High-profile shootings fail to spur gun control

[Common Sense Party]

The red billboard truck traveling around the United States has a big number emblazoned on its side — 2,995 as of last week, the running tab of people murdered by guns in the U.S. since the Jan 8. shooting in Tucson that left six people dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.

The truck started off in New York's Times Square and will traverse the U.S. keeping an updated tally on gun deaths as part of an effort by 550 Mayors Against Illegal Guns to galvanize support for stricter gun laws.

Yet despite the highly visible campaign, there is no groundswell for additional gun regulations in the wake of the Tucson shootings or the murder of a Texas ICE agent in Mexico with a weapon purchased in Dallas.

A loose consensus has emerged that recognizes that "these killings are the shooter's responsibility — not the gun's responsibility," says Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

<more>

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700126180/High-profile-shootings-fail-to-spur-gun-control.html

[WatsonT]

1. Excellent news

people are becoming aware of the fact that strict gun laws won't protect us from crazies and will in fact leave us more vulnerable.

[Common Sense Party]

3. It's got to be galling to the controllers/restrictionistas. n/t

[virginia mountainman]

2. One day Bloomberg will get the message..

...No one wants the dope he is selling...

[Katya Mullethov]

7. It wont matter if nobody's buying , as long as someone is paying

How exactly does one get paid for selling this particular brand of dope ? How might one profit from losing , over and over and over ?

[Lurks Often]

4. It's nice to see that, increasingly, people are starting to recognize

that the anti-gun crowd is delusional and that their views have no basis in reality.

[rbixby]

5. There wouldn't be these shootings

If all students had guns!

:sarcasm:

[Recursion]

6. 2995? Fewer than the same period last year, or the year before...

...or the year before that. Fewer in absolute numbers than in 1970, when the country only had 200 million people in it. Lower in rate than since we started keeping track in the 1950s.

Whatever we're doing, we're doing it right as far as murder goes.

[The Doctor.]

8. Ok, I kinda had to Laugh at this a little;

Whatever we're doing, we're doing it right as far as murder goes.

It's just an odd statement, but true nonetheless.

[Remmah2]

9. High Profile

They're only high profile because the medis chooses to exploit them for profit.

[Common Sense Party]

10. Profit or not, shooting a congresswoman in broad daylight is a pretty

big deal. That one was going to get massive coverage no matter what.

But, yes, the restrictionistas have used that ugly event to further their own agenda, no doubt.

[Logical]

11. Can some non-gun fan explain what "stricter gun laws" would help? Serious Question.

[Hoyt]

12. If "stricter gun laws" impede proliferation of guns, I'm all for them -- especially in public.

[Common Sense Party]

13. You didn't fully answer. How would such laws actually HELP?

We know that YOU would feel better. But that's not the issue.

[Hoyt]

14. Well let's see -- if it is tougher for you guys to carry, you are less likely to buy as many toters.

Open it up to just about anyone who can see out of one eye, and you'll have more toters purchased, more toters marketed to carriers, etc.

Tougher restrictions would be a good start on impeding the proliferation of guns.

Every gun that ain't produced to fuel the today's demand, is one less we'll ultimately have to deal with down the road.

[spin]

15. Do you favor banning all firearms? (n/t)

[Hoyt]

18. Truthfully, I'd be satisfied impeding proliferation in public.

[spin]

21. Why, there's been no significant problem caused by concealed carry ...

for example since 1987 Florida has revoked only 168 concealed weapons permits for a crime involving a firearm that was committed after the license was issued. Not all of those revoked licenses involved a shooting.

Other states have had similar good results.

I also know of three times when an individual that I personally knew was able to use his concealed weapon to stop an attack. In all three of those incidents no shots were fired.

[Hoyt]

24. People have not seen significant problems in a lot of things. Doesn't mean "things" weren't wrong.

Shoot the Constitution endorsed slavery, prevented women from voting, and allowed stealing land from Native Americans. Restrictions on guns will be added to the list someday, and folks will shake their heads at a society that allowed someone to walk into a family restaurant with dual shoulder holsters.

[PavePusher]

26. So, you (or was it your relative...?) saw one person do that...

a perfectly legal, non-confrontational act, and you not only denigrate it, but extrapolate it to all carriers.

Tell us again about your journalistic credentials, please... :rofl:

[Hoyt]

31. If I walk into a restaurant with a machete or big spear gun, do you think that is confrontational?

No one walks into an unarmed crowd in a family restaurant with dual shoulder holsters without it being confrontation, or a sign the person is an arse (that's bad too) or worse.

[PavePusher]

33. Depends on your presentation and apparent intentions.

You seem to project those for yourself, however...

[rl6214]

34. Always over-exagerating

"dual shoulder holsters"

I didn't know you wrote fiction too.

Who am I kidding, I've seen your stuff on huffpo, it's all fiction.

:rofl:

[Hoyt]

39. Wrong about guns, just like you are wrong about H Post. Ain't me, but I agree with them.

If they are against people sporting guns in public -- I agree with them.

[rl6214]

43. Not you, I had seen a post here saying you

had written for them. My apologies to them then.

[Hoyt]

49. Shoot, you'll read posts here from gun carriers saying all kinds of chit.

[spin]

36. Do you have any idea what a pain a shoulder holster is, let alone two?

If I had to carry a heavy firearm all day or if I drove a delivery truck in a bad neighborhood, I might consider a shoulder holster. Otherwise, forget it.

Anyone who open carries into a restaurant using dual shoulder holsters is probably showing off and hoping to get attention. As I have said, I practice people watching as part of situational awareness. If I seen something like that, it would definitely make me chuckle.

[Hoyt]

38. All the more reason to consider the guy an arse. Goes through all that to sport his guns.

[Euromutt]

16. That doesn't actually answer the question

I refer back to Common Sense Party's post #13, namely, how would such laws actually help? or, if you will, what good will they do, or what harm will they demonstrably prevent?

Because we know that, in spite of loosened restrictions on carrying in public, and a massive increase in privately owned firearms (including handguns) over the past twenty-odd years, violent crime rates are currently at the lowest recorded levels since the mid-1960s. So there's no evidence that more people owning and carrying firearms is, in and of itself, going to jeopardize public safety, so why is reducing "proliferation" an objective that public policy should strive towards (except to make you feel better)?

[Hoyt]

19. Crime rates are at "low" rate for many reasons. If we keep a gun from being manufactured, that's

another gun your children or grandchildren won't have to deal with on the streets. So, yes, that does answer your question -- you just don't like the answer.

[Common Sense Party]

23. Not that particular gun, no, but the likelihood my posterity will deal with

that particular gun is miniscule. And just because you prevent SOME guns from being produced in SOME places, you cannot, in any way, prevent ALL guns from being produced in ALL places.

Assuming that you become dictator-for-life and you want to implement your plan for preventing gun manufacturing. How do you do it? What are the steps? Walk us through it.

[Hoyt]

28. Do you know how to multiply by millions of guns not purchased, by say 15 years.

Never said I can prevent some terrorist manufacturing guns. But, 80 million is better than 150 million.

You do it by restricting carrying and restricting the sexy guns that drive demand. If you could not carry in public (or it were restricted significantly) and if you could only buy say a 5 shot .38 special, you guys wouldn't be out drooling over tactical weapons, hi-cap mags, special loads, etc. Manufacturers would be closing, or cutting back production, at a rapid pace. Simple isn't it.

An even better way would be if gun purchasers got sensible about this crap.

[Common Sense Party]

30. That's not really step by step. Let's take this one at a time.

So the first step is: Congress (or you as dictator) makes illegal the owning or carrying of "sexy guns"?

Which guns are considered, by you, to be "sexy"?

Anything that is not a "5-shot .38 special"?

[Hoyt]

32. "Sexy gun" identification - Put electrodes on potential purchasers and if the needle moves . . .

Everything has to be spelled out for you guys.

[Common Sense Party]

35. You're the one wanting to outlaw guns. The least you could do is be

specific and tell us how you'd accomplish this.

I'm beginning to suspect you're not serious.

[Hoyt]

40. First you establish the goal. Then, you begin impeding current production. Then . . . . . .

Yes, it will be difficult. All the supposed law abiding gun carriers will have a tough time giving it up. Even if they have to run the risk of being charged with a criminal act -- they'll carry. But, it's a bullet we have to bite. Better sooner with 80 million out there, than when it's 150 million.

[Common Sense Party]

42. You keep jumping ahead. "Impeding current production." How does that work?

You prohibit arms manufacturers from making guns you don't like? Are the manufacturers fined if they keep making the guns? You rule it illegal? They go to jail if they make the guns? Is this like forcing auto makers to stop making low-mileage vehicles? Is this done by regulation?

Then, it's a completely separate topic--you will change the law so it's illegal to carry, even if you have a CCW permit?

Wow.

[Hoyt]

47. Easy -- make it difficult to purchase and use (like carry). Impede demand, they won't manufacture.

[Common Sense Party]

50. OK, so you don't go after the manufacturer. I see. What steps will you take

to make it difficult to purchase and own guns?

For example, I own one handgun, that's it. It is a 9 mm, came with two standard 19-round magazines. I have a CCW permit. I rarely carry, but once in a while I might. What will your laws do to me? How are you going to deal with my handgun?

[Common Sense Party]

52. Hello? How? What happens to my gun? n/t

[rl6214]

44. Where do you come up with "supposed law abiding gun carriers"

Either they are or they aren't, which is it?

[Euromutt]

46. Ah, I see the problem: your answer is contingent upon certain unstated premises

Namely that you have what Daniel Polsby calls "the assumption of monotonicity"; see "Firearm Costs, Firearm Benefits, and the Limits of Knowledge," originally published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1995 (reprinted here http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PolsbyFirearmCosts.htm).

A relevant excerpt:

With respect to the firearms side of this problem, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that one is dealing with a demand-led rather than a supply-led phenomenon--young men demanding guns as a means of self defense and self- realization. These young men are not merely using guns because large numbers of them are floating around, as mayors and police chiefs insinuate when they tell reporters that "there are too many guns out there." Recognizing this problem as a demand-side situation predicts the limited usefulness (if not futility) of public policies that seek to "dry up" the supply of guns.

<...>

The acquisition behavior of illicit retail customers should be discouraged modestly at best by piling costs on gun runners. These customers are seeking to invest in capital plant for which there exists no ready substitutes. Licit buyers, on the other hand, usually are shopping for items of personal consumption, for which a number of obvious substitutes (e.g., archery; B-B guns; and for that matter, going to the movies) evidently exist. The implication of this situation, though usually ignored, is very important: the price sensitivity of firearms buyers will diminish as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more sinister. The price sensitivity of buyers will increase as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more innocuous.

The expectation that the sorts of market interventions described by Cook et al. would have a beneficial effect on the homicide rate embeds the assumption of monotonicity, that is, that there are constant returns (in the form of lowered homicide rates) to reductions in the number of firearms in private hands. Those who in any degree credit the possibility of Heinlein or Kleck effects operating, however, and who understand the implication of the distinction between "firearm as capital" and "firearm as toy," will regard this assumption as rather naive. Such students of the problem will consider the question of how firearms are distributed in society as much more important than how many there are. They will also reject as inherently counter-productive efforts to adopt policies that aim at reducing the number of arms in the hands of criminals by imposing regulatory costs in licit markets.

So in the narrowest sense you're correct that I "don't like the answer," but that because your answer is based on assumptions for which there exists no evidence. It's just another lesson from the College of It Stands To Reason.

[Hoyt]

48. Most opinions are based upon little "evidence" - yours included. Do you carry for self- realization.

What "evidence" would convince you not to carry in public?

[Euromutt]

54. What's that fishy smell?

Ah, it must be those red herrings you've tossed into the discussion. Why I carry, and what would convince me to not carry, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The guns I own and carry have already been manufactured, and will therefore not be affected by efforts to "keep a gun from being manufactured."

Look, the notion of monotonicity is based on the idea that, of the stock of legally and privately owned firearms, some set percentage will be diverted into the criminal circuit and used in a violent crime. If you want to contend that your assertion "If we keep a gun from being manufactured, that's another gun your children or grandchildren won't have to deal with on the streets" isn't based on that premise, you'll have to explain to me how it's not.

The fact is that, over the past twenty years or so, the number of guns in private ownership in the United States has increased from an estimated 200 million to an estimated 300 million, with about 1/3 of that stock being handguns. Yet during the same period, violent firearm crimes went from a high of almost 600,000 in 1993 to under 400,000 every year since 1998. Sure, it's impossible to prove that the number of privately owned firearms (particularly handguns) does not affect rates of violent crimes, but even if it does, its effect is evidently overshadowed by other factors to such an extent as to render its influence negligible.

The number of guns used in violent crime is a demand-driven, not a supply-driven, phenomenon. This is reflected in the fact that the criminal element in countries with tighter gun laws than the United States' still manage to acquire firearms if they perceive they need them. The option for straw purchasing and theft from legal owners is significantly smaller in countries like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Japan and China, and yet, the criminal element in those countries manages to acquire as many guns as it (feels it) needs.

The evidence is there. You just need to be willing to open your eyes to it.

[Logical]

17. So honest citizens should not be allowed to carry guns or have them at home? n-t

[Common Sense Party]

20. According to certain members of this forum, you're not sane if you do.

According to one DU'er, who shall remain nameless, the only SANE reason to own a gun is for hunting.

Yup.

[Hoyt]

22. Straw man, Straw man. Like I said -- "especially in public."

I really don't care what you do with guns at home. I'm biting my tongue not to repeat the Bill Maher comment on that.

It would be nice if more folks displayed reserve in the number they feel compelled to "collect."

[PavePusher]

25. Don't hurt yourself.

Just remember that Maher tends to wear his colon as a head-ornament, and it gets a lot easier.

[Logical]

27. I agree some people collect guns and I don't understand it.....

I think people who collect them to prevent the eventual overthrow of the people are over reacting. And they worry me a little.

I know a guy who collects old guns as a hobby. Like people collect old furniture.

I agree more guns means more stolen which means more guns in the hand of criminals. Hard to stop it now.

I have one handgun and one shotgun. That is it.

[Hoyt]

29. That's reasonable in my opinion. I wish all guns were muzzle loaders or old collectibles.

[Blown330]

37. Antique guns...

...to match your antique rhetoric. Luckily nobody takes your arguments seriously except yourself. CCW applications are on the rise, tactical 3 gun shooting sports are gaining popularity, and even hunters are turning towards rifles that take advantage of military technology.

[Hoyt]

41. See how pervasive the problem is.

Do you seriously think something is "good" because its popularity is increasing? Run deer, the gun proliferators are looking to pump 31 shots in you without having to reload. Sporting, ain't it?

[rl6214]

45. making stuff up again

"Run deer, the gun proliferators are looking to pump 31 shots in you without having to reload."

Everywhere I know that has deer hunting limits the magazine size to 5 rounds. Please show us all who now has 31 round magazine regulations.

[oneshooter]

51. He can't, too lazy to look it up. And afraid it won't be there. n/t

[ileus]

53. I bet it sticks to northern cities...