You can't. I always find it comical when gun control advocates blame the surrounding communities for their violent crime problem...but can never explain why those communities almost always have less violence.

The gun control states have LESS violence than the ones with crap like open carry.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html

Argue with the crime rates all you want, you're still wrong. I'm talking as someone who really never had a problem with guns - didn't care if you had them or how many you had. But once Pres Obama was elected, the ammosexuals went crazy and let the gun manufacturers snow the imbeciles into believing the feds were going to go door to door to confiscate your guns. The paranoia went off the charts and now - and the rate of mass killings tell the tale - you're much more likely to get killed by a gun than you were 20 years ago when the violent crime rate was much higher. You can claim guns aren't the problem but you're only fooling yourself.

I said "violent crime". Suicide is not considered "violent crime" unless you are a gun control advocate grasping at straws trying to inflate statistical data.

Once again, I'm proven correct.

your own brains out violent? You don't think that perhaps if a gun wasn't available, the depressed person may just live? It's you gun freaks that are playing with statistics. Just how delusional are you gun owners?

that places like Maine and Vermont are more dangerous than D.C or Maryland by pretending that suicide deaths are the equivalent of murders. How dishonest are you gun controllers?

Japan's suicide rate is much higher than ours, yet they essentially ban guns.

universal background checks. Are you so in love with your firearms that you're against making sure criminals and the deranged aren't able to get a gun? Just how dishonest and paranoid are you that you can't accept a background check and pretend I'm talking about the feds going door to door to take your guns?

Comparing cities, counties, or congressional districts yields results that don't particularly reflect well on our Party or localities with Democratic leadership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2012#/media/File:US_House_2012.svg

http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/gun-deaths

Your link says gun control states have a lower rate, not less violence.

Those are two far far different things.


The fact is, the states with the gun control have the lions share of gun violence in absolute undiluted-by-population numbers (as opposed to rates).

Of other people's demonstrably false opinions. Because FREEDOM!

way they're pretending that anyone is talking about confiscating their toys when all I've ever said was I'm for universal background checks. The level of paranoia that seems to reside in many of these posters makes me even more determined to keep guns out of the hands of the deranged.

You're using rates to try to answer a question involving absolute numbers.

Because the question isn't as big a mystery as you seem to think.

There's an enormous difference between the sociology of a small town of several thousand and the sociology of a large city of several million. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize the gun laws of Valley City, Illinois (Pop. 13) simply wouldn't work in Chicago (Pop. 2.7 million), where the sheer enormity of the population alone makes prime fertilizer for problems like anomie, diffusion of responsibility, and deindividualization.

If you want to draw a meaningful conclusion, you need to look at cities of comparable size, wealth, and infrastructure. Comparing Green Acres to Gotham City won't fucking cut it.

I am NOT suggesting that guns play a role one way or the other, but I find it comical when Gotham blames Green Acres for Gotham's crime problem.

They're not. There are no closed cities in this country. If Gothamites can't get guns in Gotham, then they'll get them from Green Acres.

It's also a mistake to think of it as "Gotham's crime problem". With the amount of money it costs to treat gun-related injuries, it is effectively everyone's problem. Never mind the fact that without Gotham, Green Acres has no one to sell their shit to. No state assistance to build and maintain their schools. No one to subsidize their medical clinics. No one to take care of their roads. No one to bail them out when a twister tears their tiny hamlet to shreds. Individualism is a myth. We're all in this together.

How about "just say no"? How about "get a job"? How about "personal responsibility"?

How about we get a little more realistic with our expectations?

Murder is not a biological necessity. I do expect more out of the residents of Gotham.

And you can't eat without money. Which means, ipso facto, if you can't get money legally you're going to get it illegally. This might entail murder or involve murder as an unintended consequence.

Psychologists would argue the need to feel empowered is a psychological necessity, sociologists that as population increases so do feelings of anonymity, and that anonymity often entails antisocial behavior in even the best of people.

So, no, I do not agree that expecting people in a city of millions to stop committing murders is realistic.

Which is why bans don't work. A supplier will always meet the demand when the price is right.

What if the price isn't right?

I believe you (or someone else) mentioned up-thread that technically, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons in the United States, and that these weapons are rarely, if ever, used in the commission of a crime. Why? If I had to guess, I would say it is because they are too expensive to buy legally and too risky to sell illegally.

There's nothing about a fully-automatic AK-47 that should make it more expensive than a semi-automatic variant of the same make. The cost differential is artificial, created by federal legislation that severely limits the availability of such weapons and makes the illicit trade thereof prohibitively risky.

Of course, black markets will invariably arise, but if Japan and the UK are any indication, that's not really a huge concern. At the end of the day, gun ownership is way down, and gun violence is practically non-existent.

Yet, we have a thriving illicit drug trade, prescription drug abuse and even moonshiners.

so we need to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Iowa and Wyoming?

I've heard at all are for universal background checks. Are you against those? Why are the gun people pretending the feds are going door to door to confiscate their guns?

so long as there's no national registration. The best first step to build trust would be to open-up the NICS system to non-FFL's.

The problem with most UBC legislation (apart from the registration issue which can be overcome) is that it's almost always tied to other far less acceptable matters like "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits, and the sponsors are always foolishly proclaiming how UBC's are a "good start" and "just the beginning."

You and I can both read all the posts here on DU and know that such sentiments are reflected by others in our party, including our elected representatives. Many do indeed want gun bans and confiscation, and if given the slighest opportunity, would pass draconian gun control. It's same way we as Democrats oppose virtually all abortion restrictions. We recognize the transparent political strategy of incrementalism, and will not be fooled.

UBC's will pass when there's some trust between all sides in the firearms debate. I don't know when that will happen.

because the gun lobby is too busy stuffing the pockets of the legislators. If we didn't do it after 26 children were murdered, we'll never do it. So we'll just have to accept that we live in a very violent country and the gun nuts have decided that we all need to live with their paranoia.

You can pretend all you like that it's not the guns but I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to why this continually happens in the US when everybody else is seeing the same tv shows, seeing the same movies, playing the same video games as we are and don't have school shootings every other week. Are we just inherently more violent? I think it's the easy access to guns.

Maryland, Michigan or California.

It also has a higher rate of per capita gun ownership.


Hmmm....

But a lower per capita rate of murders or gun-related murders. As Volokh points out, none of the proposals to increase regulation of firearms are spurred by suicides or in any way aimed at decreasing suicides -- rather, they usually are spurred by a mass shooting, even though many of the items gun-control advocates want to enact, like background checks, were actually performed and the purchaser passed. So if you want to continue to pretend that Wyoming has a much higher overall rate of violent use of firearms by including suicides then go ahead, but it is disingenuous (IMO) to lump together suicides and murders. Wyoming has the second highest gun suicide rate (behind Montana), and if you exclude suicides it is a relatively "safe" state. And if you just look at murders committed by guns then the safest states include Vermont, North Dakota and Utah, which have very liberal gun laws. And of course DC, which has had the strictest gun control laws in the nation over the last few decades, has the most murders per capita.

I frankly think the gun control opponents and advocates need to go into the discussion with both sides acknowledging there is a difference between firearm murders and firearm suicides and that the laws that might address both issues are dramatically different. However, I've seen very few (maybe no) analyses by gun control advocates that separates out suicides because doing so tends to undercut some of their arguments (like more stringent gun control = fewer gun deaths).

But I'm not a proponent of restricting the Second Amendment rights of someone in Virginia (my current home state) or Vermont because violence is out of control in Chicago.

Those characteristics are directly related to gun murders.

Strong social safety nets and a ceasefire in the "War on Drugs" would be exponentially more effective than any form of gun control at lowering rates of violent crime.

likely to be right wingers, etc. Good enough reason to restrict gunz. Besides, homicide rates are not the only indicator of concern.

each other and quite often innocent people in the neighborhood racists?

There are too many gun crimes. We need to pass laws to reduce that rather than taking away guns from people who have never sone ant criminal activities nor will they in the future.

you call "inner city black gang members." Truth is, they aren't much of a threat to the racists arming up against them. Many gungeoneers share your opinion.

is it you that is in Georgia?

There might be a lot of racist bubbas where you live. They where camo and run around in the woods with guns. That is nit the same as the gun owners I know. There probably are a few of them where I live, but in no way do they represent the majority of gun owners.

The gun owners that I know do not go down to the areas in the city that are dominated by gangs. They avoid it and it is easy to avoid.

Your seem to think that all gun owners are racist bubbas running around the woods pretending to be in combat. That is so far from reality I cannot begin to understand how your perception has been warped. You need to get out more and travel the country. Do you ever get outside of your own county?

I don't recall mentioning inner city gangs too much, but ai do know that is a huge problem with gun crime. We need to prosecute straw purchases. That might reduce the inner city violence.

"inner city gangs" come along, are a bigger problem in my mind. No, I don't agree with your post, especially the tone of it.

...whose right-leaning blog hosted one of the first presumably "legal" challenges to Obamacare....


http://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/right-side-law-eugene-volokhs-global-influence/

and he's a recognized legal authority on a variety of issues. He also routinely cites data contrary to his position on issues and allows opposition rebuttal, and it's one of the reasons he's so respected.

In any event, other than attacks on Volokh's personal politics which doesn't affect the data, can you actually cite anything wrong with his analysis?

And there are, of course, plenty of other views of the data suggesting otherwise.

Don't tell us about how it's allegedly "shaded," actually explain purported problems with his data and/or methodology, and we can engage in a mature discussion.

If there are other views concerning the same data sets, you should be easily able to detail the shortcomings in Volokh's post. These other views you've read should already have done the work for you.

...on the subject are.

You could care less about Volokh's credibility, or the political biases that shade his work. For you, it is all about the guns.

*Do you support universal background checks?

*Do you support any restrictions on sale or transport of guns?

*Do you support any publicly funded studies on gun violence?

I already know you don't support any restrictions on types of weapons that should be easily available -- "let's bring the war home!" But let's see where you really stand with your answers on these questions. Maybe there'll be some surprises, after all.

But obviously, this exchange has "zero" to do with the putative credibility of a right-leaning commentator.

I don't care if Volokh is the Chairman of the RNC. Either his data and methodology is good or its not.

Can conservatives ignore data, on any topic concerning firearms and otherwise, because the researcher is a Democrat or liberal? The science is what matters.

Most studies of social science, regardless of researcher or compiler of data, have problems due to the complexities of the subject matter. You haven't event attempted to rebut anything in Volokh's blog post. Did you even read it. Heck, you could have simply mentioned some of the criticisms raised in the comments (too late!). I'm not sure if you're just ideologically obstinate or disinterested, but either way it's not convincing and will not advance your goal of gun control. If you want to succeed, you have to maturely and directly counter your opposition, not simply insult or dismiss them.

For the sake of discussion, I'll even entertain your inquiries:

*Do you support universal background checks? Yes, I've mentioned this numerous times.

*Do you support any restrictions on sale or transport of guns? There are already numerous restrictions on the sale and transport of guns, including our current NICS system, which I strongly support.

*Do you support any publicly funded studies on gun violence? Yes. In fact, while I was employed by the National Institute of Justice, I actually participated in firearms-related research. Also, be careful what you wish for, as some of these studies run counter to the gun control agenda.

For example, the research of the Department of Justice and Obama's National Institute of Justice found that the 1994 AWB, and AWB's generally, to have no measurable effect on crime or anything else.

Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf


Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies

https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt

And I will note it says each side tends to cherry pick results.

It also says this:

"That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5 million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.

“So obviously, these grandfathering provisions had major implications for how the effects of the law would unfold over time,” Koper said.

"The study found “clear indications that the use of assault weapons in crime did decline after the ban went into effect” and that assault weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of the study Feinstein seized on). But, he said, the reduction in the use of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with large-capacity magazines.”

etc.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

and homicide rates, and your issue now is that both sides cherry pick data, particularly about AWB's?

Huh. Yes, both sides are selective in the data and methodology the use and cite. Welcome to politics (and social science).

You've also proved my initial point. There is indeed room to criticize Volokh's blog post, but you didn't even bother because you don't like his overall politics (and Volokh is about moderate and academic as they come).

You will not advance gun control by dismissing your opposition. You need to diplomatically engage. Gun rights proponents are winning in the courts, Congress and popular opinion, and if you want to succeed, you have to hold your nose and enter substantive discussions and build trust.

If you've been paying attention, you'll note that I'm not a gun owner, am personally and professionally well-versed in the law, research and politics of the firearm issue, and am more wiling to comprise than many of my fellow gun rights advocates. When the commentary has become so shrill that people like me disengage, you've already lost.

I am saying that FactCheck shows exactly that the prism can matter, in correlating data.

I also mentioned that "cherry pick" item because there was no reason not to get their caveat out of the way, or pretend they didn't say it.

But their overview was specifically about the AWB, and not the higher gun violence rates in states with looser gun laws.

But if you're not a gun owner, why debase yourself fighting for the NRA's world view?

I'm not a member, but more importantly, believe their influence is vastly overestimated.

The NRA has become the boogeyman of the gun control movement. It's easier to to blame them for losses in Congress and the courts than engage in self-reflection or acknowledge that the NRA's views, in whole or in part, actually represent many tens of millions or more of Americans.

Even if they were an acknowledged wing of the GOP and sacrificed orphans and puppies to dark gods, it still wouldn't change the fact that some of their data is actually correct.

Most importantly, just like our Democratic Platform, I acknowledge the historical, legal and cultural importance of an individual right to keep and bear arms, including the Second Amendment. Guns do not cause violence, they are inanimate objects, not magical talismans. Removing hundreds of millions of guns, mostly from law-abiding American, is impractical, currently illegal, and is so far fetched as to vitiate rationale dialogue. The causes for violence in our country are complex, varied, and probably at times, contradictory. I rather address these issues at the source.

As I indicated earlier, I'm also more than willing to entertain some firearm restrictions when they are constitutional, can clearly be demonstrated to address actual problems, and in the process, don't unnecessarily penalize millions of law-abiding people. I will not agree to feel good measures like banning scary-looking black rifles because they have bayonet lugs or barrel shrouds, particularly when we don't actually have a problem with crime or accidents committed with long guns.

But I suppose there are those glad to see folks like you helping carry their water.

Insults and false misrepresentations of what is actually said.
Branford put forth a very thoughtful post, and all you have is a snarky comment.
Well done.

I love this stuff.

It's either from a right leaning site like WAPO, or it's the bias the writer has going in.

Unless they agree with my position then it's a well thought out reasoned analysis from a leading luminary. What does Bill Nye think and Norm Chompsky think about this?

No wonder you love it!

think that's really a reply to anything.

But of course, a bigger surprise would have been if it was

Not a reply but a question.

A question specifically directed at you because either you brilliantly and deliberately ignored what I wrote (which I doubt), or your blind obedience to this week's narrative does not allow you to experience any cognitive dissonance.

Who will think of the children???

One word of caution: Don't keep routinely overestimating your own posting abilities.

Be it suicide, homicide, mass shooting, or a curious 2 yr. old, it is the GUN that makes it impossible to change one's mind after that impulsive instant when the trigger was pulled.

It is a fact that greater availability of an instrument that makes it easier, faster, and in most cases less physically risky to the shooter = more deaths. Does anyone really not know this when they shoot targets?

The most honest firearm fundamentalists make it clear that they want quick and easy access to efficiently kill. The only way to accept the belief that such qualities are desirable is to consider the risk and obvious results of widespread availability negligible.

The fact that people undeniably want to be able to kill with ease can only be glorified and defended by ignoring facts and truths related to the intended design and ultimate effects.

The resistance to efforts to regulate guns dismisses the reality of the design, the sole purpose, and the inevitable results. If that doesn't work, blame people with mental illnesses and then write many off as irrelevant to the data.

For instance, why does the USA have comparable suicide rates to Canada, Australia and Europe, and significantly lower than South Korea and Japan?

As to the sole purpose of firearms being to kill, tens of millions of sportsman gun owners have never hurt another living thing. Moreover, killing is not always unnecessary or avoidable, hence the existence of hunting for food and defensive uses of firearms to protect innocent life.

of people do not have any idea that pulling a gun trigger is the way people and animals are regularly killed worldwide? It would take a lot more creativity to convince any reasonable person that that fact is irrelevant to the activity.

"killing is not always unnecessary or avoidable, hence the existence of hunting for food and defensive uses of firearms to protect innocent life." So, you would buy into the idea that the millions of other deaths are negligible in contrast to the self centered end of killing someone who is believed to be a threat? Even when 34 people die for every criminal killed in self defense?

Do you think that there would be more or fewer suicides in those countries if they had the same sick love affair the US has with guns?

the suicide rate in the USA will drop precipitously? Kindly provide links to those studies.

Also, where did you get your data on defensive gun use.

I like to cite the CDC sponsored study,

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix

would have lower incidences of successful suicide attempts. That is not the case.

You data only include defensive gun use that results in fatalities, and ignores instances where a firearm only lawfully injures an assailant or nobody is hurt at all. The latter are still instances of self-defense that cannot be ignored, and are relevant for comparative analysis.

IF and only if our cultures and the daily lives of citizens were truly comparable would that be a true statement. They aren't, your argument fails.

The US is the only one who has the kind of narcissistic culture that drives arguments gun advocates make. It always comes down to personal self interest. "My hunting, my trophies, my bragging rights, my safety, my unconditional right to be able to shoot someone I am afraid of." Any unintended consequences are irrelevant because personal ownership of an arsenal to promote self importance is just that precious.

I have not heard anyone argue that self defense where a person is wounded and not killed is anything but failure.

why are they always used as models for gun control here?

If we are not Britain, Australia, Canada, or anywhere else, as you acknowledge, and our violent tendencies go well beyond firearms, why don't we address the underlying issues in America.

Gun control advocates cannot look to other countries only when it's convenient.

Notice they also have universal healthcare.
USAers seem to oppose most initiatives that are designed to promote decent quality of life for everyone.
We would do well to abandon the narcissistic, rugged individualism that essentially defines the USA. The desire to have unfettered access to guns is another example of the pathology that leads people to resent welfare, universal healthcare, safety standards, etc.

is that Americans should stop believing in "rugged individualism" and other distinctly American cultural attributes, no less ones that are a source of pride to many?

narcissism in the US, we might not see people believe their rights take precedence over the well being of others.
Free speech is understood as a right to insult people and forego all manners without criticism. And, I have a right to be able to efficiently kill others.

When we know the idea of "rugged individualism" now translates into people running around wanting to be able to kill others, wanting to deny other people healthcare, food, and basic sustenance, we clearly have taken it to an extreme.

I think recovering E pluribus unum would go a long way toward reducing angry, conflict driven culture we live in.

Volokh has been one of the pro-gun movement's go-to mouthpieces for decades. Of course he's going to produce a pro-gun product---he's been making a comfortable living off of it for years. Don't waste your time with such a corrupted source.

The world of firearm-related research and analysis encompasses all sides of the debate.

Dismissing work you don't like because of the politics of the author does not make that research disappear or render it invalid

If you cannot rebut the work on its merits, you've already admitted defeat.

I understand the attempt to divert the conversation when you've just has your butt handed to you, but it does nothing for the topic.

but this is an open discussion board, so I opined, as I will continue to do.
Sorry if it bothers you.

Bernie's voting record on firearms is quite good, which is unsurprising from a Congressman then Senator from Vermont.

However, gun control is hardly the issue I find most important or pressing today. In fact, as a resident from NYC, I often vote for Democrats who strongly favor gun control, including Senators Schumer and Gillbrand, and my Congresswoman, Carolyn Maloney. Rarely is there a candidate that perfectly represents anyone's views, and you simply need to pull the lever (or fill-out the tiny little oval) for best candidate of the bunch.

Of what? Gun control has been losing in the courts, at the state level, at the federal level, except for UBC's, it's been losing with the public.
So what is there to be terrified of?

What about the truth isn't working?

Opponents of gun control are winning and its supporters are losing, across the board, consistently and repeatedly.

President Obama has pretty much given up on gun control. Now, every time there's a mass shooting, he essentially just appears on TV and essentially says "look, it's happened again, isn't it a shame we're not going to do anything about it".

Argue that gun control would be a good thing, yes. But to suggest that the tide is turning in the direction of it happening is a complete defiance of all the available evidence.

and then convince a majority of American to support passage of such a ban?

Unicorns will gallop down main street before UBCs alone pass this side of 2019....which is a shame considering that it could be done with national concealed carry reciprocity with a federal option and tweaks to NFA and GCA.

That's an interesting proposition.

Typically, a dialogue on "common sense" gun laws demands that gun owners give up rights while getting nothing in return.

The states with the highest murder rates? Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Of the states in the top fifteen by murder rate? Only three have a rating of C or better from the Brady campaign. Those three? Maryland, Michigan, and Illinois. The numbers for those three states are skewed by Baltimore, Detroit, and Chicago. Major cities with large populations of people in poverty have high crime rates, including murder? Shocking! (And Volokh is a right-wing Libertarian whose agenda here is not the truth.)

because it might result in conclusions inconsistent with your preconceived notions?

Moreover, Volokh's agenda is meaningless, His data is no more wrong because he's a libertarian than a liberal's data is right because of his or her political views.

The analysis, methodology and data must be rebutted on it's own merits.

Claiming that that's the most important factor is disingenuous, at best (and certainly reflective of an agenda).

apply the appropriate methodology, and review the results.

Trying to simply eliminate or dismiss data sets that don't support your conclusions, no less complaining about Volokh's politics, is not a substantive rebuttal of his analysis.

Volokh is not a sociologist, nor a criminologist; he's speaking to things outside his sphere of competence. (He is pretty clearly an ideologue, though.) And again, of the fifteen states with the highest murder rates, 12 of them had a rating of D or lower from the Brady campaign (and most had an F, including the three states with the highest murder rates).

He's an attorney who's analyzed available data and argued that it doesn't reveal what some claim, i.e., correlation between state gun laws and homicide rates. This is what many attorney do, particularly experienced litigators (for reference, I'm also a litigation attorney, although obviously not as renowned at Volokh).

It appears that you really don't disagree with his conclusion about the data, but rather believe that other factors explain the discrepancies other than gun and gun laws.

That may indeed be true, but it actually proves Volokh's point about the effects of gun laws. It also supports the wider point by gun rights proponents that factors other than guns account for firearm crime.

NEWSFLASH!!!

".....add a teenage girl"

Not just one.

greater potential violence. A multivariate analysis might tease out an affect for stronger gun laws if there was some other variable that represented how "urban" a state was. (Consider what both Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders have said about largely rural VT vs say Chicago. )

A different way to show that gun laws DID have an impact is if there are studies that show for many cities that the number of deaths fell when gun laws were introduced.

So it's no surprise he comes to this conclusion.