Yay, GUNS!

[MonDie]

Five different mass shooters used AR-15 assault rifles.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/12/the_orlando_shooting_involved_yet_another_ar_15_style_assault_rifle.html

 

Does intended death toll influence gun choice, or does gun choice influence death toll?

 

Maybe they're copycats. A shooter-to-be who decided on the latter would become one more copycat. A copycat scenario entails the former being true while also suggesting the latter as well.

 

Even if it's legal, what is forcing sellers to stock this particular item?

Edited June 13, 2016 by MonDie

[StringJunky]

Does intended death toll influence gun choice, or does gun choice influence death toll?

Both.

[iNow]

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/27/12040298/supreme-court-guns-voisine-v-united-states

ruled that those convicted of domestic violence offenses can be barred by federal law from buying or owning a gun for life — even if the conviction only demonstrates that someone acted recklessly violent, as opposed to intentionally or knowingly violent, toward a partner or spouse.

(snip)

This touches on a very important aspect of America’s gun problem. Although much of the US gun debate focuses on mass shootings, domestic violence contributes to many more deaths and injuries — especially when a gun is involved

[Moontanman]

yeah guns...

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-mother-killed-cops-fatally-shooting-daughters-article-1.2687929

[iNow]

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html

 

Fun fact: Gun laws have actually become much looser in the US since this thread began, but my regard for human life and smart impactful solutions is probably best dismissed as me being a snowflake. 

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html

 

Fun fact: Gun laws have actually become much looser in the US since this thread began, but my regard for human life and smart impactful solutions is probably best dismissed as me being a snowflake. 

Fun fact: there's been more than 1500 mass shootings since this thread started.

Quote

n December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 1,606 mass shootings, with at least 1,829 people killed and 6,447 wounded as of February 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

Does the distribution in this map suggest anything; it seems very biased to the eastern half?

The map is this year...so far

Edited February 15, 2018 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

Not too dissimilar from the population density map below.

 

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not too dissimilar from the population density map below.

 

Yep. That covers it. Cheers.

[Alex_Krycek]

The popular psychology book Thinking: Fast and Slow by Daniel Khaneman provides insight into why nothing ever happens with guns in America.  Yes, politicians are bribed by the NRA to do nothing, but the deeper issue concerns how ordinary people think about guns. 

In his book, Khaneman outlines two distinct modes of thought in human beings:  one is fast, impulsive and based on emotion, and the other is slow, methodical, and based on logic. 

As Khaneman pointed out, there is also a strong element of loss aversion at play in human psychology.  We would rather not lose something valuable than gain something valuable.  Thus, it is easy for NRA bought politicians to cater to people's fears of losing their freedom rather than their hope of gaining a safer society. 

When human beings enter the instinctual "fight or flight" mode of thinking in response to tragedies like this, system two is cut off.  They cease to think logically.  The do not think: "Wait a minute.  If I go and buy guns then I am part of the problem.  I might go crazy one day like that person did." 

Instead, they respond with system 1 and reach for more guns (as the Obama era gun sales boom demonstrated), responding to instincts.  Fear keeps people in system 1, perpetuating the frequency of the tragedies.  This increases the level of fear in society, and thus the cycle is guaranteed to continue, increasing profits for gun manufacturers all the while.  In an economy with practically zero regulations on guns and a constant drive towards profits, it was inevitable that this downward spiral would manifest. 

[Ten oz]

National Fire Arms Act 1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Gun Control Act of 1968 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Firearm Owner Protection Act 1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

We have had various law passed throughout history limiting who can have guns, what type of guns, how guns can be transported, and etc. Both parties had enacted legislation at different times. It is a relatively new political environment we are in where one of the 2 parties so vehemently supports the pro gun lobby. There are many reasons for this. 24/7 cable news put partisan punditry into millions of people home around the clock which has led to deeper partisan divisions and identity politics. The internet and social media has only doubled and tripled down on that. The NRA has spends millions a year lobbying the govt, marketing guns, and lacks any direct oppositions competitor.  Republicans have found that it wins votes and politicians in general dial up anything that successfully is proven to win votes. The result has been an increasingly worsening situation. One thing I find amazing about the chart below is that despite all the national turmoil surround Civil Rights and the Vietnam War in the 60's and 70's mass shootings were virtually nonexistent. Society is acting out their frustrations and mental health issues in a more violent many today. 

 

[rangerx]

Yet again, life and liberty takes a back seat to the 2nd Amendment and the erosion of mental healthcare in the USA.

For someone on the outside looking in, those are seriously fucked up priorities.

Anyone who thinks ratting out your crazy neighbor won't be met with gun nuts declaring their rights are trampled ought to have their heads examine themselves.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The popular psychology book Thinking: Fast and Slow by Daniel Khaneman provides insight into why nothing ever happens with guns in America.  Yes, politicians are bribed by the NRA to do nothing, but the deeper issue concerns how ordinary people think about guns. 

The NRA, with its 5 million members, has little to do with "ordinary people". A significant majority of the population wants the government to do something. 

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

In his book, Khaneman outlines two distinct modes of thought in human beings:  one is fast, impulsive and based on emotion, and the other is slow, methodical, and based on logic. 

As Khaneman pointed out, there is also a strong element of loss aversion at play in human psychology.  We would rather not lose something valuable than gain something valuable.  Thus, it is easy for NRA bought politicians to cater to people's fears of losing their freedom rather than their hope of gaining a safer society.

What about fear of losing a loved one? No loss aversion there?

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

When human beings enter the instinctual "fight or flight" mode of thinking in response to tragedies like this, system two is cut off.  They cease to think logically.  The do not think: "Wait a minute.  If I go and buy guns then I am part of the problem.  I might go crazy one day like that person did." 

I rather doubt that line of reasoning would used by those thinking logically, because it's ridiculous.

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Instead, they respond with system 1 and reach for more guns (as the Obama era gun sales boom demonstrated), responding to instincts.  Fear keeps people in system 1, perpetuating the frequency of the tragedies.  This increases the level of fear in society, and thus the cycle is guaranteed to continue, increasing profits for gun manufacturers all the while.  In an economy with practically zero regulations on guns and a constant drive towards profits, it was inevitable that this downward spiral would manifest. 

Most of the guns in the US are owned by a relatively small population. 3% own half the guns.

 

The NRA's mission includes promoting gun sales. They lobby to keep gun manufacturers in the money. And politicians have been bought, just like with other sectors of the economy. You don't really need to look any further than that.

[dimreepr]

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Instead, they respond with system 1 and reach for more guns (as the Obama era gun sales boom demonstrated), responding to instincts.  Fear keeps people in system 1,

I tend to agree with your basic foundation here, but propose it's even worse than you suggest. System 1 (as you describe) does more than prompt additional gun sales. It also prompts otherwise good people to push for the removal of basic civil rights.

My social feeds right now are filled with people who want vengeance... be damned with constitutional protections and our system of justice... it's time to strip this guy of his rights and publicly stone him... get out the tar... get out the feathers... let's burn him alive... he's a witch! 

I get the urge. I understand the anger. I'm in no way defending what has happened here. I'm saddened by the pain these families are feeling and by the extinguished potential of these kids, but I am also saddened by how short-sighted our peers seem to become when these things happen... how willing so many people become to abandon our core principles of equal protections for all... how ready so many people are to brush aside the ideals which have made our country great and helped us prosper for centuries.

If we can't protect those doing the most atrocious things, then can't protect any of us. The scales of justice will tip in the right direction here, but we must let them. The time is always right to do what is right, especially in times like these.

[Raider5678]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

In an economy with practically zero regulations on guns and a constant drive towards profits

 

You almost had me all the way towards the end.

 

 

Gun regulations on a national level are very slack, I very much agree.

But on a state level? It varies enormously.

Take Maryland.

If I wanted to drive to New York, and I was bringing a handgun(I wouldn't, because I don't hunt with one. Nor do I carry.) I'd have to stop the car before I got into Maryland, put the handgun in one case, put the ammo in the other, and have it like that while I drive through Maryland.

Even if I don't stop. Just driving through.

And I don't have a problem with that. States should be allowed to make their laws.

 

But when you say "practically zero regulations" you're talking about a national level. That's because every time it comes up people get on their rooftops and scream communism. Or some other pointless nonrelated argument. "He was born in Africa!!!" sound familiar?

Regardless though, states individually, almost all have their own gun regulations. From assualt rifle permits, to hand gun licences, etc.

And before you say it:

There are states with virtually none.

These states also happen to be some of the least populated states. Major ones like New York, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, etc, all have gun laws.

 

 

(I'm not arguing against gun laws or anything. I just wanted to provide more information, other then that part it was a fairly accurate post.)

Edited February 15, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

And yet guns + ammo is a multi-billion dollar industry. $13.5 billion (reported in 2015, so probably refers to 2014 sales)

So whatever state regulations exists, they still allow for a crap-ton of sales (and underscores why millions of dollars to support the NRA is easily achievable)

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Take Maryland.

If I wanted to drive to New York, and I was bringing a handgun(I wouldn't, because I don't hunt with one. Nor do I carry.) I'd have to stop the car before I got into Maryland, put the handgun in one case, put the ammo in the other, and have it like that while I drive through Maryland.

Even if I don't stop. Just driving through.

Or you could just ignore the regulation, since there's little chance anyone would know about an individual violation such as this.

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

And yet guns + ammo is a multi-billion dollar industry. $13.5 billion (reported in 2015, so probably refers to 2014 sales)

So whatever state regulations exists, they still allow for a crap-ton of sales (and underscores why millions of dollars to support the NRA is easily achievable)

Or you could just ignore the regulation, since there's little chance anyone would know about an individual violation such as this.

That is true.

However, every year my pastor and a group of men from my church head up to New York to go hunting.

My pastor doesn't carry but a couple of the other guys do.

And they're all big advocates of state rights.

While they don't like the law, they abide by it by stopping.

Although usually every year there is one person who suggests they didn't really need to stop. Same guy every time.

 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

justice has to be more than revenge whatever the circumstances. 

I'm finding myself rather ostracized about this at the moment and that standing up for this principle is an entirely unpopular position, but I also acknowledge that it's tangential to the topic.

More on topic, I'm wrestling with a seeming contradiction, if not outright hypocrisy in my position. How can I stand and root my arguments on the principle of constitutional protections applying equally for all (even those committing heinous heartless acts) while also in parallel supporting a drastic reduction in firearm volume across our country (given that said firearms are in so many ways themselves also constitutionally protected)?

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

More on topic, I'm wrestling with a seeming contradiction, if not outright hypocrisy in my position. How can I stand and root my arguments on the principle of constitutional protections applying equally for all (even those committing heinous heartless acts) while also in parallel supporting a drastic reduction in firearm volume across our country (given that said firearms are in so many ways themselves also constitutionally protected)?

I don't see a contradiction there. You can think that the constitution should apply to all whilst also thinking that some parts of the constitution are wrong (and shouldn't apply to anyone).

A constitution is not an immutable thing that is given to the country. It is something that is (should be) created by the people, and can therefore be changed by the people.

Most other advanced democracies in the world survive without the free access to weapons that the US has. Most other countries with similar levels of freely available weapons are probably those developing countries in a near-constant state of civil war.

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That is true.

However, every year my pastor and a group of men from my church head up to New York to go hunting.

My pastor doesn't carry but a couple of the other guys do.

And they're all big advocates of state rights.

While they don't like the law, they abide by it by stopping.

Although usually every year there is one person who suggests they didn't really need to stop. Same guy every time.

I'm just wondering if someone who is prone to shooting up a school with an AR-15 is going to care about such regulations, or how your observation applies. It's not an example of keeping certain weapons away from people, and it seems to me that the solutions people are proposing are not aimed at an individual gun possessor's decision to follow the law, or not. An assault weapon ban, background checks etc. are imposed by people other than the one who wishes to get a gun.

I know that there are those who say we don't need more regulation, we just need to enforce what we have. Because if you are willing to ignore one regulation, you will be willing to ignore two. But in most if these shootings, nothing illegal happened prior to the act. And in those cases, no enforcement of regulation would have kept  the weapon out of their hands, or at least made it much more difficult to obtain.

[Raider5678]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

I'm just wondering if someone who is prone to shooting up a school with an AR-15 is going to care about such regulations,

 

That sounds a lot like "Criminals don't follow laws."

 

But yeah, it applies because there are regulations on guns. He said it was aneconomy with virtually zero regulations on guns. Which is true on a national level, but I had to point out that on a state level, it doesn't hold up. We're all here for being open minded and learning more. So I was provided more information on the subject, to help show him a blindspot in his view on guns.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That sounds a lot like "Criminals don't follow laws."

Yes. Followed by an explanation why such a view is moot.

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

But yeah, it applies because there are regulations on guns. He said it was aneconomy with virtually zero regulations on guns. Which is true on a national level, but I had to point out that on a state level, it doesn't hold up. We're all here for being open minded and learning more. So I was provided more information on the subject, to help show him a blindspot in his view on guns.

But you cited a regulation on transport, vs regulation on acquisition, which seems the context of discussion. It doesn't seem that hard to get an AR-15.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

It doesn't seem that hard to get an AR-15.

 

The child in me would love to get my hands on an AR-15...

But as a child, I did some very stupid stuff that I wish I hadn't just after I did it.

[Raider5678]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you cited a regulation on transport, vs regulation on acquisition, which seems the context of discussion. It doesn't seem that hard to get an AR-15.

2

I was trying to provide an example that there are regulations outside of the national level on the state level.

That was the first and most obvious one that came to my mind.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Tangential discussion on Young Offenders & the Legal System split to here.