On mass shootings and gun rights.

[nwslopoke]

Until voters realize that gun bans don't actually affect criminals and don't make anyone safer, and instruct their elected officials accordingly, we will continue to fight these battles.

There's your picket sign right there. How many criminals will the gun ban affect?

 

[ma96782]

It sounds (to me): like you've forgotten the basics. That the 2nd A doesn't say......

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless I say it's reasonable.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Dwesson]

Good morning guys. First, I want to make it clear that I don't support more gun control including gun bans, more background checks, etc. I think we already have too much gun control. Anyone who doubts me needs to read this other post of mine where's our unity?

The things I support - again, professional armed security and improved physical security at all K-12 schools in the US paid for with a 3 CENTS per gallon gas tax, programs to support more concealed carry by citizens, and better mental health care - are constructive alternatives to gun control. We have to offer the general population something in the face of mass shootings other than "thoughts and prayers" or "it's the price of freedom" or "mass shootings aren't as common as you think they are". That's politically tone-deaf and a sure way to lose. We have to offer alternatives to more gun control or else they will go with more gun control being shoved down our throats.

Now, on to your posts...



First, thank you for posting some data on gun ownership instead of gun sales, something Dwesson seems completely incapable of doing. The first link is to an article by John Lott. You have to read the article, not just the headline. Lott uses data from Pew Research (I thought you guys said poll organizations are dodgy and left-leaning. Oh well.). Let's see what the latest data from Pew Research says:


View attachment 543868
Americans' views on guns and gun ownership: 8 key findings

So while 42% of adults live in a household with a gun, only 30% are actual gun owners. Remember back earlier in this thread when I said 70% of American voters don't own a gun? This where I got that. Just because someone lives in a household with a gun doesn't mean they own a gun. I think we all know guys who own guns and their wives don't want to have anything to do with guns, and maybe even support gun control.

Later in the article Lott commits the same mistake Dwesson does, extrapolating increased gun ownership from increased gun sales and concealed carry permits.



I think we all except Lott and Dwesson understand that if someone who already owns guns goes out and buys more guns, or gets a concealed carry permit, that doesn't increase the number of gun owners. You can't use gun sales or NICS checks or concealed carry permits as a proxy for gun ownership numbers.

Your second link doesn't state the source of the statistic, you have to pay to find out. But it also doesn't show "Gun ownership is at all time highs as a % of the population".
And again, Gallup doesn't show "Gun ownership is at all time highs as a % of the population"

View attachment 543872

But again, thank you for posting actual gun ownership data. It doesn't back up Dwesson's claim "Gun ownership is at all time highs as a % of the population" but it's better than nothing.




You didn't say you agreed with it either. You just keep using the "more guns in schools" line that is a gun controller's talking point.



You can't win a debate by making ad hominem attacks against someone else's data while offering zero data that backs up your argument. Debate 101.



Again, just a Red Herring.






You claim to support increased school security, or have you changed your mind? That will cost billions of dollars a year to cover all K-12 schools in the country. The money has to come from somewhere. Would you prefer a tax on guns and ammo? I think most people would support paying 30 cents in tax per 10 gallon fill-up to secure our schools. The alternative is getting more gun control, if not this time, then the next time there is a school shooting.



Presenting data like Pete F is at least making an effort. Saying something is a "fact" that speaks for itself because you want to believe it like you did is not.



More projection. The only person parroting gun control talking points is you when you called increasing school security "more guns in schools". The only other people I have seen use that phrase are gun control advocates.



When someone claims something is a "fact" when I know it isn't I call them on it, and ask them to back it up. You repeatedly failed to do that before finally admitting that you "believe" it, and are afraid of the reality if it isn't true ("we are up bubblegum creek"). I'm not afraid of dealing with reality.



You're being too hard on yourself. I don't think you're our worst enemy.



We can't fix everything at once. You can't eat an elephant in one meal. You have to eat it one bite at a time. We have to do the most important things first. Of all of the recent mass shootings, only two caused gun controllers to gain real momentum, with large demonstrations and gun control bills being introduced in Congress. Do you remember which ones they were? They were Sandy Hook and Parkland. Can you think of something those two mass shootings have in common? We have to do everything possible to prevent school shootings, because besides being horrible tragedies, they are the shootings that give the most power to gun control efforts.

The simple fact is no one can know exactly what percent of people in the US own firearms. It's not something that can even be estimated within the margin of error, for a lot of different reasons.

I have provided a logical scenario which indicates it's at or near all time highs.

You've provided slanted surveys from dubious sources that aren't our allies.

You sure sound like a "liberal gun owner to me" and that's enough in my book.

 

[DB is Here]

Don't like the CBS and Gallup polls? How about the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the University of Chicago?

Simple Test regarding Polls: If some rando calls you and asks you about gun ownership do you tell them? On the two I've done in the last 5 years I stated no...just sayin

 

[bbbass]

Here we go again...

 

[Herb g]

Does anyone believe anything coming from our bought and paid for fake MSM anymore? Polls included?

 

[Dwesson]

Alright, here's my last post on the matter.

In this thread I made a post (On mass shootings and gun rights.)

Where I stated:

Gun ownership is at all time highs as a % of the population and the # of firearms yet firearms crime has declined "
According to Department of Justice's Bureau of Statistics, as gun ownership has increased, gun-related homicides have dropped.

U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased 69 percent, the DOJ found."

I'll try and use bullet points so my stance is obvious.

• BSG 75 decided to pick nits over the statement that gun ownership is at all time highs as a % of population despite ignoring the meta point about gun violence being down despite there being many more guns in circulation.

• To bolster his claim he immediately turned to a left wing survey with an obvious bias (CBS NEWS) loudly proclaiming "Gun ownership at 40 year low!". Maybe cause he's a liberal that owns guns, or just a useful rube...

• When called on the spurious nature of the first source he quickly jumped to other surveys as back up to support his claim (namely that gun ownership couldn't possibly be at all time highs, why is this such a crazy notion?)

• When the methodology of those very surveys were questioned it was immediately "grasping at straws". Ie "What constitutes a household?" "Have household make ups changed?" "Do people answer these honestly?" (Hint: they do not). These things are fundamental to how a survey is constructed to begin with let alone the honesty of the person taking it.

• When the data points within the survey itself was pointed out to be on it's face incorrect IE the Gallup survey which shows firearms ownership by household going from 51% to 34% in a 5 year span, it was ignored. When in fact this very discrepancy SUPPORTS the evidence that the ERROR BARS on those surveys are so wide as to include the currently recorded max value. This makes them effectively worthless.

• Failure to even acknowledge that the sources of these surveys are biased themselves and that there numerous organizations that try and pass off statistical data as fact to bolster the anti-gun cause (aka mass shooting statistics) is telling in its own right. Your only response is to cry red herring. Well here I am going to do the heavy lifting for you since you seem unable to MASS SHOOTER TRACKER IS A BS WEBSITE WITH ERRONEOUS STATISTICS USED TO BOLSTER ANTI-GUN ORGANIZATIONS. TO WIT STATISTICS BY LEFT LEANING ORGANIZATIONS CAN AND ARE USED TO FURTHER ANT-GUN CAUSES LIKE YOUR CBS POLL. See. it wasn't that hard.

• In effort to not let BSG put words in my mouth. I am not conflating gun sales with increased ownership as a % of total population. I am saying that guns increased dramatically over the last 8 years, obviously many of those guns were bought by existing gun owners. A fair amount were also bought by NEW GUN OWNERS. We simply do not have the breakdown.

• Lastly, as I have already said, I support increased ARMED security in schools. PERIOD FULL STOP. I think it's the ONE immediate thing we can do to reduce school gun incidences and lessen their severity. If we are asking how this should be paid for, I DO NOT agree it should be a federal gas tax. Why? Because I am a CONSERVATIVE and I DO NOT agree on imposing taxes on 100% of the population when you think only 30% even own firearms to begin with. We have the Pittman-Robertson act, increase the tax on that if you want.

I am done posting on this issue, and I will not see a reply from BSG 75, I have no time for liberal gun owners, useful rubes or people that put words in my mouth (take your pick or all of the above).

 

[Herb g]

The above is in reference to 1000 journalists layed off since Dec. was wondering why, all at once. Didn't know about Obama's "Propaganda Act". This guy was a Soviet defector who exposed in detail the long term brainwashing of this country, and how affective it was.

 

[Jcon268]

I've been saying for a long time, mass-shootings are murder suicides, and should be treated and investigated as murder suicides, not as acts of terrorism. In almost all cases, the shooter planned to commit suicide upon completion of the act. I believe the shooter has already made the decision to take their own life, long before they killed anyone else. The mass shooting is just one last, dramatic attempt to get attention before killing oneself.

I know there are exceptions, like San Bernardino, which was politically motivated. But most mass-shootings are not political. Most of these dudes are missing a few screws, and everyone knows it, but nobody does anything about it. Adam Lanza's (Sandy Hook) private journals are now available to read online. The guy was struggling with autism and unable to make human attachments. He was also a pedophile.

Suicide is a health problem. Mass shootings are a public health problem. Suicide nationwide is up 24% over the past 15 years, meanwhile SSRI use is up 60% during the same time. Is there a correlation? We need to find this out.

IMO, the short answer to the OP question is, punishing millions of hard working, law-abiding citizens, who shoot for personal protection and sport, is not the solution to the Nicholas Cruz problem. Wasn't it Obama who said "we cannot let the actions of a few define all of us"?

I just heard this morning that the State of Oregon made $100 million in revenue off the marijuana taxes, and 40% of that went to the school system. Take some of that money and put some real security in the schools. Not a dude sitting at a desk going through paperwork, but a real security team with teeth, who actively patrols the grounds and is able to search backpacks if need be. The amount of drugs alone they will confiscate is going to shock the public.

I have not agreed with any entire post more than what you put here. Thank you - this sums up the situation neatly. Unfortunately, political theatrics distract the masses from the truth.

 

[Jcon268]

I sure hope not. It would be one the most politically tone-deaf, self-defeating strategies we could adopt. Our fight is tough enough without shooting ourselves in the foot.



Or the majority of American voters who don't own guns, or the supporters of gun control who also own guns.



Offensive in more ways than one to the majority of American voters who don't own guns.



Telling the majority of American voters who don't own guns but who support gun ownership to one degree or another that they must risk "sacrificing" themselves, or their children, or their loved ones as the price for some of us to own "assault weapons" is going to be pretty offensive to them all right, and will accomplish something that the gun controllers have failed to accomplish so far: produce broad public support nationally for strict gun control. No thanks.

Telling the American people that mass shootings are the price we all - including they - have to pay for the freedom of some of us to own guns - remember, about 70% of Americans don't own guns - and they need to "suck it up" and accept it gives the appearance that we don't care about the victims. This is 2019, not 1776. We have to make it clear that we do care about mass shootings - beyond offering "thoughts and prayers", a meme gun controllers love to taunt us with - and offer better solutions than the mindless gun bans pushed by the other side i.e. hardening soft targets, encouraging concealed carry by the law-abiding, and better mental health care.

Again this is the false dichotomy narrative that has been set up the far left, which unfortunately, too many have subscribed to. The dichotomy is, "it's either the GUNS or the CHILDREN." Where does this idea come from? My guns don't want to kill any kids. I don't want to kill any kids.

If anything, the onus should be on the schools. They see these kids day in and day out before they decide to shoot up a school. They see the kid literally drift away.

"We all noticed he was a little different. He just didn't talk to anyone it seemed."

How many damn times do we have to hear this? Why aren't the teachers and staff stepping up and doing something? It's because THEY are acting like damn children themselves. Playing favorites with students. This is why I won't be putting my child in public school. It was private school for middle grades and will be online schooling for the high school level.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

I would like to reformulate the opening post of this thread, and at the same time respond to some of the comments and critiques that have been made.

I certainly agree that mass public shootings are rare events, and that they represent only a vanishingly small fraction of homicides, even when compared only to those committed with a firearm. In stark contrast to their small number however, these events, and the horror and fear they have instilled in a significant portion of the public over the years represent the main driving force behind calls for stricter gun laws and bans that needs to be reckoned with. While the majority of this subset of the public are likely uninformed or worse, misinformed, but acting with good intentions, there are those with influence and power for whom mass-shootings are a potent weapon in their quest for public disarmament. This weapon needs to be significantly blunted if we wish to avoid seeing firearm rights continue to be eroded (are we experiencing "peak gun rights"?).

As one part of a larger strategy, I suggested an idea first proposed in the referenced article: the public must be convinced to accept a certain level of vulnerability to mass shootings. After all, vulnerability to danger is widely accepted in other areas of everyday life. Consider, for example, the cases of automobiles or alcoholic beverages. For the year 2016 , NHTSA data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day. The CDC reports "excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths ... each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010." Despite these large numbers, the overwhelming majority of the public readily accepts the risk of being seriously injured, or possibly even killed as a result of allowing these items to be produced, owned and used. And while these numbers dwarf the number of people killed in mass public shootings, there are no meaningful calls for a new era of alcohol prohibition, or revoking the public's driving privileges and only allowing professional taxi drivers and public transportation.

The acceptance of the risks in the two example cases given above is in general not difficult to explain. In the case of the self-driving car, or autonomous vehicle, the situation is less clear. Whereas the 40,000 deaths per year quoted above are accepted, one could imagine just a few cases of deaths caused by autonomous vehicles would, inconsistently, be enough for a large public outcry calling for a ban, or at least a temporary one. This is somewhat analogous to the case of firearms: it only takes their misuse by a handful of people out of an estimated 100 million firearm owners to reignite the gun-control wars. Again, this inconsistent reaction is, at least partially, not difficult to explain, e.g. in terms of accidental deaths vs. premeditated homicide, or not seeing the benefit of owning firearms.

How to convince the public to accept the risk/benefit tradeoff (if it can be formulated in these terms) is the main task, one for which I was not proposing an answer, but only looking to start the conversation. Certainly I wasn't suggesting directly saying something as tactless as "you need to be willing to sacrifice your loved ones so that I can own 'assault weapons'". The issues of firearm ownership worth fighting for are of far more significance than simply the fun one has shooting holes in paper targets, or wanting to own a "tacti-cool" gun. The issues, rather, are the natural right of self-defense, and the right of citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, the latter being the reason for the existence of the Second Amendment (which, by the way, only really has "teeth" if citizens are allowed to own semi-automatic rifles). The existence of both of these rights is, in my opinion, as justifiable in 2019 as it was in 1776.

In summary, the firearms community needs to better address the question of mass public shootings because, lacking the protection of a new Supreme Court decision to finally and explicitly protect all commonly-used firearms, it is the community's main existential threat. The futures of the right to keep and bear arms, and all the liberties and institutions protected by this right, are at stake.

 

[coop44]

The school shooting subject has come forward again. My thoughts run like this. The students who do this are not the engaged, involved ones with plenty of friends and an active social life. They are always the outcasts, shunned and ostracized. With the advent of social media it is possible to belittle someone to the whole world. I don't recall these school shootings happening prior to social media becoming an essential part of every teenager's life. They have created their own monsters, and of course they will not take responsibility for their actions. As is typical they blame every one else.

 

[The Heretic]

Until literally everything is banned, there will be no such thing as absolute safety. For the millionth time, safety isn't what all this constant bluster is about. Just political theatre for the masses.

Ban something all you want - people will still have that item.

We ban murder and rape and theft - and they all still happen. That is not to say that we shouldn't ban those actions.

 

[notazombie]

To be clear, when I said "literally everything" that's exactly what I meant. Guns, hammers, water, food, oxygen. We'll all be safe once we're dead. My point? Bans don't work.

 

[BSG 75]

As one part of a larger strategy, I suggested an idea first proposed in the referenced article: the public must be convinced to accept a certain level of vulnerability to mass shootings.

Convince them how? Think about it. How are you going to convince a majority of American voters, most of whom don't own guns, to accept that? Who controls the mass entertainment and news media? People with a pro-gun orientation? This all sounds nice in theory but I don't think you have really thought it through.

News flash: left-dominated Hollywood, particularly television, is firmly in the gun control camp.

The news media really isn't much better. They ALWAYS publicize mass shootings, but minimize coverage of the beneficial uses of firearms. They always talk about the NRA and "the gun lobby" as an evil and malevolent force standing in the way of "common sense gun safety". Even your local news publicizes every local shooting, and rarely anything good about guns. As they say in local news: "If it bleeds, it leads".

To make it clear: WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE ORGANS OF MASS COMMUNICATION NECESSARY TO CONVINCE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE TO "ACCEPT A CERTAIN LEVEL VULNERABILITY TO MASS SHOOTINGS" even if it was possible to do that.

Comparing trying to get people to accept mass shootings to their acceptance of deaths from motor vehicles and alcohol consumption is ludicrous. A majority of voters use motor vehicles every day because they are useful TO THEM. Large numbers if not a majority of voters use alcohol because it is useful TO THEM. THEY OWN AND USE CARS. THEY OWN AND USE ALCOHOL. They see the usefulness of motor vehicles and alcohol TO THEM and are willing to accept the deaths that go with those things, hoping nothing bad will happen TO THEM. They use seat belts and try to drive carefully to reduce the risk of dying in a car accident.

Do I really have to explain how mass shootings and firearm ownership are completely different? Whether the actual level of gun ownership is 30% or 32% or 36% or 38% or 40% of the adult population, most American adults don't own guns. Most Americans don't own the type of guns that are the most threatened with a ban (black rifles). Guns - especially so-called "assault weapons" - are not useful to most people in their daily lives the way motor vehicles or even alcohol are useful TO THEM. Even if you had access to the organs of mass communication - WHICH YOU DON'T - you would be trying to convince a majority of people to "accept a certain level of vulnerability to mass shootings" SO SOME OTHER PEOPLE can own "assault weapons". And because of the randomness of mass shootings, there is nothing non-gun owners can do that is the equivalent of wearing a seat belt to at least give them a feeling that they can reduce their risk. It terrifies them and makes them feel helpless. If one side is offering "common sense" solutions, and the other side is saying it's something you just have to accept, which side do you think most American voters are going to choose?

 

[Herb g]

To be clear, when I said "literally everything" that's exactly what I meant. Guns, hammers, water, food, oxygen. We'll all be safe once we're dead. My point? Bans don't work.

You know, there was a thread banned this morning on this site. Because some are too sensitive to discuss the reality of the real world isn't a good reason to stifle free speech. Reminds me of the people who use their own definition of hate speech to do that. People with an open mind should be able to handle it without hiding behind "the rules".

 

[Andy54Hawken]

You know, there was a thread banned this morning on this site. Because some are too sensitive to discuss the reality of the real world isn't a good reason to stifle free speech. Reminds me of the people who use their own definition of hate speech to do that. People with an open mind should be able to handle it without hiding behind "the rules".

I closed the thread ( Not banned ) because it was : Divisive , Offensive , Negative and Inappropriate for our forum.
And I do not "hide" behind the rules...If you have a issue with how I enforce the rules I suggest that instead of making snide remarks on the forum...contact Joe Link.
Andy

 

[The Heretic]

The news media really isn't much better. They ALWAYS publicize mass shootings, but minimize coverage of the beneficial uses of firearms. They always talk about the NRA and "the gun lobby" as an evil and malevolent force standing in the way of "common sense gun safety". Even your local news publicizes every local shooting, and rarely anything good about guns. As they say in local news: "If it bleeds, it leads".

The news media stands to lose if they stated the main reason for mass shootings; news coverage of mass shootings.

I am not saying that a mass shooting shouldn't make the news, but the news media makes a huge deal out of them. Besides the fact that a lot of the shooters (or bombers or other people who engage in mass killings) have a grudge against somebody (or everybody in general) and want to "make them pay", their mechanism for revenge is tightly related to wanting to be famous (or infamous) for their actions. They want as many people to know about what they did and why.

News media makes this possible. Social media propagates it. If news media just kept to the facts and did not sensationalize these acts, there would be fewer acts because there would be less sensational news. The problem started to increase as news media became about sensationalism. It took off even more with social media.

 

[tkdguy]

No mass shooting in Oregon in the last 2 years according to fbi; Oregon one of the lowest mass shooting and murder rates in the country. Check fbi gun crime stats. Maybe people can "feel good" with that.

 

[arakboss]

I have to support @BSG 75 on the idea that new gun owners are not at an all time high. I don't think we will ever know for sure but based on how many young people seem to despise guns it would make sense that they are not adding them to their households. You definitely can't extrapolate anything from gun sales because in my case I have purchased at least 50 firearms during the last decade of my life. And of all the non-gunowners I've known during this period none have become gun owners. That is anecdotal but I wouldn't be surprised if others here have similar experiences.