Rising Crime is a GOP Problem

[gounion]

I don’t like open carry. I live in an open carry state yet never have I seen anyone open carry.

To blame open carry on Alabama’s gun homicide rate is just stupid but that’s no surprise. To blame anything on open carry is just stupid.

Florida has no open carry and Texas does. They have identical gun homicide rates.

People who open carry aren’t responsible for gun homicides. People who open carry aren’t a threat.

Gun owners aren’t a threat. 300,000,000+ guns, 75-100 million gun owners and there are 19,000 gun homicides. Do the math.

There’s a reason southern states have higher gun homicide rates. It has nothing to do with gun laws or political parties.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... s-by-state

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resour ... pen-carry/

https://everytownresearch.org/report/city-data/


Just for the record. I have never fired a gun.

That's bullshit. You just aren't looking. The right says open carry makes us safer. It doesn't. Who the FUCK thinks that going armed to a bar is a smart thing?

But when we discuss reasonable, sane gun regulation, you - as you yourself have done on this thread - accuse us of wanting to ban guns.

If we are a nation of responsible gun owners, why is the United States of America the world leader by far in gun deaths? Why doesn't Canada have the same level of gun deaths?

Go ahead, answer the questions.

[Bludogdem]

I've looked at it.





I find this data indicates correlation.

Just for the record, my Dad owned five. We got rid of all of them when he died. I went shooting with him a few times at ranges. I have never chosen to own one.

29 per million. 300,000,000 guns, 75-100 million owners. The threat is incidental. Even more incidental when you consider the number of gun homicides that a result of illegal gun ownership.

[ProfX]

I understand, mon frère. The point is the comparative rate vs. comparable countries.

Your numbers sound low, but they are much lower in other countries. Why?

P.S. I do not think gun prevalence or high ownership is the only reason, as there are pretty high levels in Canada, Switzerland, etc., but there are other factors, and Mike Moore does a good job of going into it in BfC. The interesting question is why so many people here feel the need to BE so heavily armed, and this goes to what I like to call "deficiencies in white culture".

[ProfX]

Now, let's look at open carry laws. Here are some of the problems so far not mentioned by their advocates.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws ... pen-carry/

By promoting gun carrying in public places, often with few restrictions, open carry can increase the likelihood of conflict, severely endangering public safety.

Researchers have suggested that the presence of visible firearms may alter behavior and increase aggressive and violent behaviors.1

[snip]

White Supremacists have long used firearms—and permissive open carry laws—to threaten and intimidate others, with examples of such violence going back to the Reconstruction era. (BTW: I would argue they are not the only group that does this.)

[snip]

Recent examples show that open carry can create substantial confusion for law enforcement officers, impeding their ability to protect public safety.
911 calls from concerned citizens about people openly carrying firearms can create confusion for responding officers and can endanger both officers and gun carriers.9

Similarly, in states with open carry laws, law enforcement agencies can have difficulties distinguishing between credible threats to public safety and legal open carry. In October 2015, a Colorado woman reported a man with a long black rifle outside her home, but officers did not immediately respond to her call because open carry is legal in the state. Shortly after the 911 call, the gun carrier shot and killed three people.10

Open carry can also complicate police response to shootings. In the July 2016 shooting of police officers in Dallas, law enforcement struggled to distinguish between people legally carrying guns openly and the gunman responsible for the attack.

[snip][end]

So let's review.

Good guys and bad guys don't always wear black and white hats. (So called) Good guys toting guns have led to unnecessary calls to 911, wasting resources. Sometimes in an open carry state, a bad guy with a gun wasn't reported because, well, "he had the right". Eh? But most importantly, when police arrive on scene, they sometimes mistakenly think the good guys with guns are the bad guys with guns, and have shot and killed the wrong people.... again, people don't wear colored hats.

The bottom line is people feel nervous, particularly around people toting around very big, visible, high powered weapons, and that feeling of tension is not likely to de-escalate conflict and violence. After all, like Tom Tomorrow said, how do you know the guy in your Wally-Mart toting a high-powered rifle is good or bad? Maybe he's neither, but he's had a really bad day, and gets into a really tense confrontation with another customer, and ...

[Bludogdem]

I understand, mon frère. The point is the comparative rate vs. comparable countries.

Your numbers sound low, but they are much lower in other countries. Why?

P.S. I do not think gun prevalence or high ownership is the only reason, as there are pretty high levels in Canada, Switzerland, etc., but there are other factors, and Mike Moore does a good job of going into it in BfC. The interesting question is why so many people here feel the need to BE so heavily armed, and this goes to what I like to call "deficiencies in white culture".

For all we know is it could be as simple, in some instances, as the expansive social safety netsand, in other instances, autocratic regimes.

[ProfX]

Those are undoubtedly factors (the better social safety net, not so much the other one), but so is what I would call "American history and culture".

Still can't link videos, but I've posted this one from BfC many times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58BDrZH7SX8

I think it's one of the better explanations as to what makes America uniquely - exceptional? - in terms of its gun violence problem. We could call it a looming fear of the other, that xenophobia of course being primarily racial. The cultural/historical differences are key, as are of course different systems of legal regulation of firearms. (P.S. I don't think that makes them "autocratic," Britain and Australia are not.)

Let's look at some more data.
https://everytownresearch.org/report/gu ... n-america/

Every day, more than 110 Americans are killed with guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded.

[snip]

The US gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries.11 (*)

[snip]

Gun homicides are concentrated in cities—half of all gun homicides took place in just 127 cities, which represented nearly a quarter of the US population. Within these cities, gun homicides are most prevalent in racially segregated neighborhoods with high rates of poverty.13

Black Americans represent the majority of gun homicide victims. In fact, Black Americans are 10 times more likely than white Americans to die by gun homicide.14

[snip]

Firearms are the leading cause of death for American children and teens.

[snip]

Women in the US are 28 times more likely to be killed with a gun than women in other high-income countries.19 (*)

[snip]

58 percent of American adults or someone they care for have experienced gun violence in their lifetime.

[snip][end]

(*) Kinda stark numbers.

[JoeMemphis]

Those are undoubtedly factors (the better social safety net, not so much the other one), but so is what I would call "American history and culture".

Still can't link videos, but I've posted this one from BfC many times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58BDrZH7SX8

I think it's one of the better explanations as to what makes America uniquely - exceptional? - in terms of its gun violence problem. We could call it a looming fear of the other, that xenophobia of course being primarily racial. The cultural/historical differences are key, as are of course different systems of legal regulation of firearms. (P.S. I don't think that makes them "autocratic," Britain and Australia are not.)

Let's look at some more data.
https://everytownresearch.org/report/gu ... n-america/

Every day, more than 110 Americans are killed with guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded.

[snip]

The US gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries.11 (*)

[snip]

Gun homicides are concentrated in cities—half of all gun homicides took place in just 127 cities, which represented nearly a quarter of the US population. Within these cities, gun homicides are most prevalent in racially segregated neighborhoods with high rates of poverty.13

Black Americans represent the majority of gun homicide victims. In fact, Black Americans are 10 times more likely than white Americans to die by gun homicide.14

[snip]

Firearms are the leading cause of death for American children and teens.

[snip]

Women in the US are 28 times more likely to be killed with a gun than women in other high-income countries.19 (*)

[snip]

58 percent of American adults or someone they care for have experienced gun violence in their lifetime.

[snip][end]

(*) Kinda stark numbers.

I don't disagree with your numbers although I might disagree with what's driving them. The question becomes what to do about them. Banning ownership certain or all classes of weapons is one extreme and open carry is the other. I do not and have never favored open carry. However, proposals to limit ownership of weapons are difficult to impossible to enforce in this country. Is there a middle ground that is acceptable or least unacceptable to both side? Maybe. But gun regulations are going to be difficult to pass at a time when much of the country perceives there to be a rise in violent crime and a war against law enforcement. Every time there's a headline, gun sales go up. It's hard to argue against allowing people the means to protect themselves until such time as they believe new gun regulation will make them safer.

[ZoWie]

Gun violence in the US has been analyzed for as long as I can remember. Indeed Bowling for Columbine is kind of a good introductory course on possible reasons for the phenomenon. Americans really are scared. "No justice, no peace" was a good slogan. It's not the only reason, but it's a big one.

There's also the whole wild west fantasy. "Your future's just as good as your draw, in Tombstone Territory." Etc..

The gun thing is a big reason why LA is a hole. A population with a great many deprived or racially marginalized people is juxtaposed with another class that shows off their extreme bordering on obscene wealth. For whatever reason, the situation is worse than similar conditions in Manhattan. It pisses everybody off, but they don't know why. Meanwhile, everyone's armed. They estimate that something like 1/4 of the cars you see have a gun in them somewhere. It's not like out in the country where everyone hunts and has rifles locked up safely somewhere. What they hunt here is humans.

[JoeMemphis]

Gun violence in the US has been analyzed for as long as I can remember. Indeed Bowling for Columbine is kind of a good introductory course on possible reasons for the phenomenon. Americans really are scared. "No justice, no peace" was a good slogan. It's not the only reason, but it's a big one.

There's also the whole wild west fantasy. "Your future's just as good as your draw, in Tombstone Territory." Etc..

The gun thing is a big reason why LA is a hole. A population with a great many deprived or racially marginalized people is juxtaposed with another class that shows off their extreme bordering on obscene wealth. For whatever reason, the situation is worse than similar conditions in Manhattan. It pisses everybody off, but they don't know why. Meanwhile, everyone's armed. They estimate that something like 1/4 of the cars you see have a gun in them somewhere. It's not like out in the country where everyone hunts and has rifles locked up safely somewhere. What they hunt here is humans.

You are correct. We have a lot of guns in this country. Its been that way for a long time. I grew up around guns. I hunted when I was young and we had guns around the house. They weren't locked up in a safe. They were in unlocked gun cases or in the corner of a closet or behind the seat of the truck. But something has changed over the years and people increasingly resort to violence to settle their disputes. Ii no longer hunt but I do have several handguns. I used to carry every day. I haven't carried on a regular basis for the last several years. I don't think we have a problem with people carrying guns. I do think we have a problem with the wrong people carrying guns and a problem with lack of regular training of those people who have permits to carry weapons.

I don't believe in open carry. It makes people nervous unless the individual has a badge. It also makes the person with the weapon a target. No sensible person outside of law enforcement would open carry IMO. I do think we have a right to bear arms meaning the right to own firearms. I don't necessarily think that extends to a right to carry a weapon outside the home. The right to carry a weapon outside the home IMO is a privilege that comes with a certain amount of responsibility to the public which should include some annual training. I'm not suggesting hours and hours but everyone who carries should spend a few hours each year in a classroom and at least qualify with their weapon on a range. People who desire to carry high powered weapons should have to submit to a more extensive background check on a regular basis, register their weapon and buy a stamp, carry liability insurance, and qualify with their weapon. You aren't telling anyone they can't own such a weapon but you are setting higher standards for them to do so. As long as the standards set are reasonable, most serious gun owners will go to the trouble and you will weed out the folks who aren't serious enough to go to the trouble and shouldn't be allowed to carry those types of weapons.

Now some NRA types will oppose this as will some on the far left, but I think many gun owners would be perfectly fine with those kinds of requirements. IMO they are reasonable things to ask.

[ProfX]

Banning ownership certain or all classes of weapons is one extreme and open carry is the other.

I don't understand why the other side of that argument is called extreme.

This country has banned, effectively (I know there are unique exceptions), civilian ownership of full auto weapons. For good reason. Since 1938.

The only debate since has been about semi autos (I'm not using another popular term that starts with "a w"), and it seems most folks are moving toward ammo restrictions as being the best control method here.

But gun regulations are going to be difficult to pass at a time when much of the country perceives there to be a rise in violent crime and a war against law enforcement.

People do indeed act on their perceptions, not reality, so I'm glad you made this point so I don't have to. But yes, many people perceive violent crime as rising where they live when it fact isn't. As for a war on law enforcement, there is none. There is a debate about whether all nails need the hammer of armed force intervention and whether that hammer is being used with racial bias, and that is a healthy one.

And, again, speaking of mistaken perceptions, like clockwork, gun sales went up when Biden got into office. They always do, because the bullshit rumors that a Dem will ban or confiscate all guns spread throughout the usual channels of BS.

Every time there's a headline, gun sales go up. It's hard to argue against allowing people the means to protect themselves until such time as they believe new gun regulation will make them safer.

Yes, that is a classic hallmark of irrational, reactive human behavior.

I don't argue against people defending themselves. Or hunting. Or using guns for sportsmanship. I just don't see why military grade weaponry is necessary for any of these legitimate needs.

BTW, Joe, we appear to agree that besides there not being open carry (esp. totally unrestricted open carry), that concealed carry outside the home should require licensing, permitting, insurance, and registration, and we also appear to both know the NRA will fight that tooth and nail.

It's what we require of the other potentially deadly weapon people take out of their homes -- automobiles. The NRA in the early 20th century seems to have agreed with both of us, but it's a different organization now, and Moore also goes into that in the film.

[Bludogdem]

I don't understand why the other side of that argument is called extreme.

This country has banned, effectively (I know there are unique exceptions), civilian ownership of full auto weapons. For good reason. Since 1938.

The only debate since has been about semi autos (I'm not using another popular term that starts with "a w"), and it seems most folks are moving toward ammo restrictions as being the best control method here.



People do indeed act on their perceptions, not reality, so I'm glad you made this point so I don't have to. But yes, many people perceive violent crime as rising where they live when it fact isn't. As for a war on law enforcement, there is none. There is a debate about whether all nails need the hammer of armed force intervention and whether that hammer is being used with racial bias, and that is a healthy one.

And, again, speaking of mistaken perceptions, like clockwork, gun sales went up when Biden got into office. They always do, because the bullshit rumors that a Dem will ban or confiscate all guns spread throughout the usual channels of BS.



Yes, that is a classic hallmark of irrational, reactive human behavior.

I don't argue against people defending themselves. Or hunting. Or using guns for sportsmanship. I just don't see why military grade weaponry is necessary for any of these legitimate needs.

BTW, Joe, we appear to agree that besides there not being open carry (esp. totally unrestricted open carry), that concealed carry outside the home should require licensing, permitting, insurance, and registration, and we also appear to both know the NRA will fight that tooth and nail.

It's what we require of the other potentially deadly weapon people take out of their homes -- automobiles. The NRA in the early 20th century seems to have agreed with both of us, but it's a different organization now, and Moore also goes into that in the film.

All that being basically true, those irrational buyers don’t present a threat. The threat is a very, very, very small segment of society.

Very, very, very, few ar15 style weapons are used in gun homicides. The smart move would be to quit constantly talking about and focusing on restrictions and controls that drive the purchase and stockpiling of guns.

[ProfX]

The smart move would be to quit constantly talking about and focusing on restrictions and controls that drive the purchase and stockpiling of guns.

And you call other people stupid. Very few people are killed by lightning every year, too. Don't be an idiot, get out of the swimming pool during a thunderstorm.

You amuse me. Problems don't go away because you avoid talking about them. You know what else studies have shown over the last decade? It's fewer and fewer gun nuts owning more and more guns every year. Check the data. The stupid is pooling and concentrating. We do not need to pander to their irrationality.

Ya know what's extremely rare in this country? Like polar bears being spotted in FL rare? Voter Fraud. And look at all the BS states are doing about that.

Whatever "style" of weapons are used to perp them, here's the data.





The U.S., again comparatively speaking, has a mass shooting problem. In addition to, generally speaking, a gun homicide problem.

This much I know: it is very, very hard to carry out a mass shooting with a shotgun, rifle, or six shooter revolver.

[JoeMemphis]

I don't understand why the other side of that argument is called extreme.

This country has banned, effectively (I know there are unique exceptions), civilian ownership of full auto weapons. For good reason. Since 1938.

The only debate since has been about semi autos (I'm not using another popular term that starts with "a w"), and it seems most folks are moving toward ammo restrictions as being the best control method here.



People do indeed act on their perceptions, not reality, so I'm glad you made this point so I don't have to. But yes, many people perceive violent crime as rising where they live when it fact isn't. As for a war on law enforcement, there is none. There is a debate about whether all nails need the hammer of armed force intervention and whether that hammer is being used with racial bias, and that is a healthy one.

And, again, speaking of mistaken perceptions, like clockwork, gun sales went up when Biden got into office. They always do, because the bullshit rumors that a Dem will ban or confiscate all guns spread throughout the usual channels of BS.



Yes, that is a classic hallmark of irrational, reactive human behavior.

I don't argue against people defending themselves. Or hunting. Or using guns for sportsmanship. I just don't see why military grade weaponry is necessary for any of these legitimate needs.

BTW, Joe, we appear to agree that besides there not being open carry (esp. totally unrestricted open carry), that concealed carry outside the home should require licensing, permitting, insurance, and registration, and we also appear to both know the NRA will fight that tooth and nail.

It's what we require of the other potentially deadly weapon people take out of their homes -- automobiles. The NRA in the early 20th century seems to have agreed with both of us, but it's a different organization now, and Moore also goes into that in the film.

The suggestion that something is or isn’t extreme is a matter of perspective. That aside, I get the point that you are not calling to ban all weapons, but there are some in your party that are either seeking to ban or severely restrict ownership. That’s what gun owners will hear. Personally, I can understand the concern.

The comparison to automobiles is a non starter to me. For one thing, automobiles are not considered “arms” in the 2nd amendment. Now we can disagree on the interpretation of the second amendment but I think most people agree that guns are “arms”. There’s lots of other differences but that is the one that jumps right out of the box.

If we were able to get people to agree that the 2nd amendment protection extends to personal weapons and isn’t limited to the militia, I think that would calm some concerns. But as long as we can’t agree that personal ownership of handguns, shotguns, and sporting rifles are protected and the remainder subject to sensible regulation, folks are going to believe that any concession will start us down the slippery slope to a ban on ownership. A ban that in this day and age could not be enforced.

[ProfX]

The suggestion that something is or isn’t extreme is a matter of perspective.

Uh huh. As with all opinions and arguments, I like to see what evidence "the perspective" is based on.

Some felt Ketanji B-J's views were "extreme" but it looks like 2/3 of the American public does not agree with them.

The comparison to automobiles is a non starter to me.

As is, to me, saying that requiring something you own to be registered and permitted infringes on your "right" to "bear" it ...

If we were able to get people to agree that the 2nd amendment protection extends to personal weapons and isn’t limited to the militia, I think that would calm some concerns.

Whether I like it or not, Heller was ruled by SCOTUS. I don't like it. But I can't pretend it isn't the law of the land.

P.S. I don't get why people pretend the word "Militia" isn't defined elsewhere in the Constitution itself, for the textualists who want context to go away, but I digress.

But we both know, even Scalia said in his majority opinion, while states and cities can't ban handguns etc., "reasonable restrictions" still need to be discussed. Looks like ol dead Lotsa Pasta Man and I agree on this point.

But as long as we can’t agree that personal ownership of handguns, shotguns, and sporting rifles are protected and the remainder subject to sensible regulation, folks are going to believe that any concession will start us down the slippery slope to a ban on ownership.

I can't stop irrationality. Lord knows I've tried.

What's in bold we agree on. Yes, the Ikean said he wanted handguns banned. It wasn't his only irrational belief. I understand he also liked primal screaming. I too recognize it as impossible.

[JoeMemphis]

Uh huh. As with all opinions and arguments, I like to see what evidence "the perspective" is based on.

Some felt Ketanji B-J's views were "extreme" but it looks like 2/3 of the American public does not agree with them.



As is, to me, saying that requiring something you own to be registered and permitted infringes on your "right" to "bear" it ...



Whether I like it or not, Heller was ruled by SCOTUS. I don't like it. But I can't pretend it isn't the law of the land.

P.S. I don't get why people pretend the word "Militia" isn't defined elsewhere in the Constitution itself, for the textualists who want context to go away, but I digress.

But we both know, even Scalia said in his majority opinion, while states and cities can't ban handguns etc., "reasonable restrictions" still need to be discussed. Looks like ol dead Lotsa Pasta Man and I agree on this point.



I can't stop irrationality. Lord knows I've tried.

What's in bold we agree on. Yes, the Ikean said he wanted handguns banned. It wasn't his only irrational belief. I understand he also liked primal screaming. I too recognize it as impossible.

I doubt your perspective will change much regardless of what other people think. As for your second point, as we know you can regulate and tax things to death. If something is unaffordable due to regulation or taxation or other government action, it does indeed infringe upon your right to “bear”. Many people believe registration is the first step to confiscation. As long as some leaders are calling for such limitations on ownership, gun owners aren’t going to agree to registration. I remember as a kid listening to people who were opposed to registration. It may seem irrational to you, but these feelings run deep in many of these people.

I’m not opposed to reasonable regulation. The question is what can get passed and timing is crucial. I doubt anything can get done under current circumstances.

[ProfX]

As for your second point, as we know you can regulate and tax things to death. If something is unaffordable due to regulation or taxation or other government action, it does indeed infringe upon your right to “bear”.

No one's calling for that. Well, not a lot of people who actually hold public office.

Many people believe registration is the first step to confiscation. As long as some leaders are calling for such limitations on ownership, gun owners aren’t going to agree to registration. I remember as a kid listening to people who were opposed to registration. It may seem irrational to you, but these feelings run deep in many of these people.

The deepness of a feeling is not persuasive. The evidence for a position is. I change my mind, it's usually based on not how loud people yell or how deeply they feel, but how persuasive their arguments are, based on what evidence supports them.

[JoeMemphis]

No one's calling for that. Well, not a lot of people who actually hold public office.



The deepness of a feeling is not persuasive. The evidence for a position is. I change my mind, it's usually based on not how loud people yell or how deeply they feel, but how persuasive their arguments are, based on what evidence supports them.

Enough people are calling for it to concern gun owners. And unless others in the party are standing firm on the other side, many gun owners won’t be persuaded. Of course, how many can be persuaded is an unknown as well. But it’s a place to start.

What you find persuasive may not be persuasive to others. What moves you to change your mind may not affect others and vice versa. Some beliefs are based on facts. Some are based on experience. Some are based on emotion. Some are based on a combination of things. People, their feelings, their belief systems, their biases, their experiences, aren’t math problems. Life would be more predictable if they were.

So I think we agree that there is a reasonable middle ground. Whether it’s achievable in the foreseeable future is up for grabs. Emotions often run high on both sides of this issue.

[ProfX]

As a social scientist, I get your point about motivated reasoning (I often say so myself) and the unpredictability of human behavior for individuals. Yes, humans are complicated.

Economists seem to think humans pursue this thing called rational self-interest. And then when weird stuff happens and the invisible hand won't clean up the doo doo properly -- because they don't seem to be following this model, in comes the "animal spirits" and voodoo economics.

On the other hand, we can't deny what works. Humans may be unpredictable, but we wouldn't have traffic lights and stop signs if they didn't result in fewer traffic deaths. Isaac Asimov and his Foundation and its fictional "psychohistory" is really an extrapolation on what sociologists do know about human behavior: hard to predict for individuals, strangely predictable in the aggregate.

More gun regulations result in fewer gun deaths. This is a robust finding, again, particularly when you compare states or countries. There is a fact we can begin with.

What emotions this engenders in you may be the next question. It fills me with hope we can fix a problem. Personally speaking, there is no better time to start than the present.

[Ted]

No one's calling for that. Well, not a lot of people who actually hold public office.

I wish you were correct about this one sir.

++++++++++
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fielda ... tax/%3famp

Two New York state lawmakers have proposed an ammunition excise tax of .02 to .05 per round. If passed, the bill would make New York the only state in the nation to enforce a tax on ammo.
++++++++++

Here's a link to the bill......

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S8415

Gun control advocates have been passing various gun laws at the state level. Some withstand legal challenges. Others do not. Unfortunately, too many of them have more to do with restricting access than reducing crime.

[Bludogdem]

And you call other people stupid. Very few people are killed by lightning every year, too. Don't be an idiot, get out of the swimming pool during a thunderstorm.

You amuse me. Problems don't go away because you avoid talking about them. You know what else studies have shown over the last decade? It's fewer and fewer gun nuts owning more and more guns every year. Check the data. The stupid is pooling and concentrating. We do not need to pander to their irrationality.

Ya know what's extremely rare in this country? Like polar bears being spotted in FL rare? Voter Fraud. And look at all the BS states are doing about that.

Whatever "style" of weapons are used to perp them, here's the data.





The U.S., again comparatively speaking, has a mass shooting problem. In addition to, generally speaking, a gun homicide problem.

This much I know: it is very, very hard to carry out a mass shooting with a shotgun, rifle, or six shooter revolver.

The problem isn’t the ar15. So why even talk about it. It’s the pistol illegally in the hands of a small number of dangerous criminals. In your previous post you cited that over 50% of gun homicides are African American related. Not many ar15’s there. The smart thing would be to focus tightly on what is essentially a small contingent and quit jabbering about a gun problem with 100 million people that simply doesn’t exist.

Most mass shootings, i think the number is 5 or 4, involves a pistol.

[JoeMemphis]

As a social scientist, I get your point about motivated reasoning (I often say so myself) and the unpredictability of human behavior for individuals. Yes, humans are complicated.

Economists seem to think humans pursue this thing called rational self-interest. And then when weird stuff happens and the invisible hand won't clean up the doo doo properly -- because they don't seem to be following this model, in comes the "animal spirits" and voodoo economics.

On the other hand, we can't deny what works. Humans may be unpredictable, but we wouldn't have traffic lights and stop signs if they didn't result in fewer traffic deaths. Isaac Asimov and his Foundation and its fictional "psychohistory" is really an extrapolation on what sociologists do know about human behavior: hard to predict for individuals, strangely predictable in the aggregate.

More gun regulations result in fewer gun deaths. This is a robust finding, again, particularly when you compare states or countries. There is a fact we can begin with.

What emotions this engenders in you may be the next question. It fills me with hope we can fix a problem. Personally speaking, there is no better time to start than the present.

Depends I guess on what gun regulations you are talking about, what countries and cultures you are talking about. Things don't work equally well everywhere. Many businesses have failed because they assume the market in one place behaved like the market somewhere else. So the gun regulations you can pass in states like New York or California won't work and can't be enforced in Tenn or Texas. Its no different than prohibition, immigration or pot. It's become rather stylish to openly defy federal laws and regulations that you find unpopular locally. Whatever gets passed needs to be bipartisan if possible and generally accepted, otherwise it won't be enforced.

[ProfX]

Here's a link to the bill......

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S8415

OK. So is the GOAL of the bill to make ammo unaffordable? No. They are collecting the tax to put into a gun violence research fund.

Next question. Would it have that practical effect? .22 caliber ammo ... .02 per bullet ... box of 100 bullets ... $2 tax. Would that make the ammo unaffordable? I'm betting that's not higher than the NY state sales tax ...

I admit it's intriguing they do have the tax increase based on ammo caliber.

[ProfX]

The problem isn’t the ar15. So why even talk about it.

For your reading pleasure. This appears to be the 2nd time I've been asked this.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-15-used ... 021-06-13/

Most mass shootings, i think the number is 5 or 4, involves a pistol.

Two points:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476 ... ypes-used/

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 146 different handguns being used in 98 incidents between 1982 and February 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 126 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 78 percent of mass shootings. (*)

BUT:
Owing to their use in several high-profile mass shootings, there has been much public discussion over suitability or necessity of assault weapons for the purpose of self-defense. While any definition of assault weapon is contentious, semi-automatic rifles are generally the main focus of debates around this issue. Since 1985 there has been a known total 49 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.

[snip][end]

(*) I wish they'd be more explicit that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are by semi-automatic pistols, like the ones used at VA Tech.

This is why I say the focus needs to more focus on function (semi-auto) than form ("assault weapons"). It's semi-automatic rifles AND pistols that are used in mass shootings. But, as I said, the real problem seems to be the combo of semi-auto plus high-capacity magazine, so this problem could be tackled on the other side (magazine size).

[ProfX]

Depends I guess on what gun regulations you are talking about, what countries and cultures you are talking about. Things don't work equally well everywhere.

While that point is a vaguery you often resort to, I still note,

Changes in firearm mortality following the implementation of state laws regulating firearm access and use
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1921965117

Many US states have tried to regulate firearm storage and use to reduce the 39,000 firearms-related deaths that occur each year. Looking at three classes of laws that regulate children’s access to firearms, the carrying of a concealed firearm, and the use of a firearm in self-defense, we found that state laws restricting firearm storage and use are associated with a subsequent 11% decrease in the firearms-related death rate.

[snip][end]

National Academy of Sciences; robust finding across all U.S. states they looked at.

[Ted]

OK. So is the GOAL of the bill to make ammo unaffordable? No. They are collecting the tax to put into a gun violence research fund.

Next question. Would it have that practical effect? .22 caliber ammo ... .02 per bullet ... box of 100 bullets ... $2 tax. Would that make the ammo unaffordable? I'm betting that's not higher than the NY state sales tax ...

I admit it's intriguing they do have the tax increase based on ammo caliber.

The .22 is one of the least expensive rounds available so that equates to a 20% tax rate at 10 cents per .22 round. I'm not sure what the sales tax rate on ammo is in New York.

Unaffordable? Probably not.

Is it a reasonable rate? I would say no.