Yay, GUNS!

[dimreepr]

Round three, off and running.

 

The only thing visible "through" all this bullshit is that

 

 

Satire is lost on you...

[iNow]

On another note, some may find this interesting:

 

https://www.crowdpac.com/blog/gun-deaths-a

 

[overtone]

 

 

You seem to put yourself forwards as the "voice of reason" and then say that something of the order of hundreds of dead children, and thousands of injured children don't constitute evidence of "greatly risking the regular citizenry"

Gun violence from drug dealers and suicides, is what I said. Yep. The regular citizenry is not at great risk from it.

 

Statistically.

[Willie71]

Gun violence from drug dealers and suicides, is what I said. Yep. The regular citizenry is not at great risk from it.

 

Statistically.

Even if your assertion is accepted, which Is a subjective stance, not having a gun in the home reduces the risk of being shot by your own gun to zero, a lesser risk. People who own guns, depending on area, and specific study looked at are between 200-500% more likely to die of a gunshot than those who don't own a gun. Your cutoff for risk is your own choice, but the effect of guns on those who didn't choose is very real, such as kids, innocent bystanders etc.

[overtone]

 

 

Even if your assertion is accepted, which Is a subjective stance, not having a gun in the home reduces the risk of being shot by your own gun to zero, a lesser risk. People who own guns, depending on area, and specific study looked at are between 200-500% more likely to die of a gunshot than those who don't own a gun.

So anyone who wants to can reduce their risk to negligible, without imposing on their neighbors or passing a single law.

[Willie71]

 

 

Here is some really good info on how, when, and where accidental gun deaths, over 600/year, occur. This is over 30 times the number of people killed by terrorists in the US yearly, a major concern for 1/2 of the country. The perspective seems off.

 

http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/

So anyone who wants to can reduce their risk to negligible, without imposing on their neighbors or passing a single law.

 

What about the 25% of accidental gun deaths occurring in other people's homes, or vehicles? Over 60% do happen in the owner's home though. If only the owners killed themselves, I'd say have it any way you want, but these are dead people who never chose this.

[John Cuthber]

If the "typical" American thinks that a gun makes them safer, it's because they have been lied to.

Which lobby is responsible for that dishonesty?

[overtone]

Here is some really good info on how, when, and where accidental gun deaths, over 600/year, occur. This is over 30 times the number of people killed by terrorists in the US yearly, a major concern for 1/2 of the country. The perspective seems off.

People do have an irrational and exaggerated fear of terrorism. It's been responsible for a lot of bad law and worse government. We wouldn't want to follow that model - right?

 

 

What about the 25% of accidental gun deaths occurring in other people's homes, or vehicles?

They are a negligible risk in the first place, and easily reduced even further by choice.

 

 

 

If the "typical" American thinks that a gun makes them safer, it's because they have been lied to.

Or they calculate the odds differently, view the situation in other terms. It's common for Americans to think of themselves as individuals, rather than statistical averages. It's also common for Americans to want more protection from some threats than from others, and to take risks for perceived benefits of many kinds. I've known suburbanites to buy their teenage child a car, and allow them to drive it, for example - and the State usually does nothing about that.

 

 

Which lobby is responsible for that dishonesty?

I'd say Hollywood - the movie industry. Edited January 15, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

If the "typical" American thinks that a gun makes them safer, it's because they have been lied to.

Which lobby is responsible for that dishonesty?

The way we view security is odd. Just about all home have a door lock on the handle and a dead bolt. People ensure both are locked at all times. I suppose the idea is that the handle lock doesn't prevent some from kicking in the door as well? Yet if a person was so determine that they'd destroy the door to get in wouldn't they just break one of the homes many thin glass windows and more easily come in that way? What extra safety is the additional door locks really providing?

 

How many pople in the live in a area where snow and ice is common through out the winter yet they drive stand single rear wheel drive cars? Moving from Southern California to the East Coast I figured there would be a change in the type of cars people drove. In southern California it hardly rains and never snows. Low profile cars meant for speed on even dry roads made sense. To my surprise there is no difference in the cars I see on the road on the east coast. If safety was a primary concern I would've thought more people be driving suburas, Jeeps, Volvos, and etc. cars designed for harsher conditions. Yet they don't. It is crazy to me that someone would drive a camaro around in icy conditions but then own a gun for protection because they are worried about their safety.

,

[dimreepr]

 

People do have an irrational and exaggerated fear of terrorism. It's been responsible for a lot of bad law and worse government. We wouldn't want to follow that model - right?

 

 

Americans seem to have an irrational and exaggerated fear of their own government, even though they voted for it, a model that leads to letting wackjobs and criminals having free and easy access to guns; you’re right that model doesn’t work.

Edited January 15, 2016 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

 

 

Americans seem to have an irrational and exaggerated fear of their own government, even though they voted for it, a model that leads to letting wackjobs and criminals have free and easy access to guns; you’re right that model doesn’t work.

Perhaps it goes back to the principles this country was founded on. We (USA citizens) say freedom and liberty but over the years we killed our own bothers to get it. We split our English brother blood during the revolution and then split our own American blood during the Civil War. Perhaps thousands of years from now it will be discovered that it is not possible to obtain freedom and liberty through violence. Maybe true cooperation must always start nonviolent? Not until societies are failed, gone, and all stake holders buried does unbiased review take place. So we (humans) will not know the answer for a very long time to come.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Ten oz

[overtone]

How many pople in the live in a area where snow and ice is common through out the winter yet they drive stand single rear wheel drive cars?

On paved roads in reasonably well populated areas (where getting stuck is not going to get you frozen to death) the safety gain from a 4WD is probably illusory, may even be negative.

 

For the unskilled, prone to fishtailing, front wheel drive seems to offer some safety gain over rear - if you remember to add weight over the back tires, which a lot of people don't, and get good bad weather tires in the first place, which rear wheel drive owners pay better attention to. But not four beyond that. Four provides extra low speed traction for acceleration from a stop, an occasionally valuable and reassuring but seldom safety-enhancing capability (you are normally pretty safe when stopped).

 

And interestingly enough, the same people who buy Jeep Cherokees and huge 4WD pickups to drive paved and plowed roads to the shopping mall seem to be the ones who buy firearms to fend off home invasions, double lock their doors even when they're home, install car alarms that go off at a touch, and so forth.

 

 

Americans seem to have an irrational and exaggerated fear of their own government -

That's the excuse, when they're hiding their paranoia behind myths of libertarianism - they pretend that, but the actual fear is of their neighbors.

Edited January 15, 2016 by overtone

[dimreepr]

Perhaps it goes back to the principles this country was founded on. We (USA citizens) say freedom and liberty but over the years we killed our own bothers to get it. We split our English brother blood during the revolution and then split our own American blood during the Civil War. Perhaps thousands of years from now it will be discovered that it is not possible to obtain freedom and liberty through violence. Maybe true cooperation must always start nonviolent? Not until societies are failed, gone, and all stake holders buried does unbiased review take place. So we (humans) will not know the answer for a very long time to come.

 

 

Revenge is a powerful concept that ultimately destroys the seeker “revenge is a dish best served cold”, should read “revenge is a dish best not tasted”.

That's the excuse, when they're hiding their paranoia behind myths of libertarianism - they pretend that, but the actual fear is of their neighbors.

 

 

That doesn't seem to work either.

Fear doesn't only kill rational thinking, it also kills people.

Edited January 15, 2016 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

 

Or they calculate the odds differently,

 

If they do the calculation for "Is my gun more likely to kill a member of my family than an intruder?" and get any answer other then "Yes" then they are not doing the calculation "differently" they are doing it wrongly.

 

Who keeps telling them that wrong is right?

Oh gosh!- that's the gun lobby again.

[overtone]

If they do the calculation for "Is my gun more likely to kill a member of my family than an intruder?" and get any answer other then "Yes" then they are not doing the calculation "differently" they are doing it wrongly.

Depends on who they are, where they live, and what kind of gun it is.

 

But the first notice is that they aren't doing that calculation in the first place. That's not the relevant calculation, for many of them. It's not necessarily the most relevant calculation for estimating the value of gun possession in home defense, either.

 

btw: This country was awash in guns long before there was a "gun lobby". Just saying.

Edited January 15, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Depends on who they are, where they live, and what kind of gun it is.

 

But the first notice is that they aren't doing that calculation in the first place. That's not the relevant calculation, for many of them. It's not necessarily the most relevant calculation for estimating the value of gun possession in home defense, either.

 

btw: This country was awash in guns long before there was a "gun lobby". Just saying.

 

 

OK what is the "right" calculation? Or, if you prefer, what's the group that becomes safer if they buy a gun and how big is that group?

 

You are right; they don't do the calculation- because they are already being told what the "right" answer is- buy the gun lobby.

 

Yes, it's a long standing problem.

Explain to me how the gun lobby is helping.

Edited January 16, 2016 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

This country was awash in guns long before there was a "gun lobby". Just saying.

Unsupported, untrue, and ultimately irrelevant.

 

Close records were kept in early America. Nearly everything was recorded. States kept inventories of weapons, and in colonial periods there were only enough guns for less than 2% of the populace, and only white male Protestant land owners were allowed to possess them (Not indentured servants. Not slaves. Not Indians. Not Catholics, not many others). All the legislatures of the colonies passed laws controlling access to firearms, as well as the use of firearms, and even reserved the right to seize them at any time.

 

Prior to 1850, guns just weren't there in the way you suggest. Probate records show guns in only about 10% of households, and nearly half of those were rusted out and not even in working condition. It wasn't until the civil war that gun production increased and police started carrying weapons (with a big role played by Samuel Colt and those trying to emulate him), and it was at that time that the gun ownership and murder rates climbed rapidly, as did the mythology of the rough, tough, "les go kill us summ injuns" gun culture in the various Wild West shows.

 

Mythology aside, despite this climbing ownership rate, calling the country "awash in guns" is pure fiction. Even new towns and cities in the 19th century western frontier frequently enacted laws to bar the carrying of guns. In fact, the typical western town had stricter gun laws than many 21st-century states. The facts just don't support your claim here and the gun ownership rate was quite low overall throughout most of our country's history.

 

It was only in the 1930s when hunting became a stronger part of our culture, viewed as a luxury sport, that gun ownership rates began to tick up. Guns became a symbol of status, a sign that you were better than your neighbors, superior. It's also important to know that back then safety and training were the focus of essentially all gun advocacy groups, and our government didn't hesitate to confiscate weapons whenever they saw fit (as demonstrated during the whiskey rebellion, a period during which time most of the authors of the 2nd Amendment themselves were still alive so it was much more difficult to twist and torture the intended meaning of their words).

 

The closest we've been to being "awash in guns" was after WWII in the 1950s and 60s when soldiers returned home from Europe and APJ. That trend remained largely constant until about three decades ago, during which time the ownership rate has been slowly dropping.

 

What we DO see today, however, is far fewer people owning a far higher number guns per capita... Far more gun nut extremists and far fewer sportsmen... Essentially we're seeing an increase in personal arsenals as opposed to an increase in individually armed families or relevant overall ownership rates.

 

Just sayin'.

Edited January 16, 2016 by iNow

[overtone]

Close records were kept in early America. Nearly everything was recorded. States kept inventories of weapons, and in colonial periods there were only enough guns for less than 2% of the populace, and only white male Protestant land owners were allowed to possess them (Not indentured servants. Not slaves. Not Indians. Not Catholics, not many others). All the legislatures of the colonies passed laws controlling access to firearms, as well as the use of firearms, and even reserved the right to seize them at any time.

So before there was a country, the colonial powers put considerable effort into keeping weapons out of the hands of the peasantry. As in Europe.

 

Any idea why?

 

 

 

Prior to 1850, guns just weren't there in the way you suggest.

And yet the rebel militia in the American Revolution were in many cases the best armed force in the field. In many towns the militia was every adult man, and expected to provide their own firearm. We see towns with laws requiring the possession of a firearm in good working order by every adult man fit for service. These are matters of record.

 

 

Mythology aside, despite this climbing ownership rate, calling the country "awash in guns" is pure fiction

There were large and populated regions in this country in which almost every household had a firearm, at all times in the history of this country. If you prefer a different term than "awash", I won't argue.

 

 

It was only in the 1930s when hunting became a stronger part of our culture, viewed as a luxury sport, that gun ownership rates began to tick up. Guns became a symbol of status, a sign that you were better than your neighbors, superior.

No. That is the old view, from early, not the new one. In the US the lower classes have been hunting since the founding. The gun, like the horse and dog, were sources of status, naturally - but they were a considerable expense, so that's natural.

 

Hunting was viewed as a luxury sport by the Europeans, from the very early colonies, and still carries that aura in Europe today (as well as among the aristocracy in the US) Encountering the red cultures brought the introduction (for the whites with open minds, especially the Scotch Irish) of hunting (as well as combat) as the ordinary pursuit of a free man or boy - and of course the demand for a firearm. This combination vermin control and food supply, an important aspect of pioneer farming, was reinforced by the importance of the attractiveness of hunting as a lifestyle and hunting for markets - plume hunters, market hunters, fur and hide hunters, hunting put so much pressure on the landscape as the cities grew that some of the wildlife has never recovered. It's the usual first cause listed for the disappearance of the passenger pigeon, the woods bison, etc. The wolves and bears and cougars that vanished from the east were often shot. So were the beaver, and other fur-bearers, until they became nocturnal.

 

 

What we DO see today, however, is far fewer people owning a far higher number guns per capita.

Not fewer. Lower percentage. And part of that is the reduction in the size of households - more households for a given population dilutes the rate of gun ownership. And part of it is increasing poverty - as in the early days, the very poor cannot afford guns.

 

So you don't like the observation that widespread and ubiquitous firearm possession long predates the modern gun lobby. So pick a different word for widespread and ubiquitous, than "awash". But don't try to argue that having a lot of guns around in the US is a recent phenomenon.

Edited January 16, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

We see towns with laws requiring the possession of a firearm in good working order by every adult man fit for service. These are matters of record.

 

Here are some matters of record.

In the UK we have laws that prohibit public drunkenness.

However it seems the drinks sales' records show the laws are not obeyed.

 

In the US there were laws requiring people to have guns.

And it seems the probate records show that the laws were not obeyed.

[iNow]

There were large and populated regions in this country in which almost every household had a firearm, at all times in the history of this country.

Merely repeating an invalid claim doesn't magically render it true. While most wealthy families did indeed have guns, the simple point you're conveniently ignoring here is that most families weren't wealthy.

 

In the US the lower classes have been hunting since the founding.

Of course, and most used traps or relied on traders, or caught rodents and vermin without the use of a gun. There were farmers and people in rural areas who put their own food on the table often with the help of a gun, but that's not the case in any areas of population density where the majority of Americans lived. Those areas largely relied on markets supplied by professionals and tradesmen.

 

Much like you and could hunt for our own meat if we wanted, we usually choose instead to purchase our meat at the store. The same was true after our nations founding in most population centers of merit. A problem here is that you're arguing as if the exceptions and the margins and the minority are somehow representative of the whole. They're simply not. There is a deep element of truth in your narrative, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Not fewer. Lower percentage.

Correct. We're saying the same thing. My meaning was fewer per capita.

 

So you don't like the observation that widespread and ubiquitous firearm possession long predates the modern gun lobby.

Incorrect. What I don't like are false assertions like these that rely on selective revisionist tellings of history and myopic readings of the broader truths as you're trying to do here.

 

Many people had guns before the gun lobby. Nobody disputes that and nobody is suggesting that having a lot of guns around is a recent phenomenon, but saying it was ubiquitous or that the country wash awash in them is just fiction.

 

Folks that did own usually owned only one. It was more common in rural areads and farmlands, but the majority of the population were in areas where guns were much less common. Most people in the densest population areas... The ones that make up the majority... Usually did not own a gun or do their own hunting and usually chose instead to rely on markets supplied by active trappers and professional hunters and ranchers.

 

These are facts no matter how much you double down or dig in your heels impervious to reality. Your conclusion is unsupported by reality; a fact made even more blindingly obvious when you appropriately include non-white, non-male, non-Christian members of the population into your numbers.

Edited January 16, 2016 by iNow

[overtone]

Of course, and most used traps or relied on traders, or caught rodents and vermin without the use of a gun. There were farmers and people in rural areas who put their own food on the table often with the help of a gun,

- - -

It was more common in rural areads and farmlands, but the majority of the population were in areas where guns were much less common. Most people in the densest population areas... The ones that make up the majority..

In the early colonies and pioneer communities 85% of the population was farmers and rural people of various kinds. According to the census. By 1860, it had dropped - only 60% of the citizen labor force was farming.

 

 

While most wealthy families did indeed have guns, the simple point you're conveniently ignoring here is that most families weren't wealthy.

In early America, on the farms and in the rural areas, the people who could afford a gun, owned a gun. By and large. Agreed?

 

 

A problem here is that you're arguing as if the exceptions and the margins and the minority are somehow representative of the whole.

City dwellers, people reliant on stores for all their food, were the minority.

 

In several areas of the early US, every adult male citizen owned a gun. By law. This is a matter of record. In many others, the ordinary citizen was routinely expected to be able to join a militia at need. The bulk of the military in the early US was militia. So guns were essentially everywhere - normally encountered objects.

 

Several major advances in firearm technology and design were made in early America, and the most common improvement was something that made a private rifle cheaper, more reliable, and easier for a private citizen to handle and maintain. Such advances are normally in response to demand, no?

 

 

Many people had guns before the gun lobby. Nobody disputes that and nobody is suggesting that having a lot of guns around is a recent phenomenon, but saying it was ubiquitous or that the country wash awash in them is just fiction.

So you don't like the word "ubiquitous" any more than you like the word "awash". What term would you find acceptable, that describes a landscape in which almost every adult male citizen owns a firearm, or one in which most of the households have a gun on the premises,

 

or one in which 4H and other gun safety programs were coordinated through the local high schools, so that it was common to see a bunch of kids (a significant fraction of the male population) bring their rifles to school and put them in their lockers on training or examination days.

 

These are facts no matter how much you double down or dig in your heels impervious to reality. Your conclusion is unsupported by reality;

You seem to have no idea what my "conclusion" was. In addition, you seem in an odd state of denial regarding guns, hunting, and the ordinary life of rural Americans - your assertion that hunting was a symbol of high status and a recreational activity of the rich until 1930, for example, was just weird.

 

 

a fact made even more blindingly obvious when you appropriately include non-white, non-male, non-Christian members of the population into your numbers.

It is a fact that gun ownership among nonwhites and nonmales has been much less prevalent in the US - often by law, as well as poverty and community oppression. This is still true. Contrast the law's handling of the Bundy family organized armament and public threats with its response to the Black Panther's acquisition of firearms in the mid 1900s, or the MOVE conflict in the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

 

To this day, black people have some of the highest rates of gun violence and lowest rates of gun ownership in the US.

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

So you don't like the word "ubiquitous" any more than you like the word "awash". What term would you find acceptable, that describes a landscape in which almost every adult male citizen owns a firearm, or one in which most of the households have a gun on the premises,

 

Well, I'd call it a society with well under a quarter as many guns as the US today.

The figure for the US today is 1.13 guns per capita.

from here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

Now, today's "typical" family has 2.2 children and slightly less than a couple of adults on average- call it 4

So that's about 4.5 guns per household.

 

In times-gone-by the family size would have been much bigger, but there would still typically have been just 1 (expensive) gun per household.

So the "per capita" figure would have been lower still.

 

If you ask the NRA today they probably won't say that the US is "awash" with guns.

So if, according to the gun lobby, if it isn't awash today, it can't have been awash when there were 4 or 5 times fewer guns.

[Ten oz]

@ John Cuthber, I think it is also worth pointing out that the firemans of our forefathers were less capable and emergency services less able. I think in context of a family owning a single shot fireman for protection a hundred years ago when they had no ability to quickly access help bares no similarity to the situation today. Not only can firemans more rapid & accurately deliver a higher volume of bullets but emergancy services are a phone call or security alram system away. No sending a boy with a lamp on a horse back out into the night to find help. Law Enfocrcement can be on seen in minutes with body armor, firearms, helicopters, and etc. More over homes themselves are no long wooden cabins. Homes have security systems, cameras, bars on the windows, and etc.

[overtone]

 

 

In times-gone-by the family size would have been much bigger, but there would still typically have been just 1 (expensive) gun per household.

One (expensive) gun per adult male, by law, in several areas. And that pattern (corrected for race, specifically, after 1865) common, in many regions of rural America, over its entire history.

 

 

If you ask the NRA today they probably won't say that the US is "awash" with guns.

So if, according to the gun lobby, if it isn't awash today, it can't have been awash when there were 4 or 5 times fewer guns.

Well, you guys and the NRA can go ahead and battle it out. Because that's been working so well for y'all.

And the reasonable folks will just have to wait until things settle down a bit, before we can get reasonable gun control in the US.

 

Now, today's "typical" family has 2.2 children and slightly less than a couple of adults on average- call it 4

So that's about 4.5 guns per household.

The stats are usually compiled per capita or per household - in modern times, family and household are not really synonymous. This is a major factor in prevalence stats.

The overall picture remains - we have seen a dramatic increase in what one might as well call private arsenals, in the US. Which is crazy for all kinds of reasons, but which is not, statistically, driving gun violence.

[John Cuthber]

One (expensive) gun per adult male, by law, in several areas.

 

 

Did you see the bit where I pointed out that families were bigger.

That's because there were lots of kids around.

Kids are not adult males.

So each family had (to be cliche about it) an adult male, an adult female and some children.

That's one adult male per household and one gun per household.

Even allowing that there might have been a grown-up son and possibly grandpa in some families you still have to face the reality that there were proportionately more children so there were proportionately fewer adult males .

 

Fundamentally, do you understand that, even if every male had a gun (including the babies), that's roughly 0.5 guns per capita, but in the US at the moment there are something like 1.13 guns per capita.

 

There are now more than twice as any guns.

If the country isn't "awash" with more than 1 gun each, then it wasn't awash with half that many.

 

I'm not the one arguing this point with the NRA; you, tacitly, are.