An Apology for Trying to Start a Discussion

[irishScott]

As long as an organization as the NRA exists and is the primary gun rights spokes group we will never make any progress on any of this.

They have consistently opposed all types of sane legislation over the years much to the detriment of their own members and society at large. In addition, they have created this culture of us vs them, hence the paranoia factor.

The statistics around gun violence and injury/death do not support your theory about gun homicides, but on the other hand the data isn't that great thanks to -- once again -- the NRA and its push for legislation years ago to prevent the CDC and other government agencies from properly collecting data.

How so? Because if you can definitively prove me wrong you've clearly got access to some information I've never heard of.

 

[jackstar7]

Information spin aside, it also goes to show the siege mentality that's been steadily spreading among gun owners. A good number of us feel like a persecuted minority. I know that probably sounds silly, but I've gotten weird looks in public just talking about guns with my shooting buddies. And not in a creepy way either, we'll just be talking about some new model, pros and cons, ergonomics, suitability for carry, etc. Granted most people are reasonable about it, but I definitely hold off on telling new acquaintances that I like shooting until I get to know them a little. And that's just icing on the cake of the political fight. Essentially every owner of an AR-15 or AK-47 feels at least a little persecuted at this point, and there are millions of such people. Let alone owners of your average pistol (essentially every modern pistol holds more than 10 rounds).

This gets at the most interesting point of the culture, you feel like a minority, while citing your numbers to create the simultaneous image of a majority.

 

[jackstar7]

Does anyone have a link to the original article? I'd like to read it before I decide if the backlash was justified or not.

Found it:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp...y-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

 

[irishScott]

This gets at the most interesting point of the culture, you feel like a minority, while citing your numbers to create the simultaneous image of a majority.

What majority? At best ~50% of Americans own guns, and that's accounting for people who lie on the surveys. Most polls put it in the low-mid 40s. That's a lot, but hardly a majority.

Now in terms of people who care enough about gun rights to vote, then at the moment yes we are the clear majority. If the American people wanted gun control badly enough the NRA would become irrelevant overnight.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Does anyone have a link to the original article? I'd like to read it before I decide if the backlash was justified or not.

A quick Google search turns up a pdf scan: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp...y-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf. It's not an unreasonable position, but it's not hard to see why the pro-gun readership of Guns & Ammo were upset.

 

[jackstar7]

What majority? At best ~50% of Americans own guns, and that's accounting for people who lie on the surveys. Most polls put it in the low-mid 40s. That's a lot, but hardly a majority.

Now in terms of people who care enough about gun rights to vote, then at the moment yes we are the clear majority. If the American people wanted gun control badly enough the NRA would become irrelevant overnight.

I feel like you just made my point about the duality of the culture.

 

[irishScott]

I feel like you just made my point about the duality of the culture.

I'm not sure how, or if there is a duality then the duality is a simple fact. We may or may not have the raw numbers in the opinion polls depending on the specific question and region, but, at least for the moment, we almost always have the raw numbers at the ballot box with respect to gun control.

 

[dank69]

Found it:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp...y-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

A quick Google search turns up a pdf scan: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp...y-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf. It's not an unreasonable position, but it's not hard to see why the pro-gun readership of Guns & Ammo were upset.

Thanks. I'm not sure how I got it in my head that the article was arguing for limits on magazine capacity. Samsonite, I was way off.

After reading the article, clearly there was nothing wrong with it. It really was nothing more than an attempt to initiate dialog, and a well reasoned one at that. I say that as a hardcore liberal who happens to fully side with the 2nd Ammendment even though I have never owned, nor do I plan to ever own, a gun.

However, Guns & Ammo is catering to a certain segment of the population and a majority of that segment is fundamentally motivated by fear. Fear derived from the opinion that the probablility of attack on one's residence is too significant to ignore. Now, anyone have any idea what the statistical probability of someones home being attacked is? I'm sure these statistics vary wildly depending on your location, from insignificant on the low side all the way to insignificant on the high side. So Guns & Ammo's meat and potatoes are people whose belief system can be roughly equated with people who have a fear of winning the lottery on the low side to people who have a fear of being struck by lightning on the high side.

In short, G&A should stick to stoking fears that don't include the fear that G&A is going to support gun-grabbing liberals.

 

[irishScott]

Thanks. I'm not sure how I got it in my head that the article was arguing for limits on magazine capacity. Samsonite, I was way off.

After reading the article, clearly there was nothing wrong with it. It really was nothing more than an attempt to initiate dialog, and a well reasoned one at that. I say that as a hardcore liberal who happens to fully side with the 2nd Ammendment even though I have never owned, nor do I plan to ever own, a gun.

However, Guns & Ammo is catering to a certain segment of the population and a majority of that segment is fundamentally motivated by fear. Fear derived from the opinion that the probablility of attack on one's residence is too significant to ignore. Now, anyone have any idea what the statistical probability of someones home being attacked is? I'm sure these statistics vary wildly depending on your location, from insignificant on the low side all the way to insignificant on the high side. So Guns & Ammo's meat and potatoes are people whose belief system can be roughly equated with people who have a fear of winning the lottery on the low side to people who have a fear of being struck by lightning on the high side.

In short, G&A should stick to stoking fears that don't include the fear that G&A is going to support gun-grabbing liberals.

More accurately Guns & Ammo caters to people who still buy/subscribe to print gun magazines; which are usually those gun owners who haven't quite caught up to the internet yet. Honestly I'm not sure how the gun rags are staying in print, I can find higher quality reviews of most everything on youtube, and there I can see the review in progress, for free.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I was also going to out the unfortunate confirmation bias type of thinking that pervades the gun sub-culture, but I think your posts in this thread are cases in point.

For example, only 1 in 3 Americans owns a gun according to one poll.

What does this tell us?

I don't know- that a hundred million people in America own guns? That is still a lot of people, and a higher ownership rate than most of the world (not just the developed world).

My point was the fact there are too many guns out there. Right now in America there are more privately owned guns than citizens. 50 years of anti-gun policy will never clean us up to the point were gun control will work.

 

[Zxian]

On the flipside you have towns like Kennesaw Georgia, a small city of 35,000 where it's been legally mandated that every household able to afford one must keep a gun and ammo for it in the house. Been on the books since 1982, and their violent crime is virtually nonexistent. However it's notable that the average income/household in Kennesaw is around 60k/year, above the national average.

I think the main fact you're missing with this particular example (that you've brought up a number of times before) is that you're looking at a particularly wealthy environment. If you really wanted to make an effective argument, find another small town with a similar average income level. Unless you have another town with similar attributes as a basis for comparison, you're changing two parameters (with opposing effects on crime rates) and claiming that the effect is due to only one of them.

Do you have any data to look at crime rate vs average income alone? My instinct says there would be a fairly strong correlation independent of gun ownership.

The average income of West Vancouver is well over $100K/household (it's considered one of the wealthiest regions in Canada), but the number of gun owners is very low by comparison. I don't have the facts on hand, but my guess is that the crime rate in West Van is equally to or lower than Kennesaw. What's the driving factor there? Region/Culture? Availability? Income?

(Note: this is meant to be an apples-to-oranges comparison to point out that you've made an apples-to-unknown comparison with Kennesaw).

 

[irishScott]

I think the main fact you're missing with this particular example (that you've brought up a number of times before) is that you're looking at a particularly wealthy environment. If you really wanted to make an effective argument, find another small town with a similar average income level. Unless you have another town with similar attributes as a basis for comparison, you're changing two parameters (with opposing effects on crime rates) and claiming that the effect is due to only one of them.

Do you have any data to look at crime rate vs average income alone? My instinct says there would be a fairly strong correlation independent of gun ownership.

The average income of West Vancouver is well over $100K/household (it's considered one of the wealthiest regions in Canada), but the number of gun owners is very low by comparison. I don't have the facts on hand, but my guess is that the crime rate in West Van is equally to or lower than Kennesaw. What's the driving factor there? Region/Culture? Availability? Income?

(Note: this is meant to be an apples-to-oranges comparison to point out that you've made an apples-to-unknown comparison with Kennesaw).

I'm not missing anything, that's exactly my point. I don't advocate giving everyone in a ghetto a gun (those few that don't already have them anyway), the ghetto would eat itself alive more than it already is.

I'm just using Kennesaw as an example that you can have a completely armed, yet completely peaceful populace. One of the go-to arguments (assumptions) for gun control advocates here is that more guns = more gun crime, period; and it's nice to point out examples that completely disprove it.

The causes of gun crime are the same as the causes of any other crime. Economics, culture, education, mental health, a whole bunch of things. Gun proliferation in the US has gone too far for bans, punishments, etc to have any real effect; which means to reduce gun crime we should be focusing on the deeper issues, something most politicians are loath to do because it would require actual effort and good will.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The causes of gun crime are the same as the causes of any other crime. Economics, culture, education, mental health, a whole bunch of things. Gun proliferation in the US has gone too far for bans, punishments, etc to have any real effect; which means to reduce gun crime we should be focusing on the deeper issues, something most politicians are loath to do because it would require actual effort and good will.

That's always been my contention with gun control proponents. If someone has the thought "I want to shoot that guy," sure, preventing him from getting his hands on a gun may stop a crime from taking place. But that doesn't address the underlying issue; why does he want to shoot someone in the first place? It's a culture issue, not a tool issue, and taking away the tool isn't going to take away the culture that is making people think that violence is an acceptable means to solve their problems. But that's a much harder problem to address than just taking guns away.

 

[sandorski]

That's always been my contention with gun control proponents. If someone has the thought "I want to shoot that guy," sure, preventing him from getting his hands on a gun may stop a crime from taking place. But that doesn't address the underlying issue; why does he want to shoot someone in the first place? It's a culture issue, not a tool issue, and taking away the tool isn't going to take away the culture that is making people think that violence is an acceptable means to solve their problems. But that's a much harder problem to address than just taking guns away.

...but it reduces the damage. That's the point of Gun Control.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

...but it reduces the damage. That's the point of Gun Control.

That's certainly the argument made by proponents of gun control. Is that actually borne out by statistical analysis? Are most gun crimes committed with registered, legally-obtained firearms? Are the areas with the most guns statistically more likely to have increased gun crime? I've seen statistics use to back both sides of the debate, and none of it has convinced me that focusing on the tool rather than the underlying cause of the violence itself is the best way to proceed. Easiest, sure. But it doesn't address the fundamentally troubling issue of why so many people in this country want to kill others.

 

[sandorski]

That's certainly the argument made by proponents of gun control. Is that actually borne out by statistical analysis? Are most gun crimes committed with registered, legally-obtained firearms? Are the areas with the most guns statistically more likely to have increased gun crime? I've seen statistics use to back both sides of the debate, and none of it has convinced me that focusing on the tool rather than the underlying cause of the violence itself is the best way to proceed. Easiest, sure. But it doesn't address the fundamentally troubling issue of why so many people in this country want to kill others.

It always ends up here doesn't it? Just like the Health issue. Always back to wanting one thing to be fixed, not knowing how to do that, but just as long as the status quo isn't disturbed. I kinda doubt you even care if anyone ever figures out that "troubling issue", just as long as you can have your Gun.

Other Nations have faced these same issues. They responded with Control, not waffling. Their experience is one of increased safety. The US continues to drag its' feet, people continue to be gunned down so regularly that most shootings don't even get discussed, even on the local level.

The solution is obvious, but until you and a large segment of Americans decide to seriously address the issue, the carnage will continue. At some point, some of the blame has to lie with those who refuse to move on the issue. Those who drag their feet because of their own selfishness.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but it appears to me that there's a huge part of the American population who are simply not getting the point. Guns, regardless whether they are at fault, cause massive needless suffering. So far the 2nd Amendment advocates can not provide a good reason for why this should continue other than that someone 2 centuries ago thought it was a good idea at the time.

 

[bononos]

Just read the article and all the editor wanted to say was that some regulation like having mandatory 16hr training before getting licensed isn't excessive. The grovelling response from the magazine after firing the editor/writer shows how crazy a good section of the public are.

 

[dank69]

It always ends up here doesn't it? Just like the Health issue. Always back to wanting one thing to be fixed, not knowing how to do that, but just as long as the status quo isn't disturbed. I kinda doubt you even care if anyone ever figures out that "troubling issue", just as long as you can have your Gun.

Other Nations have faced these same issues. They responded with Control, not waffling. Their experience is one of increased safety. The US continues to drag its' feet, people continue to be gunned down so regularly that most shootings don't even get discussed, even on the local level.

The solution is obvious, but until you and a large segment of Americans decide to seriously address the issue, the carnage will continue. At some point, some of the blame has to lie with those who refuse to move on the issue. Those who drag their feet because of their own selfishness.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but it appears to me that there's a huge part of the American population who are simply not getting the point. Guns, regardless whether they are at fault, cause massive needless suffering. So far the 2nd Amendment advocates can not provide a good reason for why this should continue other than that someone 2 centuries ago thought it was a good idea at the time.

You are responding as if all of Atomic Playboy's questions have been asked and answered and all the statistics are in completely refuting his points. I have my doubts.

 

[Doppel]

I think I've been consistent in the last couple of years with my view that most gun laws bandied about by legislators, particularly since Sandy Hook, are poorly constructed and not evidence based.

I read the article. It's reasonable. I'd even say I agree with most of it. Even if I didn't, it shouldn't be that controversial a topic.

The thing about some gun owners is that they are just blindingly faithful to the very simple words in the 2nd without going anywhere beyond that, even though SCOTUS has gone beyond it and, as the author says, all rights have limitations.

I understand why some gun owners put up a united front, though. When you have laws so unbelievably asinine like New York's, which allows you to own a 10 round mag but only put 7 in it, you are not dealing with reasonable people. So, yes, many gun owners are not reasonable, but it's because those who do affect their rights--and in many cases try and infringe--are not, either. They have thus evolved to this hair-trigger point at which any limitation at all receives an immediate and massive reaction.

 

[AViking]

One thing that is a bit more obvious when you live overseas is that our culture is really being overrun by fear mongering. As Americans we have this intense fear of a lot of things.

Healthcare reform
Illegal immigration
Terrorism
Drugs
Sex
Gun control
Taxes
Socialism
Communism
Russians
Chinese
Iranians
North Koreans
Abortion
Same sex marraige
Republicans or Democrats winning an election

Etc.

So if you really want to grapple the underlying issues here you would need to tackle our fears, mental health issues, and a slew of other things. That's not reasonable. What is reasonable is having legislation in place like just about every country that requires training, mental health checks, and licensing.

We can't keep making up excuses for why we don't deal with our problems. Gun violence is a major problem in the USA.

 

[TerryMathews]

violence is a major problem in the USA.

Ftfy. Look at the UK, concentrating on gun violence only drives criminals to other weapons.

We need to look at the systemic causes of violence.

 

[AViking]

Ftfy. Look at the UK, concentrating on gun violence only drives criminals to other weapons.

We need to look at the systemic causes of violence.

I've worked in 2 of the major crime communities in CA. South Central LA and East LA. They used to burn cars behind my work, multiple murders, people with gunshot wounds standing in line with you to get gas, etc.

However this is once again one of those "We can't solve our gun problems with any other method besides trying to solve all these other problems"

Nothing will ever get done. You can do one without the other. We don't have to clean up our inner cities before we mandate training for guns and mental health checks.

 

[sandorski]

You are responding as if all of Atomic Playboy's questions have been asked and answered and all the statistics are in completely refuting his points. I have my doubts.

I don't think that matters. His response was akin to suggesting that solving Poverty would only be accomplished when everyone becomes a debonair Millionaire Private Corporation Owner. AKA, the solution was some undefined method to achieve an impossible result when there are actual working methods with good results in practice elsewhere. He/she just didn't like some minor detail(Gun Ownership conditions/restrictions) of those other methods.

 

[sandorski]

I've worked in 2 of the major crime communities in CA. South Central LA and East LA. They used to burn cars behind my work, multiple murders, people with gunshot wounds standing in line with you to get gas, etc.

However this is once again one of those "We can't solve our gun problems with any other method besides trying to solve all these other problems"

Nothing will ever get done. You can do one without the other. We don't have to clean up our inner cities before we mandate training for guns and mental health checks.

Exactly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ftfy. Look at the UK, concentrating on gun violence only drives criminals to other weapons.

We need to look at the systemic causes of violence.

We are the systemic causes of violence. There is only one way to cure violence and that for me to cure my own. I am the only person in the world that I have the slightest chance to fix. Look at yourself and tell me my odds. Look at my odds and then look at yours. I actually know where the problem is. Do you think that helps anything? The entire world is waiting for Santa Clause, living in an altered reality where the cure is coming from somewhere else. Being armed, I guess, helps with the wait and looking for answers out there keeps us busy too. Carry on. The source of violence is self hate and the world is never going to see it. Only you can.

Imagine the world is dying from a problem the solution to which is a truth nobody will permit themselves to believe.