In each cases I can recollect, the revolution was a success despite the armed forces of the state (because they were otherwise engaged or simply not present), or because of them (because the revolutionnaries mostly coincided with the militaries). — Akanthinos

Right, this observation is not opposed to my point.

It has been firmly established that there is zero correlation between guns and violent crime. — JustSomeGuy

Utter nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. It's a sad fact that so many otherwise intelligent people are convinced, somehow, to deny the obvious in respect of this particular matter, but that is the only way I am able to understand it.

I'm not sure if you were specifically trying to cite the Wikipedia article, but it was the top result so that's what I used.

"the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates.[136][137] He also finds that robberies in which the assailant uses a gun are more likely to result in the death of the victim, but less likely to result in injury to the victim.[138] A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill.[133][139] Overall robbery and assault rates in the U.S. are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.[135][139] A strong association exists between the availability of illegal guns and violent crime rates, but not between legal gun availability and violent crime rates.[140]"

I'll also cite a science podcast I just listened to a few days ago that says this exact same thing.

https://gimletmedia.com/episode/guns/

The relevant part begins at 29:15

They cite all of their sources further down on the page:

"National Research Academies Panel which found guns don’t increase or decrease crime
Wellford, Pepper, and Petrie, editors, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review”, The National Academies Press, 2005"

There's a hyperlink on the actual site that leads directly to the full publication, if you want to read it.

I had been aware of this information for a while from other sources, as well. It may not be well-known information, but it's been very well-demonstrated. I have no dog in this fight. I don't care an ounce about gun availability or control, I only care about the actual statistics, and they clearly show that there is zero correlation between legal gun availability and crime. As I said in my original comment, the only trend that the statistics show is that more guns = more gun deaths. Of course, this is what you might call a "no-brainer". How can you kill someone with a gun if you don't have a gun? To quote Bill Burr: "If you get a pool in your backyard, you immediately increase your chances of drowning in your backyard."

I'm not sure if you were specifically trying to cite the Wikipedia article, but it was the top result so that's what I used. — JustSomeGuy

I'm not talking about the comparison of gun death rates between various cities in the USA, but between the USA and the rest of the developed world, where the USA is a clear outlier by orders of magnitude.

You seem to somehow be misunderstanding every single thing I've said. Violent crime is not equivalent to gun deaths. You've created a strawman argument that I never made--in fact I have said the exact opposite multiple times now. I'm not sure what it is you aren't getting. Go back and read what I've said in my previous comments more carefully. I think you're seeing what you want to see and not what I'm actually saying.

Your original comment was a rephrase of the NRA canard that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’, which inclined me to think that you were defending American gun culture, my response was based on that assessment. If I’m incorrect, then apologies, and the implication is withdrawn.

So you've read nothing I've said since that statement? Because everything I've said has very clearly been about how guns do not cause people to be violent or commit crime, they only make the crimes more lethal. The original statement of the saying "Gun's don't kill people..." was in regards to a claim a person was making about religion causing people to commit atrocities, so I compared it to the implication that guns cause people to commit crime and how that has been thoroughly debunked. The point in both arguments has been to avoid blaming the tools people use for the acts that the people commit with those tools. The saying, whether you agree with it or not, is a fact. It may be used by certain groups to make implications that it doesn't actually support in order to further their own agenda, but that doesn't change the truthfulness of the actual sentiment.
No harm done, though. I'd just advise you to try to be less reactionary. You literally let one thing I said blind you from everything else I said because of your emotional response to it. Also, I hope you do read the information I've provided so that you are more informed about the issue, since this seems to be something you like to actively debate about, and I always encourage people to be as educated as possible about things they want to argue for or against. Both the Wikipedia article and the podcast I shared have some great resources and statistics which provide proof that having less guns does lead to less murder and less suicide, so less death overall.

Both the Wikipedia article and the podcast I shared have some great resources and statistics which provide proof that having less guns does lead to less murder and less suicide, so less death overall. — JustSomeGuy

(Y)

everything I've said has very clearly been about how guns do not cause people to be violent or commit crime, they only make the crimes more lethal. — JustSomeGuy

I really hate to acknowledge this bit: The number of guns--all types--in the possession of Americans is somewhere between 100 million and 200 million. Clearly, the vast majority of those guns are not being used to perform violent acts. For which we can be very grateful. On the other hand, as they say in the advertising business "the product is a message". Shall we say, "Guns help people kill people"? In violent areas, it's safe to say that "Guns give people good reasons to kill people".

On the other hand, the number of guns is very large, and the number of deaths by guns (manslaughter and suicide) is also large. Let's not forget the damage caused by non-fatal gun shot wounds.

It's always important to look at how national averages are composed. Some places in the United States [mostly the northern-most tier of states) have rates of violence similar to northern Europe--quite low-- while other areas [the former states of the Confederacy] have very high rates of gun violence. Some cities, like New Orleans, are remarkably violent. Parts of Chicago too.

Stephen Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, laid the high rate of violence in the south to 3 cultural features:

1. A strong sense of personal honor (which must be defended)
2. A suspicion of central government -- not just the federal government, but the state and local government as well.
3. A tradition of "do it yourself justice".

People who wear their honor on their sleeves, are suspicious of any encroachments by peace-enforcing government agents like police, sheriffs... are going to have more conflict than most other people, and because they prefer to carry out justice themselves, there are going to be more violent deaths.

Much the same thing prevails in Mexico where the drug industry personnel tend to kill each other, and anyone who gets in their way, quite regularly. Mexico will have something like 25,000 murders this year, with a population of roughly 40% of the US--126,000,000.

You literally let one thing I said blind you from everything else I said because of your emotional response to it. — JustSomeGuy

Yeah, don't you just hate it when that happens?

17 killed in Florida school shooting.

19 yr. old Nicholas Cruz, the suspect in the Florida killings, used an AR-15 assault-style rifle and he had “multiple magazines” on him, according to reports.

It's hard to believe that this fucking weapon is still on the streets. Shows what money can do in this America.

There are handguns and hunting rifles more powerful than it.

Fuck guns, fuck the NRA, fuck politicians who take money from the NRA, fuck morons who worship the 2nd Amendment, fuck thoughts and prayers, fuck.

Yea so?

What kind of perspective shows people that the mass murder of strangers accomplishes anything, let alone anything good?

Where did this perspective come from?

I see--and directly experience--almost every day the kinds of things that people get bent out of shape over in this culture. "Give me another pack of sauce", they command. You tell them that that will be 25¢ and start to ring it up. "You mean I have to pay for sauce?! What horrible people you are charging me for sauce!". And so on.

Out of all of the things in the world that there is to be angry about, they get angry about a pack of sauce. They verbally abuse you over a pack of sauce.

Therefore, I am not surprised when I hear that, again, somebody in this culture has gone on a shooting spree and killed many innocent strangers for no reason.

This latest shooting was the 19th school shooting in the USA for 2018, and the year is six weeks old. Many of the other shootings didn’t get a lot of coverage, because the death toll was lower, so they’re more ‘business as usual’, hardly rating a mention.

O’Reilly said after the Las Vegas massacre that maybe mass-shootings are ‘the price the American people are willing to pay for the freedom to own guns’. It seems to me that he’s correct, unfortunately. But he also said that ‘the right to bear arms mean that even loons can buy guns’. However, the second amendment specifically states that

‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

Nobody seems to pay any attention to the ‘well-regulated Militia’ part. What if, in order to buy a military-grade weapon, one had to report to the local Militia Leader and undergo an interview for one’s suitability to own such a weapons, to contribute to civil defence? And that such weapons were required to be kept in a secure armoury and registered as such?

Now, of course, the response of the NRA to any such suggestion will be that would be a ‘government plan to take away our weapons’. The Second Amendment has been read very selectively, so as to maximise the commercial potential of gun-sales.

What if, in order to buy a military-grade weapon, one had to report to the local Militia Leader and undergo an interview for one’s suitability to own such a weapons, to contribute to civil defence? And that such weapons were required to be kept in a secure armoury and registered as such? — Wayfarer

I have thought for several years now that when somebody buys such weapons that a point of sale interview should be conducted by law enforcement personnel. "Why are you buying this type of weapon? What training do you have in its use? How long do you plan to own it? What measures have you taken to prevent unauthorized use of it?..." Don't prohibit the sale based on the results of the interview--that would be flirting with Second Amendment infringements. Instead, if there are any red flags put the buyer under constant surveillance.

If people know that they are being monitored their behavior will probably change.

The Second Amendment may guarantee the right to possess firearms, but it does not guarantee freedom from being treated with suspicion.

How can any rational person now not see the purchase of weapons designed to kill large numbers of people quickly as suspicious?

If the gun rights lobby does not like the reputation that certain weapons and their owners now have then they should correct the behaviors that have built that reputation. Their own irrational, robotic responses to massacres would be a good place to start. Meanwhile, they could show that they are serious about gun safety and responsible gun ownership by volunteering to conduct some of the aforementioned surveillance at no cost to taxpayers.

That's a great idea.

I have thought for several years now that when somebody buys such weapons that a point of sale interview should be conducted by law enforcement personnel. "Why are you buying this type of weapon? What training do you have in its use? How long do you plan to own it? What measures have you taken to prevent unauthorized use of it?... — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, those are called ‘background checks’, and the NRA has fiercely resisted their expansion for years. Besides:

A new law is working its way through Congress that, if passed, would destroy each state's ability to pass its own gun control laws — letting states with weak gun control laws overrule states with strict ones.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would make it so that people who are granted a license to carry a concealed firearm in their own state could do so everywhere in the country, according to CBS News. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives and is supported by President Donald Trump, meaning that it only needs to pass in the Senate before it becomes the law of the land.
The bill has 39 co-sponsors in the Senate.

"Nineteen states don’t require any gun safety training in order to carry a concealed gun in public, while 12 states don’t require a permit or background check," Andrew Zucker of Everytown for Gun Safety, told Salon in an email. "So a state like New Mexico that requires a permit and gun safety training would be forced to allow Arizonans to carry, even if they don't have a permit and have never had a background check or any form of training."

Salon

Also:

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s newly unveiled budget would cut millions of dollars from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which gun dealers use to verify if someone is banned from buying a gun before selling it to them.

So - don’t hold your breath. If anything, gun laws in the USA continue to be rolled back. Trump speaks at NRA rallies. Unfortunately, in this case, the bad guys are winning, and the innocent will continue to suffer.

IF being in possession of a gun and ammunition was related to using the gun, then we would see far, far more gun violence than we do. There are a reported 200 million to over 300 million guns in America. The number of people killed in 2016 by homicide was 17,250. In 2013, the average homicide rate in the U.S. was 4.9 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to the average rate globally, which was 6.2.

17,250 murders per year (which excludes many suicides by gunfire) is in all respects a policy failure, but it may be the case ([i]I hate saying this[/i]) that it isn't the number of guns in American's possession that is the critical problem; it is the fact that we have no effective way of denying anybody a gun, should they wish to have one.

Worse, we have no really effective system in place to deny gun access to someone who is unstable and intent on committing mayhem. If the gun inventory was the same in the US as it is in European countries, limiting control wouldn't be a problem. But that is not the case. Our inventory is too large now to look after effectively.

Well, those are called ‘background checks’, and the NRA has fiercely resisted their expansion for years. — Wayfarer

The way that I understand it, background checks can result in a seller legally being required to deny a sale.

What I am talking about would not be a background check. It would occur after a buyer has already passed the required background check and made a legal purchase.

It would, basically, be law enforcement patrolling the point of sale of guns like they patrol the streets. The buyer would have the legal right not to cooperate. However, if you have nothing to hide then you should not have a problem with answering a few questions--you should not have a problem with cooperating like you do not have a problem with cooperating during a traffic stop. If a buyer won't cooperate then that would be a red flag and reason to put him/her under constant surveillance. If he/she does cooperate but the interview reveals red flags, put him/her under constant surveillance.

No matter what happens as the point of sale is patrolled, a buyer will know that he/she is being monitored.

The public would likely be safer when it has been made clear to a gun buyer that the gun and he/she are being monitored.

So - don’t hold your breath. If anything, gun laws in the USA continue to be rolled back. Trump speaks at NRA rallies. Unfortunately, in this case, the bad guys are winning, and the innocent will continue to suffer. — Wayfarer

I'm not a professional historian, but I think that it is safe to say that women's liberation, equal rights for minorities, and other progressive changes weren't wholesale, overnight overhauls. They were probably one step forward, two steps backwards--one minor victory followed by a major setback--until through attrition and other factors the tide turned.

The way that I understand history, it was television--the horror of peaceful activists being met with vicious police dogs and fire hoses being broadcast onto TV screens all over the U.S.--that turned the tide in favor of the Civil Rights movement. But even with that momentum the margin by which civil rights legislation passed Congress was, if I know history correctly, very narrow.

Even with major legislative victories finally secured, equality has been realized slowly. Just one example: an African-American did not start at quarterback in a Super Bowl until 1988.

This whole gun violence business may be equally difficult to change, unfortunately.

I was concurring with your idea. I was showing how I have already developed a similar idea in a way that could withstand Second Amendment challenges and even give the two sides common ground.

The bad guys will fight tooth and nail until they are narrowly defeated, just like they did against the Civil Rights movement. But I don't have any reason to believe that they won't eventually be defeated.

It’s more than ‘a policy failure’ - it’s a breakdown of civil order.

I was concurring with your idea. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Hey, I wasn't arguing against what you're saying - I think it's a very sensible attitude. It's just that the momentum is all with the Gun Rights side.

There are handguns and hunting rifles more powerful than it. — Thorongil

It's not just about power. It's also about firing rate and number of rounds. Presumably an AR-15 beats handguns and hunting rifles in that metric?

Nobody seems to pay any attention to the ‘well-regulated Militia’ part. — Wayfarer

It is paid attention. See District of Columbia v. Heller:

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

Instead, if there are any red flags put the buyer under constant surveillance.

...

The Second Amendment may guarantee the right to possess firearms, but it does not guarantee freedom from being treated with suspicion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That could run foul of the Fourth Amendment, though. There needs to be probable cause, not just "red flags".

Well, that's a pity.

The other point about the AR-15 style weapons is that they were originally designed as armaments, i.e. their purpose is the killing of people. Of course, the Gun Lobby has now had them re-defined as 'sporting weapons'.

Florida Massacre Survivor Tells Trump: 'I Don't Want Your Condolences,' Demands Gun Control

I don’t want your condolences you fucking price [sic] of shit, my friends and teachers were shot. Multiple of my fellow classmates are dead. Do something instead of sending prayers. Prayers won’t fix this. But Gun control will prevent it from happening again.

I can sympathise.

17,250 murders per year (which excludes many suicides by gunfire) is in all respects a policy failure, but it may be the case (I hate saying this and control) that it isn't the number of guns in American's possession that is the critical problem; it is the fact that we have no effective way of denying anybody a gun, should they wish to have one. — Bitter Crank

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

I'm perplexed, because I don't see the means by which we can undo decades of gun acquisitions by a good share of the population.

I am not, and never have been a gun ownership advocate or a 2nd Amendment enthusiast. I do now and have always loathed the NRA.

The conclusion of the JPHA article makes perfectly good sense:

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Gun ownership is already very widely distributed; There are around 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. At least 100 million Americans own 1, 2, 3 or more guns. That cat is out of the bag. Homicides by firearms, however, are not distributed exactly the same way that gun ownership is. Take Illinois: Illinois is not among the 20 states with the highest level of murder by firearms. Parts of Chicago have few murders by gun. But some parts of Chicago have astonishingly high rates of murder by firearms.

Blue = lowest, red = highest rate of gun homicide. In 2017, 625 were shot and killed; 2936 were shot and wounded.



36% of Minnesota households own guns, but the state has one of the lowest rates of homicide. Illinois has a rate of 26% but one of the highest rates of homicide (again... Chicago).

↪Bitter Crank It’s more than ‘a policy failure’ - it’s a breakdown of civil order. — Wayfarer

There is a breakdown of civil order in some places, and various policies have contributed hugely to civil disorder. For instance, the inordinately high murder rate by gunfire in Chicago is in many of the neighborhoods most disadvantaged by an official public policy of racial segregation in housing, education, and unemployment beginning in the late 1940s. The ghettos and slums of Chicago didn't just happen -- civil disorder was created. Couple imposed disadvantages with powerlessness, insufficient and hostile police presence in poor neighborhoods, cheap guns, drugs, welfare dependence, lack of employment opportunity, etc. etc. and you have major problems.

I'm perplexed, because I don't see the means by which we can undo decades of gun acquisitions by a good share of the population. — Bitter Crank

3 million extra guns sold is another 155 persons dead according to the correlation. So stopping the sale of guns can save lives. Of course, that's constitutionally not entirely feasible but...

You could outlaw carrying or keeping certain guns that are particularly effective in gun massacres (assault rifles, bump stocks). Fine to put them in a vault at the shooting range and use there under controlled circumstances but not something to keep in a home, on your person or in a car. Any gun bought should have extensive background check, ID number and registered. In fact, I don't see why it would be possible to have the barrel of a gun imprint a bullet with a specific pattern related to that gun much like a handprint. That should increase the chances of finding a lead. You can also limit the number of guns per person (really, how many do you need?!).

Put some hefty fines on possession of the wrong types of gun for 5 years after the law is enacted, meanwhile confiscate when seen or found. Reward people for turning them in. Jail time after 5 years.

And by the way, there's international statistical evidence that gun laws reduce gun homicides as other countries went here before. I definitely agree there's also a socio-economic dimension (Milwaukee anyone?) and a cultural one but it starts with the ready availability of guns. Throwing your hands up and saying "but there are already too many is too cynica"l. Guns break, they get rusty, they are lost etc. etc. Nobody is expecting the problem to be solved today but doing nothing is just immoral.

You also need to combat the "good guy with a gun" bullshit as the good guy is always too late and most people are a crappy shot any way. Even with regular training it's something completely different shooting in a situation where your life is on the line. Police miss in 57% of the time at a distance of 6 feet or less. Basically, if I fall over I have a higher chance of hitting someone than a police officer with a gun. Excellent.