American Gun Ownership Highest In 18 Years

[Ed Anger]

This is why you teach them bolt action rifles first.

Taking is slow has a price as well.  What if the girl were attacked by a whole group of bullies at school next week?  In such a situation, the difference between an automatic weapon and a bolt-action rifle can be the difference between life and death.

Calm down there Yakov. If the Brits can put down Fuzzy Wuzzys with single shot rifles, a damn American 9 year old can too.

[derspiess]

What is also striking is how the gun nuts have actually consolidated their position in the aftermath of shooting tragedies on successive occasions. Truly a masterclass in crisis communications strategies. 

There have been victories in some places and defeats in others.  Result is that the pro-gun states are more pro-gun than before and the anti-gun states are more anti-gun than before.

[alfred russel]

The "interpretation" of it that would allow a judge to strike down controls on handguns certainly is...which is pretty easy to note considering that bans like that have been around in one form or another since the 2nd was ratified.

Gun control is hardly alone in this respect. But for some reason, when the results favor your side, you don't seem to object so much. 

[Berkut]

I don't have a "side" though - I have a position on an issue that isn't motivated almost completely by my fascination with shiny toys. SO yeah, when the results favor the position that I hold, I don't object. What a shocking thing.

And my position is based on a objective desire to see the Constitution upheld and the rights of individuals protected, rather than a infantile fascination with guns and the NRA.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/gun-deaths-versus-car-deaths/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[...]

A report out on Tuesday from the Violence Policy Center confirms yet again the lunacy of America's loose gun policies.

The report contains the striking finding that gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle deaths in 14 states and the District of Columbia in 2011, the latest year for which the relevant data are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's up from 12 states in 2010 and 9 states in 2009.

The 2011 states are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington State, as well as the District of Columbia.

In Alaska, for example, there were 126 gun deaths and 87 motor vehicle deaths. The numbers in Ohio were 1,227 gun deaths and 1,178 motor vehicle deaths.

Nationwide, the number of motor vehicle deaths still exceeded gun deaths: 35,543 to 32,351.  But consider that in 2009 the spread was much larger – 42,624 motor vehicles deaths nationwide and 28,874 gun deaths.

[...]

If gun deaths exceed car deaths in some states then it must mean that cars and driving are overregulated. Let's remove the requirement for licenses and age limits. Let everyone drive whenever and however they want. It's a citizen's right, no?

I want to focus on the last paragraph of the article, since I am posting to bitch about their numbers.

Yet, as Ms. Rand points out, there is overwhelming evidence linking firearm accessibility to suicide, and showing that people who attempt suicide with a firearm are much more likely to succeed at killing themselves.  Since most people who attempt suicide and fail don't try again, the means used on the first try is rather critical.

I have a strong philosophical problem with this[1].  I do not believe gun control is a proper response to firearm suicides.  Yes, removing tools for suicide will reduce the number of successful attempts.  It will not remove the underlying problems that triggered the person to seek out a means of ending their life in the first place.  To view pushing such a person from a more effective means, such as a handgun, to a less effective means, like an intentional overdose, as a victory is fucking disgusting.  The absolute priority in suicide prevention should be preventing that first attempt.  You don't do that by simply removing tools.

Anticipating rebuttal:

Yes, removing tools for suicide in concert with treating the underlying problems is effective.  However, such is not being done currently, and many fewer people are talking about such programs as a means of stopping people from blowing their brains out as opposed to simply taking away their guns and allowing them to wallow in misery.  Also, I am philosophically opposed from society taking measures to protect people from themselves.  I acknowledge that people harming themselves has ripple effects to others.  Ultimately, though, the choice rests with the person directly affected.  Additionally, due to the first point above I don't think most gun control advocates really give a shit about suicidal people beyond the nice padding they add to the numbers for reports like the referenced one.  Yes, that is rather bitter and cynical, but it is my view.

[1] It actually extends to the larger problem of how we as a society handle mental disorders, but I don't want to get on that full tangent right now.

[alfred russel]

I don't have a "side" though - I have a position on an issue that isn't motivated almost completely by my fascination with shiny toys. SO yeah, when the results favor the position that I hold, I don't object. What a shocking thing.

And my position is based on a objective desire to see the Constitution upheld and the rights of individuals protected, rather than a infantile fascination with guns and the NRA.

It is one thing for a tea party member to scream about original intent and practices at the time of authorship with the constitution--they might not mind an 18th / 19th century government. But for an atheist with libertarian tendencies...that seems a bit short sighted.

[Barrister]

I have a strong philosophical problem with this[1].  I do not believe gun control is a proper response to firearm suicides.  Yes, removing tools for suicide will reduce the number of successful attempts.  It will not remove the underlying problems that triggered the person to seek out a means of ending their life in the first place.  To view pushing such a person from a more effective means, such as a handgun, to a less effective means, like an intentional overdose, as a victory is fucking disgusting.  The absolute priority in suicide prevention should be preventing that first attempt.  You don't do that by simply removing tools.

Anticipating rebuttal:

Yes, removing tools for suicide in concert with treating the underlying problems is effective.  However, such is not being done currently, and many fewer people are talking about such programs as a means of stopping people from blowing their brains out as opposed to simply taking away their guns and allowing them to wallow in misery.  Also, I am philosophically opposed from society taking measures to protect people from themselves.  I acknowledge that people harming themselves has ripple effects to others.  Ultimately, though, the choice rests with the person directly affected.  Additionally, due to the first point above I don't think most gun control advocates really give a shit about suicidal people beyond the nice padding they add to the numbers for reports like the referenced one.  Yes, that is rather bitter and cynical, but it is my view.

[1] It actually extends to the larger problem of how we as a society handle mental disorders, but I don't want to get on that full tangent right now.

People thinking about suicide don't have big flashing light on top of their heads.  We never know what someone is thinking unless they talk about it, or act on it.

Reducing the lethality of suicide attempts is absolutely a valid public policy goal.  Studies show that most people who attempt suicide and fail do not go on to further attempts.  And once someone attempts and fails we can intervene more directly to treat the underlying mental health issue.

Here in Edmonton they're spending a million bucks or so to make one of the bridges in town less accessible to suicide jumpers, and I understand San Francisco is doing something similar for the Golden Gate bridge.  So people who want to kill themselves by jumping off a bridge will have to find a lower, less lethal bridge to do it from.  Which sounds like an excellent idea to me.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

It is one thing for a tea party member to scream about original intent and practices at the time of authorship with the constitution--they might not mind an 18th / 19th century government. But for an atheist with libertarian tendencies...that seems a bit short sighted.

What everyone seems to forget, on this and many other issues, is that the Constitution is a living document.  Don't like what it says?  Write up and amendment and start campaigning to pass it.  Ever since the New Deal era and the resulting court decisions, however, the debate has become about interpreting the document like it was set in stone from on high.

[Malthus]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/gun-deaths-versus-car-deaths/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[...]

A report out on Tuesday from the Violence Policy Center confirms yet again the lunacy of America's loose gun policies.

The report contains the striking finding that gun deaths exceeded motor vehicle deaths in 14 states and the District of Columbia in 2011, the latest year for which the relevant data are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's up from 12 states in 2010 and 9 states in 2009.

The 2011 states are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington State, as well as the District of Columbia.

In Alaska, for example, there were 126 gun deaths and 87 motor vehicle deaths. The numbers in Ohio were 1,227 gun deaths and 1,178 motor vehicle deaths.

Nationwide, the number of motor vehicle deaths still exceeded gun deaths: 35,543 to 32,351.  But consider that in 2009 the spread was much larger – 42,624 motor vehicles deaths nationwide and 28,874 gun deaths.

[...]

If gun deaths exceed car deaths in some states then it must mean that cars and driving are overregulated. Let's remove the requirement for licenses and age limits. Let everyone drive whenever and however they want. It's a citizen's right, no?

I want to focus on the last paragraph of the article, since I am posting to bitch about their numbers.

Yet, as Ms. Rand points out, there is overwhelming evidence linking firearm accessibility to suicide, and showing that people who attempt suicide with a firearm are much more likely to succeed at killing themselves.  Since most people who attempt suicide and fail don't try again, the means used on the first try is rather critical.

I have a strong philosophical problem with this[1].  I do not believe gun control is a proper response to firearm suicides.  Yes, removing tools for suicide will reduce the number of successful attempts.  It will not remove the underlying problems that triggered the person to seek out a means of ending their life in the first place.  To view pushing such a person from a more effective means, such as a handgun, to a less effective means, like an intentional overdose, as a victory is fucking disgusting.  The absolute priority in suicide prevention should be preventing that first attempt.  You don't do that by simply removing tools.

Anticipating rebuttal:

Yes, removing tools for suicide in concert with treating the underlying problems is effective.  However, such is not being done currently, and many fewer people are talking about such programs as a means of stopping people from blowing their brains out as opposed to simply taking away their guns and allowing them to wallow in misery.  Also, I am philosophically opposed from society taking measures to protect people from themselves.  I acknowledge that people harming themselves has ripple effects to others.  Ultimately, though, the choice rests with the person directly affected.  Additionally, due to the first point above I don't think most gun control advocates really give a shit about suicidal people beyond the nice padding they add to the numbers for reports like the referenced one.  Yes, that is rather bitter and cynical, but it is my view.

[1] It actually extends to the larger problem of how we as a society handle mental disorders, but I don't want to get on that full tangent right now.

Depends on how one views suicide.

No, removing handguns will not stop a person determined to kill themselves. Lord knows some people have serious reasons to do so - like finding they have an incurable disease that will kill them in excrutiating pain. However, it will stop some of those who do so on an impulse in a moment of bleakness. Make it more difficult to off someone in a moment, and you make it less likely that a momentary impulse will lead to death.

This is similar to the reason why removing guns from any potentially volatile situation is a good idea. A drunken bar fight that is fought with fists and bottles would generally end with stitches; make everyone armed, and it is far more likely to end in deaths. 

[derspiess]

I don't have a "side" though - I have a position on an issue that isn't motivated almost completely by my fascination with shiny toys. SO yeah, when the results favor the position that I hold, I don't object. What a shocking thing.

The only person here calling them toys is you.

[alfred russel]

What everyone seems to forget, on this and many other issues, is that the Constitution is a living document.  Don't like what it says?  Write up and amendment and start campaigning to pass it.  Ever since the New Deal era and the resulting court decisions, however, the debate has become about interpreting the document like it was set in stone from on high.

It is very hard to pass amendments, in part because people think of it like it was set in stone from on high, and in part because it is a difficult process.

It is much easier to just appoint judges that will interpret the constitution how you want.

[Berkut]

I don't have a "side" though - I have a position on an issue that isn't motivated almost completely by my fascination with shiny toys. SO yeah, when the results favor the position that I hold, I don't object. What a shocking thing.

And my position is based on a objective desire to see the Constitution upheld and the rights of individuals protected, rather than a infantile fascination with guns and the NRA.

It is one thing for a tea party member to scream about original intent and practices at the time of authorship with the constitution--they might not mind an 18th / 19th century government. But for an atheist with libertarian tendencies...that seems a bit short sighted.

I am not arguing that we should take the mindset stated, I am arguing that the claim that the 2nd has always been about an individual right to tote around some defined class of firearm such that laws governing, restricting, or even banning particular classes of firearms being carried in public (or against background checks, or registration requirements, or whatever) is patently false.

That is the great lie that the NRA has so successfully sold - that nothing has changed, and in fact throwing out things like the DC handgun restrictions is a *return* to the intent of those who wrote the second.

That is patently and objectively untrue, as anyone who cares to take a small amount of time to look at the history of gun control legislation can see very easily.

The NRA did not stand up and say "In the modern world, the intent of the founders must be re-interpretated such that it is reasonable for the courts to strike down nearly any kind of control on the posession of firearms (which is our basic position)".

My problem with the modern interpretation of the 2nd is not so much that I am opposed to or in favor of more or less restrictions on guns in the particular. I think Georgia's position is fine - I think New York's positions is fine. I think Florida is fucking insane.

What I don't like about the modern interpretation of the 2nd is that it demands that everyone share the same stance on what is reasonable control of guns, and that stance is one held by the most radical of society - that New York is NOT fine, and they should be forced to be like Florida. It is NOT ok for Washington D.C. to have their own views on what the people there, via their elected representatives, want in regards to gun control, they have to go along with the "all gun control is EVIL" stance of the NRA.

The "old" interpretation I think did a perfectly good job of protecting the basic right while leaving local areas free to make their own choices about what is reasonable and workable for them. The "new" interpretation looks like it is moving towards a one size fits all view that

A) Most Americans don't actually want, and
B) Pretty clearly, IMO, contributes to a serious problem with gun violence in America.

You can, of course, reasonable disagree with B. But that disagreement ought to, IMO, be resolved in the court of public opinion and through our nominally representative democracy. Not by the most extreme element defining their way to victory via an invented fundamental right.

[Berkut]

It is one thing for a tea party member to scream about original intent and practices at the time of authorship with the constitution--they might not mind an 18th / 19th century government. But for an atheist with libertarian tendencies...that seems a bit short sighted.

What everyone seems to forget, on this and many other issues, is that the Constitution is a living document.  Don't like what it says?  Write up and amendment and start campaigning to pass it.  Ever since the New Deal era and the resulting court decisions, however, the debate has become about interpreting the document like it was set in stone from on high.

That is a lot of trouble.

Much easier to engage in a propaganda campaign culminating in a SC decision to simply define your new amendment as being the old amendment all along.

[Berkut]

I don't have a "side" though - I have a position on an issue that isn't motivated almost completely by my fascination with shiny toys. SO yeah, when the results favor the position that I hold, I don't object. What a shocking thing.

The only person here calling them toys is you.

You guys have been calling them toys for 100 pages now, going on and on about your latest and what accessories you are going to get for it, etc., etc.

Which, btw, is fine - I don't think it is a bad thing to have a hobby, and firearms collecting is pretty cool, and frankly, guns themselves are pretty cool - I can understand the attraction completely.

But they are most certainly toys in every sense of the word.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

People thinking about suicide don't have big flashing light on top of their heads.  We never know what someone is thinking unless they talk about it, or act on it.

No shit.  The objective should be to get them to talk about it.  Very few people go from fine to suicidal in a short period of time.  Yes, they may look fine, but those people are just very good at hiding it.  Getting those people to ask for help should be the goal.

Reducing the lethality of suicide attempts is absolutely a valid public policy goal.  Studies show that most people who attempt suicide and fail do not go on to further attempts.  And once someone attempts and fails we can intervene more directly to treat the underlying mental health issue.

From the tone of this and the preceding paragraph, you seem to think the action in dealing with the suicidal person should come from the outside and be imposed on them.  I don't agree with that in the case of suicide.  Suicide often comes up because people either have no one to turn to or feel that those they have tried to turn to either have not listened or have not taken them seriously.  They typically do not want or need an "intervention"; they want someone to help them, but either do not know who or how to ask, or feel ashamed of needing to do so.  Persisting in the intervention mindset is making this problem worse, not better.

Here in Edmonton they're spending a million bucks or so to make one of the bridges in town less accessible to suicide jumpers, and I understand San Francisco is doing something similar for the Golden Gate bridge.  So people who want to kill themselves by jumping off a bridge will have to find a lower, less lethal bridge to do it from.  Which sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Great, so instead of jumping off a high bridge and dying, they jump off a medium bridge and end up permanently paralyzed from the waist down.  But at least they're alive and getting treatment!