning a friend a gun, is what we have in Illinois and other states would be fine.

But, like every other demand from that side, ... it will never be enough

They have to beat around the bush and claim the only want "common sense" or "modest" gun control.


If they did tell the truth of their ultimate goal, not one more control proposal would pass anywhere in America, not even in the bluest of blue states.

doesn't really work. There isn't really a gun show loophole. I take it you haven't been to one. All the tables that are selling firearms are FFL dealers. You'll find individuals walking around with a couple firearms they advertising, but those are a minute amount compared to the FFL guys.

Last edited Mon Nov 9, 2015, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Oh it will make traditional private sales annoying IF those involved even bother with the process, and it would impact SOME 2nd hand purchases by people who wouldn't otherwise be able to buy guns 'legally', but it will not significantly reduce straw purchases and other similar illegal sales, and possession.

Registration would have to be combined with background checks to have any hope of being effective.

EPIDEMIC!!!