Mass Shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church/School in Minneapolis

[ThatRobGuy]

Try to remove Brazil, Mexico and South Africa from your dataset and plot homicide rate vs guns per 100k, and you'll find that r2 for that curve is 0.97 (that is it explains more of the variance). Is that correct? Probably not. But they are 3 outliers, and have alot of leverage. I could pick 3 other countries if you would like?

So basically, you want to toss 3 of the 12 countries that don't conform to the narrative, and replace them with 3 others that do?

Or is is something else you're asking?

 

[Aldebaran]

Well obviously we wouldnt write the law like that. There would be some period of time when you could turn in the gun, for cash probably. No one becomes "instant criminals".

Uh huh. The $1500 AR someone bought and enjoys becomes the target of legislators, and now needs to turn it into the government for probably no more than $500 or go to jail for continuing to own it. And why? Because the legislators decided to ban all of a certain item because it's presumed that each and every single person who owns that item is a potential mass shooter.
Penalizing all owners of a certain item because a tiny percentage of them might misuse them is punishing everyone for the acts of a very few.

 

[durangodawood]

Uh huh. The $1500 AR someone bought and enjoys becomes the target of legislators, and now needs to turn it into the government for probably no more than $500 or go to jail for continuing to own it. And why? Because the legislators decided to ban all of a certain item because it's presumed that each and every single person who owns that item is a potential mass shooter.
Penalizing all owners of a certain item because a tiny percentage of them might misuse them is punishing everyone for the acts of a very few.

I was talking about your claim of "instant criminals".

No one would write the law that way. Not even the most gun hating ultra liberal.

 

[JosephZ]

The $1500 AR someone bought and enjoys becomes the target of legislators, and now needs to turn it into the government for probably no more than $500 or go to jail for continuing to own it.

There can be a grandfather clause for guns that are already owned.

 

[seeking.IAM]

If we cannot guns, perhaps we could control ammunition. It worked for Barney Fife and for Sudafed.

 

[Aldebaran]

I was talking about your claim of "instant criminals".

No one would write the law that way. Not even the most gun hating ultra liberal.

Well, if not "instant", then they're made into a criminal after a grace period if they don't give up possessions (at a financial loss) they lawfully bought just to make other people feel better.

 

[Aldebaran]

There can be a grandfather clause for guns that are already owned.

Sure there could! But that would in no way please those who want them all banned. The reasoning is that there are so many, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and will be the target of criminals who want to steal them. 25 million AR15s in the USA wouldn't be ignored by those who don't like them and want them gone.
Besides, have you noticed how many people rush out to buy the very items that legislators want to ban? Obama tried banning the AR15, and it sparked a mad-dash to gun stores to buy them that lasted for months. inventories ran out at the time, and now there are even more AR15's in the hands of citizens thanks to Obama. I guess we can thank him for many of the 25 million AR's we now have.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, if not "instant", then they're made into a criminal after a grace period if they don't give up possessions (at a financial loss) they lawfully bought just to make other people feel better.

If I proposed a buy-back law it would include fair value.

Obviously Im only going to propose measures that I think make sense and are fair.

Right now Im not proposing any of that. Im just pushing back against bad arguments, which come thick and fast around this issue..

 

[rambot]

That's assuming that the "gun law" is what stopped those people.

If it stops someone from getting a gun, then it did exactly that right?

I've NEVER heard of a stat that says "gun laws stopped X number of people from getting guns".

When it causes law-abiding citizens to become instant criminals by making their lawfully purchased items into contraband, it's punishing the law-abiding.

And if they are grandfathered in then you'd have NO problem with those same types of laws?

 

[Aldebaran]

If I proposed a buy-back law it would include fair value.

Obviously Im only going to propose measures that I think make sense and are fair.

Right now Im not proposing any of that. Im just pushing back against bad arguments.

That would be prohibitively expensive.
Let's see, 25 million AR15's (not counting AK47s, Mini 14s, MP5, or anything else with a hi-cap magazine) averaging around $1,000 each (and that's a very low estimate since they sell for $700--$3,000 and more). The cost would be 25 billion dollars to collect all those AR15s, and that's just the payouts and not the administrative costs which could be quite substantial if done nationwide.

Then the mass shooters start using AK47s......
"We gotta do something about all those AK47s!!!"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your data for the number of gang members per 100k is suspect (is it also from UNODC?). In 2024, the Swedish police reported that 14000 were actively involved in criminal gangs with an additional 48000 in the periphery. So 62000/10570000*100000= 587 gang members per 100k (or 132 for active members). I'm not certain if I'm allowed to post links '62 000 personer knyts till gängkriminalitet' so I'll post in quotes. So there is a lot things to understand (how does data from different countries differ) and decide on (what countries should be included) before a rigorous analysis can be done. Right now, I don't think we can say with any certainty how strong any links are. Somewhere there is a criminologist, economist or sociologist crying over our abuse of the data.

Part of it seems as if we're using different sources and different definitions.

It looks like the source AI pulled back for me for Sweden is from 2017 (one may wonder how criminal gangs exploded so much over a period of 7 years in a place like Sweden)

Another thing, if you're including associates, we'd have to do that for all of the other nations' gang membership numbers as well. As you'll notice, by including associates -- taking the number from 14000 to 62000 is no trivial change to the final "per 100k" number.

The same would be true for the gangs here in the US. They have their "official" members, but then someone like a small-time drug dealer who buys from them or a GF of a member who hides some money in her account for them would be considered "an associate" despite not necessarily being the type of person who would be contributing to street violence.

 

[Aldebaran]

If it stops someone from getting a gun, then it did exactly that right?

I've NEVER heard of a stat that says "gun laws stopped X number of people from getting guns".

If a person is legally allowed to own one, they shouldn't be stopped.

And if they are grandfathered in then you'd have NO problem with those same types of laws?

Yes, it's still a problem. It might not affect the ones I currently own, but I still wouldn't want to see someone who wanted to buy one for legal purposes be prevented. That would be ALL future buyers--with the lawful and unlawful being treated the same.

 

[durangodawood]

That would be prohibitively expensive.
Let's see, 25 million AR15's (not counting AK47s, Mini 14s, MP5, or anything else with a hi-cap magazine) averaging around $1,000 each (and that's a very low estimate since they sell for $700--$3,000 and more). The cost would be 25 billion dollars to collect all those AR15s, and that's just the payouts and not the administrative costs which could be quite substantial if done nationwide.

Then the mass shooters start using AK47s......
"We gotta do something about all those AK47s!!!"

Im not gonna try to verify your numbers. But I will say, the cost is a real issue. And I wont push back on this part of your argument unless I learn differently.

 

[Aldebaran]

Im not gonna try to verify your numbers. But I will say, the cost is a real issue. And I wont push back on this part of your argument unless I learn differently.

Here's what I got from an "AI overview" from a Google search:

There is no exact number, but the most recent estimates suggest there are over 20 million AR-15s in civilian hands in the U.S. as of 2023, with some data pointing to even higher numbers based on the total circulation of AR-style rifles since 1990.
Estimates for AR-15s in civilian hands
Over 20 million:
A September 2023 article indicates there are an estimated 20 million AR-15s in civilian hands in the United States, according to KCUR.
Over 24.4 million AR-style rifles:
The Reload reported that over 24.4 million AR-15s, AK-47s, and similar rifles were in civilian hands as of 2022.
Over 30 million AR-style rifles:
Guns.com stated that data from the ATF and past reports show over 30 million AR-style rifles (including AK variants) entered the market between 1990 and 2022.

 

[JosephZ]

Sure there could! But that would in no way please those who want them all banned.

I'm one of those people who wants to see all assault-style weapons banned along with high-capacity magazines. I would be in favor of a grandfather clause for those who already own these weapons as long as there is a requirement to register them, as was the case when California banned assault-style weapons. Owners would also not be allowed to sell, trade, or transfer these weapons to another person at anytime in the future. If an owner of an assault-style weapon passes away, the gun would be turned in to the state and destroyed.

Then the mass shooters start using AK47s......
"We gotta do something about all those AK47s!!!"

They would be included in any assault-style weapons ban.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm one of those people who wants to see all assault-style weapons banned along with high-capacity magazines. I would be in favor of a grandfather clause for those who already own these weapons as long as there is a requirement to register them, as was the case when California banned assault-style weapons. Owners would also not be allowed to sell, trade, or transfer these weapons to another person at anytime in the future. If an owner of an assault-style weapon passes away, the guns would be turned in to the state and destroyed.


They would be included in any assault-style weapons ban.

Then when the government decides they don't trust the citizens with their dutifully registered guns anymore, they ban those as well.
And you wonder why gun owners are resistant to more gun laws?

 

[JosephZ]

And you wonder why gun owners are resistant to more gun laws?

I'm a gun owner, and like most gun owners, we want to see stronger gun laws passed.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm a gun owner, and like most gun owners, we want to see stronger gun laws passed.

Would you also like to see your guns confiscated by the government when it's decided you are no longer trustworthy as a gun owner? If so, you're in the minority.

 

[durangodawood]

Then when the government decides they don't trust the citizens with their dutifully registered guns anymore, they ban those as well.
And you wonder why gun owners are resistant to more gun laws?

Reject smart things because later on people might do dumb things?

 

[JosephZ]

Would you also like to see your guns confiscated by the government? If so, you're in the minority.

Which laws being proposed would lead to gun confiscation? Were assault-style weapons confiscated during the federal ban that was enacted in the 90s? Have any states that have assault-style weapons bans in effect today confiscated them?