I don’t think this really tells us anything.
Hondorus is #1 in murder and #87 in gun ownership per capita.
Jamaica is #4 in murder and #71 in ownership per capita.
France #10 and #163
Finland #6 and #126
I don’t see an obvious connection.
Is it really a trend or is 2016 an outlier?
Again, how mass shooting is defined can make a statement like this a bit shaky, imo.
The poor government can never win!! lol
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
*Depends on where you look, who is doing the collection, what criteria is used, etc… I don’t see an upward trend, though.
Dodd-Frank.
We certainly legislated quite a bit.
Yes, I’ve been saying rates of ownership and guns per capita when I should have just said guns per capita.
I’m talking about mass shootings.
Well, then you had Las Vegas a little while back which was higher.
Dodd Frank did very little to change the game, merely how it’s played.
Also, bringing up Dodd Frank was in response to “when has legislation been the answer?”
lol, no, absolutely not. Some parts of DF are absolutely hot garbage.
You cracked we didn’t pass any legislation, but we certainly did is all I was saying. My B if you were just joking around.
Mildly unrelated, but I almost lost it listening to the two guys who chased the killer down.
You have a barefooted, sharp-shooting, plumper who nails the guy in the femoral artery and then through the side of his body armor. That’s good shooting, Tex.
And then you have a cowboy who sees the barefooted plumber, lets him into his truck to chase down the bleeding-out killer because “that’s what you do . . you chase a bad guy.”
As a New Mexican, I shouldn’t admit this, but I fucking love Texans sometimes (not so much the Texas Tech idiots who can’t ski, but everyone else is OK).
Umm. Dodd Frank? Oh nevermind. Saw the rest of the thread.
My issue with that - which maybe I didn’t make clear - is that most of the time when someone invokes the Natural Rights argument, they’re saying there is no room for trade offs and compromise, because anything less than the Natural Right is a violation of it.
So that’s not your position?
“Could” isn’t “will” - no one is expecting a crystal ball prediction. What’s at issue is could UBC prevent a mass shooting? The answer, for anyone being forthright and reasonable, is yes.
Ok, so are you?
That’s a dodge - I’m asking if the UBC (a new policy, not the one you’ve operated under) can help do something good on its face, why not support it?
I literally laughed out loud. These are legitimate public policy problems plaguing communities in our country in need of address? I guess shooting earmuffs (available at the low, low price if $20 on Amazon) are just too darn itchy? And cities and counties are rallying support to solve this danger to the people?
Maybe we could style the law permitting suppressor the Family Pet Mental Health Improvement Act?
You’ve made my point for me. You want a new toy to play with at the range, that’s it. There’s no public policy problem solved in this “compromise”.
And now, you should see why there’s no appetite for such a “compromise”: “hey, we’ll support UBC - a law that could prevent mass shootings - in exchange for making gadgets we like legal, because, well, we like gadgets.”
I’m not the one whining that libertarians are “under attack!”
It is. But it sells. Snake oil always does.
Couple of points:
around a quarter of Swiss residents are foreign nationals, so out of 8 or so million people residing in Switzerland, roughly 2 million are foreigners, including those from Asia and Africa
The percentage of gun owning households is roughly equal in the US as in many European countries (excluding UK), the difference is the number of guns per gun owning household, where the US is literally off the charts
.
I had to catch up, and this made the thread.
Countries categories crimes in different ways. We discussed a UN study probably two years ago (@countingbeans might remember) that tried to correct for this disparity across a number of violent crimes. Point being, it is difficult at best to simply say something like (paraphrasing) “there are more mass shootings in the US than other countries.” There is no consistent methodology used to keep the data let alone analyze it.
If there’s no obvious correlation between guns per capita & murder I don’t see how you (proverbial) can make the leap to there is a correlation between guns per capita and mass shootings. Logically, it would make sense that there is another or several other drivers behind the US being higher # of mas shootings.
I don’t see an upward trend since at least the 90s in terms of deaths/injuries. Aurora stands out for injuries and Virgina Tech for deaths. Vegas is obviously one of if not the worst shootings in US history, but it is still just one event.
This one just keeps getting better. Good thing the government is so efficient at protecting us all.
No, in terms of political reality and actual reality, no.
In terms of philosophy? Sure.
Asking for a repeal of BGCs? no. Not only is that not politically possible at this point, but not even remotely close to a political hill I’m willing to die on for any reason what-so-ever.
I obviously do support it, as I follow it now. No idea how that’s a dodge, lol. Honestly, no clue how that’s a dodge on any level what-so-ever. I volunteer to live my life under a system, stated it multiple times, but if I don’t type out the words, it’s a dodge?
I’ve explained why other people don’t over and over again. I do have sympathy for this position, however.
then enjoy not getting your policy passed. What do you want me to say. You “laugh out loud” at us, and then what, expect people to just prostrate to your declarations?
Yup. Spend some time shooting.
You still need ears when using a suppressor. Real life isn’t hollywood, the firearm isn’t silent when you screw on a can.
If you want to sure, go ahead.
They are legal in most states, just jumping through NFA hoops is annoying as all get out, and only adds to the costs.
So do you not understand what suppressors are or the current rules, or are you purposely misrepresenting them to get circle jerk likes from cowards that won’t engage?
No, you’re the one who can’t help but toss in petulant insults.
Yeah man, that’s right, 100% snake oil.
So basically NYC then?
Per capita is a lot harder to spin than per household stats.
But I’m not going to argue the average american gun owner doesn’t own multiple firearms.
I’ll try to process this post later but, for now, I’m just too upset that plumber was allowed to have a firearm.
Ok, then you shouldn’t have much of an objection to extending its coverage at very little cost.
I laughed out loud at your ridiculous attempt to pretend making suppressors available somehow solved some pressing public policy problem. But no, I expect no one to prostrate before my declarations - but here is what I do expect: for them grow up, despite their best efforts to avoid doing so.
I was shooting long before your recent conversion, so can it. More importantly, though, there are no pressing public issues that making suppressor more readily available solves. Your attempts to convince otherwise are comedy gold.
I know what suppressors are, and more importantly, I know their purpose, and it ain’t making your neighbor’s pets rest easier while you practice on your target next door.
Suppressors really serve two practical functions: one, to minimize the noise of a gunshot, mainly for the purpose of remaining concealed during the firing of multiple rounds, and two, getting cool points at the range from bruhs who think it’s “totally BA” that “you got a suppressor, bruh” so you can look cool, maybe throw up some photos on social media.
Which on of these purposes are you interested in?
Yep, it is.
And to be clear, I’m on the record as against outlawing “assault” weapons and much of the usual clamor in terms of gun control. But my point here is to show just how irrational the 2A absolutist crowd is. We have a basically cost-free policy that could help prevent mass shootings (UBC), and 2A absolutists can’t find their way past their emotion to reason, and immediately start twitching about paranoid conspiracies and black helicopters at the mere idea of extending an existing policy already on the books.
And for bonus points, maybe they’ll support UBC, but only for “compromises” that are built on them getting toys they want - as a result, the marginal increase in their entertainment down at the range is the price of some additional safety from mass shootings.
They can claim the high ground all they want, but this is as morally bankrupt a position as there is in modern politics.
Can someone tell those of us that don’t care for arms restrictions and hoops the point at which you will say “enough is enough” and oppose further restrictions and hoops? Most(all?) of us can tell you exactly where our line is(was). Can you do the same? If not, why should anyone give you an inch?
Okay
I’d say 99% of the people I see wanting to remove suppressors from the NFA are in fact, grown ups. Maybe if you looked at them as such you’d have more success getting them to agree to your policy changes?
Except for the fact that’s not the only reason for policy change, and there is no reason they should be NFA in the first place… Okay
My pleasure.
Neither, I’m more concerned with my hearing, because due to poor life choices I don’t need anymore protection for them to not get any worse. Electronic ears disorient me and shotgun rated ears are too dampening and I get nervous not being able to hear anything that might be coming into my line of sight downrange.
I’d also like to be able to load lighter 45 and have my pistol still cycle reliably, and be able to cycle subsonic 22 as well.
And even though you think it’s funny, I do actually care about my neighbors and their pets. There are dogs within 400 feet of where I shoot at home, and goats, and horses and mules. I for one love the sound of freedom in the morning, but I know a couple of my neighbors aren’t fans. They complain about the dude across the street, a lot. My range gets noise complaints a lot, and quite a few in MA do as well. (Suppressors are illegal there unless you’re LEO, so they are shit out of luck.)
I know it might be a shock, but I’m far to old to care what people think about how I look to be honest. I still wear cargo shorts ffs. Only found out recently this wasn’t a good look anymore. While I’m not 100% sure, I’m pretty sure I wear mom jeans too.
Okay
We’ve been called much worse, pretty much on the regular. That’s about as effective a tactic to winning any of us to your side as a leftist calling everyone a racist.
Because end of the day, me, someone who obviously (due to voluntarily living my life that way) prefers UBGCs won’t support you if you were to push for them. There is zero blood on my hands, I didn’t shoot anyone. In fact I’ve done nothing but comply with every regulation there are on firearms, and will now go above and beyond what’s required now that I’ve moved to America. But until gun grabbers (which you don’t fall into obviously) show they are willing to give, I’m not giving.
There is zero evidence to suggest anyone will stop wanting to make more and more “common sense” regulations. (As if no-fly lists tied to rights is common sense). And it’s a hell of a lot easier to keep what we have than get it back once it’s gone.
God forbid something as silly as removing a suppressor from the NFA lists is on the table, even as a show of good faith that yes it’s about “saving lives” and not just about “eroding rights”. Because there is more evidence of the later than the former.
