Is this the most effective political ad of 2016?

boing
81

Well you could use a gun to crack a walnut. But no, I mean just like golf clubs.

Have you ever played golf? If not, are you at least familiar with why they have a dozen different clubs? And that at the bare minimum you need at last 3 to really play the game? The task of the driver is different than the irons and different than the putter. There are even specialized clubs like the wedge.

The same thing with guns. Gun A may not be the best for task X, and Gun B may do Y, and Z well, but not X. And Gun C maybe specially made for Y. So someone like my dad can have a dozen different gun, and while there is some overlap, most of them have their own niche they are best for.

Yes, popular culture has made dual wield look awesome. It is nearly impossible to actually do, there are view people who can do it at all, and no one can do it like in the movies.

I concede some gun laws might help with some crime. But the overall crime and murder rate doesn’t seem to have any direct correlation with gun laws. Even the UK and Australia which has had sweeping gun laws ignores that 1) they NEVER had the gun crime we had, even when they had similar laws, and 2) They didn’t see a dramatic dip after the buy back/turn in programs - just a general downward trend in crime, which the US also has. Maybe their success in reduction of crime stems from something other than their gun laws. Why has our gun crime also reduced with out new laws?

My main point is the CAUSE and REASONS for crime are independent of the laws. If you magically got rid of all guns, I concede you would see a reduction in gun crime due to lack of availability. But that can’t happen in the real world, and the proposed gun laws in the US will mainly only affect legit gun owners - of which are the VAST majority, only a fraction of a percent use their gun for crime.

Look - it isn’t like the police and courts are really going after gun sellers. You’re right that one might get off legally for selling to your cousin with the gang tattoo and funky nick name because, “I didn’t know he couldn’t own a gun.” But hell, they aren’t even trying to go after these people. Time and again I see gun thieves let off light. CA made a law that one can steal a gun (under $1000 IIRC) and it is only a misdemeanor. This guy cut open a safe, stole 85 guns, and got PROBATION. Of the 80,0000 of people how are REFUSED gun sales due to background checks in 2012, only 44 people were investigated and prosecuted for that. There are several examples where we have direct evidence of people attempting to get guns illegally and nothing is really done - why? Yet we need more laws that affect me?

Source? Black market is only part of the equation, many of those from stolen guns or a seller who can purchase legally and then sells illegally. I have seen no evidence that honest gun owners being tricked into selling to restricted persons happened in significant numbers. In fact before Facebook cracked down, there were networks of seller who if they found out a person was restricted, they posted warnings to other BST groups. And like I said, many sellers took steps to protect themselves, asking to see a CCW card or license to record the purchase.

Also a note, if you buy a lot of guns with in a time span, you will get flagged by the ATF and they will visit to make sure you aren’t selling them.

As for where criminals get their guns, here is the evidence. It isn’t bubba being tricked to sell to a meth dealer. It is friends and family of that criminal and often times they just “borrowed” the gun.

Older study, but it seems to hold true:

Here is a smaller study that has more detail on how they get their guns. Note that the “no prior relationship” accounts for 15%.

Here is the article about 79% of criminals don’t legally own the gun they are caught with. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?postshare=201469632890085&tid=ss_tw

Here is the actual paper.

http://www.socialmedicine.info/index.php/socialmedicine/article/view/852/1649

I am not looking to completely prevent behavior, but the war on drugs has proved to be a minor hinderence. Weed was so common states have slowly legalized it.

Has it reduced consumption? Some. But at what price? The WoD is the single largest cause of the erosion of civil liberties, the tool to oppress minorities, made the treatment of addicts worse, given power to the inner city gangs and cartels, and a whole mess of bad things.

And how are we going to get drug use reduced? Is it more drug laws? Do you think that is what we need? Or maybe we need to work on the reasons people abuse drugs, education, and addiction treatment like some European countries have tried and actually had work. Because adding more drug laws hasn’t work, so I am not sure why one things more gun laws will too.

We have a lot of gun law chasing after the symptom, when the CAUSES of crime are something entirely different, much harder, and requires you to give a damn about them.

I would be willing to support a gun law that targeted primarily criminals and not the 80 million legal owners. If you know of a law that would help do that, let me know, because thus far nothing I have seen proposed by anyone is going to do any actual GOOD.

And yet, drugs are plentiful. There is a heroin epidemic because it is cheaper and easier to get than oxy.

I get your point about availability. Opiates and guns are two different things as to why people use them. Hell, most people on opiates, like myself, NEED them. I am not an addict. I don’t get high. I don’t abuse them. I need them to keep my pain level to a low hum I can ignore most of the day.

But anyway, drugs are just an example that if people want something, they will get it. Our efforts to make drugs super duper double banned have failed. Going after the REASON people do drugs has had positive effects.

That is my point with gun crime. MOST people who own guns hurt NO ONE with their guns. Just like I don’t like being treated like a junky when I am trying to get pain relief, I don’t appreciate having to continually defend ownership of a firearm because in 2013 0.014% of gun owners used them to kill someone.

You have pockets of nut jobs, and even they have committed very little violence. One guy with a truck of fertilizer has caused more deaths than “armed posses” in America in the last 100 years.

That wasn’t my argument. I am not one of those itching for a civil war or to overthrow the government. But the comment was about the scenario with some guy with 100 gun collection now being able to arm a small militia or what ever. Which, hey, is possible, I guess. But - who? Where? Why? This is all just fantasy, a poorly thought out movie plot. There is no evidence this is an issue we need to worry about, just like most of the other fear mongering out there.

Guns can be used by the tyranny, sure. But most of the 80 million gun owners aren’t doing that. Yes, you can find me some shady fringe groups. But the people people who are causing the most deaths aren’t part of some movement, they are people scratching and clawing in the gutter to survive.

There has been a lot bitching lately by both left and right wing groups over the militarization of police, the heavy handed dealings of protestors, wide spread systemic racism, and police brutality. If anyone is spreading fear and attempting to control through force, it is the police in some areas. That is the reason for my statement of lament.

People want to think of gun owners as either tweaked out criminals, are cowboy hat wearing Bundys, or militia wannabes, or terrorists in waiting. They are so fearful of these bogey men, that they are suddenly more ok with cops being armed to protect us. But most of them are just normal people who do normal things 99% of the time and hurt no one.

A posse was the local sheriff or marshal deputizing civilians temporarily to go after a known criminal or group of criminals. These people were already armed and proficient. He might have handed out badges, but not guns.

I’m not dismissing your gun knowledge. I disagree with your opinions. You can know everything there is to know about them and I can still disagree with you. Kander seems to know a lot about them, and I still disagree with him.

I am not sure what exactly you want done. When I defend large picture general stuff, it is done with some reasoning. It isn’t willy nilly dismissal and I try to be relatable with more familiar examples.

When I bring up knives or fists/clubs vs rifles, or “assault weapons” it is because there needs to be some perspective. The numbers show these things that some feel are “too dangerous to own” account for less deaths than common household items EVERYONE OWNS. That is significant and important to put that out there.

Re suicides - I don’t know what laws you want passed to prevent suicides. I can’t even begin to think of what law one could pass that would have any significant effect. I conceded if no one had a gun, no one could kill themselves that way - and that would probably lower the rate. But I disagree we should ban something because a small percentage choose to use it to kill themselves. I know I am sure that makes me sound like a callous asshole. But I don’t know how to make such a statement with out sounding like an asshole - have I no empathy? No, I do. But I while I can see where one is coming from, I also see the other side of the coin.

In a related situation, I know someone who lost a son in motorcycle crash and he would love to see all of them melted down. He finds each and everyone of them stupid death machines that serve no purpose but cheap thrills. Given his trauma I can see why he feels that way - but at the same time I disagree with his opinion on motorcycles.

Re knives - the reason I brought them up I listed above. I didn’t know you where abused by someone in the past and I am sorry about that. Because I have no wish to open old wounds, and I don’t know your story and won’t pretend to, instead of countering as I would if you gave me a hypothetical situation I am going to let this lie.

I don’t want you or anyone else shot or stabbed.

1 Like
82

I wouldn’t downplay the crates of guns and at war with the government crowd. Most law enforcement and intelligence groups in the US list them as the most significant domestic terror threat. White, Christian, Male, Millitia/Patriot/Survivalist/Sovereign Citizen types with lots of guns.

They just aren’t most of the “has more than 3” gun owners in the country. I think its more important to point out that these people sit with a hell of a lot of misinformed people who own just one gun in the paranoid, “from my cold dead hands” crowd. Your average owns a hand gun for self defense type is far more likely to identify with Cliven Bundy than a guy with 23 historical firearms and a few marksman ship awards.

Its not really about number owned. The problem is with the reasons why.

I’ve tried! Under careful professional supervision. Its not hard to do! Its hard to hit anything or avoid hot brass down your back.

ETA: Also please do not try that without careful professional supervision. Actors are using under powered blanks in a really rigorous safety environment and people still get hurt.

2 Likes
83

Different guns for different purposes. Lever action rifles and single action revolvers for cowboy action shooting, add in a double barrel “coach” shotgun, and you’re able to compete in Cowboy action shooting. A lever action .22 for a bit of cheaper practicing/plinking fun. A heavy barreled .22 target pistol (semi-auto OMG!) for indoor target shooting, and a heavy barreled bolt action .22 rifle for longer distances at an outdoor range. A bigger flatter shooting caliber for longer target distances, and that already puts you at 7…

That’s just my collection. Not one “I’m a paranoid loon who feels like guns are going to be needed for protection” one among the bunch. No military style black rifles or larger caliber semi auto pistols. No body armor etc… either.

Heck, I know one very well to do gentleman who has a “secret room” (it’s behind a vault door disguised as a bookcase in his library) who has literally hundreds of guns (get it… because you get into the room through the library…). All amazing historical collector pieces or his personal guns from when he used to compete.

I’m not going to dismiss that the gun owning population as a whole has a very insecure/paranoid/unhealthy sub-population to it that has this weird confrontation/persecution/gotta arm up so as not to be a victim mentality. Statistics generally just don’t back that mindset up in most locations.

That being said, there are a lot of sane people, who support background checks, etc… that do have multiple guns. Most guns are pretty specific in purpose/ability, and so there tend to be different guns for different purposes. And not to get into a discussion of the ethics of hunting, but the gun you’d use to hunt duck is certainly not the same gun you’d use to hunt deer, which isn’t what you’d go after rabbits and other small game with…

1 Like
84

At the end of the day, all golf clubs have a goal and use of whacking a ball. All guns have the use of having a bullet exit the front end at high speed. They were created to kill things and they aren’t tools except for killing things (and before you go on about target shooting, we’ve done this dance before and that’s just practice for killing things).

Guns are weapons and, outside of “gun enthusiasts,” people do wonder why it is harder to legally drive a car than it is to own a weapon designed to kill people.

7 Likes
85

Its a really different way of putting things. But really this is exactly in line with fire arms safety protocols. A gun is fundamentally dangerous, you are always less safe in the presence of a gun, even if it is in your hand, always assume and behave as if the gun is ready and capable of harming you, assume its loaded, never point it at anything unless you are prepare to destroy that thing. Everything you do with, to, and around a gun should be intended to mitigate that danger. But it can never remove that danger. ETC.

I often feel like the arguments on this subject among people with an at least some what sane outlook are down to phrasing. A gun is meant to put holes in things. Explosively. Whether you put that out there as “a gun is meant to kill” or “a gun is fundamentally dangerous” you’re really saying the same thing.

1 Like
86

I was taught to shoot when I was six and given my first rifle at age seven. My mother and stepfather taught hunter safety classes and we did black powder recreation during summers. I’m intimately familiar with firearm safety and the assumptions you should make about firearms.

The one thing a gun is not like is a golf club.

1 Like
87

Absolutley. Neither phrasing of it is wrong. Neither phrasing of it is a distraction. “Guns are fundamentally for killing” comes with a certain level of judgement, but its accurate. And “guns are fundamentally dangerous” comes with a certain level of willful ignorance about why the danger is there.

I simply find it interesting how the two cross over despite being on supposedly opposite sides of things. And I tend to hope pointing out that crossover can lead to common ground over partisan dick waving.

Cause seriously my dick is SOOOOO big, its got all the bullets. Also tactical rails. TACTICAL. There’s like a flashlight in there! And my extra testicle lets me blow right through bullet proof vests. TACTICAL.

TACT EYE CAL.

2 Likes
88

One of the things you said that a disagree with is that guns are meant to kill people. Guns can kill people. A hunter going after deer is definitely not out to kill people, though if they are reckless, they very well can. What I’m basically taking umbrage to, is the notion that you only own guns if you want to kill people. (I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant, but that’s how you phrased it.)

89

That’s probably a good point. But guns are meant to kill. Whether people or animals. Target shooting, cowboy action shooting, most other non-hunting uses of guns are directly derived from training for the whole killing part. Or theatrical concerns, where in you are miming or examining the act of killing. In the same way that fencing is derived from training to kill with swords. And stage combat is is likewise about expressing those same things. While, as an example, the gun you use to kill very small birds might be pretty difficult to kill a person with. To dance around the central fact that these things are killtastic is dishonest. Personally I think acknowledging that is pretty damn central to handling them safely.

But again I think the comparison between the two is false. Sensible gun folks need to acknowledge the killing end of things, in the same way and as a part of their standard safety mantra. And sensible not-so-gun folks need be cautious of implying that liking guns means liking murder.

Though I think that bit is less on @enso’s part in this case. However loud or limited a phrasing he’s using. He’s making a sensible argument. Basically the same argument I’d make. Guns are dangerous. Fundamentally. They are tiny hand held explosions that rocket death out the front. There are many less dangerous things that we subject to more regulation. With less cause.

Though I will say he misunderstood the golf metaphor. I don’t think he was wrong to challenge it.

Just to take the thick barreled .22lr target pistols mentioned above as an example. Absolutely, 100% designed for target shooting. Nearly as specific a use as you could find for a firearm.

I know a person who was killed by a single shot to the chest from one of those. I also know some one who took ten. Fucking ten rounds to the head from the exact same model and survived with nothing more than 3 days of unconsciousness and two stitches. No long term damages. There’s still a bullet or two stuck under the skin of his head. And that’s the same caliber. And the same model of hand gun, in both cases. That I learned to shoot on and most enjoy shooting.

Probably one of the least dangerous sorts of handguns you could own or advocate. And I would totally advocate it. But it is still far more dangerous, in an immediate sense than things like motorcycles. It is still more dangerous to me as its user than nearly anything else I might handle. The “safety” factor of taking 10 rounds to the skull and doing no worse than a bad spill off the monkey bars does not remove the danger factor of death with a single motion.

Understanding both is absolutely central to having anything to do with firearms safely and enthusiastically. But its also central to understanding the reasons and intricacies of regulation.

6 Likes
90

True. I just felt the comment was a bit loaded. (pun intended.)

2 Likes
91

Is this new? It’s been quite a few years since I’ve bought a gun, but my experience has been that background checks are mandatory only for handguns. Rifles, even those considered assault weapons, and shotguns (and black powder weapons even if they are handguns) have been exempt from checks. Even for guns that do require a check no one at any shop I’ve visited has cared much about who was buying the gun or what their age was as long as one person in their vicinity was willing to submit to a check and hand them the money.

92

Republican voters are obsessed with guns. Because Republican politicians get elected that way. And a lot of Democrats are obsessed with guns, because they don’t understand that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to own them. And, evidently, they just don’t care that too many Republicans keep getting elected enough to just STFU or educate themselves.

93

Sell your guns over the internet. You will ship them not to the buyer but to a gun dealer who will run the background checks. Or, just sell them to a gun dealer.

94

You must love electing more Republicans, 'cause you are doing your part very well. I say this so maybe you can hear it:

Statistically speaking - to a small rounding error - zero guns and zero legal gun owners are involved in gun violence. Almost all gun violence is gang and drug related, committed by a very few urban people. What you are proposing is functionally useless against gun violence, but really really useful to Karl Rove, etc to help ensure more batshit crazy Republicans keep getting elected.

Hundreds of millions of gun owners own hundreds of millions of guns. Legally and safely. And now, those gun owners have the strongest Constitutional ownership rights in the history of the U.S. You CAN’T make their ownership more difficult. And why the fuck should you try?

S.H.E.R. Stop Helping Elect Republicans.

95

My point was explaining why one would own 17 guns. Many people do and it has nothing to do with harming people, paranoia, overthrowing the government, etc. So yes, it is like a golf club for the point of my example - that even though they look basically the same (a dozen clubs or a dozen guns) they do different jobs within the sport/hobby. I am not suggesting that they are like golf clubs as in WHAT they are used for. Even though I imagine they account for some of the ~600 blunt object deaths per year.

Your hang up with “they are made to kill people” is just that. Almost no gun owners are killing people with their guns. That is a statistical fact. Swords were also made to kill people, and knives were made to kill and cut up meat. Yet nearly no sword and knife owners are killing people either.

It is a tool - not some unholy object with evil possessing it, leading it to fulfill its one true purpose.

Well, son of a bitch, I forgot the long gun/shot gun exception. I tend to think of handguns, as that is what I shoot most and that is what is used in crime. Yes, maybe. It depends on your STATE laws. FEDERAL law allows private sales of long guns and shot guns to be shipped WITHIN the state. Some STATE laws prohibit this. FEDERAL law requires it to go through an FFL if going to another state.

ALL handguns have to go through an FFL if it isn’t face to face, per FEDERAL LAW.

Of course some STATES and CITIES have additional laws.

Here is the ATF FAQ.

In the grand scheme of things, making all private sales go through an FFL would be an added pain in the ass and add $10-$20+ to the price. I don’t think it will affect crime much at all because, like I have pointed out with various links, criminals are getting their guns through networks that cater to them. I am sure there are people “tricking” others into selling to them, but there is no evidence I have found that this is common, and per the papers linked in the long post above, I have evidence that it is rare. This is why I am against more restrictions, it affect mainly the 80 million legal owners, and almost none of the criminals.

96

And included in my less then 1% number. I’d be interested in hearing how you’d get that number to 0.

I’d try to reduce that number with a registration and modified background check system, enabling mental health professionals to place temporary restrictions on people they reasonably believe are at risk which would require the owner to transfer they firearms to another person for the duration. There would also be an appeals process, to prevent abuse of the system.

97

Approximately <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States"target"=“_blank”>33,000 people were killed by bullets from guns each of the last several years. We’re going to end up with more than 1100 gun deaths having been committed by police this year. Statistically speaking, that exceeds 3% (<a href=“http://www.killedbypolice.net/“target=”_blank”>959 as of this morning). Last time I checked, police officers most definitely are legal gun owners. Suicides account for about 40% of gun deaths (according to the <a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm"target="_blank”>CDC’s suicide statistics from 2014). I find it incredulous, if not improbable that all those suicides were committed by people who obtained their guns illegally.

While I’m all for ending the rhetoric of “tough on crime” and other racist dog whistles (which may likely lead to fewer regressive-types holding public office) stating fabricated “statistics” is possibly the worst way to go about it.

6 Likes
98

BZZZZZZZZZT! Sorry, wrong answer. Firearm deaths and firearm homicides take place over a diverse geography, but as you can see from the maps on this page, there are plenty of both in rural areas in the US.

7 Likes
99

That’s the epidemiological rate of death in the population as a whole, not per legal gun owner. And it’s more than 50% higher than the rate of pancreatic cancer as a cause of death. That seems like something that we should work on.

Right now there is NOTHING in place to hint at preventative measures for firearm suicide. Something > nothing.

3 Likes
100

I’m not entirely certain you’d be able to get total agreement from gun rights activists that police shootings count as gun violence. You’re also forgetting that for some inexplicable reason, gun rights activists insist that suicides not count toward the gun deaths total. I’ve never been able to figure out why… it’s not like we exclude suicides from any other sort of “death by X” statistic.

Take care not to fall into the (likely intentional) trap of conflating gun violence with murder, though. The two are not the same thing. Consider, for instance, the many, many times guns are used in domestic violence incidents. Domestic violence with a firearm is absolutely gun violence, and those cannot possibly all be guns that are owned illegally.

Still, if you arbitrarily exclude any gun deaths and gun violence incidents that could negatively impact the perception that only pre-existing criminals with illegally-obtained firearms use them in a “violent” way, it’s really easy to make your point that legal gun owners have never been involved in an incident of gun violence.

6 Likes