All Things Second Amendment

[Town Heretic]

https://jaytaylormedia.com/with-few-gun-laws-new-hampshire-is-safer-than-canada/

In New Hampshire, the homicide rate in 2014 was 0.9 homicides per 100,000, making New Hampshire in 2014 one of the safest places (in terms of homicide) on planet earth.

​

Man, if we ever have a debate about NH overall homicide rates in 2014 I'm going to keep that one in mind. lain:

Meanwhile, its gun death rate in 2018 was 10.3 Gifford's Law Center (link)

Now to NH's credit, that's under the 11.9 national average and especially commendable given the relative laxity of their gun laws. It's also an outlier, when you look at the rest of the U.S. The rule is that the weaker the gun laws the higher the death rates by them, which is why my state, where guns are more numerous than most others, has nearly double the average.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

Most of what Stripe noped is easy to verify if anyone is interested. You can own guns in basically any European Democracy. There are varying degrees of restrictions, but even where the restrictions are comparatively light (say Sweden) they're much stronger than ours and the homicide rates and gun violence rates are dramatically lower.

And in those same countries where semi-automatic and automatic weapons have been banned or significantly encumbered with checks on owners, ammo, and mental health, you don't find anything like our numbers of Las Vegas, Parkland, etc. shootings with double digit fatalities. Australia did a good job on that one too.

 

[ralfy]

The Second Amendment was meant to protect individual rights, to ensure that states could maintain their own militias, and to allow the feds to use the same militias to support a small standing army against numerous threats. But as early as the Revolutionary War and after 1812, the gov't saw the need for a larger standing army and better training for new troops, which is why they began to focus on conscription and later the formation of the National Guard.

 

[Stripe]

There are varying degrees of restrictions, but even where the restrictions are comparatively light (say Sweden) they're much stronger than ours and the homicide rates and gun violence rates are dramatically lower.

You haven't thought this through at all, have you?

And in those same countries where semi-automatic and automatic weapons have been banned or significantly encumbered with checks on owners, ammo, and mental health, you don't find anything like our numbers of Las Vegas, Parkland, etc. shootings with double digit fatalities. Australia did a good job on that one too.

When guns are banned, they don't get used.

If you ban cars, traffic fatalities will fall.

 

[Town Heretic]

Of course this isn't about banning guns, but about banning those singularly distinguished by their ability to kill a great many people in a very small window of time.

Everywhere that's done people are safer.

Meanwhile, the debate continues here and will, over time, see the dangerous present one redrawn.

My hope is that it happens before we bury another dozen or so school kids, concert goers, or church members.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course this isn't about banning guns, but about banning those singularly distinguished by their ability to kill a great many people in a very small window of time.

Which means that any gun that has a magazine should be banned, because all it takes is someone with a fast trigger finger and fast reload time and good aim to kill a great many people in a very small window of time. (And yes, that includes bolt action rifles, revolvers, semi-auto pistols, semi-auto rifles, etc etc etc...) Just because it fires hundreds of rounds a minute doesn't necessarily mean that it kills a great many people in a very small window of time.

Just like all it takes is a halfway decent driver to drive a van into a large crowd of people, killing a great many people in a very small window of time.

Just like all it takes is some pothead to drop a joint behind the couch and burn down an entire apartment building, killing a great many people in a very small window of time.

So you see, your argument that "anything that is singularly distinguished by their ability to kill a great many people in a very small window of time" doesn't really mean anything except "I want to ban these weapons because I think they're more dangerous."

Everywhere that's done people are safer.

Well, no, it just means that those guns aren't used in the commission of gun crimes. The crimes still happen, just with more readily available weapons.

Meanwhile, the debate continues here and will, over time, see the dangerous present one redrawn.

My hope is that it happens before we bury another dozen or so school kids, concert goers, or church members.

Here's a prediction:

Until our justice system is completely scrapped and laws such as "do not murder" with the appropriate punishment of death are implemented, we will continue to see an increasing number of murders, massacres, and school, concert, church, and public venue shootings.

 

[ok doser]

iirc, guns were banned from Sandy Hook Elementary, guns were banned from Columbine High, guns were banned from Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, guns were banned from Stoneman Douglas High, etc

 

[Town Heretic]

Which means that any gun that has a magazine should be banned

Depends on the size of the clip. A thing I've spoken to when the subject was brought up early on. I'm against bump stocks, speed loaders, and large capacity magazines.

, because all it takes is someone with a fast trigger finger and fast reload time and good aim to kill a great many people in a very small window of time.

Not really. The thing about ARs is they're built to spit out rounds at a remarkable clip. With bump stocks they were virtual machine guns. Add a large capacity clip to a semi-automatic weapon and it's easy to do what it would take a great deal of skill and practice to approach with another weapon.

(And yes, that includes bolt action rifles, revolvers, semi-auto pistols, semi-auto rifles, etc etc etc...) Just because it fires hundreds of rounds a minute doesn't necessarily mean that it kills a great many people in a very small window of time.

You stand a much better chance of doing it than you would with a bolt action, revolver, etc. Which is why in countries without those aids and weapons existing in the stream of commerce you don't tend to see the sort of killing fields that you have here, where they can be had.

Just like all it takes is a halfway decent driver to drive a van into a large crowd of people, killing a great many people in a very small window of time.

It's easy to aim a car at a group of people who will likely only realize your intent when a number of them are already dead and those in proximity are fairly easy prey.

Just like all it takes is some pothead to drop a joint behind the couch and burn down an entire apartment building, killing a great many people in a very small window of time.

There are any number of ways to kill people, to be sure. And yet, when the weapons I object to are not part of the stream of commerce you don't have other forms of murder, let alone mass murder, moving in to take up the slack. In fact, as I noted and linked to a while back, the overall murder rates are lower.

So you see, your argument that "anything that is singularly distinguished by their ability to kill a great many people in a very small window of time" doesn't really mean anything except "I want to ban these weapons because I think they're more dangerous."

Not at all.

Meanwhile, in Australia, a nation where guns are yet found but the sorts I'm speaking to are not legally attainable, they had 13 mass shootings before the Port Arthur massacre, within a span of 18 years. In the 22 years since they made the means illegal? None.

Well, no, it just means that those guns aren't used in the commission of gun crimes. The crimes still happen, just with more readily available weapons.

I didn't say it would stop all crime. But it did stop the crime it was aimed at stopping, mass killings. Because the assault rifle is designed to kill, and uniquely so to take a large number of lives.

Here's a prediction: Until our justice system is completely scrapped and laws such as "do not murder" with the appropriate punishment of death are implemented, we will continue to see an increasing number of murders, massacres, and school, concert, church, and public venue shootings.

All evidence to the contrary, though it's an easy sort of bet given we aren't going to scrap our system of justice. What you can do is look to the rule among states with stricter gun laws. You'll find they're much safer on average than those with weaker laws and greater allowance. The same is true, but in a more dramatic fashion, comparing us with our Western European cousins.

 

[Stripe]

Of course this isn't about banning guns, but about banning those singularly distinguished by their ability to kill a great many people in a very small window of time.

But you routinely trot out statistics that include all firearms.

You need to take great care when you use data like this to bolster your claim.

You never heed this advice. You just bulldoze on with your agenda.

Everywhere that's done people are safer.

When you ban cars, the roads are safer.

 

[Town Heretic]

But you routinely trot out statistics that include all firearms.

You need to take great care when you use data like this to bolster your claim.

You never heed this advice. You just bulldoze on with your agenda.

Stuff and nonsense.

When you ban cars, the roads are safer.

When you ban assault rifles and the aids I'm speaking to, everyone is safer, but people can still own guns and still accomplish every legal purpose of the ownership.

 

[Stripe]

When you ban assault rifles and the aids I'm speaking to, everyone is safer.

Nope.

People can still own guns and still accomplish every legal purpose of the ownership.

Nope.

 

[Nihilo]

Man, if we ever have a debate about NH overall homicide rates in 2014 I'm going to keep that one in mind. lain:

Man, and it must be irrelevant that this same intentional homicide rate preceded 2014, and has continued since 2014, right up to today also in the state. lain:

It's not a fluke, outlier, or flier. NH's got a long established trend of low murder rates rivaling the safest countries on earth. And you can openly carry assault weapons wherever you like,¹ with ultra-high capacity magazines too.


¹ - Apologies. This sentence is true on the condition that you are not on Federal property, where Federal law is in force, and not NH law. A very common example is a United States Post Office. A NH resident cannot exercise their right to bear arms in a Post Office, for example.

Meanwhile, its gun death rate in 2018 was 10.3 Gifford's Law Center (link)

And of that 10.3 at most 1.0 is due to intentional homicide. So the remainder (9.3) is not intentional homicide, but a mix of accidental deaths, justified killings (e.g. self defense), and, suicide.

And not all the 1.0 is intentional homicide by gun, the figure for that is something like 0.6 intentional homicides committed with a gun. And that doesn't specify which type of gun was used, although all statistics roundly report that handguns are the weapon of choice in such crimes. So the intentional homicide by assault weapon is even lower still, probably close to 0.1, but that is a guess. It might not even be that high.

Now to NH's credit, that's under the 11.9 national average and especially commendable given the relative laxity of their gun laws.

NH's gun control laws are dreamy: As a NH resident you can own and carry any non-NFA Title II weapon anywhere you like. No restrictions on magazine capacity, nor on open- vs. concealed carry, nor on 'assault weapons,' which are civilian semiauto-only replica versions of standard issue military.

Cue the 'turn "dreamy" into "nightmarish"' rhetorical tack . . . .

It's also an outlier, when you look at the rest of the U.S.

It's not exactly an outlier wrt low murder rates though. NH's contiguous neighbors VT and ME are hot on their heels, with some of the lowest murder rates in the US, both of which with gun control laws almost identical to NH's.

But notably not NH's other neighbor MA, where gun control laws are far stricter than in NH, VT, and ME. MA's murder rate is around three times as high as NH's. If you want to avoid being murdered, statistically, best to stick to NH with their dreamy gun control laws, and avoid MA with our irrationally restrictive ones.

Statistically speaking.

The rule is that the weaker the gun laws the higher the death rates by them

But not due to intentional homicide. This would be due to instead justifiable homicides (idk whether justifiable homicides by police are included in your data), accidental deaths, and mainly suicides, which always make up the majority of gun deaths, even when including intentional homicide. And you don't mean to imply do you, that people kill themselves with assault weapons? That again is largely by handgun.

, which is why my state, where guns are more numerous than most others, has nearly double the average.

I do see that AL's murder rate and gun ownership rate are higher than most states, but also I see where Idaho and Wyoming have higher rates of gun ownership than AL, and North Dakota and even Hawaii have similar rates, and all of these four states have murder rates far closer to NH's murder rate than to AL's.

'Just looks to me like AL's got a lot more murderers living there, and that it has nothing to do with gun control laws.

Most of what Stripe noped is easy to verify if anyone is interested. You can own guns in basically any European Democracy. There are varying degrees of restrictions, but even where the restrictions are comparatively light (say Sweden) they're much stronger than ours and the homicide rates and gun violence rates are dramatically lower.

Except in NH. And VT, ME, ID, WY, and ND

And in those same countries where semi-automatic and automatic weapons have been banned or significantly encumbered with checks

All automatic weapons like selective fire rifles and carbines are NFA Title II weapons.

on owners, ammo, and mental health, you don't find anything like our numbers of Las Vegas, Parkland, etc. shootings with double digit fatalities. Australia did a good job on that one too.

These are all committed by suicidal mass murderers, iow 'Kamikaze' types. The last thing I'd want is to find myself in one of theirs company, and the last thing I'd want if I ever am, is to not have an assault weapon.

 

[Town Heretic]

Man, and it must be irrelevant that this same intentional homicide rate preceded 2014, and has continued since 2014, right up to today also in the state. lain:

You can't penalize me for speaking to the year you gave me. And I've addressed outliers. They aren't the rule.

It's not exactly an outlier wrt low murder rates though. NH's contiguous neighbors VT and ME are hot on their heels, with some of the lowest murder rates in the US, both of which with gun control laws almost identical to NH's.

Unified by comparatively small populations and fewer concentrations of the poor as a result. I'll come back to this in a moment.

But notably not NH's other neighbor MA, where gun control laws are far stricter than in NH, VT, and ME. MA's murder rate is around three times as high as NH's.

And MA has a lot more people, particularly a lot more poor people in concentration and we know from the data that an overwhelming amount of crime and violence is found in large concentrations of the poor. In that light the efficacy of gun laws is remarkable. But the difference there is likely the simpler and more obvious truth I noted above. When you have fewer people to keep an eye on and a smaller amount of land to do it in, with lower concentrations of the sort of populations that tend to commit violent crimes, you don't necessarily need the help that stronger laws would give you, but you won't be harmed by them either.

If you want to avoid being murdered, statistically, best to stick to NH with their dreamy gun control laws, and avoid MA with our irrationally restrictive ones.

Only if you don't understand the difference between the rule and the exception or how crime relates to populations. I'm going to take a closer look a bit later.

But not due to intentional homicide.

I don't know of any large study that supports your contention. I do know and have set out over the course of these conversations that the data indicated both gun violence and larger rates of criminal violence are appreciably reduced by stronger gun laws. On the point of assault weapons, where you eliminate them you largely (entirely in Australia) eliminate the sort of mass shooting tragedy we've seen in schoolyards, at concerts, and in churches of late. And I've noted that stronger gun laws (most eliminating auto and semi automatic weapons or making access contingent to fairly severe restrictions) found in Europe attend dramatically lower rates of gun violence, mass shootings, and even the general homicide rates.

I do see that AL's murder rate and gun ownership rate are higher than most states, but also I see where Idaho and Wyoming have higher rates of gun ownership than AL, and North Dakota and even Hawaii have similar rates, and all of these four states have murder rates far closer to NH's murder rate than to AL's.

And while it's hard to do more than guess gun ownership in populations, thanks to the lack of registration, what I notice in your outliers are that they're small population states lacking the thing I noted above.

'Just looks to me like AL's got a lot more murderers living there

That alone should make you question your own proffer, but it isn't Alabama alone. It's the rule, readily demonstrated by the South using Gifford's. I believe these are from 2017 and due for updating to 2018. The national average was 12.0 for the comparison year. I Include only those states in the South receiving an F rating by Gifford's on their gun laws and the corresponding death by firearms per 100k.

State -- Gun law rating -- deaths per 100k
AL: F, 22.9
LA: F, 21.6
MS: F, 21.5
AR: F, 20.2
WV: F, 18.6
SC: F, 17.6
KY: F, 16.4
GA: F, 15.4
TX: F, 12.4

The average gun death rate among those states? 18.5

Only Virginia had a rate lower than or equal to the national average among Southern states. It had a rate of 11.9, one tenth below average, and a rating of D according to Gifford's.

Now let's look at the 6 states given an A for having the strongest gun laws.

HI: A-, 2.4
NY: A-, 3.7
CT: A, 5.1
NJ: A, 5.3
CA: A, 7.8
MD: A-, 12.3

Only outlier Maryland has a rate equal to or exceeding the national average, by three tenths. The average gun related deaths among them: 6.1, or about half the national average.

and that it has nothing to do with gun control laws.

All evidence to the contrary. And the case is even stronger in Europe, where you don't have the influence as frequently of appreciably weaker gun laws surrounding states with stronger ones, as we do in, say, Illinois.

These are all committed by suicidal mass murderers, iow 'Kamikaze' types. The last thing I'd want is to find myself in one of theirs company, and the last thing I'd want if I ever am, is to not have an assault weapon.

You're more likely (or the average person is) to kill innocent people than they are to identify who is shooting who and why in a case where multiple people are similarly armed, unless you were lucky enough to see the first person to fire and correctly identify him or her, then had sufficient control of your weapon and person to take a steady aim.

 

[Stripe]

You can't penalize me for speaking to the year you gave me. And I've addressed outliers. They aren't the rule.


Unified by comparatively small populations and fewer concentrations of the poor as a result. I'll come back to this in a moment.


And MA has a lot more people, particularly a lot more poor people in concentration and we know from the data that an overwhelming amount of crime and violence is found in large concentrations of the poor. In that light the efficacy of gun laws is remarkable. But the difference there is likely the simpler and more obvious truth I noted above. When you have fewer people to keep an eye on and a smaller amount of land to do it in, with lower concentrations of the sort of populations that tend to commit violent crimes, you don't necessarily need the help that stronger laws would give you, but you won't be harmed by them either.


Only if you don't understand the difference between the rule and the exception or how crime relates to populations. I'm going to take a closer look a bit later.


I don't know of any large study that supports your contention. I do know and have set out over the course of these conversations that the data indicated both gun violence and larger rates of criminal violence are appreciably reduced by stronger gun laws. On the point of assault weapons, where you eliminate them you largely (entirely in Australia) eliminate the sort of mass shooting tragedy we've seen in schoolyards, at concerts, and in churches of late. And I've noted that stronger gun laws (most eliminating auto and semi automatic weapons or making access contingent to fairly severe restrictions) found in Europe attend dramatically lower rates of gun violence, mass shootings, and even the general homicide rates.


And while it's hard to do more than guess gun ownership in populations, thanks to the lack of registration, what I notice in your outliers are that they're small population states lacking the thing I noted above.


That alone should make you question your own proffer, but it isn't Alabama alone. It's the rule, readily demonstrated by the South using Gifford's. I believe these are from 2017 and due for updating to 2018. The national average was 12.0 for the comparison year. I Include only those states in the South receiving an F rating by Gifford's on their gun laws and the corresponding death by firearms per 100k.

State -- Gun law rating -- deaths per 100k
AL: F, 22.9
LA: F, 21.6
MS: F, 21.5
AR: F, 20.2
WV: F, 18.6
SC: F, 17.6
KY: F, 16.4
GA: F, 15.4
TX: F, 12.4

The average gun death rate among those states? 18.5

Only Virginia had a rate lower than or equal to the national average among Southern states. It had a rate of 11.9, one tenth below average, and a rating of D according to Gifford's.

Now let's look at the 6 states given an A for having the strongest gun laws.

HI: A-, 2.4
NY: A-, 3.7
CT: A, 5.1
NJ: A, 5.3
CA: A, 7.8
MD: A-, 12.3

Only outlier Maryland has a rate equal to or exceeding the national average, by three tenths. The average gun related deaths among them: 6.1, or about half the national average.


All evidence to the contrary. And the case is even stronger in Europe, where you don't have the influence as frequently of appreciably weaker gun laws surrounding states with stronger ones, as we do in, say, Illinois.


You're more likely (or the average person is) to kill innocent people than they are to identify who is shooting who and why in a case where multiple people are similarly armed, unless you were lucky enough to see the first person to fire and correctly identify him or her, then had sufficient control of your weapon and person to take a steady aim.

Nope.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope.

:rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

:rotfl:

:idunno:

You're the one with the problem.

Running around with loaded numbers like that is only going to get you hurt.

 

[Town Heretic]

:idunno:

You're the one with the problem.

I didn't say you had a problem. :AMR:

I laughed at your one word answer to a block quote.

I've heard of hearing things, but reading things?

:mock: The hard of reading.

Running around with loaded numbers like that is only going to get you hurt.

:rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

I didn't say you had a problem. :AMR:

Is reading your second language? I am not the one abusing statistics and refusing guidance. Nobody has made any such claim.

I laughed at your one word answer to a block quote.

I know. :idunno:

I've heard of hearing things, but reading things?

You should start with responding to what people say, not making things up to argue against.

:rotfl:

Suit yourself. :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

Is reading your second language?

King of the internal non sequitur.

Here's why I just get tickled with you:

Of course this isn't about banning guns, but about banning those singularly distinguished by their ability to kill a great many people in a very small window of time. Everywhere that's done people are safer.

When you ban cars, the roads are safer.

But when I write: When you ban assault rifles and the aids I'm speaking to, everyone is safer...

Nope.

That's funny.

I am not the one abusing statistics and refusing guidance.

Who said you were?

Nobody has made any such claim.

You're the only one making any sort of claim along those lines about anyone. :AMR:

I know. :idunno:

Then let no man say you can't be taught anything. :thumb:

You should start with responding to what people say, not making things up to argue against.

:rotfl: Seriously, you have to stop. Or I'm going to have to make sure I'm not drinking coffee when I read you.

Suit yourself. :idunno:

That's the new motto at Men's Wearhouse.

 

[Stripe]

Kingoftheinternalnonsequitur.
Here'swhyIjustgettickledwith
you:ButwhenIwrite:Whenyouban
assaultriflesandtheaidsI'msp
eakingto,everyoneissafer...T
hat'sfunny.Whosaidyouwere?Yo
u'retheonlyonemakinganysorto
fclaimalongthoselinesaboutan
yone.:AMR:Thenletnomansayyou
can'tbetaughtanthing.:thumb
::rotfl:Seriously,youhaveto
stop.OrI'mgoingtohavetomake
sureI'mnotdrinkingcofeewhen
Ireadyou.That'sthenewmottoa
tMen'sWearhouse.

Great.

Meanwhile, you have no idea how to respect an opposing view, let alone simple statistics.

 

[Town Heretic]

Great.

Thanks! :thumb:

Meanwhile, you have no idea how to respect an opposing view,

I'm a moderator at another forum. When an opening came up there I nominated fool for the slot. His view on God is fundamentally opposed to my own. We can't agree on the point, but I respect his character and the quality of his thinking, even so.

let alone simple statistics.

I would agree that you have an uncommon grasp of simple statistics. lain: True, I don't mean it as you would, but that's life for you.