America

22,954 Views | 410 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Zobel
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This doesn't follow.

If it weren't a gun problem it wouldn't be a US only issue.

As an example school shootings could be substantially more likely under some unknown cultural/economic/psychological conditions and a firearm availability above a certain threshold. And so reducing gun ownership or availability some small amount over a decade may have little to no effect if we are still well beyond the threshold.

This sort of effect is actually not unusual.We intuitively expect linear, exponential, logarithmic relationships. But reality and human behavior can follow much wilder functions.

For instance if you modeled food theft vs income for various nations or timelines you wouldn't likely see a smooth graph relative to income. You'd probably see a massive difference below and above some threshold income that's about as much money as it takes to buy your own.

You might say but we doubled income from one penny a day to two pennys and this group still steals even more how could it be an income problem? Or say look the people making 100k a year are no more likely to steal food than people making 200k per year.

Neither of those conclusions makes sense and yet you seem to be willing to do the same with guns.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm curious on your charts about households w guns. Your chart seems low compared to pew

They have net household ownership at 42%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/despite-mass-shootings-number-of-households-owning-guns-is-on-the-decline/
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If that's the case the problem isn't firearm availability. The problem is the cultural/economic/psychological condition. Which is my position.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No it's both.

By definition it's both, and the firearm may be the easier nut to crack, even in America
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's also worth mentioning that republicans don't want to put effort into either of these issues.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pew also disagrees w your numbers. This shows it's not nearly as steep a decline.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You're saying guns are a catalyst. They're not the root cause. We had more guns per capita and more in households in the past, and fewer regulations, without the problem. Fix the root cause.

And even if we accept the catalyst approach, the bell can't be unrung. You can't do anything about the millions and millions of firearms in the US.

And and even if etc, the bottom line is school shootings while terrible are incredibly rare on the amounts of double digit deaths per year in a country of 300m+. They're shocking, and politicians and the media capitalize. That's not a good reason to end up trying achieve some theoretical low gun count threshold, which takes extraordinary means and would put a burden on millions of law abiding people. You'd be much better off reenacting prohibition.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They're not my numbers.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I get that but you're using numbers to try and paint a picture of a steep decline in households w guns to support your narrative. Pew and Gallup both show that decline is far less steep than the one you keep referencing
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The survey is consistently applied. But regardless, It's still a negative correlation. Fewer guns, more regulation, more school shootings.

That's the opposite of what you suggest should happen.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Except it's not fewer guns. You know in 1960 there were about 53 million households. There are over 130 million now.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think guns are merely a catalyst but are rather foundational. It's not like other nations have a rash of school knifings or spearings.

And I reject your premise that the methodology of attacking the gun side of the problem is hopeless or poorly considered.

First off it's literally the only problem we've actually identified, we have no idea what exactly the other issues are so good luck fixing that mystery. It would be nice if Republicans actually showed some interest in figuring that out rather than just shrugging.

The second point is I reject you premise that only extraordinary measure could possibly be effective. How the hell do you know? We've tried nothing so far, of course that hasn't worked.

I already mentioned age restrictions and parental accountability as two very modest means that could have a meaningful effect. How bout we give basically anything a try before calling it hopeless.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Per capita. What was that about intentionally obtuse?
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I rarely back up Mac but I think that there have been millions of guns sold in America during the time period covered by the graph in question so one has to wonder if the graph is accurate or look for some explanation like maybe there are fewer households owning one gun but more gun collectors with ?
FIDO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Continuing to put the blame of gun violence as a simply a "gun" problem isn't going to achieve anything but fill the coffers of politicians on both sides of the political aisle. It's flashy and dramatic to go after and/or defend guns but it's an intellectually shallow representation of the societal problems at hand.

The most destructive weapons on the planet are nuclear weapons. We haven't started lobbing them at each other because sane people understand the concept of mutually assured destruction. A maladjusted, poorly socialized 18 year old doesn't get that concept and is likely so nihilistic that they simply don't care. They are a ticking time bomb. When they finally snap and rage at the society that plagues them, they will do it with whatever tool is at hand.

Gov Abbott was correct when he stated we are experiencing a mental health crisis in our communities. However, I have seen little from the federal/state/local government to address the problem. Until there is legislative resolve on this issue, we will continue to see school massacres regardless of any gun restrictions or reform.

I am a pediatric provider. When I first started my practice over 20 years ago, I treated primarily infectious diseases and helped to monitor proper growth and development in children. Over the past 5-6 years, there has been a dramatic increase in need for mental health intervention/treatment. Covid exponentially accelerated a problem that has been brewing for some time. The mental health system in this country has broken and we are seeing the failure to address the crisis. It currently takes me, in a major metropolitan area, 4-6 months to get counseling and greater then 12 months to get psychiatric care for a pediatric patient... and that is if you have the money to pay for it.

I have a patient who for quite some time has shown sociopathic tendencies. Understand that you cannot "cure" personality disorders. Personality disorders can only be managed and there will likely be breakthroughs throughout a person's life. It is important to identify patients with antisocial, oppositional defiant d/o because if you don't help them develop a moral compass when they are young, they often progress to the diagnosis of Conduct disorder. These people will forever be a burden and menace to society. Both his parents work and they have private insurance but they couldn't afford the co-pays for weekly counseling and therapy. Over the years, he has failed to consistently get the intervention he needed. This past fall he got arrested when he took a gun to school "just to show his friends". Now he is in Juvenile detention surrounded by other sociopaths. The evidence is clear that that is likely to make him worse and place him well on his way to the Conduct disorder diagnosis.

I have another patient with Medicaid. Mom has schizophrenia and ran out leaving the dad with 2 kids. Dad works 2 jobs and provides what he can. The patient has been struggling with depression and was referred for counseling. The Dad was/has been unable to find a provider that will take their Medicaid; The fact is that most counselors are "cash pay only". They have so much demand for their services, they don't need the hassle of accepting and dealing with any insurance companies; Additionally, they aren't going to take a $20-30 payment from Medicaid for an hour of counseling when they can charge a cash paying patient $100 and not have to deal with a government bureaucracy and regulation. The patient started hearing voices several months ago which lead him to try to kill himself. He was admitted to an inpatient facility in town. He was started on meds and stabilized. He was discharged after only 5 days and told to find a psychologist for counseling and psychiatrist to manage the possible onset of schizophrenia. The sick joke is that now they are back in the same boat, no provider will take their insurance. It would be unconscionable for me to discharge a patient without knowing that outpatient care was established but the reality is that it has become the standard of care in this community. Now I'm left struggling to get him plugged in somewhere before he relapses and hurts himself.

We need to accept responsibility that our culture is rotting and work individually to fix and address what we can in our community. We need to get back to promoting the value of having intact families and encourage that where possible. We need to get back to the ideas and philosophy of having a Creator we are beholden to. It is an indisputable and scientific fact that those are things that strengthen people for the challenges of life. Even an atheist such at Jonathan Haidt understands the value of having God in a person's life. Additionally, we need honest and real discussion on the changes in society and culture that have weakened our ability to handle life's challenges.

We also need to understand that there are mental health problems that are real medical problems. The people that experience those issues are likely going to face major barriers to getting the help they need. We neglect them at our own peril. But go ahead and keep arguing about guns. Just understand your just passing time until the next massacre.

edited to say: sorry, that rant went on longer then I realized.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FWIW, a lot of people just buy fake news/propaganda about the US having such a disproportionate share of mass shootings, before leaping to further false conclusions about the solutions/weapons/confiscation being needed:

Quote:

By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US's 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.
As per above, we do have a mental health crisis, exacerbated by the 'great society's' destruction of the nuclear family in many parts of our social fabric, and fatherless kids are a much greater threat/problem both short and long term than some sort of ficticious spread of 'high tech' or 'assault weapon' scary guns. We need more responsible parenting, less homelessness (looking at you Austin/California/Washington/Oregon), less kids pumped full of drugs/hormones, and more law enforcement/security near our schools in particular.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think anyone is saying that it is ONLY a gun issue. I haven't seen anyone that doesn't agree that we have a mental heath crisis. What is most frustrating to me is those that seemingly want to use mental health as a way to avoid the gun issue. And historically have either done nothing to help mental health access or in some cases actively done things to restrict access.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This seems like a relevant article:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/abbott-calls-texas-school-shooting-mental-health-issue-cut-state-spend-rcna30557
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmendeler said:

Ah yes. The M1; famously still used by the US military because it's better than a modern AR-style rifle. Seriously?
LOL, I am done engaging with gun grabbers on this thread (responding to this one but there are several funny comments after I turned it off last night), but do you wanna know why we all know you don't know a thing about fire-arms?

FYI, for close quarters there is even the terrifyingly painted (black) SOCOM 16 CQB. But there are many producers outside of Springfield of derivatives, in various calibers.

It's still in production, in the updated M-14 format, and is in military service, fyi, around the globe. Very likely, though I don't know the factual data for comparison, more lives have been taken with M-1/M-14 derivatives than AR-15/M-16's.

The irrational hatred/fear of the AR-15 pattern rifles is just that. Goodness. Bless your hearts!
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's one of the conclusions in the article I linked. Household ownership down, average number of guns that a gun owner owns is up - more guns in fewer hands.
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Man, that is even worse than I thought. So many homeless addicts, so many depressed, unhappy people...no wonder the shoot-up your school fad caught on...
We (the U.S.) used to have enough tax income per capita to provide better for our citizens than we do now ?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yep, it's pretty bad.

Amazing really to see real numbers about mass shootings, vs. the public worries/outcry/morality of 'gun law change is absolutely urgently needed in the US.'





France obviously needs to fix their gun laws. Outrageous (btw, a big part of the problem for them is also muslims with illegal guns).



Wyoming is the most armed state in the country, with perhaps the most lax gun laws, but the lowest mass shootings. Hmm, logical disconnect? What's wrong with Wyomans?

Wanna stop gun crime? Prosecute and incarcerate those who commit gun crimes. Well, but that would be racist.



Again, 'gun control' advocates have zero intellectual honesty or seriousness. It's all a sham.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

I don't think guns are merely a catalyst but are rather foundational. It's not like other nations have a rash of school knifings or spearings.
They can't be foundational, because we have run a kind of historical social experiment that high rates of gun ownership by itself do not cause what we're seeing. Lax gun laws by themselves do not cause what we're seeing.

You say "reducing gun ownership or availability some small amount over a decade may have little to no effect if we are still well beyond the threshold." I don't see how a 25-50% (depending on how you count) reduction in ownership is a small effect.



Quote:

And I reject your premise that the methodology of attacking the gun side of the problem is hopeless or poorly considered.
There are something like 400 million firearms in the US. There are 275 million registered vehicles. Do you think it would be possible to get rid of vehicles in the US?
Quote:

First off it's literally the only problem we've actually identified, we have no idea what exactly the other issues are so good luck fixing that mystery. It would be nice if Republicans actually showed some interest in figuring that out rather than just shrugging.
This assumes the raw quantity of guns is correctly identified as the problem. We know for a fact that high gun rates by themselves are not problematic.

Quote:

The second point is I reject you premise that only extraordinary measure could possibly be effective. How the hell do you know? We've tried nothing so far, of course that hasn't worked.
What do you mean we've tried nothing?
https://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm


Quote:

I already mentioned age restrictions and parental accountability as two very modest means that could have a meaningful effect. How bout we give basically anything a try before calling it hopeless.
I'm open to discuss age restrictions. I think they're a political non-starter but it would be OK with me to raise the voting age to 21 and match firearms. I honestly don't think it would do anything because at a cursory review level it doesn't seem that most of these events are like the recent one (i.e., kid turns 18 and buys a gun).

I don't think parental accountability is a good law, because it splits on either a special type of negligence - and we have laws for that - or a bunch of new requirements for gun owning parents. Those should be specified and talked about for efficacy. You mentioned a bolted gun safe. That's basically a tax. How many millions of dollars in effective tax on law abiding citizens are we going to do for something with dubious effect?

"try anything" is not a good approach. It's the worst possible approach to legislation. It's exactly the approach we should not use.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, just an initial look at this is very problematic. I will look at this more, but you are using what many folks think here are very flawed stats to try and drive some narrative that we actually don't have a problem. Worse yet that we are being lied to about that problem. I think you taking this strong of a stance based on this guy and his 'research' is iffy.
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think it very natural, and only to be expected, that the places with low homicide rates have less concern about gun control laws than places like frigging Chicago.
But your point about gun laws not being effective at stopping criminals from getting guns is right on.

Edit: When I was a kid, they used to say, "right on target" rather than just "right on".
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And this Lott guy is sketch to say the least.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IMO, its a lot of things. Something, to me at least, is the type of gun. As a gun owner, former military - you need training. I also heard an idea that has some merit - classify firearms/weapons according to their ability to cause carnage in the wrong hands, maybe along these lines:

Class A (18 yr.-21 yr.) - Lever/Bolt Action, Shot Gun (hunting styled firearms)
Class B (21 yr.- 25 yr.) - Semi-Automatic, non- LEO or Military grade
Class C (25 yr. +) - LEO or Military grade

** 1-4 HR class, Waiting period, higher level backgrounds for Class B and C, Waiting periods. Insurance required for Class C, unless you are LEO or Active Military.

I know it will affect law abiding citizens and will make Beto O'Rourke gizz his pants, but I for one am willing to do my part.

Fire away!

Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

IMO, its a lot of things. Something, to me at least, is the type of gun. As a gun owner, former military - you need training. I also heard an idea that has some merit - classify firearms/weapons according to their ability to cause carnage in the wrong hands, maybe along these lines:

Class A (18 yr.-21 yr.) - Lever/Bolt Action, Shot Gun (hunting styled firearms)
Class B (21 yr.- 25 yr.) - Semi-Automatic, non- LEO or Military grade
Class C (25 yr. +) - LEO or Military grade

** 1-4 HR class, Waiting period, higher level backgrounds for Class B and C, Waiting periods. Insurance required for Class C, unless you are LEO or Active Military.

I know it will affect law abiding citizens and will make Beto O'Rourke gizz his pants, but I for one am willing to do my part.

Fire away!




Define military grade. Define semi auto.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I found this database of K-12 shootings and looked through it. It goes back to 1970.
https://www.chds.us/ssdb/data-map/

Edit: I completetly screwed up the vlookup on the first go-round. It looks like there are only 426 deaths since the 1970s - so the numbers seem to be casualties, not deaths. US News says there have been 169 deaths in mass shootings at schools since 1999. Mass shooting is usually a 3+ homicide, so the majority of school shootings in this database are not mass shootings. Adjusted the post accordingly.

The tables are a little scattered but I compiled by incident ID to generate a list of all K-12 shootings excluding only:

- accidental
- intentional property damage
- self defense
- gang related



It is a grand total of 1173 events and 1529 deaths or injuries. Median casualty per event is 1, average is 1.3. Average per year total is 28.

Here's since 2002. 902 casualties, average of 42 per year over the time.



This is increasing faster than demographics - the casualty rate per million has risen from 0.07 in 1970 to a peak of 0.3 in 2021. Being wounded in a school shooting is roughly the same risk as a child has of dying from influenza in the US, for a sense of scale.

The five safest years on a casualty per capita basis were 2011, 2010, 1990, 1976, 2002.

The five deadliest years on a casualty per capita basis were 2018, 2021, 2022, 2019, and 2006.

For another reference point, as I mentioned before this is comparable to serial killer deaths per year in the US -- estimated at 67-180 here vs historical number of 7-99 casualties in the past twenty years for school shootings.


PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just heard that he purchased 1000 rounds of ammo! I'd add that to some level of regulation.
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Macarthur said:

So, just an initial look at this is very problematic. I will look at this more, but you are using what many folks think here are very flawed stats to try and drive some narrative that we actually don't have a problem. Worse yet that we are being lied to about that problem. I think you taking this strong of a stance based on this guy and his 'research' is iffy.


In 2021, there were 38000 or so gun deaths
25000 of those were suicide
22 of those were school shootings


38000 deaths is an appalling number, but 14000 or so homicides in a country of 330 million people with the gun access we do have is pretty small.

My question is what laws would really reduce that 14000 number? I dont think background checks, red flags laws, or age laws , etc would do very much to reduce gun violence. The only thing that would would be to ban and confiscate guns, which is a non starter.

I will say one thing that might make an impact is forcing all gun sales to go through a dealer and making the transaction be the same whether it be a private sale or a store sale.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agthatbuilds said:

PabloSerna said:

IMO, its a lot of things. Something, to me at least, is the type of gun. As a gun owner, former military - you need training. I also heard an idea that has some merit - classify firearms/weapons according to their ability to cause carnage in the wrong hands, maybe along these lines:

Class A (18 yr.-21 yr.) - Lever/Bolt Action, Shot Gun (hunting styled firearms)
Class B (21 yr.- 25 yr.) - Semi-Automatic, non- LEO or Military grade
Class C (25 yr. +) - LEO or Military grade

** 1-4 HR class, Waiting period, higher level backgrounds for Class B and C, Waiting periods. Insurance required for Class C, unless you are LEO or Active Military.

I know it will affect law abiding citizens and will make Beto O'Rourke gizz his pants, but I for one am willing to do my part.

Fire away!




Define military grade. Define semi auto.
Probably along the lines of ammunition capacity and rate of fire. I know what a semi-auto is - but you and I both know there are differences between weapons - wouldn't you agree?

Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

Yep, it's pretty bad.

Amazing really to see real numbers about mass shootings, vs. the public worries/outcry/morality of 'gun law change is absolutely urgently needed in the US.'





France obviously needs to fix their gun laws. Outrageous (btw, a big part of the problem for them is also muslims with illegal guns).



Wyoming is the most armed state in the country, with perhaps the most lax gun laws, but the lowest mass shootings. Hmm, logical disconnect? What's wrong with Wyomans?

Wanna stop gun crime? Prosecute and incarcerate those who commit gun crimes. Well, but that would be racist.



Again, 'gun control' advocates have zero intellectual honesty or seriousness. It's all a sham.


The study this guy is basing this on is garbage. Lott is well known for manipulating (and possibly manufacturing) data. And his claims about France and Norway rely on the mean of shootings over a set period of time. If you use the median, Norway has 0 mass shootings a year. France has 0 a year. Your odds of dying in a shooting in France or Norway are beyond negligible. The difference is that Norway had one spectacular terrorist attack and France had a couple. In the US it's a much more constant beat spread out over a much larger population.

His data also ignores the transfer of guns across state and city lines and chooses to pretend gun laws in cities are immune from loopholes created by surrounding states. It's also the case that the safest states are overwhelmingly states with strong gun control laws surrounded by other states with strong gun control laws.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agthatbuilds said:

Macarthur said:

So, just an initial look at this is very problematic. I will look at this more, but you are using what many folks think here are very flawed stats to try and drive some narrative that we actually don't have a problem. Worse yet that we are being lied to about that problem. I think you taking this strong of a stance based on this guy and his 'research' is iffy.


In 2021, there were 38000 or so gun deaths
25000 of those were suicide
22 of those were school shootings


38000 deaths is an appalling number, but 14000 or so homicides in a country of 330 million people with the gun access we do have is pretty small.

My question is what laws would really reduce that 14000 number? I dont think background checks, red flags laws, or age laws , etc would do very much to reduce gun violence. The only thing that would would be to ban and confiscate guns, which is a non starter.

I will say one thing that might make an impact is forcing all gun sales to go through a dealer and making the transaction be the same whether it be a private sale or a store sale.

I think there's a problem here with your language. Background checks, red flag laws and age limits DO NOT ban or confiscate guns.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.