Nov 172017
 

It’s just this easy:

 Posted by at 10:33 pm
  • Adam

    Quick Question: Why do people not use the UK as an example of gun bans working?

    • cygnus_darkstar

      Probably because violent crime (including gun crime, IIRC) is on an upward swing there, whereas in the US, despite a three-decade trend of loosening gun laws and increased civilian gun ownership, violent crime (once again including gun crime and homicide) is on a pronounced downward trajectory.

      I’ve never understood how this isn’t a key point in any argument over gun control. In the US we loosened gun laws and sold a crap-ton more guns to citizens, but violent crime went down substantially. While that doesn’t prove “more guns equals less crime,” it does, with the solidity of deductive logic, disprove the oft-voiced “more guns equals more crime” relationship.

      • Adam

        Right. I only asked because I used to see the UK touted as being a peer to Australia in its success on the War on Guns and how it is a perfect example of how effective its laws are in eliminating mass shootings.

        I just wasn’t aware of how both sides have come to an agreement on that country no longer being a valid example of gun control’s efficacy.

        To be fair, Australia isn’t really a good example either as Scott Lowther has mentioned in a debate quite some time ago. Despite Australia having outlawed many guns, there isn’t really any evidence that Australia’s violent crime rate was affected in any meaningful way by doing so considering that Australia’s crime rate was dropping throughout the decades leading up to Port Arthur with Port Arthur being a simple blip.

        • Paul451

          To be fair, Australia isn’t really a good example either

          The 1996 changes virtually eliminated mass shootings, which was it’s stated intention.

          (Which surprised me. At the time, I was in the “if a nutter wants a gun, they’ll get a gun” school. Turns out nutters are not socially functional enough to circumvent gun laws. Who woulda thunk it.)

          Why do people not use the UK as an example of gun bans working?

          Murder rate in Britain is 9.2 murders per million population. Australia is 9.3 per million.

          US is 48 per million.

          • Scottlowther

            Why do people not use the UK as an example of gun bans working?

            Murder rate in Britain is 9.2 murders per million population. Australia is 9.3 per million.

            US is 48 per million.

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/z1j_pZBjncU/hqdefault.jpg

          • David Winfrey

            I’m not sure I do. What did he do?

          • Scottlowther

            1: Smooth transition from “gun murders” to *all* murders, without mentioning the change in metric
            2: Acceptance of official British homicide rate, known to be artificially low due to official under-reporting:
            http://extranosalley.com/compare-us-vs-british-murder-rates/

          • Adam

            Scott is correct. Apparently the way the British report their crimes is such that murders only get put into their database when the perpetrator is caught and has exhausted all of their appeals in court.

          • David Winfrey

            OK, I get that (I thought it might be 48 being inclusive of “murders” of bad guys by good guys with guns) (NO sarcasm intended)

            BTW, what became of my “six steps” post, briefly visible as the latest comment this AM? I’ve had “issues” signing up via Facebook, which ends with my being “asked” to join Discus (of which I know nothing) or being told “Discus error” (despite my having signed in via Facebook)

          • Scottlowther

            As the admin I got the email from disqus that you made that post… But I see its not actually here. Hmm. This has happened before. Did you somehow delete it yourself?

          • David Winfrey

            Beats me. I’m merely a tolerable subhuman who’s learned not to make messes around the house, after all.

            No, I don’t think so. It appeared after I logged in (as guest I think, the last refuge of scoundrels like me), and was then gone the next time I checked. And WTF is it that logging in via Facebook “works,” but then either gets me a “[now] sign in with Discus” or (as above, just now) “Discus error.” WTF is Discus? How do four icons of choice leave use of one (Facebook) leading to error messages from another (Discus)?

            I see no reason for either of us to waste time with this, but it’s…dysfunctional, and you’re the admin. Me, I do “guest.” But some might not bother, once annoyingly frustrated.

          • Paul451

            I was wondering the same thing.

            But regarding Scott’s reply to you:

            1. Using gun-murder stats makes the comparison even worse for the US. Aust 1.6 gun murders per million. UK 0.6. US 32. Not sure was secret trick I pulled by failing to use those numbers.

            The US vs UK murder rate is 5:1. The gun murder rate is 50:1. I picked the one that made the US look better.

            I used overall murder rates precisely because if I hadn’t, someone like Scott would have complained that I was somehow sneakily leaving out all those thousands of pudding-caused murders in the UK. It seems there’s always an excuse, always a twist, always an out.

            2. The US also doesn’t count murders that were overturned on appeal/etc. But regardless, you can just use total gun deaths. Or deaths minus suicides. Whatever you want, the numbers are the same. For eg, the overall ratio of US/UK gun deaths per million population is 45:1. Nobody’s playing games with the numbers.

          • Scottlowther

            > The US vs UK murder rate is 5:1.

            Except, of course, that it’s actually more like 1:1.

            > Nobody’s playing games with the numbers.

            Well, there’s the Brit government that’s not reporting a *lot* of murders… including, doubtless, many gun homicides that went un-prosecuted.

          • Paul451

            > The US vs UK murder rate is 5:1.

            Except, of course, that it’s actually more like 1:1.

            That would make the “undetermined” category the highest in the world. Which it’s not.

            So where are they hiding those 4 out of 5 murders?

          • Scottlowther

            >So where are they hiding those 4 out of 5 murders?

            A: Chicago
            B: On board Argentinian submarines
            C: They ship ’em to Spain and claim they were killed in the local soccer & beer riots
            d: The Queens reptilian counterparts eat ’em

            Thing is: once you decide to play games with your reporting, as the British “government” does, then you lose all credibility and can be accused of any damn thing.

  • Derek

    Nah… Let’s just ban cars and other vehicles instead.

  • allen

    step 6: we kill all the bastards coming to take our guns. law enforcement at all levels will have 3 options..sit out, resign, or die.

    they’ll muster the military to do it, but like the Battle of Athens, TN the fear would be the military switching sides, so they’ll be suitably handicapped..of course, many will switch sides anyways. and they’ll bring their equipment with them.

    foreign troops will be thought of but the idea will probably be discarded. away from home, not familiar with the culture or even the rules of the road, they will be easily ambushed and have their toys taken away. with the promise of safety and amnesty for their families, some may even be turned.

    • David Winfrey

      Read up on the Whiskey Rebellion, and get back to me.

      • allen

        4th generation warfare. we won’t be taking on the troops directly, and this will be EVERYWHERE not regional.

        how long have the english been fighting a few hundred IRA? who have limited access to firearms? we have none of those handicaps, and if only 3% of us show up we outnumber government trigger pullers 100 to 1.

        http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/04/tyrants-beware-4th-generation-warfare.html

        imagine if, during the few months before the whiskey rebellion, the farmers used their squirrel rifles to execute every officer above lieutenant save the general in charge..not in the field, but at their homes, and no one else was harmed. would they still have mustered and marched on western PA?

        same scenario, but imagine if any legislator in the Republic that voted for the tax was the target? how long before the law would be repealed to save their own skins?

        • David Winfrey

          Better comparison than to IRA is our forever war against “insurgents” — but attempted gov’t put-down of rebels won’t face issues of language, unfamiliar territory etc. Bear in mind the gov’t will have helicopter gunships, armed drones and surveillance capability the “average” survivalist won’t. Some gov’t troops will defect, and some part of public join the rebellion, but I’m not entirely sanguine against its chances. And I’m really, really dubious of the number willing to muster up to “execute every officer above lieutenant save the general in charge..not in the field, but at their homes.” In the words of the Clash, “When they kick in your front door/how you gonna come/with your hands above your head/or on the trigger of your gun?” –but that’s a far cry from going after cops & military in public and ambushing ’em. Trained soldiers have a tough time (to some extent) before, during, and after duties often far less emotionally stressful…how many never-combatants have the moxie for it? Very few, I suspect…maybe not even 3% of us (and who’s “us,” anyway? the general population? Gun owners? Strong 2nd advocates? any/all of the above with the addition of the word “conservative”?).

          More to the point, though, who is it you imagine will “come to take our guns”? I’ve seen exactly zero evidence of any US politician even expressing a desire to do anything like that. Don’t misunderstand my arguments here or above; I’m for the 2nd for the reasons the most extreme right wing advocate is for it: home and self defense, and more importantly, a bastion against fascism. But I fear the percentage who see it that way is a small minority.

          • Scottlowther

            > More to the point, though, who is it you imagine will “come to take our
            guns”? I’ve seen exactly zero evidence of any US politician even
            expressing a desire to do anything like that.

            Ahem:

            https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/11/10/hand-over-your-weapons/6IxJLanMKGak7RvCLipwbN/story.html

            “At a New Hampshire forum in the fall of 2015, Democratic presidential
            candidate Hillary Clinton spoke approvingly of an Australian gun buyback
            program that collected more than 650,000 weapons — a buyback that, she
            neglected to mention, was compulsory.

            “And just a few months earlier, then-President Barack Obama offered coded
            support for the same confiscatory approach. “When Australia had a mass
            killing — I think it was in Tasmania — about 25 years ago, it was just
            so shocking, the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely
            change our gun laws,’ and they did,” he said.

            “Democrats have even let the word “confiscation” slip out, on occasion.
            After the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown,
            Conn. in 2012, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview
            that when it came to assault weapons “confiscation could be an option,
            mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38

          • David Winfrey

            I sit corrected (as I posted last night…’nother vanishing comment, damn it).

          • Scottlowther

            No evidence of a vanished comment. Some of your previous “vanished” comments were found in the Disqus spam bucket; unclear how they got there. I guess the controlling semi-AI decided that something you wrote was spammish, though there didn’t actually seem to be anything “triggering” in them. Shrug.

          • David Winfrey

            Thanks for checking. I’ll do straight guest from now on, which hopefully won’t trigger Disqus.

            Oh, wait: “By posting, you agree to the Disqus Basic Rules, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy.” Ah, well.

          • allen

            ” But I fear the percentage who see it that way is a small minority.”

            all we need are Three Percent.

            http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-three-percenter.html

            Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American
            people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO
            claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is
            still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million
            people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We
            are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders’
            Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine
            who shall shape the future of our nation.

            The Three Percent
            today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will
            no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three
            Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any further
            circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves
            if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to
            liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep
            and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the
            Founders’ Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any
            would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the
            Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign
            and domestic.

            We are the people that the collectivists who now
            control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue
            unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to
            further oppress us at your peril.

            To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone.

            Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

  • David Winfrey

    Resolved: US has too many nutcases in relation to numbers who own guns

    SIX steps to address this, from the viewpoint of a left-wing 2nd Amendment advocate:

    1–BIpartisan group of politicians agree that 2nd Amendment serves four needs and/or wants: a)personal protection (at home or not) b)hunting c)fun shooting (target practice to using SMGs on junk cars, etc

    2–Borrow from SF novel whose title I don’t recall (I thought it was The Trigger, but description doesn’t match my memory) the concept of the “Self Defender” — a smart handgun, trigger keyed to authorized users’ fingerprints, that calls cops when fired (better tech might somehow provide against bad guy forcing you to fire, but I don’t know how…which arguably kills this)

    3)Gov’t (Big gov’t! BAD!) offers buyback of handguns in return for above (thus satisfying 1)a

    4)Gov’t (again) buys (bribes) from all warm undead fingers ALL weapons not covered by 3. They are not destroyed, but located in locations where users can come…use them for fun for sport, for designated lending periods. IF not returned by due date, guns call cops and send location via GPS . 1)b & c are covered

    5)”A well-regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a Free state” (a.k.a. “The right to buy weapons is the right to be free”), ALL wishing to become members of the anti-fascist Militia (who pass stringent background checks and psych tests) undergo required military-level training for any and all guns they desire to be capable of using in anti-fascist mode. Having passed this training, they can buy/are issued (whatever; let capitalism rule here) the guns in question, after which their records are expunged. They are therefore left “out there,” armed AND trained, and NOT on some gov’t “master list” to be rounded up by a future dictator (or foreign occupier). All “authorized” weapons come with licenses to be used if cops come across such weapons in private possession and say “WTF?” of ’em; law then requires expunging of the cops’ records of discovery.

    6)Step 5 has a sunset provision. The identities and locations of Militia members are NOT known to gov’t, but the overall number of members is. Every five years, renewal of militia law is based upon numerical compliance of members undergoing a new set of background, criminal activity and psychiatric evaluations. If the compliant percentage number falls too low, renewal is unlikely. This of course leaves a certain number of heavily armed (but mostly sane, one hopes) folks out there…which is just like it is today.

    Comments?

    • Scottlowther

      > ALL wishing to become members of the anti-fascist Militia (who pass
      stringent background checks and psych tests) undergo required
      military-level training for any and all guns they desire to be capable
      of using in anti-fascist mode. Having passed this training

      Thus excluding people who cannot pass military training – due to being short, or old, or one-eyed, or one-legged, or whatever – from being able to exercise their basic human rights.

      Now, replace “guns” in your suggestions with “book” or “journalism.” Imagine if you needed to pass a psyche evaluation every five years in order to write for a newspaper.

      • David Winfrey

        >Thus excluding people who cannot pass military training – due to being short, or old, or one-eyed, or one-legged, or whatever – from being able to exercise their basic human rights.

        Excellent point. I misstated requirements, however. For “military-level training,” read “military-level assembly, disassembly, and proper use of the chosen weapons.” No need to be able to lug a heavy pack, etc…just be able to maintain and use the weapon properly.

        Your second point is…I’m not going to look up the logical argument fallacy. Not straw man, but something. Journalism–or any type of writing–cannot itself harm (though it can “hurt”). Nor can it (like shouting fire in a theatre) itself “provoke” action on the part of its reader. Thus, your “replacement” argument is specious. No offense.

        “The right to buy weapons is the right to be free” is (in my view) an absolute truth. But it is inarguable that there exist among us (and all populations) those whose…mindset? inclinations? beliefs? abrogate certain freedoms. Inability to maintain and use a car (say you’re blind) a kitchen knife (you’re uncontrollably spastic, and stand displaying that at the sales counter) or a gun (you hear voices, belief X group should ALL be killed ASAP) should be taken into consideration (obviously) in your retention of such rights. No quotes about rights; they ARE rights. But all things have exceptions.

        I note, interestingly, you did not object to the concept of “authorized” militias whose membership the gov’t loses. Arguably this is my weakest link (“SURE they’ll lose ’em, rightwrite). But though it is true that a certain number of gun deaths constitute the eggs one must see broken to ensure the capability to make the omelette of resistance to fascism (or invasion), imagine saying that to a victim’s loved ones.

        • Scottlowther

          > Journalism–or any type of writing–cannot itself harm (though it can
          “hurt”). Nor can it (like shouting fire in a theatre) itself “provoke”
          action on the part of its reader. Thus, your “replacement” argument is
          specious.

          See: “Mein Kampf,” “Maleus Malifacarum, “Koran,” or any of a wide range of other written works which have provoke the deaths of millions.

          Once you open the door to repealing the 2nd Amendment, you’ve opened the door to repealing the 1st.

          > you did not object to the concept of “authorized” militias whose membership the gov’t loses

          That’s because *I* will be doing the authorizing. Voted for Bernie? Supported Greenpeace? Protested against nuclear power? Sorry, nope, you don’t get to be in a militia, thus you are to be prevented from owning or bearing any form of weapon. Any attempt to defend yourself will be considered an act of treason, a crime against the state.

          • David Winfrey

            I stand on…well, no, I don’t. Ideas are dangerous. So are weapons. I do however maintain that the above is NOT an “opening of the door to repealing” the 2nd. But it might indeed function as that. But here’s the thing: if those of us (myself included) who value the 2nd above all for its most essential purpose (defense of nation/Constitution) do nothing but stand pat, what happens when (if?) gun deaths rise so high hoi polloi say “yes” to actual repeal? My modest proposal was meant as a shot across the bows against that very thing. I await “useful” criticism.

            And BTW, militia membership MUST be unlinked to politics. Anyone sane and lawabiding who passes competency-in-arms training MUST be awarded militia status, damnit!

            “They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing,” as JTK said.

          • Scottlowther

            > what happens when (if?) gun deaths rise so high hoi polloi say “yes” to actual repeal?

            Switch to phasers, because the gun death rate is not exactly skyrocketing *now.*

            > militia membership MUST be unlinked to politics

            Then why did you repeatedly specify “anti-fascist” in your discussion of militias? What about pro-fascist people? If you exclude them from both the militia and their basic rights, you have most assuredly linked politics to militia membership.

          • David Winfrey

            Ha ha. IF a pro-fascist walks in who passes sanity tests and has no significant criminal record, and passes the gun-use and safety tests, he gets signed up too. So there. See? You want to deny Bernie a gun, and I’d give ’em to little would-be Hitlers. “Liberals are inclusionist/that’s the bottom line/’I’m human, nothing’s alien’/is really pretty fine” (to filk an old leftie protest song).

            Now you want to own up we’ve both just played devils’ advocates, get serious, or what? As to ” gun death rate is not exactly skyrocketing *now.*”–well, I dunno figures (off the top of my head, in re: that; “If it’s not numbers, it’s opinion” IS my watchword, so give me some). My guess: No, it’s not “skyrocketing”–it’s merely higher than it was in (say) the ’50s or perhaps even ’60s; 2)nuts with long guns reach higher individual tolls than nuts with pistols 3)hoi polloi don’t know real numbers and won’t care; let enough of ’em KNOW a mass shooter victim, and the game’s up for the 2nd. Don’t you CARE about the 2nd? (that’s a riff on “don’t you care about the kitties,” BTW). Don’t you want to pass it on to…well, neither your children nor mine, the latter’s anyway being all but certain never to be extant, but you get it.

            But then, Korea’s apt to get all the deck chairs aflame as the world goes down, so who cares…

          • Scottlowther

            > it’s merely higher than it was in (say) the ’50s or perhaps even ’60s;

            Are you sure? Data, please.

          • David Winfrey

            No, I’m not, and I’ve too much to do to search HOWEVER: are not “mass” (whether you use the BS “more than 3” or really ‘mass’) shootings a thing of the post-Sandy Hook era? (If not earlier). I mean, what’s the one before that? A guy on a campus in Texas, right? ONE. But “now”….

  • Thucydides_of_Athens

    The social and cultural setting always seem to be overlooked in these debates.

    For example, once you really drill down into US gun crime statistics, they are generally fare worse in cities like Chicago, which have draconian gun control laws, quite the opposite to what is claimed. Further, in Chicago itself, gun crimes are heavily concentrated in a number of neighbourhoods. If gun crime statistics were redacted from those neighbourhoods, Chicago’s gun crime rate would resemble that of a Western European nation.

    There is also the example of Switzerland to consider, where every household has a fully automatic military rifle by law. Switzerland also has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world, despite the ready availability of fully automatic weapons. You rarely see gun control advocates try to square that circle, however.

    • Paul451

      There is also the example of Switzerland to consider, where every household has a fully automatic military rifle by law. […] You rarely see gun control advocates try to square that circle, however.

      …because it’s not actually true?

      There’s no law “requiring” Swiss households to own guns, let alone full auto.

      On the contrary, civilians are forbidden from owning full-auto weapons. Likewise whole classes of high powered weapons are banned. Only specific types of hunting rifles are unregulated (basically single-shot and bolt-action. All semi-autos are strictly regulated.) All other firearms require applying for a buying-permit for each purchase, including national ID plus proof of suitability to own a firearm. That is, the burden of proof is on the applicant, even if they’ve been granted a permit for previous firearms. There are also requirements for training, mandatory psychiatric notification to the Federal register. And each person who sells a firearm or a major component of a firearm (no “lower receiver” loopholes) must keep a sales contract with full details of the buyer for ten years. (As well as reporting each sale to the local authorities.)

      Oh and you have to go through the same process to buy ammunition; supplying valid Federal ID, plus recent copy of your criminal record (which you have to pay for), and a copy of you gun permit — and you can only buy ammunition for that specific weapon. And all ammunition purchases are reported to the local authorities.

      If you wanted to accept Swiss gun laws in the US as a “compromise” between the “gun nuts” and the “gun grabbers”, the “gun grabbers” would be giggling, since it goes vastly further than anything they actually ever advocated.