Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
cphite wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
leady wrote:I think the point is that if guns are a strong factor in the overall causes of social issues, then to a greater extent all the registration, training etc in the world should have a minimal impact on the differences between societies.


Or maybe unregulated guns and ammunition have a strong effect on murder rates, but well regulated guns don't.


This isn't reflected in the real world. Some of the most tightly regulated areas in the US also have the highest rates of murder and gun violence. Tighter regulations in the UK and Australia have lessened the number of murders actually involving a gun - but the overall murder rates were not lessened.


What are you smoking. Look at the first diagram here

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

and the headline here

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... arch-shows

The murder rate initially held up after the big change in 1996, but steadily decreased, and then fell faster and faster. Compared to 20 years ago, and the twenty years before that, under lax gun laws, we had a murder rate of a little under 2 per 100,000 and now we have about 1.2 per 100,000 after a decade of steady decrease. That's huge.

Now, I'm not as familiar with the UK experience, but 1997 was the dunblane massacre, it introduced more restrictive laws. Murder rate then? 1.2. It kept going up, but then, I believe, the laws started to bite, and its now 1 per hundred thousand in the most recent figures. Another reduction. Now sure, they don't work immeadiately, it takes time for them to take effect, for the cops and legal system to adapt to them and properly enforce them, but to say that there's no reduction is bullshit.

As for the US: all that demonstrates is that if you have regulations in place in a tiny location, like a city or a small state, and lax regulations 100km away, you haven't really changed the situation.


Over the same time period, the US didn't do that, and experienced similar drops in homicide, etc.

Steeper, actually. US had an average homicide rate of 9.4 in 1990, and by 2006, it was at 6.1(Source: FBI).

The UK has a different pattern. They have a really big spike after the handgun ban, but then it settled back down to it's prior rates.

This is...not painting a very convincing picture when you actually look at the data. None of it maps to the rest of it. And neither case really provides support for gun control helping. The US actually looks like it's results outperform both countries you're comparing against. Granted, we had a higher base homicide rate both before and afterward, but if you're looking for actual trends, your examples are actually subverting your case.

UK metrics spoilered for size:
Spoiler:
Image


Tyndmyr wrote:I agree. Sound surpressors SHOULD be deregulated and purchaseable by anyone.


The absence of a regulation is not a regulation. How about licensing ownership, enforcing gun safe laws and calibre restrictions on handguns?


Do you have any evidence that any of those are important? A significant, solid real world effect?

The fact that you're ONLY looking at instances where they are more restrictive, and not instances where they are less is a wee bit biased, don't you think?

cphite
Posts: 1135
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby cphite » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:29 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:The absence of a regulation is not a regulation. How about licensing ownership, enforcing gun safe laws and calibre restrictions on handguns?


Do you have any evidence that licensing has an effect one way or the other?

How are "safe gun laws" different than already existing gun laws? Generally speaking, when you hurt someone with a gun you've already broken an existing gun law. The only thing left is laws regarding proper storage and security - how do you enforce those?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that caliber restrictions would have any effect? The most commonly used caliber in gun crimes is 9mm by a fairly wide margin, and that isn't because they're the most effective rounds to use in terms of stopping power; it's mainly because of NATO. NATO demands ammunition compatibility between forces; so it's used by the military in NATO member nations. Because of that, it's produced in large volume - which makes it cheaper and more available.

As far as sound suppressors go... they're so uncommon that banning them or not banning them is largely irrelevant. The same is true for so-called assault weapons; they're barely used by anyone. Banning them is mainly a political ploy that has very little impact on actual crime rates.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:46 pm UTC

Strictly speaking, we already have both storage requirements and caliber restrictions.

They're just not exactly the same storage requirements and caliber restrictions. They are pretty irrelevant, though. Child Safety Lock Act of 2005, or Youth Handgun Safety Act, for instance(it's always for the children). But, yeah, unless you have SWAT teams randomly doing no-knock raids to check the details of storage, how are you ever going to know beforehand? We can and do mandate that one is provided with the firearm(two in my state's case, woohoo), but just because someone has it and is supposed to use it doesn't mean that they actually will.

Stuff like sober and responsible, yeah, those are part of our gun laws too. You gotta certify shit like this when buying a gun. It seems remarkably old timey to certify, on paper, that you are not a drunk, a fugitive or a defective*.

*presumably all gun control paperwork is designed by people who give roughly zero shits about being nice to people who have received mental health care.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:38 pm UTC

In most states the mental health requirement is so lax that you can literally have been institutionalized at some point and still buy a gun. I personally hear a voice in my head and still own guns. It's weird though that there's less recourse for getting rights restored as far as mental illness goes than for getting them restored as a felon.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5959
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby jestingrabbit » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:29 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
cphite wrote:Tighter regulations in the UK and Australia have lessened the number of murders actually involving a gun - but the overall murder rates were not lessened.


What are you smoking. Look at the first diagram here

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

and the headline here

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... arch-shows

The murder rate initially held up after the big change in 1996, but steadily decreased, and then fell faster and faster. Compared to 20 years ago, and the twenty years before that, under lax gun laws, we had a murder rate of a little under 2 per 100,000 and now we have about 1.2 per 100,000 after a decade of steady decrease. That's huge.

Now, I'm not as familiar with the UK experience, but 1997 was the dunblane massacre, it introduced more restrictive laws. Murder rate then? 1.2. It kept going up, but then, I believe, the laws started to bite, and its now 1 per hundred thousand in the most recent figures. Another reduction. Now sure, they don't work immeadiately, it takes time for them to take effect, for the cops and legal system to adapt to them and properly enforce them, but to say that there's no reduction is bullshit.

As for the US: all that demonstrates is that if you have regulations in place in a tiny location, like a city or a small state, and lax regulations 100km away, you haven't really changed the situation.


Over the same time period, the US didn't do that, and experienced similar drops in homicide, etc.

Steeper, actually. US had an average homicide rate of 9.4 in 1990, and by 2006, it was at 6.1(Source: FBI).

The UK has a different pattern. They have a really big spike after the handgun ban, but then it settled back down to it's prior rates.

This is...not painting a very convincing picture when you actually look at the data.


The claim made by cphite is that the overall murder rate hasn't declined. It has.

I'm not claiming that the only public policy that effects the homicide rate is gun regulation, nor that the total number of guns in a society is positively correlated with the homicide rate. But if you think that the murder rate in the US would be the same regardless of whether there were or weren't so many handguns, I think you're one hundred percent wrong.

Tyndmyr wrote:Do you have any evidence that any of those are important? A significant, solid real world effect?


A gun in a home is a risk to the people within.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201002 ... lence.aspx

Therefore, if you erect barriers to people putting a gun in their home, you will lessen the rate of death.

Tyndmyr wrote:But, yeah, unless you have SWAT teams randomly doing no-knock raids to check the details of storage, how are you ever going to know beforehand?


This is a classic example of you guys thinking with your guns instead of your brains. Have licensed and bonded installers of gun safes who provide a certificate that such a thing is installed, require presentation of the proof of installation, checked in a database, before you permit sales. And no one had to do anything violent to anyone. C'est encroyable!
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:38 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:This is a classic example of you guys thinking with your guns instead of your brains. Have licensed and bonded installers of gun safes who provide a certificate that such a thing is installed, require presentation of the proof of installation, checked in a database, before you permit sales. And no one had to do anything violent to anyone. C'est encroyable!
We agree in principle, but mandates like that are more likely to discriminate on wealth. In the long term, in regards to pure safety, biometric safeties are probably the future. Make the gun itself safer.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5959
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby jestingrabbit » Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:43 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:This is a classic example of you guys thinking with your guns instead of your brains. Have licensed and bonded installers of gun safes who provide a certificate that such a thing is installed, require presentation of the proof of installation, checked in a database, before you permit sales. And no one had to do anything violent to anyone. C'est encroyable!
We agree in principle, but mandates like that are more likely to discriminate on wealth. In the long term, in regards to pure safety, biometric safeties are probably the future. Make the gun itself safer.
Well man, welcome to capitalism. Its the same with cars, houses, electricity and everything else that can be dangerous to the people around you: there are regulations, they cost money, and this hurts the poor.

What hurts the poor more is killings. Welcome to East St Louis, murder rate worse than Honduras at 101 per 100,000 in 2007. To go back to the consensus that was arrived at on the first page, is everyone really so sure that its easier to get a book than a gun in a city like that? And seriously, the cost in lives and destruction of human capital is just so massive. Waiting for a standard of proof that no other public policy intervention has ever had to achieve is how you stone wall and prevent action, its not how you solve problems.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:37 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:What hurts the poor more is killings. Welcome to East St Louis, murder rate worse than Honduras at 101 per 100,000 in 2007. To go back to the consensus that was arrived at on the first page, is everyone really so sure that its easier to get a book than a gun in a city like that?
Given that, your solution as you presented it, wouldn't do anything about guns already in circulation, then the poor would simply move to the black market. The killings wouldn't stop. And guns are merely a tool which makes killing more efficient. Murder existed before guns, so there is no reason to believe murder would stop if guns were better regulated, and statistics bear that out. Maybe what you can do is to make weapons themselves safer. If a gun won't fire for an 8 year old than he/she can't shoot a sibling or a friend. This would be true even if guns were very tightly regulated, something unlikely at this point, at least in the US. Blu skying a bit, consider weapons that can be locked when in theaters and courthouses, schools and day cares. Not to mention other peoples guns, in your home.

The type of regulation that might help in conjunction with biometrics is regulation that follows every gun from cradle to grave. Removing the possibility of transfers without record. Big data might then be able to answer the question of when and if any one individual is stable enough to own one. But this creates dangers of privacy and government intrusion.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby leady » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:18 pm UTC

The problem with complex technical solutions to social problems is that they are expensive and that is essentially a ban on poor people and pointless (largely) for middle class folks

If the US restricted new supply and eliminated the current supply of guns then I think you would see

A reduction in suicide success (guns = finality)
A reduction in sprees to close to zero (guns + crazy = sprees)
A minor reduction in the general murder rate (guns are just better, but not that much better at convincing people to buy the farm when you've absolutely decided you want them removed)

and I seriously doubt you would even achieve anything on either of the first two by tinkering with restrictions.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:43 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Do you have any evidence that any of those are important? A significant, solid real world effect?


A gun in a home is a risk to the people within.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201002 ... lence.aspx

Therefore, if you erect barriers to people putting a gun in their home, you will lessen the rate of death.


I really hate when articles like this discuss/review a scholarly paper without properly citing it. I assume they're talking about the paper co-authored by Hemenway(lol), but I can't tell for sure without doing a lot more research than I'm willing to right now. Espescially considering it would be unnecessary if they had just included a proper citation, or at least a doi name.

If it is the Hemenway, Lippmann and et. al. paper, I can't find the full text anywhere not behind a paywall.

It'd be nice to read through it fully. These studies never provide a causal link so saying that a gun in a home is a risk to the people within is disingenuous. I Know Hemenway likes to say that you're more likely to be killed with your own gun than to protect yourself with it but, discounting suicide, he's never once actually demonstrated that there's some epidemic of people being shot with their own guns.

Even Hemenway notes in these types of studies that the study population is also strongly associated with low income, drug use and living in low-income/high-crime neighborhoods. It's almost as if the poor are at greater risk of victimization and seek out firearms to protect themselves.


jestingrabbit wrote:What hurts the poor more is killings.


Maybe, but what hurts the poor more than that is the prison industrial complex fueled by the War on Drugs and the state of despair in the inner cities that removes so many of them from their support system, makes the already laughably poor social safety net in the U.S. unavailable to those most in need and gives people no other choice but to turn to crime in order to support themselves and their families, thus perpetuating the cycle of violence.

Maybe instead of piling more shit on the poor, we should work on lifting them out of the fucking slough of despond we put them in.

I mean, half to two thirds of the violence in this country is gang-related, and I have to imagine the reason for that is because the only way out of inner-city poverty is to reenact Scarface.

If that was Obama's point, then I can get on board. But the solution isn't to make guns harder to get in these inner city slums, it is to make books easier to get.

morriswalters wrote: Maybe what you can do is to make weapons themselves safer.


Except firearms are supposed to expel a projectile at high velocities. Almost no deaths or injuries are caused by firearms malfunctioning or even from firing unintentionally. Firearms are about as safe as they can be without fundamentally compromising their functionality.
Last edited by EdgarJPublius on Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:34 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:The claim made by cphite is that the overall murder rate hasn't declined. It has.

I'm not claiming that the only public policy that effects the homicide rate is gun regulation, nor that the total number of guns in a society is positively correlated with the homicide rate. But if you think that the murder rate in the US would be the same regardless of whether there were or weren't so many handguns, I think you're one hundred percent wrong.


So, you think handguns do affect it, but you're not willing to commit to a positive correlation. Are you positing a negative correlation? If such a thing exists, I do not think that'd really be a reason for gun control.

Tyndmyr wrote:Do you have any evidence that any of those are important? A significant, solid real world effect?


A gun in a home is a risk to the people within.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201002 ... lence.aspx

Therefore, if you erect barriers to people putting a gun in their home, you will lessen the rate of death.


Standard correlation/causation issue. People who live in crappy areas are more likely to feel in danger, and purchase a firearm for self defense.

Tyndmyr wrote:But, yeah, unless you have SWAT teams randomly doing no-knock raids to check the details of storage, how are you ever going to know beforehand?


This is a classic example of you guys thinking with your guns instead of your brains. Have licensed and bonded installers of gun safes who provide a certificate that such a thing is installed, require presentation of the proof of installation, checked in a database, before you permit sales. And no one had to do anything violent to anyone. C'est encroyable!


You're checking the wrong thing. That they have it. That's easy, and nobody is contesting that. Having gun locks is already a trivial thing(we can talk about the difference between safes and locks if you wish, but the fact remains that accidental deaths due to a gun that is locked up, in either fashion, isn't an issue). But if it's not actually being used, it's irrelevant.

morriswalters wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:This is a classic example of you guys thinking with your guns instead of your brains. Have licensed and bonded installers of gun safes who provide a certificate that such a thing is installed, require presentation of the proof of installation, checked in a database, before you permit sales. And no one had to do anything violent to anyone. C'est encroyable!
We agree in principle, but mandates like that are more likely to discriminate on wealth. In the long term, in regards to pure safety, biometric safeties are probably the future. Make the gun itself safer.


There is a wealth discrimination issue, sure. This is MORE the case with biometric safeties, which have severe practical issues as well. A decent lock can be had for $20, whereas biometric safeties are ridiculously more expensive.

jestingrabbit wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:This is a classic example of you guys thinking with your guns instead of your brains. Have licensed and bonded installers of gun safes who provide a certificate that such a thing is installed, require presentation of the proof of installation, checked in a database, before you permit sales. And no one had to do anything violent to anyone. C'est encroyable!
We agree in principle, but mandates like that are more likely to discriminate on wealth. In the long term, in regards to pure safety, biometric safeties are probably the future. Make the gun itself safer.
Well man, welcome to capitalism. Its the same with cars, houses, electricity and everything else that can be dangerous to the people around you: there are regulations, they cost money, and this hurts the poor.

What hurts the poor more is killings. Welcome to East St Louis, murder rate worse than Honduras at 101 per 100,000 in 2007. To go back to the consensus that was arrived at on the first page, is everyone really so sure that its easier to get a book than a gun in a city like that? And seriously, the cost in lives and destruction of human capital is just so massive. Waiting for a standard of proof that no other public policy intervention has ever had to achieve is how you stone wall and prevent action, its not how you solve problems.


You are relying on a number of assumptions to come to your conclusion that guns must have been easy to get there. Violent urban crime centers generally have less access to legal guns. In part because they are just fewer gun stores(infrastructure in generally is usually rougher in such places), and in part because urban areas are usually heavy on gun control, specifically because of assumptions like yours.

If you want to show that this particular town had vast numbers of firearms and a shortage of books, sure, do so. But you're not providing any numbers, merely complaining that being expected to provide numbers is an unreasonable burden.

Also, other matters of public policy should ALSO show reasonable evidence before being entacted. Science is how you solve problems, not unreasoning belief. If you doubt this, I urge you to look at the respective problem solving histories of science and belief.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:40 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This is MORE the case with biometric safeties,
Value trumps cost if it works, gun safes don't, at least not in the ways people think about them.
EdgarJPublius wrote:Almost no deaths or injuries are caused by firearms malfunctioning or even from firing unemotionally. Firearms are about as safe as they can be without fundamentally compromising their functionality.
I can think of at least one way they can be safer.

Unfireable unless you are the registered owner or agent.

This would keep children from killing other children and adults, as happens multiple times a year. Saying that it is impossible is simply saying you saying that you believe it is, not that it is. The evolution of technology has made liars of us all when we use the word impossible. How that might be done in a way that preserves functionality is open to speculation, DNA or some other biometrics, such as alcohol detection, sensing of any other cognitive impairing compounds, or other biochemical metrics yet to be discovered, and so on. Or this.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:57 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This is MORE the case with biometric safeties,
Value trumps cost if it works, gun safes don't, at least not in the ways people think about them.
EdgarJPublius wrote:Almost no deaths or injuries are caused by firearms malfunctioning or even from firing unemotionally. Firearms are about as safe as they can be without fundamentally compromising their functionality.
I can think of at least one way they can be safer.

Unfireable unless you are the registered owner or agent.

This would keep children from killing other children and adults, as happens multiple times a year. Saying that it is impossible is simply saying you saying that you believe it is, not that it is. The evolution of technology has made liars of us all when we use the word impossible. How that might be done in a way that preserves functionality is open to speculation, DNA or some other biometrics, such as alcohol detection, sensing of any other cognitive impairing compounds, or other biochemical metrics yet to be discovered, and so on. Or this.


Well, first off, regardless of how cool your tech is, you have the practical issue of hundreds of millions of firearms out there that do not have it. And, the sort of people that do not currently take precautions to avoid their children playing with loaded firearms are probably also not going to immedidately swap everything out. Fundamentally, accidents are heavily concentrated among those who do not take safety precautions. That's why safe use, etc is an issue. Those who USE safes, locks, etc...they're fine. The issue is the people who don't.

Technology is wonderful, and I'm sure it'll do new and cool things in the future, but it's almost irrelevant in terms of firearms. We have popular models out that have existed for a hundred years or more(the 1911 handgun is a particularly iconic one). It's not an area that's subject to a lot of advancement, it's pretty mature. Hoping that technology suddenly fixes current issues seems disconnected from the actual reality of the situation.

I mean, sure, you can have a fancy fingerprint lock. Or, yknow, just a lock with a key. Either is great if you use it, and utterly useless if you don't. So, I'm not sure what the added tech is buying you.

cphite
Posts: 1135
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby cphite » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:26 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:The claim made by cphite is that the overall murder rate hasn't declined. It has.


The murder rate didn't decline as a result of any gun bans. It has declined over the past few decades across all of the countries in question; but that decline doesn't correlate with the level of regulation.

I'm not claiming that the only public policy that effects the homicide rate is gun regulation, nor that the total number of guns in a society is positively correlated with the homicide rate. But if you think that the murder rate in the US would be the same regardless of whether there were or weren't so many handguns, I think you're one hundred percent wrong.


So you're claiming that there is and is not a correlation?

Tyndmyr wrote:Do you have any evidence that any of those are important? A significant, solid real world effect?


A gun in a home is a risk to the people within.


Much in the same way that having a car increases your odds of dying in a car accident; I don't think anyone is denying this.

Therefore, if you erect barriers to people putting a gun in their home, you will lessen the rate of death.


Much like how we erect barriers to good drivers from getting cars because there are bad drivers... oh, wait... we don't do that do we?

This is a classic example of you guys thinking with your guns instead of your brains. Have licensed and bonded installers of gun safes who provide a certificate that such a thing is installed, require presentation of the proof of installation, checked in a database, before you permit sales. And no one had to do anything violent to anyone. C'est encroyable!


Even assuming people aren't finding ways around this requirement, how does the mere presence of a safe in the house accomplish anything?

There are countless ways to safely store guns without an actual gun safe; the people we need to worry about in regards to accidents aren't taking precautions period. They're not necessarily going to use a gun safe just because they're required to have one in the house. Someone who is too lazy/stupid/whatever to secure a weapon isn't going to suddenly change because the government made them buy something.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:58 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Technology is wonderful, and I'm sure it'll do new and cool things in the future, but it's almost irrelevant in terms of firearms. We have popular models out that have existed for a hundred years or more(the 1911 handgun is a particularly iconic one). It's not an area that's subject to a lot of advancement, it's pretty mature. Hoping that technology suddenly fixes current issues seems disconnected from the actual reality of the situation.
Ok, I have to ask, are you serious? Just because Model 1911's are still shooting do you mean to say that innovation has ceased on firearms. If you are selling that, then I have to tell you I'm not buying.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:22 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Technology is wonderful, and I'm sure it'll do new and cool things in the future, but it's almost irrelevant in terms of firearms. We have popular models out that have existed for a hundred years or more(the 1911 handgun is a particularly iconic one). It's not an area that's subject to a lot of advancement, it's pretty mature. Hoping that technology suddenly fixes current issues seems disconnected from the actual reality of the situation.
Ok, I have to ask, are you serious? Just because Model 1911's are still shooting do you mean to say that innovation has ceased on firearms. If you are selling that, then I have to tell you I'm not buying.


It's not merely that the 1911s created back then are still functional. That's common to most types of firearms and is uninteresting. It's that they're still commonly made. It's a little like if Model Ts were still being cranked off the factory line, and were still wildly popular. That'd be weird, right?

Sure, things change, but...they don't change that much, or that rapidly. Not in this market.

It's like other products that have become mature and change has slowed. Say...paper. Yes, I'm sure that some developments in paper are always happening, but for the most part, we actually still use a pretty standardized, boring page of paper. Promises to replace that with some kind of e-paper, or to produce a truly paperless office, always end up being mostly BS.

When you hit a certain level of market maturity, it's generally because everything reasonable has been tried a bunch, and folks have settled on the best tradeoff available. It doesn't mean that advancement is impossible, but that you should generally expect it to be slower, and pretty short on wildly revolutionary things.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It's not merely that the 1911s created back then are still functional. That's common to most types of firearms and is uninteresting. It's that they're still commonly made. It's a little like if Model Ts were still being cranked off the factory line, and were still wildly popular. That'd be weird, right?
The 1911 made today are not the 1911's made 100 years ago. Had they seen service and been used the barrels and the frames would have had to have been reworked. and if they haven't been used then what's the point? There are 300 year old postage stamps. And cars are still cars. A Model T and a 57 Chevy aren't all that different, they did the same thing with the same pieces. The innovation that changed cars came from somewhere other than cars, computers. The idea that computers will change guns and gun safety isn't too much of a stretch. There already exists a gun that will let an average shooter hit a target at a 1000 yards. Made by a company called Tracking Point. And the biggest barrier to smart guns in the future may be the NRA. And if the technology were accepted, refits for existing weapons would become available, in the same way that customization's of weapons are available today.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's not merely that the 1911s created back then are still functional. That's common to most types of firearms and is uninteresting. It's that they're still commonly made. It's a little like if Model Ts were still being cranked off the factory line, and were still wildly popular. That'd be weird, right?
The 1911 made today are not the 1911's made 100 years ago. Had they seen service and been used the barrels and the frames would have had to have been reworked. and if they haven't been used then what's the point? There are 300 year old postage stamps. And cars are still cars. A Model T and a 57 Chevy aren't all that different, they did the same thing with the same pieces. The innovation that changed cars came from somewhere other than cars, computers. The idea that computers will change guns and gun safety isn't too much of a stretch. There already exists a gun that will let an average shooter hit a target at a 1000 yards. Made by a company called Tracking Point. And the biggest barrier to smart guns in the future may be the NRA. And if the technology were accepted, refits for existing weapons would become available, in the same way that customization's of weapons are available today.


They're not identical, but they're remarkably similar, to the point where most parts are swappable. Manufacturing tolerances are lower, and a few tweaks have been made, but a Model T is incredibly different from a modern vehicle. It's not comparable at all. Not even by fudging your time frame back half a century, which seems a blatant cheat.

Different fuel, different wheels, wildly different engines, etc. I'm okay with ignoring the style changes, but even looking at solely functional changes, cars have changed dramatically more than firearms over the same period. You can take the period bullets from an original 1911, magazine and all, slap it in a modern 1911, and it'll fire perfectly. Cars...you can't be guaranteed that the parts from the honda civic from this year will match those from a few years back. Cars simply are not consistent in this way, and are ever-changing, and this was true both before and after the introduction of computerized autos. The modern car is wildly different from the model T, and would be even if computing had never caught on.

Yes, people have apps for iphones and stuff that assist with various things. This is true for almost every human endeavour. That doesn't mean the thing itself is changing. Guns that let a shooter hit a target at 1000 yards predate computers by quite a while. That's a development born of precision manufacturing and mass production. You can't reliably hit the same spot until you have ammo that performs reliably. But...that happened a while ago, historically. Tracking point is a maker of SCOPES. You put them on the gun. They are not the gun. They're just strapping stuff on an AR platform. Which, yknow, is the entire point of the AR platform. AR-15 is what, 65 years old now?

This is like claiming you got a new car because you plugged your shiny new iphone into it.

Anyway, let's break this down...you're claiming that somehow, we'll have smart-guns that are better. How? How, exactly is a fingerprint lock better than a regular lock? We don't actually see a lot of accidents from locked guns, regardless of type. It's always the person who couldn't be bothered to lock it, didn't think it was loaded, and left it accessible to the kids or something. The root cause here is blatant carelessness. It doesn't actually matter how the lock locks if you never lock it. Technology is not a magic answer to all social ills. Likewise, you can get a safe locked in all sorts of nifty biometric ways, but that's frankly just a matter of buttons and lights. Cool, but what actual capability is it granting over a standard safe?

The basic, unsexy safety option works, if only it is used.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:but a Model T is incredibly different from a modern vehicle. It's not comparable at all. Not even by fudging your time frame back half a century, which seems a blatant cheat.
A modern vehicle as you understand it didn't exist prior to the eighties. A mechanic in 1911 would have had no problem working on a 1970 Ford. The look changed, not what made them cars. And if Ford had built like Colt, the Model T's would be likely exist in numbers today. 15 million were built. The original Ford would run on modern fuel and I suspect that modern cars would run on what was available at first sale of Fords, if not well. However the 1911 as a machine is a simple device as compared to a car. But consider a cheat if you wish, I don't mind.
Tyndmyr wrote:Yes, people have apps for iphones and stuff that assist with various things. This is true for almost every human endeavour. That doesn't mean the thing itself is changing. Guns that let a shooter hit a target at 1000 yards predate computers by quite a while. That's a development born of precision manufacturing and mass production. You can't reliably hit the same spot until you have ammo that performs reliably. But...that happened a while ago, historically. Tracking point is a maker of SCOPES. You put them on the gun. They are not the gun. They're just strapping stuff on an AR platform. Which, yknow, is the entire point of the AR platform. AR-15 is what, 65 years old now?
I never made any such claim, and it is disingenuous to suggest such. And I didn't suggest that the machine(a gun) needed to be rebuilt. What I said was that technology could increase safety. As for the part in blue, the car still uses an internal combustion engine. Unless alternate fuels become more feasible than they are at present then cars are going to be using the same technology developed at the end of the 19th century. The internal combustion engine. Just out of curiosity, could you hit a target at a 1000 yards with any gun and a normal scope?
Since first running into TrackingPoint at CES 2013, we’ve kept tabs on the Austin-based company and its Linux-powered rifles, which it collectively calls "Precision Guided Firearms," or PGFs. We got to spend a few hours on the range with TrackingPoint’s first round of near-production bolt-action weapons last March, when my photojournalist buddy Steven Michael nailed a target at 1,008 yards—about 0.91 kilometers—on his first try, in spite of never having fired a rifle before.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:29 am UTC

morriswalters wrote: Just out of curiosity, could you hit a target at a 1000 yards with any gun and a normal scope?
Since first running into TrackingPoint at CES 2013, we’ve kept tabs on the Austin-based company and its Linux-powered rifles, which it collectively calls "Precision Guided Firearms," or PGFs. We got to spend a few hours on the range with TrackingPoint’s first round of near-production bolt-action weapons last March, when my photojournalist buddy Steven Michael nailed a target at 1,008 yards—about 0.91 kilometers—on his first try, in spite of never having fired a rifle before.

Well, not any gun. Depending on bullet characteristics and barrel length/twist some rounds will start tumbling before that and lose accuracy/precision.

However, some people can make 1,000yd shots with iron sights.

Also, an aside because this topic happens to be local to me and I know some of the engineers who worked there. TrackingPoint is soooooooper defunct. I'm not sure they even delivered any units beyond the half dozen the military wanted for evaluation, and they must not have been impressed.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:47 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:However, some people can make 1,000yd shots with iron sights.
That isn't what I asked. I know that some can. I asked if Tyndmyr could. With enough training I might. But the article I cited from Ars suggested that a untrained shooter could. The utility isn't in question, I don't care if the military can use it or not. The point was that the technology made it possible in the conditions encountered in the article. Which answers the question can technology improve a gun. The problem I have with the assertion that a weapon can't be made better or safer is that it fly's in the face of experience. Guns are simple machines with known characteristics. We already have primitive safeties that are mechanical in nature. It isn't a stretch to think that the reliability of biometrics will increase to a point that will allow guns to be safer.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5959
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby jestingrabbit » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:49 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:What hurts the poor more is killings. Welcome to East St Louis, murder rate worse than Honduras at 101 per 100,000 in 2007. To go back to the consensus that was arrived at on the first page, is everyone really so sure that its easier to get a book than a gun in a city like that?
Given that, your solution as you presented it, wouldn't do anything about guns already in circulation.
This just isn't true. If its legal to have a gun when the police search a house they leave it there, if its illegal, they take it away and add it to the charges. Guns would leave the system, and not come back if they couldn't be purchased. Over time, you would see a reduction in gun crime.

cphite wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:The claim made by cphite is that the overall murder rate hasn't declined. It has.


The murder rate didn't decline as a result of any gun bans. It has declined over the past few decades across all of the countries in question; but that decline doesn't correlate with the level of regulation.


Says you. In Australia, crimes with guns and without reduced in the last twenty years after the preceding twenty years of relative stability, with the homicide rate reducing by more than a third. What changed twenty years ago? Gun regulations.

cphite wrote:
I'm not claiming that the only public policy that effects the homicide rate is gun regulation, nor that the total number of guns in a society is positively correlated with the homicide rate. But if you think that the murder rate in the US would be the same regardless of whether there were or weren't so many handguns, I think you're one hundred percent wrong.

So you're claiming that there is and is not a correlation?

I'm claiming that, all else being equal, there would be observed a positive correlation between violent crime and the presence of handguns. But, this is very hard to test because all else is rarely if ever equal, and other effects, like increases in poverty, poorly funded or or poorly targeted policing, or other significant social changes can dwarf the impact of gun regulations.

cphite wrote:Much like how we erect barriers to good drivers from getting cars because there are bad drivers... oh, wait... we don't do that do we?
Yes we do. We make them get a license, we make them register their car, we make them keep the car well maintained, we issue infringement notices and fines when any of these do not occur. These are barriers.

cphite wrote:
This is a classic example of you guys thinking with your guns instead of your brains. Have licensed and bonded installers of gun safes who provide a certificate that such a thing is installed, require presentation of the proof of installation, checked in a database, before you permit sales. And no one had to do anything violent to anyone. C'est encroyable!


Even assuming people aren't finding ways around this requirement, how does the mere presence of a safe in the house accomplish anything?


You would see at least some reduction in the number of suicides. Some people will use the safe and people who want to commit suicide typically only briefly want to do that. If you make them find the right keys or combination to the safe, go to it, open it up, load the gun and then fire, a lot of them will have stopped before they do it. But if the gun is at your bedside loaded, its a lot easier, and a lot less time between the thought and the action. More time in there is less suicide.

You would have guns taken away during police searches related to other matters. When the police search a house and a gun is incorrectly stored, they could either start issuing warnings, or fine and take it away. That would take guns out of circulation before they were used in crimes. Over time, the total number of guns would decrease, and there would certainly be less gun crime.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby ijuin » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:29 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Anyway, let's break this down...you're claiming that somehow, we'll have smart-guns that are better. How? How, exactly is a fingerprint lock better than a regular lock? We don't actually see a lot of accidents from locked guns, regardless of type. It's always the person who couldn't be bothered to lock it, didn't think it was loaded, and left it accessible to the kids or something. The root cause here is blatant carelessness. It doesn't actually matter how the lock locks if you never lock it. Technology is not a magic answer to all social ills. Likewise, you can get a safe locked in all sorts of nifty biometric ways, but that's frankly just a matter of buttons and lights. Cool, but what actual capability is it granting over a standard safe?

The basic, unsexy safety option works, if only it is used.


My understanding of biometric locks is that the lock is "always on" except for when the gun is in your hand--i.e. it automatically locks itself the moment you holster it or set it down, and unlocks itself when you pick it up and press your fingerprint to the reader (or whatever is done to unlock it). You would be unable to physically detach the lock from the gun short of physically cutting through the rivets that hold it in place.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby leady » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:52 am UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:You would have guns taken away during police searches related to other matters. When the police search a house and a gun is incorrectly stored, they could either start issuing warnings, or fine and take it away. That would take guns out of circulation before they were used in crimes. Over time, the total number of guns would decrease, and there would certainly be less gun crime.


That process would take decades, take huge amounts of man power and sounds like a violation of due process. Even then as a say it would have a trivial impact - I mean you must believe that the cops already search the premises of criminals wherever possible

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:11 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Anyway, let's break this down...you're claiming that somehow, we'll have smart-guns that are better. How? How, exactly is a fingerprint lock better than a regular lock? We don't actually see a lot of accidents from locked guns, regardless of type. It's always the person who couldn't be bothered to lock it, didn't think it was loaded, and left it accessible to the kids or something. The root cause here is blatant carelessness. It doesn't actually matter how the lock locks if you never lock it. Technology is not a magic answer to all social ills. Likewise, you can get a safe locked in all sorts of nifty biometric ways, but that's frankly just a matter of buttons and lights. Cool, but what actual capability is it granting over a standard safe?

The basic, unsexy safety option works, if only it is used.


My understanding of biometric locks is that the lock is "always on" except for when the gun is in your hand--i.e. it automatically locks itself the moment you holster it or set it down, and unlocks itself when you pick it up and press your fingerprint to the reader (or whatever is done to unlock it). You would be unable to physically detach the lock from the gun short of physically cutting through the rivets that hold it in place.


This is not how most biometric locks work, no.

This is a particularly bad thing for a gun, because biometrics typically have not-insignificant delays, and also have both significant false positive/negative error rates. Increasing one generally trades off the other. Both result in problems.

Keys...keys work really well. Very reliable. The "unremovable" aspect is not something that is in any way linked to biometrics.

morriswalters wrote: Just out of curiosity, could you hit a target at a 1000 yards with any gun and a normal scope?


Any gun? God no. Such a shot is utterly hopeless with a pistol, for instance. But with a nice AR-15, a solid scope, and good ammo? Yes. I'd probably spend about $3,000 on the setup, as opposed to my more generic $1k AR setup. A 1,000 yard shot isn't some impossible weird thing, it's a standard range length.

Utterly untrained...you're asking a lot from either. The shooter has to learn how to use the tech. And if they have bad shooting habits like jerking the trigger all over the place, then it really doesn't matter. A certain steadiness is required for the tech to function.

jestingrabbit wrote:
cphite wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:The claim made by cphite is that the overall murder rate hasn't declined. It has.


The murder rate didn't decline as a result of any gun bans. It has declined over the past few decades across all of the countries in question; but that decline doesn't correlate with the level of regulation.


Says you. In Australia, crimes with guns and without reduced in the last twenty years after the preceding twenty years of relative stability, with the homicide rate reducing by more than a third. What changed twenty years ago? Gun regulations.


So, we're just ignoring that US homicide rates dropped more over that same time period, then? Because I've posted it more than once.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:55 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Any gun?
Not as in any gun you pick up, as in, pick any gun you want.
Tyndmyr wrote:Utterly untrained...you're asking a lot from either.
No. The shooter need only be able to follow instructions.
My photographer, Steve, squints through a computerized scope squatting atop a big hunting rifle. We're outdoors at a range just north of Austin, Texas, and the wind is blowing like crazy—enough so that we're having to dial in more and more wind adjustment on the rifle's computer. The spotter and I monitor Steve's sight through an iPad linked to the rifle via Wi-Fi, and we can see exactly what he's seeing through the scope. Steve lines up on his target downrange—a gently swinging metal plate with a fluorescent orange circle painted at its center—and depresses a button to illuminate it with the rifle's laser.

"Good tag?" he asks, softly.

"Good tag," replies the spotter, watching on the iPad. He leaves the device in my hands and looks through a conventional high-powered spotting scope at the target Steve has selected. The wind stops momentarily. "Send it," he calls out.

Steve pulls the trigger, but nothing immediately happens. On the iPad's screen, his reticle shifts from blue to red and drifts toward the marked target. Even though I'm expecting it, the rifle's report is startling when it fires.

A second later, the spotter calls out, "That's a hit!"

Steve has just delivered a .338 Lapua Magnum round directly onto a target about the size of a big dinner plate at a range of 1,008 yards—that's ten football fields, or a tick over 0.91 kilometers. It's his very first try. He has never fired a rifle before today.
If that doesn't make my point then I don't know what will. Of course the price point is well over 20K.

cphite
Posts: 1135
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby cphite » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

cphite wrote:The murder rate didn't decline as a result of any gun bans. It has declined over the past few decades across all of the countries in question; but that decline doesn't correlate with the level of regulation.


Says you. In Australia, crimes with guns and without reduced in the last twenty years after the preceding twenty years of relative stability, with the homicide rate reducing by more than a third. What changed twenty years ago? Gun regulations.


As has been pointed out a couple of times now, the murder rate has declined by roughly the same rate in the US over the same span of time; without those gun regulations. Therefore, there can be no correlation drawn between the murder rate and the regulations.

I'm not claiming that the only public policy that effects the homicide rate is gun regulation, nor that the total number of guns in a society is positively correlated with the homicide rate. But if you think that the murder rate in the US would be the same regardless of whether there were or weren't so many handguns, I think you're one hundred percent wrong.

So you're claiming that there is and is not a correlation?


I'm claiming that, all else being equal, there would be observed a positive correlation between violent crime and the presence of handguns. But, this is very hard to test because all else is rarely if ever equal, and other effects, like increases in poverty, poorly funded or or poorly targeted policing, or other significant social changes can dwarf the impact of gun regulations.


Which is what is meant by a lack of correlation. You're basically saying that you think gun regulations would be a factor, if not for the many other far more significant factors.

cphite wrote:Much like how we erect barriers to good drivers from getting cars because there are bad drivers... oh, wait... we don't do that do we?
Yes we do. We make them get a license, we make them register their car, we make them keep the car well maintained, we issue infringement notices and fines when any of these do not occur. These are barriers.


We don't periodically increase the difficulty in getting a license in response to bad driving.

This is a classic example of you guys thinking with your guns instead of your brains. Have licensed and bonded installers of gun safes who provide a certificate that such a thing is installed, require presentation of the proof of installation, checked in a database, before you permit sales. And no one had to do anything violent to anyone. C'est encroyable!


Even assuming people aren't finding ways around this requirement, how does the mere presence of a safe in the house accomplish anything?


You would see at least some reduction in the number of suicides. Some people will use the safe and people who want to commit suicide typically only briefly want to do that. If you make them find the right keys or combination to the safe, go to it, open it up, load the gun and then fire, a lot of them will have stopped before they do it. But if the gun is at your bedside loaded, its a lot easier, and a lot less time between the thought and the action. More time in there is less suicide.


And you have evidence that a significant number of potentially suicidal people are a) going to use these safes, b) keep them locked, and c) going to give up on the idea in the event that they're forced to cross the room to pick up a key and/or enter a combination?

You would have guns taken away during police searches related to other matters. When the police search a house and a gun is incorrectly stored, they could either start issuing warnings, or fine and take it away. That would take guns out of circulation before they were used in crimes. Over time, the total number of guns would decrease, and there would certainly be less gun crime.


If you're subject to a criminal search they're likely to take your guns anyway regardless of how they're stored. And if you're prone to suicidal thoughts, the police aren't going to be there every day.

For the vast majority of people it's nothing more than mandated expense and inconvenience.

cphite
Posts: 1135
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby cphite » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
ijuin wrote:
The basic, unsexy safety option works, if only it is used.


My understanding of biometric locks is that the lock is "always on" except for when the gun is in your hand--i.e. it automatically locks itself the moment you holster it or set it down, and unlocks itself when you pick it up and press your fingerprint to the reader (or whatever is done to unlock it). You would be unable to physically detach the lock from the gun short of physically cutting through the rivets that hold it in place.


This is not how most biometric locks work, no.

This is a particularly bad thing for a gun, because biometrics typically have not-insignificant delays, and also have both significant false positive/negative error rates. Increasing one generally trades off the other. Both result in problems.

Keys...keys work really well. Very reliable. The "unremovable" aspect is not something that is in any way linked to biometrics.


The false negatives are bad enough that they've been almost universally rejected by police departments, military, private security, and frankly every other group that depends on being armed. Because the rate of failure is simply too high to be acceptable.

I don't believe that I should have to accept any lower standard when it comes to my own defense, or the defense of my loved ones.

If somebody invents a biometric device that is completely reliable then I'd consider it - until then, not gonna happen.

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby ijuin » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:30 pm UTC

Everybody talks about the right to carry weapons. What about the right not to be killed by just any jerk who gets it inti his head to point a weapon at you and who isn't scared off by you pointing one back at him? Or is the right not to be shot less important than the right to shoot?

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:55 pm UTC

cphite wrote:We don't periodically increase the difficulty in getting a license in response to bad driving.
As it turns out we have. For both ends of the age spectrum.(US)
cphite wrote:If somebody invents a biometric device that is completely reliable then I'd consider it - until then, not gonna happen.
Good idea, how reliable does that need to be, what metric would you except?

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby leady » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:43 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:Everybody talks about the right to carry weapons. What about the right not to be killed by just any jerk who gets it inti his head to point a weapon at you and who isn't scared off by you pointing one back at him? Or is the right not to be shot less important than the right to shoot?


The right not to get shot by an aggressor is almost universal, as is the right to respond to threats either directly or through the authorities.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:04 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
cphite wrote:If somebody invents a biometric device that is completely reliable then I'd consider it - until then, not gonna happen.
Good idea, how reliable does that need to be, what metric would you except?


The military and law enforcement have been after this for decades and haven't been satisfied by any proposed solution yet. If the DOD or a large police dept adopted user-authentication equipped firearms and didn't experience any significant issues for a year or so, I imagine a lot of civilian firearm owners would be on board as well.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5768
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:11 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:Well, to be clear, I wasn't imagining the seller performing a background check on the thirteen-year-old. Sellers willing to make illegal sales would be more likely than others to have a criminal history and less likely to be eligible to legally purchase the firearms that they intend to resell, so there would be some percentage decrease in those sellers. Whether or not it's a significant one with an impact on access would be up to studies that various bodies in the US are apparently barred from performing.

They're not actually barred from research, merely from political advocacy. Note that this body, in particular, is the CDC, and it is for historical reasons. Because they did exactly the thing that is now banned. So, future research is going to be eyeballed pretty hard to see if they're up to their old tricks.
Other agencies, such as the FBI, routinely do produce such research. Experiments such as a nationwide assault weapon ban for ten years produced no change(Clinton era bill, expired without being renewed, because of course Bush wasn't renewing it). If *that* didn't move the needle, what will? Certainly not the far less significant EOs signed by Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sto ... years-ago/
Please provide citation on what you mean by political advocacy against guns. From what you posted before, it's mostly a lack of complete and utter devotion from the head of the CDC to the gun lobby which resulted in the ban. And the only justification for it is, "Those feds might publish something that makes guns look bad and as a gun owner, and I am incapable of telling the difference between science and bullshit. They could have done something inappropriate, so it's better they do anything else." This line of argument doesn't sit well with me. The public ate that shit for too long with Big Tobacco and the fossil fuel industry. I'm having a hard time seeing justified fear of biased scientists vs special favors for the gun lobby.
The CDC had not touched firearm research since 1996 — when the NRA accused the agency of promoting gun control and Congress threatened to strip the agency’s funding. The CDC’s self-imposed ban dried up a powerful funding source and had a chilling effect felt far beyond the agency: Almost no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies, researchers say. Young academics were warned that joining the field was a good way to kill their careers. And the odd gun study that got published went through linguistic gymnastics to hide any connection to firearms.
The long stalemate continued until shortly after the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., when Obama announced several gun-control proposals, including reversing the CDC research ban. His higher-profile proposals – tightening firearm background checks, reinstating the assault weapons ban – were viewed as impossible to pass into law. Congress wouldn’t bite. But ending the CDC research ban? Done by executive order, it appeared to have the best shot, along with broad support from a scientific community upset that gun violence as a public health problem was being ignored.
“A lot of people thought it would make a big difference,” recalled Jeffrey Swanson, a Duke University psychiatry professor who studies gun violence and mental health. But today the CDC still avoids gun-violence research, demonstrating what many see as the depth of its fear about returning to one of the country’s most divisive debates.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby ManaUser » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:17 am UTC

This is incredibly far off the original topic, but regarding safety devices, I was thinking, what about some kind of detector just to verify the gun is being held by the grip, in a normal way before it can fire? I don't know if it's really a very large problem, but you do occasionally hear about people accidentally being shot when guns are dropped, or cleaned carelessly, etc. It might even be able to stop small children using it since their hands wouldn't fit the same way. I'm imagining something like 4 to 6 contacts around the grip which must all be touched. It would still be a significant complication, but simple and reliable compared to biometrics I would think.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:53 pm UTC

sardia wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sto ... years-ago/
Please provide citation on what you mean by political advocacy against guns.


http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why ... ch-budget/

Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.

CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor. In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.


In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”


CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires. In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control.


The final nail in the coffin came in 1995 when the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter told its readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” Appearing on the same page as the article pointing the finger at gun owners for the Oklahoma City bombing were the words, “This newsletter was supported in part by Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”


In summary:

The head of the CDC department which studies firearm violence explicitly stated they were trying to build a case to ban firearms. Then they funded research by openly biased gun control advocates. Furthermore, the CDC then funded a non-research publication by an anti-gun advocacy group. Which is when Congress de-funded the CDC by the 2.6 million they had used to pursue the anti-gun agenda and added a rider to the remaining funds that they not be used for exactly the kind of advocacy they had been doing.

ManaUser wrote:This is incredibly far off the original topic, but regarding safety devices, I was thinking, what about some kind of detector just to verify the gun is being held by the grip, in a normal way before it can fire? I don't know if it's really a very large problem, but you do occasionally hear about people accidentally being shot when guns are dropped, or cleaned carelessly, etc. It might even be able to stop small children using it since their hands wouldn't fit the same way. I'm imagining something like 4 to 6 contacts around the grip which must all be touched. It would still be a significant complication, but simple and reliable compared to biometrics I would think.


Many handguns (including the 1911) have what's called a 'grip safety' which is a safety lever on the backstrap engaged when the pistol is fully gripped.
It's basically a much simpler and fully mechanical method of achieving what you describe.
Some people prefer the additional level of safety it provides, while others believe that it is an additional point of failure which might make the firearm inoperable in life-threatening situations, especially if their strong hand is somehow compromised by injury, disability or being forced to fire from an awkward position.

Accidental discharges from dropped firearms are a result of old revolver designs where the firing pin rested directly on the primer of the chambered cartridge. Some pistols and rifles had similar issues resulting from other various design decisions, but modern firearms don't suffer from that issue. Only a small number of specific designs manufactured in the early 20th century and before can fire unintentionally when dropped. It's not a problem for any newer firearm unless something goes extremely wrong. Newly manufactured firearms sold in the U.S. are drop-tested unto destruction without firing unintentionally before they can be sold.
In other words, it doesn't happen.

Other forms of accidental/unintended discharge account for a tiny number of deaths/injuries per year, on the order of lightning strikes.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:17 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Any gun?
Not as in any gun you pick up, as in, pick any gun you want.


Then yes, of course. However, I do not fall into the "utterly untrained" category, so using my personal experience as a barometer is not particularly strong. Anecdote, not data.

Tyndmyr wrote:Utterly untrained...you're asking a lot from either.
No. The shooter need only be able to follow instructions.


That's how you learn to shoot a regular rifle, too. You follow instructions. Look, I get that you like this particular bit of tech, but you're relying on puff pieces. Advertisements from the company itself, as well as sponsored media events. These are not particularly unbiased, and the applicability of this to safety is questionable. It's simply a very different scenario(one more akin to old artillery spotting tech) than safety devices are. If that's your best example, then I'm sorry, but you have no reasonable examples.

ijuin wrote:Everybody talks about the right to carry weapons. What about the right not to be killed by just any jerk who gets it inti his head to point a weapon at you and who isn't scared off by you pointing one back at him? Or is the right not to be shot less important than the right to shoot?


Literally everyone accepts that you have a right to life.

However, all rights have limits. The right to carry a gun does not mean you have a right to shoot at anyone you please. That would be ridiculous, and is not actually anything other than a straw man.

Proponents of firearm rights do not generally see them as in opposition to safety, either.

morriswalters wrote:
cphite wrote:If somebody invents a biometric device that is completely reliable then I'd consider it - until then, not gonna happen.
Good idea, how reliable does that need to be, what metric would you except?


Better than the existing safety devices would suffice. If something is better than what I'm using now, I'll consider it. If it's more expensive AND less good, well, there's not much point.

sardia wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sto ... years-ago/
Please provide citation on what you mean by political advocacy against guns. From what you posted before, it's mostly a lack of complete and utter devotion from the head of the CDC to the gun lobby which resulted in the ban. And the only justification for it is, "Those feds might publish something that makes guns look bad and as a gun owner, and I am incapable of telling the difference between science and bullshit. They could have done something inappropriate, so it's better they do anything else." This line of argument doesn't sit well with me. The public ate that shit for too long with Big Tobacco and the fossil fuel industry. I'm having a hard time seeing justified fear of biased scientists vs special favors for the gun lobby.


1. They were not banned from research. Just from advocacy.
2. CDC articles pertaining to firearms remained steady during the "ban". So, clearly, they weren't being all that hobbled.
3. The CDC was openly engaging in advocacy. As one example, CDC research head Patrick O’Carroll stated “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.”* That's...not research. That's advocacy.
4. This wasn't just one guy. His successor, Mark Rosenberg, openly stated that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”**

There are a bunch of other examples from that era, but...yes, they were doing advocacy, not research. So the advocacy got banned. If you're pissed about that, fine, but at least cop to it, and complain that you're unhappy that federal agencies cannot freely advocate for political agendas, not that you're upset about research.

ManaUser wrote:This is incredibly far off the original topic, but regarding safety devices, I was thinking, what about some kind of detector just to verify the gun is being held by the grip, in a normal way before it can fire? I don't know if it's really a very large problem, but you do occasionally hear about people accidentally being shot when guns are dropped, or cleaned carelessly, etc. It might even be able to stop small children using it since their hands wouldn't fit the same way. I'm imagining something like 4 to 6 contacts around the grip which must all be touched. It would still be a significant complication, but simple and reliable compared to biometrics I would think.


Grip safeties exist, but they are not popular due to existing tradeoffs***, including lack of reliability. Note that accidental deaths as a whole are fairly small, so you're kind of looking at a different problem than biometrics. Additionally, it is unlikely that people who are careless about safety are going to seek out and retrofit firearms with new safety features. If they can't be bothered to make sure the safety is on and the gun is unloaded before peering down the barrel, they probably won't entirely modify their firearm for marginal safety gains.

*The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1989
**Rolling Stone, 1993
*** Well certain kinds are, certain kinds aren't. Best safety depends on kind of gun, and is not entirely universal.

lorb
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:34 am UTC
Location: Austria

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby lorb » Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:17 pm UTC

While the whole discussion on gun-advocacy and gun-research and what kind of gun legislation can or can't prevent gun-related deaths and crimes is very interesting I think the quote from the original topic is best looked at from a less "taking it literally" point of view.
That is, "easier to get a gun than a book" should be read as "easier to enter a (criminal) violent path of life than to get (higher) education" which is certainly true for a number of neighbourhoods. Or expressed more accurate: there are neighbourhoods where this is true for a high proportion of the population.

Also there are studies that show that a higher level of education correlates very strongly with a decrease in gun violence and violent crimes over all.

And this interpretation also fits very well with other stuff that Obama said on guns and books. For example this: "I think that one area we agree on is the importance of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they're less likely to engage in these kinds of violent acts" (from a 2012 debate with romney)

Edit: for clarification. I am not making any statement about a correlation between gun-ownership or gun accessibility with violent and/or criminal behaviour, but an association of those topics can be assumed in the context of "things Obama said"
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
http://decodedarfur.org/

commodorejohn
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby commodorejohn » Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:58 pm UTC

Yeah, well, if that's what he meant then probably that's what he should have said. Otherwise it's just poor communication.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5497
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby ucim » Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:49 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Yeah, well, if that's what he meant then probably that's what he should have said. Otherwise it's just poor communication.
Politicians don't speak to the mind, because by and large the mind isn't listening. Politicians speak to the gut. Because that's where you know you're right. The gut directly bypasses the brain.

Politics is not about educating the populace. It is about building a following, and using the power it gives you. For that you need high impact gut-level statements. They often turn out to be statements-made-up-of-gut-contents, but they are powerful and they work.

That this is true is sad (and in about a year, may become tragic). But it's important to recognize that it is true.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

commodorejohn
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby commodorejohn » Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Politicians don't speak to the mind, because by and large the mind isn't listening. Politicians speak to the gut. Because that's where you know you're right. The gut directly bypasses the brain.

This is true; however, said statements should at least not whallop the brain with their obvious absurdity, because that "hey, wait a minute!" reaction is a good way to undermine the gut reaction they're actually shooting for.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests