Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
I guess I did not understand your point. In a country where we have been unable to pass any reasonable gun legislation for decades, your position is that we should avoid making small improvements over time because we need to go bigger. I applaud your optimism.

What optimism? I never said that any of these things have a chance of being adopted.

I merely pointed out that Bob's list of action items can't achieve the goal he said he wanted to achieve. You can't reduce the number of guns in the country by merely limiting production and sale of new weapons, if guns last for as long as five decades in usable condition. In order to achieve his goal, you need something more significant than just slowing manufacture. You need to start bringing guns in.

That doesn't mean that the more expansive regulation is politically achievable. Nor that we should avoid the small improvements because they won't achieve Bob's goal of reducing the number of guns - they might serve other policy goals. Just that the small improvements won't achieve the stated goal, and the more expansive regulation would. If you believe that reducing gun violence requires reducing the number of guns, you can't get there by slowing production, but instead have to get guns away from current owners. Whether either is actually something that could get passed - or the 'reasonable gun legislation you allude to (which is probably different than either of those) could either - is a separate question altogether.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine came out in 2002.

That's 19 years ago and nothing been done to stop this madness.

America with 4% of the worlds population owns 40% of the worlds non-military firearms.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The key question is the cause. The progressives claim it's the guns, as if the gun talks an innocent person into killing someone. In earlier years when so-called "gun crime" was lower, it was because the crime was blamed on the criminals and they were put in jail where they could only hurt each other.

Pull up a chart of violent crime since the 50's or so. Then understand that until 1968 anyone could buy a gun by mail with a check and home address until 1968. Gun laws have gotten much more restrictive, but gun crimes were not reduced. Something else is in play, starting in the early 60's and getting worse into the 90's.

In the 90s, law enforcement got higher-tech and public policy allowed tougher enforcement. New York city allowed cops to stop and frisk known felons they recognized from their beats. Murders in NYC dropped by 80%. Violent crime dropped all over the country, even as gun laws did not change much. Only enforcement. If anything, you should have seen rising gun violence since so many states started issuing concealed carry licenses.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
America with 4% of the worlds population owns 40% of the worlds non-military firearms.

And if all those people were really such a problem, it would be very, very obvious. Only a small handful of gun owners commit crimes with them, a smaller percent than car owners committing crimes. Will you punish all drivers for the crimes of a few bank robbers, street racers and drunk drivers? You have more deaths annually due to drunk drivers than due to gun murders. So lets' start banning cars, right? Passing laws to restrict how much gas can be in the tank, so if you have an emergency, you can't drive more than 20 miles to get to a hospital?

Makes just as much sense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
ibuildthings: New York city allowed cops to stop and frisk known felons they recognized from their beats. Murders in NYC dropped by 80%.


Not according to the data:

The rate went down from the year after Bloomberg took office until 2007, but as the number of stop and frisks continued to rise dramatically, the number of murders ticked back up. It was only with the very steep decline in police stops in 2012 and 2013 that the number of murders dropped to the 300s. The number of murders dropped fastest after the cutback in stop-and-frisks. It continued to go down into the 200s as stop-and-frisk was relatively tiny under de Blasio.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/02/27/bloomberg-s...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 27
Gun nuts are always so defensive. They torture statistics to justify their love of guns.

"That will never work because criminals will get guns if they want them." Except every country on the face of the globe exhibits data that clearly shows that when gun access is restricted, so is gun violence.

"Guns don't kill people . . . " Except guns are the tool that most criminals and murders choose because it makes killing people so much easier and efficient.

"Gun laws are more restrictive today than they used to be, but we still have more gun violence." Except guns are more powerful and can kill so many more in such a short time . . . and the availability and cost is so much less than it used to be.

etc. etc.

The data is out there. The whole world has figured it out . . . except the brain dead right wing American fanatics. They are too stupid to see that Trump is a lying con man despite all the evidence. They are too stupid to see that their worship of gun rights has created a terrible safety problem for American children. Right wing stupidity is killing the US.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Your WaPo story is behind a paywall. However, what I can see of it starts its count with Mayor Bloomberg. Mayor Giuliani implemented along with more "tough on crime" policy two terms before Bloomberg arrived. Here is a chart of NYC murder rate, not behind a paywall. You can clearly see the drop.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/NY...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Gun laws are more restrictive today than they used to be, but we still have more gun violence."

Except guns are more powerful and can kill so many more in such a short time . . . and the availability and cost is so much less than it used to be

The "most powerful" guns in the news these days are the so-called "assault rifles", which are one-pull one-shot versions of the American M16 and Russian AK-47. Those were available by mail prior to the 1968 gun control act. As were the 30-round magazines that somehow make people murder-crazy. This is not hard to verify.

Murders have gone up since then, and then started coming back down in the early 90's. Various factions claim reasons like more concealed carry to abortion becoming legal in 1973. Whatever that is, it is irrelevant to the availability and legality of guns. They have become harder to come by, by way of more restrictions in more places.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The data is out there

Sadly no amount of data has been found that is capable of convincing the right of anything no matter what the source. There is always a counter-argument.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They are too stupid to see that Trump is a lying con man despite all the evidence.

This was a discussion about the Second Amendment and the rights of self-defense that it confers on law-abiding citizens. Perhaps you came of age during the Trump era where every problem around the world was all his fault.

I am a little older. My 5th grade public school teacher explained clearly that the American Revolution was only successful because the colonists successfully resisted being disarmed by the British. The Second Amendment was written by people who had just come through the revolution on their land and in their cities. They never wanted to be afraid of the government again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
There is always a counter-argument.

Yes. I posted evidence of the crashing murder rate in New York that was due to law ENFORCEMENT against criminals, not innocent gun owners. 80% drop in the 90's. That was in response to a bogus WaPo story that only started counting the numbers after the 90's, then tried to claim that the policies that brought the crime down in the 90's didn't really have an effect, using 2002-2008 crime numbers.

That seems like a pretty good counter-argument, since his "evidence" was debunked as gathered over an irrelevant time period.

Wapo is no more reliable than Fox News. They just spin the news the way the progressives like, so it's accepted as truth.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
My 5th grade public school teacher explained clearly that the American Revolution was only successful because the colonists successfully resisted being disarmed by the British. The Second Amendment was written by people who had just come through the revolution on their land and in their cities. They never wanted to be afraid of the government again.

On the off chance that what I said there could be mis-interpreted, every public school history class I had in a major city public system taught the same things about the Constitution, but at a higher level each time. It is a founding document that defines governmental structure, and the Bill of Rights was added shortly thereafter to guarantee that the citizens would have inviolable personal rights against the kinds of government abuses that they had just experienced.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And you and your 5th grade teacher are both wrong about the motivations and intentions of the 2nd Amendment.

Hmm ... in college I was required to read every page of the Federalist papers. Also, since then, I read many public statements and private letters of those folks who wrote the constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights. They don't discuss guns for hunting. That was too obvious. They do discuss them for resisting tyranny.

This links to the Federalist papers.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

you can look through the pages for "arms" and "militia". They are pretty clear in their intentions.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed" ~ Thomas Jefferson

"When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Here is a particularly relevant quote to the news of the day:
"You know well that government always kept a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, invented and put into the papers whatever might serve the [government] ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." ~ Thomas Jefferson


You can make your grand pronouncement about Trump and his followers. I don't follow anyone, so there you are making your own assumptions about me. Progressives being bad (in my estimation) doesn't make Trump good. Two separate clusters.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
The answer is so simple:

Give everyone a gun and a lot more people would be die from gun violence
Take all the guns away and a lot less people would be die from gun violence

Notice, I said lot more and a lot less. No solution is perfect, but the relationship is undeniable.
People with guns is the problem, neither by themselves. So the easier solution is to decrease the number of guns. Follow me so far or do you want to challenge this basic logic as presented.

Note
I don't care about constitutional rights, the constitution is not fallible, far from it
I don't care about the bad guys having guns, that's why we have police with guns.
I don't care about whataboutism, that is a different problem
I don't care about knife attacks or acid attacks. They don't seem to be as big of a problem.
What I do care about is the obvious problem and the general ability of people to come to terms with it.

There are too many people with guns!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
There is always a counter-argument.

“Smokescreen” is a more accurate appraisal than “counter-argument”.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
“Smokescreen” is a more accurate appraisal than “counter-argument”.

I posted non-partisan evidence that what the other poster said, using the Wash Post, was not correct. I pointed out how the Post story is deceptive, saying that "stop and frisk" was ineffective because it didn't change things from 2002 to mid-decade, yet the author ignored the previous decade where stop and frisk was employed and the murder rate dropped 80%. It also correlated well with what I recall from the news at the time, that NYC violent crime dropped so significantly that it was becoming as safe as a smaller town.

Yet your reply is a cheap shot to avoid confronting that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I view the problem as a little bit Darwinian. Here is a look at gun death rates by state:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-da...

Not quite what you might expect based on what we read in the press.
Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There are too many people with guns!

Keeping at that 40,000 foot level, how do you reduce the number of guns?

Obvious first steps:
Public education, simple message less guns, less gun deaths
Stop making so many
Stop selling so many
Voluntary surrender, incent as required
Destruction of misused guns.
Enforce registration of existing guns
Increase gun research: Get a better handle on the problems
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Keeping at that 40,000 foot level, how do you reduce the number of guns?

Obvious first steps:
Public education, simple message less guns, less gun deaths
Stop making so many
Stop selling so many
Voluntary surrender, incent as required
Destruction of misused guns.
Enforce registration of existing guns
Increase gun research: Get a better handle on the problems


How long would it take before that sort of program started to materially reduce the number of guns in the U.S.? Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be, what's the 'lifespan' of a typical firearm?

There's a number of ways that active gun control regulation could reduce the number of firearms that are made or sold going forward - but there's some 400 million firearms owned by civilians in the U.S. So unless guns wear out over time, you're not going to actually reduce the number of guns in any material way simply by slowing the sales and manufacture of new guns.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I view the problem as a little bit Darwinian. Here is a look at gun death rates by state:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-da......

By state it is about what I expected.
Alaska leads the pack on gun deaths but I think it is somewhat of an outlier for several reasons

Of the rest high versus low, there seems be an obvious pattern with economics, education and political representation, no doubt others. Certainly something that should be openly and honestly explored as there are reasonable solutions for many of these problems.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Albaby: Your point is well taken.
The point of the post was that if there is agreement on less guns logically equals less deaths, then what common sense things should you start with to to get to less guns. Curbing the growth goes to that goals as well as voluntary surrender and confiscation. You have to start somewhere and these are things that all sides would agree make sense.

Another goal of that first step is to get a handle on where the guns are and what they are being used for so you can start common sense ways to reduce their numbers. Obviously the "bad guys" will not comply thus have to become a special and ongoing focus. The onus is on the "good guys" to come up with meaningful change, rather than throwing up their arms and saying it is impossible. Is there a use for a AR15 outside of a shooting range? How many guns should a responsible gun owner possess? What qualifications are appropriate for a responsible gun owner. What can be done to reduce the suicide rate of gun owners.

It is true that guns have a long shelf life, but ammunition tends to get used, especially by the "bad guys". Consider restrictions there as a stop gap
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I notice you (or some other right wing reactionary poster) had my posts responding to you deleted. I suppose I could respond again and try to change the wording so that the lying snowflakes who still follow Trump would not be offended. Except fact-free right wingers really have become irrelevant to logical conversation. If you are only going to make-up lies and censor the responses you don't like, who cares? That contributes nothing to reasonable political discussion. And it insures that no reasonable people will take you seriously.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How long would it take before that sort of program started to materially reduce the number of guns in the U.S.?

Well . . . it will take forever and a day if you never start.

Let's imagine that the answer to your question is, "20 years". That would mean that if we started today, by 2041, we would be moving the gun violence problem in America in the right direction for the first time in almost 100 years. If we don't start now, Americans will be asking the same question in 2041 . . . and the answer will still be, "20 years".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Obviously the "bad guys" will not comply thus have to become a special and ongoing focus.

That is what stop and frisk did do, with great success in NYC. The murder rate in NYC dropped from 2500 per year in 1990 to 500 per year, an 80% reduction.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/NY...

The onus is on the "good guys" to come up with meaningful change, rather than throwing up their arms and saying it is impossible.

That did have a significant effect. The policies were working. NYC went from a crime capital to a place as safe as a medium town. All those other mayors in all those other cities can't be made to look that bad. So they stopped arguing that better enforcement doesn't work and started accusing the mayor and police of racism. It was a GOP mayor whose policies were working, so they could slide that into the conversation with ease. They loudly proclaimed that the police were frisking and arresting people with guns in poor and minority areas and ignored the fact that those areas had been victims of violent crime since the drug surge of the 60's, so that's where the young men with guns were being caught.

Politics mattered more than the successful reduction of violent crime in a place that had been known for its crime for a hundred years.

Political people find it easier to blame guns than criminals, because to blame criminals, they would have to admit that all of their previous "solutions" did not work.

Then NYC got so sick of the violence they stopped caring about politics and elected a GOP mayor to enact the policies he promised, AND IT WORKED. It worked so well that NYC that the murder rate dropped 80% in a few short years.

The solution? Change the conversation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That would mean that if we started today, by 2041, we would be moving the gun violence problem in America in the right direction for the first time in almost 100 years.

Effective policing moved it in the right direction.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/NY...

Observe in that chart that violent crime started rising in the early 60's. Recall also that before the 1968 Gun Control Act, anyone could buy handguns and military style rifles in the mail. That was true since the founding of the country. Yet that new law, (very controversial then) had not reductive effect on violent crime.

Since then, all those states and cities with such heavy gun laws, no meaningful effect.

That chart correlates with the new law enforcement measures taken in NYC in the early 90's.

But focusing on criminals and their personal choices and those of their parents are politically difficult. Blaming the guns are so much easier.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The solution? Change the conversation.

And keep the politics out of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Effective policing moved it in the right direction.

Yes it help solve some problems. If it were perfect maybe 25% of gun violence
But you can't escape the obvious, over the long term fewer guns will lead to less gun violence

I say that the method of doing that should be left up to responsible gun owners, because they are the ones who will be onerously impacted and they are the ones raising objections. Failure to take a meaningful leadership role towards a common goal will eventually result in the decision being made by others. And no doubt a lot of anguish in-between
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I view the problem as a little bit Darwinian.

Accept the people that use the guns to kill are usually not very representative of those they kill. For example, the gun nut and mental case that killed 8 in Indianapolis murdered at least 4 Sikhs - who are not known for their love of the Second Amendment.

The 9 African Americans killed in church by Roof in NC are very unlikely to be pro Second Amendment.

Just because you live in a gun nut state doesn't mean you a gun nut - just more likely to be killed by one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well . . . it will take forever and a day if you never start.

Let's imagine that the answer to your question is, "20 years". That would mean that if we started today, by 2041, we would be moving the gun violence problem in America in the right direction for the first time in almost 100 years. If we don't start now, Americans will be asking the same question in 2041 . . . and the answer will still be, "20 years".


Sure - but I don't know that guns wear out over a quick enough time frame for this to actually reduce the number of guns in the country. I had googled a bit, and it appears that most guns are still useful and usable many decades after manufacture, under ordinary conditions.

So if the intended effect is to actually reduce the number of guns in the U.S., slowing their pace of manufacture and sale can keep them from rising as quickly - but it won't actually reduce the number of guns in the country if guns last that long. So more/different measures are necessary to actually get the guns down.

Perhaps this is a necessary stepping stone to get to the more restrictive measures - but those more restrictive measures are what would actually get the number of guns down, not these steps.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
except the people that use the guns to kill are usually not very representative of those they kill...
Over 60% of gun deaths are suicides...
Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Then NYC got so sick of the violence they stopped caring about politics and elected a GOP mayor to enact the policies he promised, AND IT WORKED. It worked so well that NYC that the murder rate dropped 80% in a few short years.

Yes it help solve some problems. If it were perfect maybe 25% of gun violence

If guns really are the dominant murder tool, then its more than 25%. The "broken windows" and "stop and frisk known felons in high crime areas" worked very very well.

My lack of belief in gun control as a new 'tool' against crime is that the people running the most violent places for generations are refusing to use the most obvious tools to stop the most obvious crimes, even after proof shown in NYC.

If they made a meaningful effort to stop violent crime and throw away all the political considerations like NYC did and still can't make it drop, then I would agree with you. But the progressives' efforts at controlling street crime are just plain dumb. It's like a teenager who won't stop banging on the side of a TV to make the fuzzy image go clear while refusing to look behind it to see if the antenna connector came loose. It's all show for the cameras and bigger budgets.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The "broken windows" and "stop and frisk known felons in high crime areas" worked very very well.

No one knows why crime started dropping precipitously 30 years ago. There's lots of theories (including "broken windows" and "stop and frisk,") but no one knows for sure whether that was the cause more than anything else. The complicating factor is that crime dropped almost everywhere - cities that adopted "broken windows" and "stop and frisk" like NYC and cities that didn't do anything of the sort:

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/13/8032231/crime-drop

That's why sociologists have also looked at other factors that applied more broadly - better economic factors, reduced use of alcohol, a generally older population, etc.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
No one knows why crime started dropping precipitously 30 years ago. There's lots of theories...

My favorite theory is Roe v. Wade.

The theory is that since so much crime has (always) been committed by young men, late teens through late twenties, and because of the legalization of abortion in 1973, that many fewer unwanted children were born from ‘73 forward. Unwanted children may not have the best childhoods and may have more of a tendency toward criminal behavior as a consequence. Those born in ‘73 would be 17 or 18 just when crime began to drop.

Interesting 🤔

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There are several reasons gun violence declined in NYC in the 90s. From memory:

- There had been a huge spike in gun violence during the Reagan years (fueled by poverty, drugs, reduced welfare/food stamp benefits).
- The economic boom of the Clinton years lifted many boats (more employment).
- The crack/cocaine booms declined.
- Gun violence declined in other cities as well.
- Aging of the population-->age cohort that tends to commit crimes shrank (thanks to contraception/abortion/fewer children).
- Increase in the number of police and better equipment, including computers, resulted in increased arrests and imprisonment (not just in NYC).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Alababy:

That VOX story seems pretty comprehensive. They are covering most of the possible influences. Except they must be intentionally avoiding the topic of Stop and Frisk. They even cover the other half of Giuiliani's policy, the "broken windows" portion. They are very clear that NYC crime was affected, but for some reason, no mention of stop and frisk. That despite how much it was in the news, pro and con, for years. Curious.

Otherwise, I like that story. Thanks for posting it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There had been a huge spike in gun violence during the Reagan years (fueled by poverty, drugs, reduced welfare/food stamp benefits).

Here is a chart showing US violent crime the years before, during and after the Reagan years. A rise of 20% in the Carter years. It dropped about 10% in the first part of the Reagan years, then rose about 30% in the second part.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U0YlrTTCYi550Z4py1MNVenNt-...

I agree with the posters who say there are a multiplicity of reasons for changes in gun killings and/or all violent crime. But punishment and aggressive enforcement are the major drivers, because everyone protects their own interests. When criminals see a high chance of going to prison or being shot by an intended victim, they don't take the risk.

However, the public policy recommended by the left always seems to center on making excuses for street level violence and disarming people who want to protect themselves. That is my complaint. Even now, no-bail release, defunding the police while at the same time recommending stricter laws that will only be obeyed by people who already are not criminals. Go figure.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That VOX story seems pretty comprehensive. They are covering most of the possible influences. Except they must be intentionally avoiding the topic of Stop and Frisk. They even cover the other half of Giuiliani's policy, the "broken windows" portion. They are very clear that NYC crime was affected, but for some reason, no mention of stop and frisk. That despite how much it was in the news, pro and con, for years. Curious.

I think it's simply because unlike "broken windows," "stop and frisk" was mostly limited to NYC. So it's pretty unlikely that "stop and frisk" could have affected (much less effected) the national decline in crime rates, unlike the other aspects of the NYPD reforms that ended up being replicated in some (but not all) other major cities. That article wasn't a discussion of why NYC crime rates dropped, but why every city's crime rates dropped - precipitously, consistently, and all over the country.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
But punishment and aggressive enforcement are the major drivers, because everyone protects their own interests. When criminals see a high chance of going to prison or being shot by an intended victim, they don't take the risk.

That sounds like it should be the case....but it's not really borne out by the data. As pointed out in the Vox article, there's no real indication that enforcement practices actually have any significant impact on crime rates.

Again, there were some places that imposed higher punishments and adopted more aggressive enforcement tactics - but there were other places that didn't. Crime fell in all of them, almost no matter what the police did. There were a few police tactics that appear to have had modest impacts on crime rates (specifically the adoption of CompStat, the crime tracking system that gave rise to "data-driven policing,"). But there's no evidence that anything else the police were doing had (or didn't have) an effect on crime rates:

"I hate to say it, but I don't think it matters," [John] Roman of the Urban Institute [Justice Policy Center] said, arguing that different cities used very different policing tactics even as all of them saw drops in crime. "There's a lot of correlation, but not much causation."

So while what you're saying sounds plausible, it may simply be the case that nothing the police do (within some limits) really affects whether criminals see a 'high chance of going to prison' for committing a particular crime. Criminals aren't necessarily the most rational and coldly logical folks, and might not be employing quite as introspective an assessment of the costs and benefits of criminal behavior as you are thinking. Or it might simply be the case that different policing methods don't really result in materially different chances of criminals getting caught, convicted, and sentenced - or that criminals (either correctly or incorrectly) don't perceive them as doing so.

In any event, it doesn't seem to work out that way. Again, other than CompStat and some other data-related practices, nothing that different police departments do differently than each other has yet to produce any statistically significant difference in crime rates.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Right wing stupidity is killing the US.

And destroying our democracy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
me: Let's imagine that the answer to your question is, "20 years". That would mean that if we started today, by 2041, we would be moving the gun violence problem in America in the right direction for the first time in almost 100 years. If we don't start now, Americans will be asking the same question in 2041 . . . and the answer will still be, "20 years".

albaby: Sure - but I don't know that guns wear out over a quick enough time frame for this to actually reduce the number of guns in the country.


LOL. So change "20 years" to any number you want. I thought it obvious that the amount of time doesn't change the argument. It still holds. If you don't start, you never achieve the desired result and the sooner you start, the sooner you can achieve it.

If you want to claim that the gun viability, on average, lasts 60 years, you still have to keep in mind that many existing guns are already several decades old. Some are already non-viable weapons and will likely never be refurbished or fixed. Others will wear out very soon. So it is silly to pretend that passing a law today starts a clock on the terminal reliability of every gun in America. That clock is different for every gun and some have very short clocks running down already.

Additionally, if the answer to my original question is 50 . . . 60 . . . or more years, then the human lifetime comes into the equation. How many guns will be passed down to the next generation and what will the heirs do with those weapons? If we manage to change minds about gun ownership, it will be the passing of the gun owner, not of the gun that has the most important impact. In fact, that might be true even if the answer to the original question is only "20 years".

I also think it incredibly naive to pretend that gun lifetime alone will be what establishes the pace at which we change minds about gun ownership. It will take time to change. That much we agree on. My position is that we should start that process as soon as possible and do whatever we can do that might help. We should also modify and adapt new efforts based on how the situation evolves over the next several years. Your position seems to be that since you can't magically wave a wand and get rid of a lot of guns tomorrow, we should just give up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I thought it obvious that the amount of time doesn't change the argument. It still holds. If you don't start, you never achieve the desired result and the sooner you start, the sooner you can achieve it.

Of course. The question is whether or not you have to have more of a start, rather than what Bob laid out in his initial post, in order to get the result you want. Because sometimes, what appears to be a start will never get you to your desired result.

If the result you want is to reduce the number of guns in the U.S. and guns last for fifty years or more, then you're never going to reduce the number of guns in the U.S. by modestly cutting back on manufacture or sale. You need to get to the point where you're all-but-eliminating new guns or taking large numbers of existing guns off the street.

Your position seems to be that since you can't magically wave a wand and get rid of a lot of guns tomorrow, we should just give up.

No. The choice isn't only between doing what Bob suggested or giving up - sometimes the right option is to do more. If the goal is to reduce the number of guns in the U.S., we can't get there with the policy he suggested - we have to do more. You can't just place some restrictions on new gun manufacturing and increase registration, if guns last for a very long time. That doesn't mean "do nothing" - it just means that the proposal isn't going to solve the problem, so we need to do something more or something else.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the national decline in crime rates, unlike the other aspects of the NYPD reforms that ended up being replicated in some (but not all) other major cities. That article wasn't a discussion of why NYC crime rates dropped, but why every city's crime rates dropped - precipitously, consistently, and all over the country.



That Vox story may have discussed the "multiple causes", but the one with the most significant effect was avoided. Many other cities were implementing stop and frisk or other "Terry stop" meetings too: New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia. Those are just some. It was working everywhere it was tried, but for political reasons, had to be stopped at any price.

But my major complaint was and has always been: The progressives cry into the cameras about crime and exhibit massive amounts of "pseudo-effort", but avoid solutions known to work the best. It's a matter of imposing less effective solutions on all people instead of imposing effective solutions on criminals.

The random chance of my time and place of birth put me around people of multiple backgrounds who had a common theme: They or their families had suffered tremendous persecution, extermination, oppression, by governments or other groups who had guns and they did not. Cambodian, Romanian, Vietnamese, Cuban, European Jewish. All people who were legally without self-defense and mercilessly oppressed.

Further, I have lived in multiple cities where street violence affects anyone who can't afford a better place to live.

The leaders who claim to care about the poor, oppressed and persecuted always manage to impose bad solutions while they themselves aren't affected. A recent example: Let's defund Minneapolis police while spending that money for private security for ourselves (Minneapolis city council).

It's what politicians with unchecked power do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That Vox story may have discussed the "multiple causes", but the one with the most significant effect was avoided. Many other cities were implementing stop and frisk or other "Terry stop" meetings too: New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia. Those are just some. It was working everywhere it was tried, but for political reasons, had to be stopped at any price.

It was working everywhere it wasn't tried, too.

That's a bit facetious, but it's the point. Crime rates fell everywhere - irrespective of what those communities were doing with their policing. So there's no way to know whether Terry stops were working or not. Sure, everywhere they were tried there was a decrease in crime. But everywhere that they weren't implemented had a decrease in crime, too.

The Vox article talks about that under the "broken windows" and "Compstat" sections. They don't break out Terry stops or stop and frisk into different sections, but they do talk about how all of the different policing strategies that were being implemented during this time period seemed to have absolutely no explanatory effect on crime rates. Crime fell no matter what the police were doing. Crime fell about the same no matter what the police were doing. Crime fell among every demographic, by race or age, in every part of the country in almost every type of city - no matter what the police were doing.

So while you believe that Terry stops were the policy "with the most significant effect," there's no evidence that's true. Crime fell where they had Terry stops, but crime fell everywhere. Which means that there's no evidence that the fall in crime where they had Terry stops was due to the Terry stops, and actually is a pretty strong argument that the fall in crime was due to a factor other than the Terry stops - because, again, it fell everywhere.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If the goal is to reduce the number of guns in the U.S., we can't get there with the policy he suggested - we have to do more.

I guess I did not understand your point. In a country where we have been unable to pass any reasonable gun legislation for decades, your position is that we should avoid making small improvements over time because we need to go bigger. I applaud your optimism.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
NBC did a story on the same Brennan report that Vox did. They specifically mention that stop and frisk is one of the parts of the Compstat and despite being very "progressive", NBC seems to be saying that stop and frisk should not have been shut down. Compstat says, "the shootings are here, go there and be a pain in their xxxx". The cops go there, get a 12% hit rate on frisks. Even the failed frisks made it clear to the denizens that moving along is a safer option.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/crime-dropped-under-st...

Now this is an opinion piece, but so it the Vox story. And they both use the same Brennan report as their source. I wanted to reply to this while fresh in our minds. If we have time later, we could each download and read the Brennan Center report to see if it adds anything.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I guess I did not understand your point. In a country where we have been unable to pass any reasonable gun legislation for decades, your position is that we should avoid making small improvements over time because we need to go bigger. I applaud your optimism.

What optimism? I never said that any of these things have a chance of being adopted.

I merely pointed out that Bob's list of action items can't achieve the goal he said he wanted to achieve. You can't reduce the number of guns in the country by merely limiting production and sale of new weapons, if guns last for as long as five decades in usable condition. In order to achieve his goal, you need something more significant than just slowing manufacture. You need to start bringing guns in.

That doesn't mean that the more expansive regulation is politically achievable. Nor that we should avoid the small improvements because they won't achieve Bob's goal of reducing the number of guns - they might serve other policy goals. Just that the small improvements won't achieve the stated goal, and the more expansive regulation would. If you believe that reducing gun violence requires reducing the number of guns, you can't get there by slowing production, but instead have to get guns away from current owners. Whether either is actually something that could get passed - or the 'reasonable gun legislation you allude to (which is probably different than either of those) could either - is a separate question altogether.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
They specifically mention that stop and frisk is one of the parts of the Compstat....

No, they didn't. They mentioned that NYC did stop and frisk and also adopted Compstat - not that stop and frisk was part of Compstat. In fact, Compstat ended up being adopted nationwide - and most jurisdictions that used it didn't do anything like NYC's stop and frisk program.

Again, the problem with this article's reasoning is that while it is certainly true that NYC experienced a deep and profound drop in crime while implementing stop and frisk, so did all of the other cities that didn't implement stop and frisk. Moreover, NYC started to experience the deep and profound drop in crime many years before stop and frisk started to really get rolling in 2002 (the 1990's were the "broken windows" era, not stop and frisk), and NYC continued to experience a continuing drop in crime even after stop and frisk was largely discontinued in 2012-2013:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit...

So there's no real evidence that "stop and frisk" had any material impact on overall crime rates in New York City. Certainly crime rates were falling while NYC was doing it - but there's no basis for concluding that "stop and frisk" caused those falling crime rates. Crime was falling long before they ramped up Terry stops, it continued falling after they rolled back the Terry stops, and crime fell in all the places they didn't implement Terry stops as well.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What optimism?

I don't know, albaby. Apparently, everyone but you is wrong about gun legislation in the US. I hope you are able to convince the right people to fix the problem your way. I hope that you get to keep your firearms, and that the nation's gun problems never impact you or your family in a negative way - whatever happens with our laws or the laws of the nation we become when we fail to address our issues.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Then NYC got so sick of the violence they stopped caring about politics and elected a GOP mayor to enact the policies he promised, AND IT WORKED. It worked so well that NYC that the murder rate dropped 80% in a few short years.

There's one problem in your thinking here.

According to the data quoted in a post a few upthread from yours (the Pew Research link), the gun death rate in NY state is, as of 2017 or so, one of the lowest in the country at 3.7 per 100k residents. For argument's sake, I'll take your stat of an 80% drop in the murder rate in NYC. If we apply that drop to the whole state (and let's face it, NYC is almost half of the NYS population), that gets us to a pre-crack down rate of 18.5 per 100k residents. That is above average as far as state gun death rates go, but not nearly as bad as several red states. Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Arkansas are all over 20 gun deaths per 100k people. (So are Montana and Alaska, but they likely have other issues at play.)

I'll admit that I'm a bit fast and loose with these numbers, substituting murder and gun death rates for each other - knowing full well that nationally suicides are about 60% of gun deaths.

But my point here is that the assumption that there was a murder rate problem in NYC appears to be a faulty assumption. Adjusting the current numbers for the claimed drop gives us a rate that is merely middle of the pack. Yes, the raw numbers are going to look high because NYC is the largest city in the country (larger than several states).

It seems to me that Guiliani (let's give this anonymous Mayor a name) may have been fixing a problem that didn't exist.

I'll also point out that there is some dispute to your claim about the effectiveness of the stop and frisk policy in NYC. It is not broadly accepted as correct. I didn't dig into that, but until I do I am not accepting that claim as fact.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We should also modify and adapt new efforts based on how the situation evolves over the next several years.

A simple approach would be for organizations - anything from police departments and cities to charities and even loosely organized individuals - to buy up specific guns (AR-15s and their knock offs, for example) and then destroy them. These would be open market purchases, not forced sales. They don't even need to be publicly announced. Just individuals buying up guns from shops, shows, and private sales on a slightly undercover behalf of the organization and then destroying them.

That would work a whole lot faster than rust or waiting for the owners to die.

Combine that with whatever restrictions we can get on the manufacture of these guns, and you could get some serious progress over the course of a few years.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If getting guns out of the system is too slow, then speed it up.

Incentives for gun and ammo surrender
Limit the supply of bullets
Public initiatives to buy up guns and turn them in
Sweep scenes of gun violence for unlicensed weapons.. Impound and destroy
Tighten licensing requirements

Be creative without being vindictive
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Then NYC got so sick of the violence they stopped caring about politics and elected a GOP mayor to enact the policies he promised, AND IT WORKED. It worked so well that NYC that the murder rate dropped 80% in a few short years.

If guns really are the dominant murder tool, then its more than 25%

Guns ARE the dominant murder tool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide#/media/File:2010_homi...

Homicides account for 35% of gun deaths, suicides the majority. Of the issues you list, if excepted perfectly, I estimate that the total gun deaths would be reduced by 25%. Ballpark
https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/facts.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Why are some amendments more equal than others?

We have a case of absolute adherence and broad application if it's gun rights. OTOH when it comes to the Fourth Amendment-- not so much. Can't play favorites with Amendments and trade the rights of some of us not to be harassed for the right to own an arsenal in case you have to rise up and defeat tyranny.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Can't back violation of the right to privacy that stop and frisk presents as an argument for curtailing gun violence because gun laws violate the 2nd Amendment. It's inconsistent with your apparent love of strict originalist interpretation.

We keep hearing stop and frisk is the answer to gun violence. Around 1% yielded a weapon. Meanwhile, there was ample evidence that S&F was a tool to profile and used disproportionately against black and brown citizens.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/nyregion/bloomberg-stop-a...

During his tenure, from 2002 to 2013, police officers stopped and questioned people they believed to be engaged in criminal activity on the street more than five million times.

Officers often then searched the detainees — the vast majority of whom were young black and Latino men — for weapons that rarely materialized.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Certainly crime rates were falling while NYC was doing it - but there's no basis for concluding that "stop and frisk" caused those falling crime rates.

Most likely due to the phaseout of leaded gasoline in the 1970s.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know, albaby. Apparently, everyone but you is wrong about gun legislation in the US. I hope you are able to convince the right people to fix the problem your way. I hope that you get to keep your firearms, and that the nation's gun problems never impact you or your family in a negative way - whatever happens with our laws or the laws of the nation we become when we fail to address our issues.

What are you talking about? I'm not claiming everyone but me is wrong about gun legislation in the U.S. I wasn't even making any claims about what legislation could be adopted or should be adopted.
You're the one that assumed I was. I was simply pointing out that since guns last a very long time, you probably can't reduce the number of guns in the U.S. merely by limiting manufacture and sale of new weapons. I think that our firearms regulations are too weak and are failing our country, but I don't claim to have any particular insight into how one might successfully go about changing that. But the question of whether Policy X will achieve Outcome Y is one that is can be discussed separate from whether Policy X is something that we can get adopted or should get adopted.

BTW, I don't own a firearm, and never will.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't claim to have any particular insight into how one might successfully go about changing that.

You do seem to have strong opinions about what won't work . . . basically everything anyone else has supported in this thread. So you believe nothing anyone has suggested will work but can think of nothing that will either. Okay.

But the question of whether Policy X will achieve Outcome Y is one that is can be discussed separate from whether Policy X is something that we can get adopted or should get adopted.

I devoted a post to discussing end-of-life timing for gun reliability but you chose to ignore what I posted. Your assertion that total gun number reductions could not happen because gun reliability is long and there are so many guns out there is flawed reasoning. No matter what the time frame is to end-of-life for guns, some existing guns would be at that limit immediately, some will reach it in months, some in years, and some not for decades. But if we begin to reduce new gun sales, gun number reductions are possible starting immediately. They will be slow reductions initially, then more as time moves on. Also, if the gun reliability time frame is many decades long, gun reductions may well be determined more by gun owner lifetime than by gun lifetime. Often guns passed down to heirs are not wanted or used. If we provide those heirs with options that get those guns out of circulation instead of simply having them re-sold, we can achieve more gun reductions.

It really does seem like you are insisting that all proposal will only lead to failure. I hope you're wrong. But mostly, I hope a day comes soon when we will be able to find out how various proposed laws will impact the problem because we are able to pass some legislation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You do seem to have strong opinions about what won't work . . . basically everything anyone else has supported in this thread. So you believe nothing anyone has suggested will work but can think of nothing that will either.

Nonsense. If you reduced gun sales and manufacture by more than 80%, you might be able to reach a point where you would start to have some attrition in the total number of guns (though not guaranteed, based on some of the figures on gun longevity I've seen). That would require some rather muscular federal regulation, but it would certainly work. And of course, an outright ban on new gun sales would result in fewer guns in circulation over time (assuming it was effective, of course).

It really does seem like you are insisting that all proposal will only lead to failure.

Only to you, apparently - but then, whenever you and I have talked about guns in the past you've gotten very emotional in the argument. Dear lord, the pool debate....

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Only to you, apparently - but then, whenever you and I have talked about guns in the past you've gotten very emotional in the argument. Dear lord, the pool debate....

Well . . . I have no idea what "pool debate" you are talking about, but it does not seem to me that I am the one getting emotional in this argument. Is it an "argument"?

Twice in this thread I have explained why your arguments about how gun end-of-life reliability time frames prevent us from reducing the number of guns is not valid. It is not a difficult concept.
But instead of considering that, you have decided to discuss my emotional "pool debate" which must not have been very emotional since I have no idea what you are talking about.

Still, I suppose I have made my point to those who have chosen to actually read the posts and will never make the point to those that choose to simply attack me as "emotional". I suppose it's a good thing that you haven't become "emotional" through this discussion . . . right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have no idea what "pool debate" you are talking about

This one....

https://boards.fool.com/guns-and-swimming-pools-33029150.asp...

Twice in this thread I have explained why your arguments about how gun end-of-life reliability time frames prevent us from reducing the number of guns is not valid.

You can reduce the number of guns if you all-but-eliminate the manufacture and sale of new guns. But not by merely slowing the amount of such manufacture and sale, as originally suggested in the OP. To say nothing of the fact that any such effort to all-but-stop such manufacture and sale would likely lead to a pre-prohibition run-up in sales. So while, yes, decades hence you might start to see gun numbers drop below where they are today, that's not really achieving the policy goals the OP was aiming for in any practical way.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
??? I see the same pattern in your arguments in that thread but don't see what it has to do with me.

I'm going to back out of this discussion. You clearly are more interested in attacking and condemning other posters than in discussing the ideas they present about gun legislation. I would hate to see you to get emotional. That's probably not good for you . . . or anyone else.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
??? I see the same pattern in your arguments in that thread but don't see what it has to do with me.

I will repeat: I'm going to back out of this discussion. You clearly are more interested in attacking and condemning other posters - even lying about them - than in discussing the ideas they present about gun legislation. I would hate to see you to get emotional. That's probably not good for you . . . or anyone else.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The murder rate in NYC dropped from 2500 per year in 1990 to 500 per year, an 80% reduction.

As it did in most of the country’s large urban areas.

Assigning stop and frisk as the primary reason for the decrease is most likely a good example of confusing correlation with causation.
Print the post Back To Top