Firearms do kill more people than hammers/knives combined

Originally Posted by Rhumb

Far, far more lethal and far, far more easily (heat of the moment, etc.).

Smaller magazines, banned ammo types, restrict especially lethal weapons like we have with fully automatic machine guns...yes, that's a good discussion to have. Might work, might not, or maybe work a bit, but the discussion itself shouldn't be quashed.

I don't think they generally do and I'll be the first to say that the fixation on assault weapons is mostly symbolic, aesthetic and highly distractionary from the real questions regarding guns.

So you are ok with laws being passed for symbolism? Surely not...

Originally Posted by Rhumb

Far, far more lethal and far, far more easily (heat of the moment, etc.).

Smaller magazines, banned ammo types, restrict especially lethal weapons like we have with fully automatic machine guns...yes, that's a good discussion to have. Might work, might not, or maybe work a bit, but the discussion itself shouldn't be quashed.

I don't think they generally do and I'll be the first to say that the fixation on assault weapons is mostly symbolic, aesthetic and highly distractionary from the real questions regarding guns.

What ammo would you want to ban that is "more lethal"?

Cop killers? Dum dums? Anything over .45 inches in bullet diameter?

Ban .50 cal? Introduce 14.1mm ammo.

Large magazines? Quickly swapping magazines is essential in combat. I can take all day to reload if I'm gunning down unarmed people cowering in corners. I'll carry as much ammo as I can, regardless of whether its in two magazines or six.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

although these are so called "gun crimes" I do not believe it is guns that are the problem.

OK, people are the problem. So lets kill all the people, problem solved.
And we can start with the gun owners. They are a bunch of pu$$ies anyway.

Eh, first it's gun laws are too lax in surrounding areas. Then it'll be surrounding states then surrounding countries. Keep placing the blame on the guns and chasing that chain of reasoning to infinity, all the while ignoring the root cause of the issue. It's easy to pass ineffective laws that make people feel all warm and fuzzy while ignoring why the violence happens in the first place. It's more difficult to address the real problems. Politicians are more than happy to take the easy route. People will applaud the new laws and how safe it makes them feel all the while the criminals aren't phased at all.

They'll always have weapons. Don't ever doubt that. Cocaine's outlawed, among other things, and they don't seem to have a problem smuggling that into the country. It's an arms race amongst gangs. Do you think they give a **** about what laws are passed? No. But I tell you what. They sure will enjoy the new workplace safety when they break into a house.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

OK, people are the problem. So lets kill all the people, problem solved.
And we can start with the gun owners. They are a bunch of pu$$ies anyway.

And this is why nothing will get done. The only legislation that passes is kneejerk-feel good legislation, which is designed for getting votes, not stopping crime.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

So you are ok with laws being passed for symbolism? Surely not...

And Jim Crow and DOMA laws were/aren't symbolic? Drug laws aren't symbolic? RICO laws aren't symbolic? Equal pay for equal work laws aren't symbolic? Civil rights laws aren't symbolic? Late term abortion ban laws aren't symbolic?

Get real. Most of the laws this country passes are symbolic.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

And this is why nothing will get done. The only legislation that passes is kneejerk-feel good legislation, which is designed for getting votes, not stopping crime.

And? Your point would be? Do you think RICO, or anti-prostitution, or drug or DOMA, or fill_in_the_blank laws are any different?

Laws define society, rightly or wrongly, "good" laws or "bad" laws.

When was the last time somebody passed feel-bad legislation?

So you support them? You support that fact? You think they make sense?

Originally Posted by rdsesq

OK, people are the problem. So lets kill all the people, problem solved.
And we can start with the gun owners. They are a bunch of pu$$ies anyway.

Your presumption that all people are criminals is unusually ... presumptive

Originally Posted by choxor

They sure will enjoy the new workplace safety when they break into a house.

Its one way to stop the rampant consumer debt and focus people on saving more.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Your presumption that all people are criminals is unusually ... presumptive

Have you never broken the law? You never speed or jaywalk or spit on the sidewalk? Bull cookies. You have broken the law. It might be a "little" law, but that still makes you a criminal.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Have you never broken the law? You never speed or jaywalk or spit on the sidewalk? Bull cookies. You have broken the law. It might be a "little" law, but that still makes you a criminal.

So apparently the death penalty is the answer to all crimes?

Or maybe if there were more laws, people wouldn't break them.

Ooh, I know! More police is the answer!

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

So you are ok with laws being passed for symbolism? Surely not...

No, which is why I wish there wasn't so much focus on assualt rifles but rather on guns, regulations and laws that might actually have a more significant real world impact.

Originally Posted by Rhumb

No, which is why I wish there wasn't so much focus on assualt rifles but rather on guns, regulations and laws that might actually have a more significant real world impact.

Or instead of focusing so much energy on guns you could focus energy on why people are killing each other each other. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

What ammo would you want to ban that is "more lethal"?

Cop killers? Dum dums? Anything over .45 inches in bullet diameter?

Ban .50 cal? Introduce 14.1mm ammo.

Large magazines? Quickly swapping magazines is essential in combat. I can take all day to reload if I'm gunning down unarmed people cowering in corners. I'll carry as much ammo as I can, regardless of whether its in two magazines or six.

Perhaps some of these. Bear in mind, it would only be moving the line a bit as large caliper weapons are already illegal (try buying a 30mm antiaircraft gun and ammo). Armor piercing ammo might be another area of scrutiny as I don't know of too many armor wearing deer.

Of course, none of this would make guns and ammo absolutely safe but that isn't the point -- nobody's proposing panaceas. It is only to reduce in the real world the extraordinarily high levels of gun related violence, injury and death in our country. You could still kill somebody with a lady's revolver popping out .22 shorts, but that would be far less likely than somebody blazing away with an AR-15.

If these various measures even reduced gun-related deaths by a measly 10%, that would still save more lives than were lost in 9/11.

Originally Posted by choxor

Or instead of focusing so much energy on guns you could focus energy on why people are killing each other each other. Just a thought.

Or better yet, both.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

So apparently the death penalty is the answer to all crimes?

Or maybe if there were more laws, people wouldn't break them.

Ooh, I know! More police is the answer!

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm pretty sure more guns is not the answer:

Man, Wyoming must be one dangerous place.

But hey, suicide's aren't counted in that chart, right?

Originally Posted by Rhumb

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm pretty sure more guns is not the answer:

There have to be a hell of a lot more variables to take into consideration than just "% Gun Ownership" and "Deaths" per 100,000 people.

I've never seen a model that has one variable that can actually accurately predict things.

People that can't do stats.

Perhaps the chart could be further refined, but I'd say that it is on far firmer empirical footing than the NRA's, and others, abstract, ideological but baseless assertion that more guns will make us safer. Nothing I have ever seen comes close to substantiating that assertion. Rather, across a wide range of available measures of gun ownership rates vs. gun violence/crime shows very much the opposite effect.

As for other variables, perhaps this chart might flesh that out a touch:


Or perhaps this for more geographic correlation:

The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.