Who’s “Joe Six Pack,” exactly?
Ask an insurance company, they deal in this stuff.
It is a lighthearted term for ‘average american’
Turns out the average american has more than a six pack a day, but that’s another thread.
they work in it, you’re the one makin the deal.
I dunno. Certainly would imagined a phased approach targeting new purchases of highest-risk fireams first, and then extending based on actuarial data and grandfathering where necessary.
2 Likes
Clearly you mean sieze all firearms, hobbyists and edge-cases first. 
3 Likes
It is Obama’s number, more or less, for the cost of his executive actions today. It includes hiring more agents to process background checks and such.
1 Like
Ah, thanks, I hadn’t heard that estimate yet. Well, as I say, if this small action helps to stop even one weekly school shooting, it’s a bargain.
1 Like
Would be nice to get back to 10 a year like back in 1999, down from the 50+ something currently.
That was somehow acceptable? Would be a nice goal for now.
At the very least can we make them buy guns barefoot?
2 Likes
[quote=“AcerPlatanoides, post:151, topic:71595, full:true”]
Would be nice to get back to 10 a year like back in 1999, down from the 50+ something currently. [/quote]
Sounds like a great point, except the claim of “one school shooting a week” is hyperbole at best, intended to drive a particular political agenda.
If you take actual statistics, shootings and firearms homicides are down since 1999, but public perception of the risk of “gun crime”, driven by lies like “50+ school shootings this year”, are at an all time high.
1 Like
There were 372 mass shootings in 2015. That’s more than one per day.
That’s too many.
Also, the FBI says that shootings have risen drastically in the past 5 years.
Your data is incorrect. It’s a lie.
The data and the actual FBI report are somewhat misleading, but the sources claiming “shootings have risen dramatically” are the liars.
For starters, the report being cited isn’t a report of “mass shootings”; some of the incidents the FBI counts did not involve anybody injured by firearms at all! It is a report of “active shooting incidents” between 2000-2013, an interesting choice of time range and included incidents which happens to support drawing an increasing slope. Expand the criteria slightly and take a longer time frame, and “risen dramatically” is no longer supported by the data.
So what you’re saying is that if you use a different data set, it supports your hypothesis instead of theirs. Got it.
1 Like
if you think about it a bit, i’m sure you’ll realize the war on drugs is a false equivalence.
ending the war on drugs is not about removing all restrictions.
it’s about decriminalize drugs, regulating, and taxing them.
drugs – including alcohol – affect first the person who is using them, and then others. the regulations around alcohol and other drugs are – theoretically – designed to protect non-users. ( example: second-hand tobacco smoke, drunk driving laws, etc. )
what everyone is searching for are similarly reasonable laws to protect ourselves and our loved ones against gun violence.
the problem comes in that simply being a non-gun user doesn’t help. gun violence can and still does affect our lives. ( and note: the statistics prove becoming a gun owner isn’t going to protect someone against gun violence either. )
yes: you may handle your guns responsibly. but, laws and regulations are designed to enforce responsible behavior for those who refuse to think about others.
your fear seems to be: the government will steal all your guns. very few ( if any ) people here are talking about that.
my example would be: having speed limits, laws about insurance, and driving while intoxicated has not been some sort of slippery slope to stealing all cars.
5 Likes
Definition of what is considered a “mass shooting” has changed and is different depending on who is reporting. Just like Autism has skyrocketed due to redefining who has it. So he has a valid point.
Overall homicide rates and gun homicides are down, even if “mass shootings” are up.
Pretty sure something is affecting the increase of mass shootings besides just availability. There was higher crime and more availability in say the 60s or 70s - why were there not very many mass shootings? More crazy people now? Media attention makes it sound like a cool idea? I dunno. But availability isn’t the main reason.
3 Likes
i disagree. why do the lives of people caught up in gang violence matter less than the lives of other people? answer: they don’t.
i agree with what people like @Mister44 and @shaddack are saying that these new actions won’t have much of an effect. If can’t do these simple restrictions though, what can we do?
we need good regulations, gun buybacks, production quotas – really anything and everything we can do to reduce gun violence for all people in america. not just white middle-class folks.
1 Like
maybe it’s not availability, but ownership.
people have already shared statistics based on state and country showing that the more gun owners per capita there are, the more gun deaths per capita; the less, the fewer.
the fact that overall gun homicides are down – as is ownership – would seem to correlate with that as well, then.
( i completely grant correlation is not causation. as i said in another thread: the union of gun owners ( er… nra, sorry ) needs to stop blocking the call for better research and stats. )
Especially we need to provide more perspectives, more hope for the future both long and short term, than the gangs do.
1 Like
5 Likes
Ownership certainly plays SOME role. But violent crime is also down as a whole.
I think there are a lot of other factors that affect how much crime a nation has.
Poverty seems to be the #1 indicator of how much violence one can expect.
ETA - and buy backs? Really?
Unless you steal a gun from someone you think will commit a crime with it and turn it in, I don’t see how buy backs do anything. No one ever intending to commit crimes in the future has ever turned in a working gun.
1 Like
