It was written by people who don't understand guns, and they wanted to tell their people "look, I did something"

What should we do about it?

How about looking at the handguns that are used in 97% of the killings?

I'm also not sure what a "developed democracy" is in your definition. Do Brazil or South Africa not count? (They'd be surprised to hear that.)

What do you propose in the way of handgun legislation?

Gunners think the current situation - 330M guns, 30K+ annual gun deaths, and heavily armed psychos running around unencumbered - is just fine & as it should be. The only thing they'd change is to have a few more guns out there.

As well as procurement incentives to gunmakers to reduce production.

How different from the US do you think Brazil is? Or South Africa?

And focus the efforts there.

It's far more effective to look at efforts that reduce violence of all types and focus on them than to target all types of guns and gun owners where 99.99% of your effort is focused on people who haven't and wouldn't misuse the guns.

Domestic abuse prevention.

Dropout prevention programs since an education is proven to reduce the odds of violence.

Poverty reduction.

Enhanced access to mental health, and programs like having mental health crisis response teams on call in every county 24/7 who go to anywhere someone calls (such is being done in parts of NC now with great results)

Drug legalization would probably have the biggest single effect- Probably 50-60% of the gun violence in this country is related to gang activity and drug trafficking.

Actual prosecution of gun crimes that the government is fully aware of and takes no action on- that happens tens of thousands of times every year just on the Federal level.

Enhanced sentences for use or possession of a gun during a crime, used or not. This has been proven effective in areas where it was done. If criminals know that use of a gun will add 5 years to any jail sentence no matter what they are much less likely to carry one.

Until that happens, and we can bring more scientifically valid numbers to the discussion, we aren't going to make meaningful progress, IMO. On the face of it, you make some good points. I'm sure you support repealing the Dickey Amendment so you or anyone else with sincere intentions can back them up better.

and keep being used to justify bad gun policy.

I'm sure you still see the "a gun is 43 items more likely to be used against you" or have seen it as "22 times". Both numbers came from the same study that was deeply and badly flawed to the point of being useless- but the damage is done and the lies keep getting repeated.

So I am in favor of repealing it ONLY if we can set guidelines and rules to see that taxpayer funding is only used on studies done with real proper controls and in a manner that is accurate, and not the kind of trash that the Kellerman study that produced the "43 items more likely" number that was later changed to "22 times more likely" and is still garbage there due to the methodology used.

Because while we do need data- we need real, accurate data based in sound science. The whole restriction came about because of junk studies like the Kellerman study that was so flawed so as to be useless, but it was still being repeated and quote as justification for new gun laws. The fact that such a bad study was done using taxpayer dollars and then used to justify new laws pissed off a lot of taxpayers who opposed those laws, and that's how you ended up with the ban.

So, with controls in place to ensure sound science and not junk like was produced by studies like the Kellerman one, I am fine with it. It should probably be done by criminologists who actually understand guns and criminal behavior instead of doctors who generally don't gasp either well enough to design a good study.

We can still have good research and scientifically valid numbers without having the government sponsor them and vet them.

The government may have assumed much of the funding "duty", but it's not the only source of funding. In fact, government research funding is rather like government financial aid--as soon as it's available, costs go up and other funding sources don't feel the need to continue providing funding.

A study back in the late '90s (IIRC) compared two similar groups in similar situations in Canada and in Washington State.

They only looked at knife violence. The prevalence of knives is about the same. Most kitchens have a few.

Knife violence on the US side of the border was much higher than on the Canadian side of the border. This, oddly, was comparing Canada with a state with rather low violence rates. Other parts of the US (and of Canada, of course) have different rates of violence, some much higher (in the case of the US) and some just a bit higher.

Our (US) knife-violence rate is also pretty much an outlier. What should we do about it?


This again goes to the simple fact that there are causes and symptoms, and to confuse the two is an error of thinking and logic. Ultimately, we have to treat the causes. Most people have for decades focused on the symptoms, and for many the symptom is the cause. It's a quick and easy way to be a savior, a messiah, but if we'd been working on causes instead of symptoms perhaps we'd be closer to a good solution instead of arguing over the size of the bandage.

Some want a unilaterally imposed full-body mummification. Others want smaller patches. Some are happy with the brand and size we have, others want a different kind of bandage.

Note that for all the palaver, the homicide rate has fallen substantially during this debate, with the size and color of the bandage not being especially relevant.

The same kind of debate happened with alcohol a while back. Some countries have far higher alcohol consumption but lower alcoholism rates; they have more liberal "underage drinking" policies and fewer underage-drinking-related problems. We can ban and limit, but the problem remains in the US. The other countries don't ban and limit, and still have no problem. We patch, we don't restructure.

Speaking of palaver. Meantime, the rate of mass shootings had tripled since 2011 according to this study and everyone agrees they have become more frequent: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research

It would be nice if this country could unite around ways to identify the underlying causes of this problem. We can't even get people on this board to agree that the problem even exists.

They knew damned well and good that an outright ban on semi-automatic weapons would never fly constitutionally or within popular sentiment because that would cut out around half of the firearms held by civilians.

So they decided to put a ban on things that looked "scary". Knowing the only way to pass the thing, they also inserted a ten year lifespan on the ban.

And all it did was increase a desire to own such weapons once the ban's lifespan expired.

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

This graphic may help to show the rationale for banning weapons with certain accessories.

[center][/center]

Its glaringly obvious.

by law there is a minimum length for all rifles . Adjustable stocks telescope about 4 inches and do not make the rifle more concealable.

The pistol grip "fact" is stupid because it assumes that non-pistol grips are harder to control during rapid fire. The actual advantage of pistol grips is that they allow more accurate aiming for individual shots.

Just the shape of the grip used to hold it when doing so (even granting that graphic's questionable claims).

And you're saying that makes sense to you?