I saw a post that said that there are 20,000,000 "AR-15"s in private ownership in the US. For the purposes of this post, I see no reason to dispute this figure. But if we look at another statistic we find something else interesting. 364.
364 what, you might ask. 364 instances of a murder victim being killed by a rifle. That's not just "AR-15"s, that's ALL rifles.
But, there's one more relevant statistic, the category of "firearms, type not stated". Well, if we were to assume that every single murder in this category was committed by an "AR-15", we'd add another 3,281 to the total. That leaves us with a maximum of 3,635 possible murders committed by 20,000,000 "AR-15"s.
If my math is correct, that makes 0.00018225% of all of the "AR-15"s are used in murders.
While I have no desire to diminish the tragedy of those deaths, or to support the apprehension, conviction, and imprisonment, of every single one of these murderers, I can't help but think that preventing law abiding people from owning AR platform guns is going to make an impact on the number of murders going forward. It's almost like taking a step that will have virtually zero statistical effect on murders.
Is it possible that the case to ban "assault weapons" is not based on making a dent in the numbers of crimes committed, but on some other goal?
15 comments:
"It's almost like taking a step that will have virtually zero statistical effect on murders."
Ah! But it will allow panderers to insist they "did something", because all that matters is being regarded as those who are "doing something". Never mind if what is done makes any sense, does any good or is worth a damn. None of that matters compared to appearances which can be exploited come election time. Politics is easy money for such people. Do nothing. Get paid.
In the meantime, the true causes of criminal activity are never addressed, and people continue to be victimized.
https://fee.org/articles/4-reasons-gun-control-can-t-solve-america-s-violence-problem/?fbclid=IwAR1wWVVdjZsWdBXyG3T6vfVA-eDAj3JhmO9PyF-Su39vYDrdEShCfu3UO-Y
Craig... "Is it possible that the case to ban "assault weapons" is not based on making a dent in the numbers of crimes committed, but on some other goal?"
1. WHAT goal? Why do you speak in vague accusations?
2. The GOP has been saying for most (if not all) my life that "The Democrats" are coming to "take our guns away..."
And yet, no efforts have EVER been made to take your guns away.
3. Why do conservatives live in such dread fear of their neighbors and fellow-citizens? Why do they embrace irrational conspiracy theories so easily? Is it because of the biology of their brains, enlarged amygdala/fear centers in their brains?
These are the better (ie, more rational) questions to ask.
Biden (and many people in the US - the majority of us, in fact) would like to see SOME REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS added to our firearms policies.
Biden has just proposed restricting (eliminating? I don't recall the wording) of "gun kits," where anyone can just buy a kit and create their own unregistered, off-the-books firearm. IF you think that criminals should not own firearms, then this is a reasonable restriction. It doesn't "Take away our guns!" Only creates a reasonable limitation.
Do you disagree with this option?
Likewise for off-the-books gun show sales. Vast majorities of Democrats and GOP types support ending this loophole. (93%/82% Dem/GOP support) It's a reasonable restriction.
Likewise for "assault-style weapons," where 88% of Dems and 50% of GOP types support reasonable limitations.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/16/share-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-has-increased-since-2017/
Another reasonable question: Should a minority of mostly white mostly men make the decisions/create policies against the will of the large majority of the nation?
Answer: Not in a free nation.
1. That is a question, not an accusation, do you understand the difference?
So, answer your own question, and the questions implied.
Is it possible that the case to ban assault weapons is based upon some other goal...?
I don't know, WHAT GOAL?
Is it possible that the case to ban assault weapons is based upon a goal to take away all guns from all US citizens so that China can overthrow us?
No.
Is it possible that these efforts are based upon a goal to make women defenseless so they can be freely raped?
No.
Is it possible that these efforts are based upon a goal to reduce gun violence?
YES.
Do you see the point? The question you're asking perforce raises the question of WHAT GOAL? The answer to the question depends on what "other goal..." you're speaking of.
Do you understand now?
"So, answer your own question, and the questions implied."
I'm not sure if you understand the purpose of a question. A question is intended to help the questioner get information that they don't currently have. In this case, if I had information that would allow me to answer the question, I wouldn't have asked the question because I wouldn't be looking for information I already had.
In this case, based on the hard data, it seems reasonable to ask why is there so much effort being put into something that is statistically insignificant? I ask the question because the whole notion doesn't make sense to me.
If you can't or won't answer the question (and noting you've said so far indicates that you are), then what is the value of demanding that I answer a question that I asked because I don't know the answer?
"Is it possible that the case to ban assault weapons is based upon some other goal...?"
Yes, it's possible.
"I don't know, WHAT GOAL?"
I don't know, that's why I asked.
"Is it possible that the case to ban assault weapons is based upon a goal to take away all guns from all US citizens so that China can overthrow us?"
That's quite the extreme hypothetical, but it's possible that the hypothetical is true. Possible, but not likely.
"Is it possible that these efforts are based upon a goal to make women defenseless so they can be freely raped?"
It's possible but not likely. Although I know more than a few women who are convinced that they should be able to defend themselves from violence rather than to be victimized. Are you suggesting that they are unreasonable to want to defend themselves, or that they should be prevented from doing so?
"Is it possible that these efforts are based upon a goal to reduce gun violence?"
Well, it's possible, but that's the point isn't it? Based on the hard data, the reduction is statistically insignificant, which raises the original question.
"Do you see the point? The question you're asking perforce raises the question of WHAT GOAL?"
I do see the point. That's why I asked the question. I literally don't know why so much effort is going into something with a statistically insignificant effect on violence in general, or gun violence in specific. Given my lack of information, I asked a question. I'm sorry the notion of asking a question to gain information that I don't have is so confusing for you.
"1. WHAT goal? Why do you speak in vague accusations?"
I don't know, that's why I asked the question. I did not make any "vague accusations", I asked a question. Do you not understand the difference?
"2. The GOP has been saying for most (if not all) my life that "The Democrats" are coming to "take our guns away..."
How shocking, a political party that engages in hyperbole.
"And yet, no efforts have EVER been made to take your guns away."
Are there people on the left who are advocating for the US to adopt the same gun laws as the UK or AUS have?
"3. Why do conservatives live in such dread fear of their neighbors and fellow-citizens?"
I don't know, I can't speak for everyone who calls themselves a conservative.
"Why do they embrace irrational conspiracy theories so easily?"
I suspect that this embrace of conspiracy theories crosses ideological lines, and probably has multiple explanations. As for me, I don't embrace conspiracy theories easily, and I can't speak for others.
"Is it because of the biology of their brains, enlarged amygdala/fear centers in their brains?"
I don't know. Maybe it's an evolutionary advantage.
"Biden (and many people in the US - the majority of us, in fact) would like to see SOME REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS added to our firearms policies."
What, specifically?
"Do you disagree with this option?"
I don't have a problem with limiting these "ghost guns", I see multiple problems with them. However, what is the specific impact on the number of crimes committed?
"Likewise for off-the-books gun show sales. Vast majorities of Democrats and GOP types support ending this loophole. (93%/82% Dem/GOP support) It's a reasonable restriction."
Can you explain exactly what this "loophole" is, and how it works? If you want to discuss it, it would be helpful if you know what exactly you are talking about.
"Likewise for "assault-style weapons," where 88% of Dems and 50% of GOP types support reasonable limitations."
Again, I don't see how it's possible to discuss this without understanding what your knowledge base is. So, let's start with a few questions.
1. Define "assault style weapons"?
2. How many crimes are these weapons used in per year?
3. What "reasonable limitations" are you proposing that will prevent the use of these weapons in crimes? (To make it easier, no more than 3)
4. Do you consider a "ban" on "assault style weapons" to be a "reasonable limitation"?
"Another reasonable question: Should a minority of mostly white mostly men make the decisions/create policies against the will of the large majority of the nation?"
I'm not sure I understand your question, so I'll try a few different answers.
1. In a representative republic all decisions/policies are created by a small (elected) minority. Given the ability of the electorate to cast their votes for anyone they please, the ethnic makeup of the legislature seems immaterial.
2. In the case of say, Canada, with a population that is 72% white it would seem to makes sense that their legislature would be predominantly white.
3. I don't think that the color of a person's skin or their ethnicity should be a factor in electing them to public office. I would certainly not advocate for preventing any specific gender or ethnicity from being elected.
4. I think the missing factor in your question is the process by which these people were put in their positions. Free elections=good, any other method=less good.
"Answer: Not in a free nation."
Really, that's quite a claim.
You do realize that a majority of people across party lines agree on a number of issues that are currently being restricted by our legislators, don't you? Abortion and school choice being two of them.
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/24/voters-strongly-support-school-choice-educators-should-listen-column/4831964002/
I guess you’ll be arguing against SCOTUS, deciding things like Roe as well.
""2. The GOP has been saying for most (if not all) my life that "The Democrats" are coming to "take our guns away...""
Not hyperbole, actually. It's the actual intention. Some Dems state it outright, while most play semantic games. But it's the intention to one degree or another.
"And yet, no efforts have EVER been made to take your guns away."
This is either an intentional lie, or proof that Dan doesn't pay attention to the the agenda of the politicians he laughingly asserts are better options than any conservative. As to efforts with that goal, there was Joey "Plugs" Biden's Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which took away a vast variety of weapons, and looked very much like this:
https://offgridsurvival.com/listofweapons-bannedbyassaultweaponsban/
"3. Why do conservatives live in such dread fear of their neighbors and fellow-citizens?"
This is hilarious as well as deceptive. First, we don't live in "dread fear" of anyone in particular, except for stupid people who call themselves "Christians" while supporting, proposing, enabling and promoting unChristian policies that will harm America...like Dan does.
There is also reasonable concern...some might use the word "fear" here...regarding certain segments of the American population. Honest, rational people generally refer to them as criminal, criminal types or the like. But that's only because they're criminals, criminal types and the like.
But there is a more honest question of why people like Dan, who enable and protect the worst of our species live in dread fear of their fellow law-abiding Americans choosing to own weapons to defend themselves against those who would do them harm.
Our fear is a rational and reasonable understanding of human nature. Dan's is irrational and perverse paranoia, to say nothing of misplaced. Is it because of the biology of his brain, enlarged amygdala/fear centers in his brain? More likely, it's because his brain is small, doesn't work well and can't function when his head spends so much time lodged so firmly up his backside.
"Biden (and many people in the US - the majority of us, in fact) would like to see SOME REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS added to our firearms policies."
Yet sadly, none are ever offered. No restrictions which have been offered could've prevented the crimes that were so deceitfully exploited in order to propose them. They protect no one, but instead leave more Americans vulnerable to harm.
"I don't have a problem with limiting these "ghost guns", I see multiple problems with them."
I do have a problem with limiting these, because the same issues are or are not addressed (depending on the issue on the table). As to protecting the public, there's no particular threat posed by those who build their own weapons, unless those are doing the building are criminals or insane people. Thus, again we see the problem not being the object, but the person abusing his liberty and the object in question.
What's more, it fails on the same basis of the 2nd Amendment right in the first place, as the Amendment does not restrict the arms one might choose to bear. What business of the government is it whether I buy, build or receive as a gift a weapon I choose to own? Answer: none.
more later
First, your questions...
"1. Define assault-style weapons..."
"In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms
with a large magazine of ammunition that were
designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
"2. How many crimes are these weapons used in per year?"
"Since 1985 there has been a known total 47 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
"3. What "reasonable limitations" are you proposing that will prevent the use of these weapons in crimes?"
Some limitations I find reasonable/others are proposing...
A. I'm fine with a ban on assault weapons
B. The rules/ban should apply across all states (it doesn't help if Indiana bans assault rifles if you can just go across the river to get one in Kentucky)
C. Private gun sales and gun show sales subject to background checks
Nothing totally prevents something bad happening. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have regulations. That people will speed when they drive is not an argument against speed limits.
"4. Do you consider a "ban" on "assault style weapons" to be a "reasonable limitation"?"
Yes, and if not a total ban on assault-style weapons, then background checks and other limitations on who can acquire one.
Craig... "In a representative republic all decisions/policies are created by a small (elected) minority. Given the ability of the electorate to cast their votes for anyone they please, the ethnic makeup of the legislature seems immaterial."
Well, in a diverse nation, if no women or no people of color (for instance) are represented, that is NOT "immaterial" for those effected by a lack of representation (it's sort of the reason we formed as a nation, you may remember). I DO get that many white men don't see a problem with having no women or people of color in Congress, but that's a privilege-based blindness.
Look, Skippy, Apartheid was deadly and oppressive and went away for a reason and not without a fight from the privileged who got to be represented at the cost of no representation of others.
Good Lord, why do these things need to be explained to white conservative men?
"In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms
with a large magazine of ammunition that were
designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."
Bravo, the fact that you chose to simply assume that Wikipedia would give you an accurate answer simply demonstrate your ignorance.
You do realize that there are absolutely zero "assault weapons" for sale in the US that are "designed for combat use" or "rapid fire", don't you?
Please, tell me what standards determine the following terms.
1. "large magazine"
2. "rapid fire"
3. "combat use"
2. So you can't actually answer the question as asked. And have to go back to 1985 to skew the numbers to a level you feel makes your point.
"reasonable measures"
1. Yet somehow this doesn't involve "taking" the lawfully purchased property of law abiding citizens. That's quite a strange way to make your "no one wants to take anyone's guns away" argument.
2. You realize this isn't an actual second proposal, don't you?
3. Given the fact that you didn't answer my question about what exactly the "gun show " problem is, I'm not sure what you think this will accomplish.
4. Impressive, imposing additional restrictions on law abiding citizens is now "reasonable". Especially if it's accomplished by a small minority of "white men", right? How about if it's imposed by one single "white man, is it OK then?
OK, if these "reasonable restrictions" were magically enacted, based on the statistics, what is the expected reduction in crime?
Look Dan, I get it. Everything is "racist". Every single law passed in the history of the US should be immediately voided and replaced with laws drawn up based on racial quotas.
What an absolutely ignorant, racist, way to think.
I guess the fact that you expect your "reasonable restrictions" to be enacted by the "minority" of "white men" that you despise (although I bet you voted for some of them), doesn't strike you as contradictory in the least.
Good lord, are you seriously trying to compare our FOG to Apartheid?
What an idiot.
Art,
The problem with Dan commenting on this sort of topic is that he really knows virtually nothing about the subject, and he certainly doesn't pay attention to what's being said on his side of the debate. He simply regurgitates that "reasonable restrictions" talking points and the "assault weapons are evil" pablum like a lemming. Clearly the statistics or hard data aren't driving his positions, how could they be? It's just knee jerk follow the leader crap.
" It's just knee jerk follow the leader crap."
With a decided emphasis on "jerk".
Post a Comment