Mass Shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church/School in Minneapolis

[Valletta]

If stronger gun laws like those found in California were to be applied at the federal level, gun violence would drop dramatically nationwide.

People are fleeing California because of the crime situation. One of the biggest deterrents to crime is the possibility that a business owner or home owner or guy on the street might have a gun. The American people have rejected the hard left agenda, so much so that they elected a guy president who is widely disliked in many circles.

 

[rambot]

Indeed, the violence in large liberal cities is out of control. Their policies are not working, and more regulations along such disastrous lines seems crazy to those with common sense. What they seek is control of the people, an authoritarian government, whether it be what you drive or the stove you can cook on or the pronouns you use. All of this, including more gun control laws and regulations, is supposedly for your own good. That is the propaganda.

Sorry.

Are guns laws at a civil or state level?


You are complaining about the possibility of a left leaning authoritarian government but seem fine with an actual right thing authoritarian government I suppose.

 

[rambot]

Here's a directory to the gun laws already in existence in all 50 states. Kind of puts to rest the idea that guns are unregulated: State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms (35th Edition) | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Let me know when you finish reading them all.

But you are arguing that they are going after your guns...and yet here is a list of laws that do no such thing. How about the paranoia relaxes when new gun laws DO get introduced.


I am NOT arguing that guns are unregulated.

That is a "strawman" argument.

 

[Valletta]

You are complaining about the possibility of a left leaning authoritarian government but seem fine with an actual right thing authoritarian government I suppose.

The voters rejected the previous Biden authoritarian regime, the ministry of truth, etc. We want less laws and regulations, not armed IRS agents telling you that you might not get audited if you remove that Trump sign from your yard. Not a whole federal agency to charge people money for owning a gun and deciding how long a person could own one.

 

[rjs330]

California is a good example of how well stronger gun laws work.

View attachment 369405

In the 1990s, California had the third highest gun homicide rate – over 50% above the national average – and its gun death rate was substantially higher than the rest of the country. As the state added more gun safety protections, more lives were saved and the trendlines reversed. From 1993 to 2017, California’s firearm mortality rate declined by 55 percent—almost four times the decrease in the rest of the nation. Many of California’s most important firearm laws went into effect in the early 1990s. As California continued to enact strong firearm laws, its firearm death rate continued to decline.”

It's not just California:

View attachment 369406

And yet with all thise gun laws people are still dying from them. Whats rhe acceptable rate of death from guns? Is it California's rate? What's the unacceptable rate? Is it the national.average? Are we talking strictly gun deaths or are we talking gun homicides?

If you are serious about ending this then Californias actions are not good enough. You have to ban guns. Thats the only way. Otherwise you have to accept that the killing will go on and rhat you have an acceptable rate in order to hold onto the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[rjs330]

And since we all recognize that mental health is a serious component to these shootings we certainly should allow anyone with a mental health disorder have access to guns. So Transgender people should be banned from having them for sure.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

There are certain areas that certainly need to be strengthened...

But like I noted, if it did pass, people would need to give it time to work before immediately pushing for additional restrictions.

I've stated before that I'm a fan of this model

Gun law in the Czech Republic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A few other aspects that people don't talk about, is that the trend of homicides also trends very closely with the amount of street gang membership per capita. (even more closely than it trends with the gun ownership rates)

I've been having some fun running statistical analysis with some AI tools

View attachment 369355

Slope → On average, for every +1 gang member per 100k population, the homicide rate rises by about 0.034 per 100k.

• Put differently: an extra 100 gang members per 100k is associated with ~+3.4 homicides per 100k.

r is equal to 0.31 ~ 9% of the variance in homicides is explained by the variation in the number of gang members (I didn't check the assumptions). What do you mean when you say "...trends very closely..."? Why would you only plot the trend line without the data points?

 

[o_mlly]

The banning of high-capacity magazines really comes down to common sense.

A war on guns, as I think is your position, will in my opinion be as effective in achieving the intended result as our "war on drugs".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

r is equal to 0.31 ~ 9% of the variance in homicides is explained by the variation in the number of gang members (I didn't check the assumptions). What do you mean when you say "...trends very closely..."? Why would you only plot the trend line without the data points?

Yeah, an r value of 0.31 indicates a pretty weak correlation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would be extremely happy with the Czech model in conjunction with a ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

If you notice, the Czech Republic didn't even have to go that far with it to keep their murder rate down.

Unlike elsewhere in Europe, there is a relatively high proportion of semi-automatic firearms in the country, which are generally considered better suited for self-defense. The most owned firearms in the country are CZ 75 Compact and Glock 17.[101] Other popular guns include 1911 clones and semi-automatic rifles made by Czech manufacturers, especially vz. 58 and AR-15


When you think about it, if the person is already going through all of the vetting/training/testing (that you read about), that person doesn't pose a huge threat regardless of if they opt for a handgun or AR-15 for home defense.

In 2021 they added a magazine capacity classification on AR's of "over 20 rounds" which requires an additional license (but in reading about it, that was just to "play ball" with some EU regulations, and less about them feeling a need to do so)

 

[JosephZ]

And yet with all thise gun laws people are still dying from them.

California has the same problem as places like Chicago and Washington, DC. The guns are coming from outside their borders. Most guns used by criminals in California are coming from states with weaker gun laws. California shares a border with Arizona, which has some of the weakest gun laws in the country. This again is another example of why stronger gun laws at the federal level are needed. If every state was required by law to have the same gun laws California has, the number of gun deaths and incidents of gun violence nationwide would fall significantly.

Whats rhe acceptable rate of death from guns? Is it California's rate? What's the unacceptable rate? Is it the national.average?

There is no acceptible rate, but it's unrealistic to expect stronger gun laws to be a cure for all gun violence.

Are we talking strictly gun deaths or are we talking gun homicides?

Both.

If you are serious about ending this then Californias actions are not good enough. You have to ban guns. Thats the only way. Otherwise you have to accept that the killing will go on and rhat you have an acceptable rate in order to hold onto the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun reform is not an all-or-nothing proposal. Cutting the number of firearm deaths by 10%, 25%, or 50% by imposing stronger gun control measures is better than not taking any action and allowing things to continue on as they are.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah, an r value of 0.31 indicates a pretty weak correlation.

r is equal to 0.31 ~ 9% of the variance in homicides is explained by the variation in the number of gang members (I didn't check the assumptions). What do you mean when you say "...trends very closely..."?

To put it in perspective:

What I posted before
On average, for every +1 gang member per 100k population, the homicide rate rises by about 0.034 per 100k.
(an extra 100 gang members per 100k is associated with ~+3.4 homicides per 100k.)
-- that was looking at high confidence data from 12 different countries

That seems to be stronger than the correlation of "privately owned guns" to homicides.

We have about 400 million privately owned firearms in the US (in a nation of 300 million people), and a homicide rate of about 5.5 per 100k.

The UK has about 1.9 million privately owned firearms (in a population of 68 million people), and a homicide rate of about 1.1 per 100k.

• United States
  • 400,000,000 guns ÷ 300,000,000 people = 1.333 guns per person.
  • Per 100k → 133,333 guns per 100k.
  • Homicide rate = 5.5 per 100k.
• United Kingdom
  • 1,900,000 guns ÷ 68,000,000 people ≈ 0.0279 guns per person.
  • Per 100k → 2,794 guns per 100k.
  • Homicide rate = 1.1 per 100k.

For every +1 gun per 100,000 people, the homicide rate goes up by about 0.000033 per 100k.


Or to put in other words:
When comparing us to the UK
We have 48 times the amount of guns per capita
We have about 4 times the gang membership per capita
Our homicide rate is 5 times what theirs is.

If the gun ownership rate was the stronger correlating metric, then on a scale of 4x <-> 48x, I would expect to see our homicide comparison be much closer to the latter.

And we've actually seen that play out here in various cities.

For instance, when Baltimore implemented it's Gang Violence Reduction taskforce, they dropped their murder rate by 25% in 2 years (despite the gun laws of Maryland not changing during that time period that I'm aware of)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That seems to be stronger than the correlation of "privately owned guns" to homicides.

That's an odd use of the term "correlation" from a statistics perspective. What you've posted indicates that gang membership might have a larger effect on the homicide rate than private gun ownership, but statistically speaking, the correlation is weak (as indicated by the low r value). A strong correlation would be indicated by an r value greater than 0.7.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

To put it in perspective:

What I posted before
On average, for every +1 gang member per 100k population, the homicide rate rises by about 0.034 per 100k.
(an extra 100 gang members per 100k is associated with ~+3.4 homicides per 100k.)
-- that was looking at high confidence data from 12 different countries

That seems to be stronger than the correlation of "privately owned guns" to homicides.

We have about 400 million privately owned firearms in the US (in a nation of 300 million people), and a homicide rate of about 5.5 per 100k.

The UK has about 1.9 million privately owned firearms (in a population of 68 million people), and a homicide rate of about 1.1 per 100k.

• United States
  • 400,000,000 guns ÷ 300,000,000 people = 1.333 guns per person.
  • Per 100k → 133,333 guns per 100k.
  • Homicide rate = 5.5 per 100k.
• United Kingdom
  • 1,900,000 guns ÷ 68,000,000 people ≈ 0.0279 guns per person.
  • Per 100k → 2,794 guns per 100k.
  • Homicide rate = 1.1 per 100k.

View attachment 369425

For every +1 gun per 100,000 people, the homicide rate goes up by about 0.000033 per 100k.


Or to put in other words:
When comparing us to the UK
We have 48 times the amount of guns per capita
We have about 4 times the gang membership per capita
Our homicide rate is 5 times what theirs is.

If the gun ownership rate was the stronger correlating metric, then on a scale of 4x <-> 48x, I would expect to see our homicide comparison be much closer to the latter.

And we've actually seen that play out here in various cities.

For instance, when Baltimore implemented it's Gang Violence Reduction taskforce, they dropped their murder rate by 25% in 2 years (despite the gun laws of Maryland not changing during that time period that I'm aware of)

There's no conflict in trying to reduce the number of gang members and the number of guns, why are you putting them against each other in this discussion? Does the 95% confidence interval for the gang member / homicide slope contain 0? In other words, was it significant? Why didn't you also plot the underlying data points? With 12 data points and an r2 of 0.09, I wonder how they were distributed. If you point out the dataset I can do the calculations myself.

 

[rambot]

The voters rejected the previous Biden authoritarian regime, the ministry of truth, etc. We want less laws and regulations, not armed IRS agents telling you that you might not get audited if you remove that Trump sign from your yard. Not a whole federal agency to charge people money for owning a gun and deciding how long a person could own one.

Sigh.
Ok.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Measures like universal background checks, waiting periods, licensing, red flag laws, and safe storage requirements are supported by a large majority of gun owners and aren't seen as a punishment.

Background checks if they could be done quickly would be OK (as long as people realize that it comes with the limitation of prior documentation being required.

I would have no issue with red flag laws IF they came with safe gaurds to keep people from basically wanting guns taken away either because they have an issue with guns OR because they have an issue with the person ( not a safety issue or reasonable fear issue but a I do not like you issue, so I do not want you to have a gun. For example, I have a cousin that I do not particularly like I know or am pretty certain she owns a gun and KNOW her husband owns quite a few. I do not like K and could take her or leave her, but have NO reason to believe that she has no business with guns ( not that I would do that) but cases like that where people would use the red flag laws basically out of spite. Eamples of safe gaurds could include either requiring two people to come foward or else have it where the only way that one person could do red flag laws would be if the person knew the person in question as STRICTLY either in a professional sense NOT a friend by any defination of the word or a law enforcement that again dealt with them in the context of a call .

Storeage in terms fo children particularly only work after the fact. In other words, if I have a gun out of a safe and my child never touches it or I enforce gun safety then they will never know because it is none of their business it will ONLY be IF something happens that that could really be enforced.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm not proud of it, but in February 1987 I was caught drinking and driving, and my license was revoked for a year. Later I was caught driving with a revoked license. I received a suspended sentence of 181 days confinement with 5 years probation. My attorney informed me at the time that if I got caught driving again, I would be confined for a minimum of 181 days, and if I got caught drinking and driving again, it would be at least a year. Combine that with the financial costs involved, and that was enough for me to decide to stop driving completely until my license was restored. I would think this would also be the case with most people, but of course there will always be a few that will continue to ignore the laws and the possible consequences of breaking them.

When it comes to guns, it's important that laws be enforced, strict penalties be in place, and a zero-tolerance policy be in place when it comes to any crimes where a gun is involved.


Since you seem to care what people who gun down children have to say, the shooter did mention how "shockingly east" it was for him to obtain a gun.

Maybe that was enough for you and is enough for quite a few people, but there is NOTHING to really stop people from driving if they do not care about the law, and quite frankly if a person is following all the rules of the road there is no reason to pull them over. Drunk driving is a safety issue, but merely driving without a license is not in and of itself a safety issue anyway.

Same with guns if someone is otherwise following the law then their having a gun is not an issue IF someone does not care about the law then they do not care and that is when stopping them makes sense.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Now you can't buy cigarettes until you are 21!

well, same thing could apply

 

[dogs4thewin]

You're probably right.

Unfortunately, this is true. As I said earlier in the thread, too many people in the United States have some sort of weird fetish with guns and apparently love their guns more than they love their neighbors and their neighbors' children.

Maybe we do not trust the government to stop at reasonable.

 

[Desk trauma]

well, same thing could apply

But you can still join the military at 18. Totally not a life changing decision.