"http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/10/rural-and-urban-gun-owners-have-different-experiences-views-on-gun-policy/"
Self restriction counts.
Yor, that didn't actually support what I was asking for as support. It's an attitude survey...
You're assuming a causal relationship between the restrictions you've proposed and lower crime.
By noting that gun crime, especially deaths, are empirically, objectively and positively impacted by universal gun laws aimed at curbing violence. Australia is one example among many. And among Western democracies we stand out like a bloody sore thumb.
I'm the one suggesting we look first at causes most correlating to the problem, gangs, black markets, and broken families. These are all problems with obvious solutions.
I'm not objecting to combating poverty sensitive issues that disproportionately feed criminal activity. What I'm saying is that we can make ourselves significantly safer without solving the complex web of issues we've been attempting to solve (with mixed degrees of success) and we should do that while we work on them.
It's a bit like this...we have a road with a lot of debris that's causing accidents. We can and should work on designing better roads, correcting bad attitudes among road crews, get at the corruption that leads to low bid contractors using poor materials, address the condition of roads in terms of what drivers do to contribute to the problem. All of those are great ideas. But in the meantime we can get the worst junk off of the highway, and we know that works because everywhere that's done driving is much safer.
Do you really not see how pedantic you are being;
If you mean precise, sure. If you mean it as a criticism I'd say it's a poor one.
not realizing the reason to make your gun fire faster is to look cool?
If by not realizing you mean I don't validate your belief, one not supported by empirical data and favor the more obvious and objectively true answer, sure. Bump stocks increase the firing rate. And no, I don't believe (to the extent our subjective beliefs mean anything) it's the "cool" factor. I think some gun owners love the increased feeling of firepower. I suspect many appreciate the idea of that for the joy of shooting. Some likely because they feel more empowered by it and safer. Some because its the new toy on the shelf and they have to have it. Any number of reasons for owning one, but I don't care why they own it. I care that they do and what the impact of its availability translates to within this discourse.
Not true. Where guns are plentiful and correlating problems are few, death rates are about the same.
That's loose enough to self justify. But it's not the world where we actually live. In that one, poverty and criminal elements abound. And occasionally some guy goes off his nut and looks around for the best available means of wreaking havoc. The rest is what we do about that understanding.
They did a lot more than ban bump stocks and high capacity mags. Show us the country that banned just those items, with the per capita gun ownership rates we have in the US, and then we can measure the effect. We both know what the effect will be - No effect at all.
There isn't an example of that limited a response and it's not one I'm advocating. I noted a few ideas among others and suggested we take serious aim at the problem by looking at what's worked so much better in our cousin Western democracies, where gun related fatalities and injuries are dramatically fewer.
Then you can propose more regulations. What we need to know now, is exactly how far are you willing to go? An effective ban like they have in Australia?
See, Stripe just tried that. You can call a sandwich a pizza, but it's not. It's a sandwich. So banning the ownership of some items, like large clips and bump stocks, and certain types of weapons, like machine guns, or even semi-automatics, isn't effectively banning gun ownership. It's banning particular kinds of weapons and aids, the way we do when we don't allow RPGs or bazookas. It's just a matter of where you draw the line and why.
If that's what you want, then admit you are tiptoeing around your true intentions because you know a ban like that would go beyond "reasonable" at the moment.
But really, what doesn't go beyond reasonable for you in any moment? I mean, you haven't proposed or accepted a single, solitary idea on the plate. And you play the paranoia, suspect the messenger number...I'm weary of it, so if you want a momentary messenger bit, here's the light back at you. People like you are the reason a lot of people who should be alive today aren't. You hem and haw, you talk about larger, complex problems we haven't shown a real talent for solving as being the real issue here, mislabel any attempt to reduce mayhem and violence as some vaguely hidden conspiracy to take guns away from good people, all to preserve the almighty status quo that invites butchery.
There's nothing hidden in my position, from agenda to particulars. I'm a gun owner who thinks, who knows we can do better at making ourselves safer without losing the right to own guns. Can we own every sort of gun? No. And no one with a brain in their head believes we should, which is why you won't be advocating for bazookas, or (hopefully) submachine guns on the streets any time soon.
Now back to our regularly scheduled deprogramming.
BTW, you do know that Australia's effective gun ban did not change their violent crime rate beyond any existing trend overall, don't you?
Then violent crime in Australia should have diminished after the confiscations there.
You mean violent crime with firearms. And it did. It's currently at a 25 year low. From the Slate article I noted a bit ago:
"
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent...But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
Factcheck looked at it more recently:
The previous low in 2007 was surpassed in 2010, when the number of homicides dropped to 261. The numbers have varied since then, but there were 23 percent fewer homicides in 2013 than there were in 1996 — a slight improvement from our last report, which covered a 12-year period ending in 2007...
“The number of homicide incidents involving a firearm decreased by 57 percent between 1989-90 and 2013-14,” the government crime trends report says. “Firearms were used in 13 percent of homicide incidents (n=32) in 2013-14. In 1989-90 it was 24 percent (n=75) of incidents.”
Cutting a thing in half in general while eliminating for over 20 years what had occurred many times prior seems like a win for safety of citizens.
I've noticed you keep mentioning "gun deaths" or gun violence as if it mattered more than any other death or violence in society.
Rather, I note gun deaths because that's the topic. Because we've had repeated, horrific and ongoing violence that can be positively impacted. And we should do that. You want to talk about anything else because it's your end game, to do nothing about it.
And when you said "The Australian gun buyback program was created to buy back firearms already made illegal under Australian gun laws" didn't you realize that making those guns illegal is a totalitarian move?
Thanks for illustrating the lengths you'll go to in order to preserve a death lock grip on the status quo. Good luck with that. You're going to need it.
