Skip to main content

View Diary: Universal background check could be as dead as assault weapons ban (614 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Once again (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FogCityJohn, athenap, LilithGardener, poco

    The proportion of homicides committed by gun enthusiasts using their weapons has been climbing over time in the U.S., not dropping.

    When compared to decreasing homicide rates in other wealthy, industrialized nations (such as UK, France, and Germany), it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to reach that the vigorous efforts of gun enthusiasts to block additional gun tracking and safety laws in the U.S. is propping up our homicide rate.  

    In other words, one outcome of actions taken by gun enthusiasts with respect to gun safety legislation is more dead people.  

    And I suspect that doesn't bother you one bit.

    •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      In other words, homicide by other methods is falling faster than homicide by firearm.  What's your point, other than to hang murder on tens of millions of "gun enthusiasts?"

      When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

      by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:14:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point was made (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco
        it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to reach that the vigorous efforts of gun enthusiasts to block additional gun tracking and safety laws in the U.S. is propping up our homicide rate.  
        Homicide by firearm is dropping v-e-r-y slowly - much slower than other modes of causation.  

        You were patting yourself on the back so hard there I thought I might point out that inconvenient fact.

        •  Re: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, Kentucky Kid, Neo Control

          If that's your conclusion, how do you explain the falling firearms homicide rate?

          When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

          by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:32:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just to keep the record straight... (0+ / 0-)

            ...it's barely falling.

            I suspect that relatively modest decrease is due to a slow decline in the number of households with guns. Studies have indicated for some time that fewer and fewer households contain firearms, while at the same time gun enthusiasts are themselves collecting more and more and (senselessly) more firearms; some of which are stolen and used in crime and homicides or used by the owner to shoot people or by family members to shoot themselves.

            •  Good grief (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

              I just realized I was exchanging comments with the "Re" guy.  

              Crap.  I feel...so...dirty.

            •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BlackSheep1, FrankRose

              Is that so?

              http://bjs.gov/...

              No study has shown that "gun enthusiasts" are collecting more firearms.

              When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

              by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:00:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Against my better judgment (0+ / 0-)

                I'll respond.  

                I sincerely doubt you have read and understood every study out there, so I am quite confident you're either pulling that statement out of your ass or parroting some NRA (or similar) propaganda.

                Having pointed out that (likely) truth, I would merely note that that, yes, there have been many studies over the years that indicate gun enthusiasts are collecting increasing numbers of firearms.

                As noted in the article to which I linked in a previous comment, there have been several surveys by multiple entities over many years that show fewer and fewer households contain firearms. Now, you may have convinced yourself that so many gun enthusiasts are paranoid freaks that they lie and lie and lie in such grand numbers to consistently skew such surveys in a significant manner -- and, frankly, by the comments from the RKBA supporters and their drooling sycophants around here, you would have my sympathy with that -- but I find such a belief untenable. Instead, I think the only reasonable conclusion is that these multiple surveys over multiple years are accurately indicating a trend.

                And, at the same time, there has been a long term trend of fewer and fewer heads per household, save for a recent reversal in the past couple of years in certain geographies due to the bad economy.  

                So...let's see.  Fewer households have guns and fewer people per household (save, again, for a few locales where that has very recently, and likely temporarily, changed), and yet gun sales have increased.

                Unless you think leprechauns or pixies or brownies, or perhaps bears who are confused about this whole "right to bear arms" thing have been buying up guns in vast quantities, the only reasonable conclusion is that those fewer remaining gun enthusiasts, who have convinced themselves (against clear statistical evidence to the contrary) that having more and more firearms lying around is something other than a risk to them and their families (and any other unfortunate visitor who happens to find their way into a gun enthusiast's house at the wrong time), are owning an increasing number of firearms per person.

                It's called inference, Mr. "Re" and it's a powerful and commonly-used tool.

                •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                  Didn't have to read every study in existence to conclude that no such study exists.  However, I suspect the source of your error lies in you took the fifty-year household gun prevalence trend reported in either by Gallup or GSS and naively divided it by 310 million.  It never occurred to you to find out where the 310 million estimate came from, whether it estimated the current number of firearms in household circulation today or whether it came from raw production numbers.  You never once considered the figure included stocks purchased by domestic law enforcement, or stock disposed over time.  Yes?  No?

                  If no, then show us a single study that bears out your claim.  You won't, of course, because you're lying.  You have no such study. Everything else you say is bullshit aimed at distracting from that fact.  I'll assume you have nothing to add until you answer one way or another with fucking evidence in hand.

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:31:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Re: 310 million (0+ / 0-)

                  The link came out bad.  Here you go, kid.

                  http://nap.edu/...

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:34:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Funny stuff (0+ / 0-)

                    You do know the math behind that, don't you?

                    You do know what per capita in a population estimate is, don't you?

                    No.  You evidently don't.

                    I'm through with you. I should never have bothered.  Have a good day.  Stay safe, pal.  You're going to need it more than I.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site