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

[Tyndmyr]

...

I already have an experiment I consider sufficient. It's called "every developed nation that isn't the US".

That's not a particularly good experiment. Nations aren't apples to apples in that way. And even within that dataset, you get instances like Norway, which has the most guns of Europe, but which generally has a nice, low homicide rate, even by European standards.

It boils down to 'everyone else does x, you should do x too'. It ignores facts like the Australians having a lower proportion of homicides than us BEFORE they went gun ban happy. Or Canadians still having a fair number of guns(and oddly enough, some that are not generally legal in the US. Some short barrelled firearms.), and being generally pretty content to not murder each other.

[morriswalters]

A firearm can be made by an illegal manufacturer.

And they make moonshine in the mountains of my home. However it isn't of the quality of the whiskey I'm sipping now.

Here is the internet. Wink,wink!

Polish Surplus Military AK47 full auto fire control group with rate reducer. For use in pre 86 transferable and post dealer samples. All NFA rules apply. Includes military AKM stamped single hook trigger, rate reducer, full auto curved sear, full auto hammer, disconnector, axis pin, and auto sear trip spring. Not sold as conversion parts. DO NOT PUT THESE IN YOUR SEMI-AUTO AK TO CONVERT IT TO FULL-AUTO IT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

Full auto parts not required for semi-auto function will be removed from California and WA State residents. FFL holders are permitted to keep all full auto control group parts.

[Tyndmyr]

Ah, you missed the "NFA rules apply" portion.

NFA weapons are not used in crime. Seriously, there's what, two documented murders EVER involving them. One of which was a cop...but yeah, NFA stuff is horribly restricted, expensive, and rare.

So no, this is not how weapons are getting into mexico.

[Copper Bezel]

That's not a particularly good experiment. Nations aren't apples to apples in that way.

Which is kinda what I said. No matter how clear or obvious the evidence, you will have a canned explanation for it, the conclusion of which is that guns can't possibly whatever. So, yeah, not a constructive conversation to have. I can't demonstrate six-sigma certainty here. If that is your standard, then no, I can't meet it. You can't remotely do so either, obviously, but luckily, arguments for maintaining the status quo don't have to.

[Tyndmyr]

That's not a particularly good experiment. Nations aren't apples to apples in that way.

Which is kinda what I said. No matter how clear or obvious the evidence, you will have a canned explanation for it, the conclusion of which is that guns can't possibly whatever. So, yeah, not a constructive conversation to have. I can't demonstrate six-sigma certainty here. If that is your standard, then no, I can't meet it. You can't remotely do so either, obviously, but luckily, arguments for maintaining the status quo don't have to.

The fact the explanations exist is not an argument against their validity. And these aren't nitpicky objections regarding six sigma accuracy, but the existance of an effect at all.

If you're going to promote broad bans that would affect something about half the country does, then yeah, it's nice to have some evidence that such an action is called for. Bans are not costless actions. Of COURSE we should require some evidence for embarking on such a course.

[Copper Bezel]

And these aren't nitpicky objections regarding six sigma accuracy, but the existance of an effect at all.

I disagree. Rather obviously. But you are perfectly impervious to any evidence otherwise.

Incidentally, "something about half the country does" is a more ridiculous exaggeration than the one at the start of this thread.

[Tyndmyr]

And these aren't nitpicky objections regarding six sigma accuracy, but the existance of an effect at all.

I disagree. Rather obviously. But you are perfectly impervious to any evidence otherwise.

Incidentally, "something about half the country does" is a more ridiculous exaggeration than the one at the start of this thread.

47% of households have a firearm in them. That constitutes about half. Source is Gallup. 2012, if memory serves. It does ping up and down somewhat, but gun ownership in the US is indeed fairly pervasive, and a complete ban would affect rather a lot of people.

Well, I understand that you agree, but I'm trying to understand WHY you disagree. Is it solely because other countries don't own guns like we do? I mean, sure, that's a fact, but your linkage from that to murder rate appears to consist solely of correlation. A correlation that, when you actually look at other countries, isn't very strong. Sure, looking at ONLY the US, they line up, but that's literally a single data point. You could correlate any number of potential variables with that strength.

[morriswalters]

NFA weapons are not used in crime. Seriously, there's what, two documented murders EVER involving them. One of which was a cop...but yeah, NFA stuff is horribly restricted, expensive, and rare. So no, this is not how weapons are getting into mexico.

This supported my assertion that kits to convert AK were easily available. With a "wink, wink", nod at the law.

Not sold as conversion parts. DO NOT PUT THESE IN YOUR SEMI-AUTO AK TO CONVERT IT TO FULL-AUTO IT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

And we already know how guns get into Mexico, they get smuggled in. There is no other way. And why would a smuggler for the gangs give two cents for the National Firearms Act? The only question is precisely how many come from the US.

[cphite]

Yet it's entirely uncontroversial in the several US states where switchblades are banned.

Your trust in police to be better trained seems...well, dubious, at any rate. Police are generally given much more latitude to use firearms, in situations that go beyond self defense. They're also not necessarily very well trained compared to civilian marksmen. We have the odd situation where a hobbyist may practice weekly, whereas a police officer may be required to requalify only yearly, with a single target, if at all. Unless the police officer also happens to be a firearms enthusiast, it seems unlikely that they are particularly well trained.

I think it's clear from context that I was comparing a police officer to an average gun owner or even an average citizen, not a high-level competitive marksman. If those police officers are not at least competent with firearms, then that's simply another very good reason to remove firearms from the picture. I really do think they're the easiest professional use of firearms to defend, and if the professionals can't be trusted with firearms, then no one can.

I see it more as a reason to improve the training that police receive. And, while we can certainly agree that more training is needed, saying that they "can't be trusted" or "are not at least competent" is a rather huge exaggeration. All things considered, police in the USA do a pretty good job when it comes to the proper and effective use of firearms.

Self defense is only one benefit, and likely not the primary reason for their existance. The man who buys twelve guns is not doing so because he believes he can wield all twelve to fend off an attack. No, he's doing it because he likes guns, and he is pursuing his hobby. It is not unlike the comic book fan who tells himself and others that all of his purchases are wise investments, as he eagerly picks up every story involving his favorite characters. Yes, yes, in theory comic books can appreciate, but that is not their primary function.

Both delusions do have the potential to ruin lives, but the comic collection bubble burst in the 90s, and people who buy comic books today do so to read them. Self-defense and home protection are extremely common and commonly cited rationales for gun ownership by proper grown-ups who really ought to know better, particularly ones who are interested in owning killing machines. There's no justifying the lie that these people have been sold.

What lie have they been sold? Used properly, a firearm is an excellent tool for self-defense or home protection.

Consider a home invasion. The average response time for a residential emergency is around 10 minutes. And that is assuming an urban or suburban area. If you live in a rural area it can take far longer. And, that ten minutes is only the time to actually get to your home; that doesn't include assessing the situation, deciding a course of action, etc.

In that kind of scenario, if the person(s) invading your home are intent on harming you, the only thing stopping them is you. Now, that isn't to say that a gun is your only option; but it's pretty hard to beat a gun. For street crimes (muggings and the like) a weapon can also be incredibly useful. Again, it doesn't have to be a gun... but a gun is hard to beat assuming you can get to it and use it properly.

A lot of people in rural areas also keep firearms in case of trouble with wild animals. If you meet up with a bear and it decides that you're a threat or that you'd make a good snack, your odds are considerably better with a large caliber firearm.

The man who hunts gains something, the man who shoots targets gains something. It may be enjoyment, it may be food for the table in poor areas. It may also be self defense.

Ammunition and tags are more expensive than meat, and poverty of that degree, where it can possibly exist, is a social problem that should be addressed by social programs. If people would prefer to pretend that hunting is a necessity of their survival as a sort of game, they may as well go all the way and switch to spears and atlatls. For the rest of us, we've had agriculture for the last ten millennia, and it seems to work okay.

You're either vastly overestimating the prices of ammo and tags, or you really need to reconsider where you're buying meat...

Hunting is actually very popular in rural areas exactly because it's a way of getting a whole lot of really good meat for a very low amount of money. And in addition to it being a LOT cheaper it can also be a lot higher quality, and not full of steroids, hormones, or antibiotics.

[morriswalters]

Consider a home invasion. The average response time for a residential emergency is around 10 minutes. And that is assuming an urban or suburban area. If you live in a rural area it can take far longer. And, that ten minutes is only the time to actually get to your home; that doesn't include assessing the situation, deciding a course of action, etc.

I would ask you to show me data, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. How you respond to a home invasion will depend on how it goes down. At least twice in the last months people have shot their children who they mistook for an intruder. If the cops need time to evaluate a threat, so do you. If it's dark or you're asleep, at dinner, or otherwise involved in your life, you aren't ready. Even if you keep the gun on you at all times.

For street crimes (muggings and the like) a weapon can also be incredibly useful. Again, it doesn't have to be a gun... but a gun is hard to beat assuming you can get to it and use it properly.

The last is a rather large assumption. Even if you carry concealed, once someone gets close enough to touch you the issue will be who ends up in control of the gun if it comes out. This is a cops nightmare scenario, shot with their own gun. It isn't that a gun can't make a difference, but like most things, how much of your life are you prepared to give to it.

Hunting is actually very popular in rural areas exactly because it's a way of getting a whole lot of really good meat for a very low amount of money. And in addition to it being a LOT cheaper it can also be a lot higher quality, and not full of steroids, hormones, or antibiotics.

With the stipulation that if many people in rural areas hunted for game on a regular basis, very quickly there would be no game. It isn't a stretch to suggest that most people rural or otherwise are eating meat produced on industrial farms. Hunting is time consuming and safe huntable areas are declining.

[Tyndmyr]

NFA weapons are not used in crime. Seriously, there's what, two documented murders EVER involving them. One of which was a cop...but yeah, NFA stuff is horribly restricted, expensive, and rare. So no, this is not how weapons are getting into mexico.

This supported my assertion that kits to convert AK were easily available. With a "wink, wink", nod at the law.

Not sold as conversion parts. DO NOT PUT THESE IN YOUR SEMI-AUTO AK TO CONVERT IT TO FULL-AUTO IT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

And we already know how guns get into Mexico, they get smuggled in. There is no other way. And why would a smuggler for the gangs give two cents for the National Firearms Act? The only question is precisely how many come from the US.

No, you misunderstand how the law works here. It's an NFA regulated piece. That means it IS a machine gun, and is legally treated as such. The parts(trigger groups, lower receivers, etc) that make a gun swap to full auto are regulated as full auto firearms. In short, not easily available.

You can't just casually buy both bits to avoid the appropriate regulation. You're going to have to do the exact same work(taxes, extensive paperwork, background check, delays) to buy that bit as to buy it already assembled, because the government understands how assembly works.

I see it more as a reason to improve the training that police receive. And, while we can certainly agree that more training is needed, saying that they "can't be trusted" or "are not at least competent" is a rather huge exaggeration. All things considered, police in the USA do a pretty good job when it comes to the proper and effective use of firearms.

More training is always good, sure. However, at least in some cases, I do have a diminished sense of trust for police. This isn't merely due to firearm training, mind you, but due to a pattern of police brutality, and a lack of accountability. Living next to Baltimore, particularly recently, will do that to you. Sure, this ain't universal. There are definitely many good, competent cops, and some departments do have effective safeguards...but if you think about it, we're all one mistaken address or anonymous phone call from your door being blown in, your dog shot, you being shot if you twitch wrong in surprise, being slammed to the ground, and your house being ripped apart.

That does not engender trust.

Consider a home invasion. The average response time for a residential emergency is around 10 minutes. And that is assuming an urban or suburban area. If you live in a rural area it can take far longer. And, that ten minutes is only the time to actually get to your home; that doesn't include assessing the situation, deciding a course of action, etc.

I would ask you to show me data, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. How you respond to a home invasion will depend on how it goes down. At least twice in the last months people have shot their children who they mistook for an intruder. If the cops need time to evaluate a threat, so do you. If it's dark or you're asleep, at dinner, or otherwise involved in your life, you aren't ready. Even if you keep the gun on you at all times.

There's a great deal of data for defensive gun uses. We'll have to define what definition we're looking for before we go dredging them up, because gun uses come in a variety of types, and many compilations count even cases where the gun was simply displayed, not fired, and the intruder elected to back down. Personally, I think that's best case, but some folks don't count it unless bullets are flying.

As for the rest, well, yeah, a gun isn't going to keep you perfectly safe in all situations. It ain't a force field or whatever. It just gives you better odds, is all. An armed person vs an unarmed one, I'd put money on the armed person winning.

For street crimes (muggings and the like) a weapon can also be incredibly useful. Again, it doesn't have to be a gun... but a gun is hard to beat assuming you can get to it and use it properly.

The last is a rather large assumption. Even if you carry concealed, once someone gets close enough to touch you the issue will be who ends up in control of the gun if it comes out. This is a cops nightmare scenario, shot with their own gun. It isn't that a gun can't make a difference, but like most things, how much of your life are you prepared to give to it.

Cops have a lot of nightmares, evidently. Can you show actual statistics of cops killed because of this? Lost control of their own gun and shot by it?

If you're looking for data sources, feel free to explore https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2014. Swap out the year for whichever year you want.

If you don't want to spend the time, the quick summary is that statistically speaking, it doesn't happen. Mass shootings are more statistically significant. 9/11 is more significant, this many years after the fact.

Hunting is actually very popular in rural areas exactly because it's a way of getting a whole lot of really good meat for a very low amount of money. And in addition to it being a LOT cheaper it can also be a lot higher quality, and not full of steroids, hormones, or antibiotics.

With the stipulation that if many people in rural areas hunted for game on a regular basis, very quickly there would be no game. It isn't a stretch to suggest that most people rural or otherwise are eating meat produced on industrial farms. Hunting is time consuming and safe huntable areas are declining.

Over 6 million deer get killed per year. Just from hunting, mind you. We're not counting the million and a quarter car accidents due to hitting them. This death rate is sustainable, and is managed by various federal agencies, as are other fish and game resources.

Now, we're at something like 35 million cows per year, so yeah, beef is definitely more popular than venison, but the quantity here is still significant, and is heavily region-specific. Not a lotta deer hunting in urban areas comparatively. It'd significantly change consumption patterns in rural areas.

Now sure, cows aren't the only meat eaten, but likewise, deer are far from the only thing hunted. For instance, in 2015, about 13.3 million ducks were harvested. All numbers are US only, of course.

[Copper Bezel]

Over 6 million deer get killed per year. Just from hunting, mind you. We're not counting the million and a quarter car accidents due to hitting them. This death rate is sustainable, and is managed by various federal agencies, as are other fish and game resources.

Yeah, deer have adapted to the stresses on their habitats posed by human habitation much better than their predators have. If not for human hunting, and changing nothing else, they'd experience a population bloom that would be pretty unfortunate for the rest of the ecosystem.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, if we tried killing six million bear a year, we would have no bear before the first year ended.

[EdgarJPublius]

And we already know how guns get into Mexico, they get smuggled in. There is no other way.

There's at least three other ways for criminals to have access to firearms in Mexico.

• The Mexican military loses approx one in eight soldier to desertion annually and many of these deserters take their weapons and equipment to the cartels. (Many of these firearms are imported legally to Mexico from the U.S. and may show up in the ATF trace data)
• Cartels also possess sophisticated manufacturing capabilities capable of turning out firearms from blank stock.
• Even if it's a very small number, at least some firearms likely are stolen or otherwise illegally diverted from legal gun owners in Mexico.
  

Hunting is actually very popular in rural areas exactly because it's a way of getting a whole lot of really good meat for a very low amount of money. And in addition to it being a LOT cheaper it can also be a lot higher quality, and not full of steroids, hormones, or antibiotics.

With the stipulation that if many people in rural areas hunted for game on a regular basis, very quickly there would be no game. It isn't a stretch to suggest that most people rural or otherwise are eating meat produced on industrial farms. Hunting is time consuming and safe huntable areas are declining.

Many areas have more feral hogs than people, and they breed so prolifically that around 66% of the population must be culled annual to maintain it at a stable size.
There are no restriction on hunting, trapping or otherwise killing them, and some areas even offer bounties for evidence of killed hogs.
They are also delicious and a single adult can provide a hundred pounds or more of meat.
Even deer are prolific agricultural pests in many areas and we're not in any danger of running out in the foreseeable future. Though hunting them is somewhat restricted, it's not difficult to make a decent living within those restrictions.
Plenty of other vermin, pest and invasive species are perfectly edible as well.
Humans have done significant damage to the populations of a lot of these animals natural predators, letting their populations explode.

Sure, if everyone started subsisting entirely or mostly on hunting, there would likely be some issues. But there's a lot of capacity there for people who supplement their diets with wild game and even room for a relatively smaller population to get a significant portion of their diet from hunting.

It's true that huntable areas are declining and industrially farmed meat is generally becoming cheaper and more easily available. But those aren't exactly good things (for the environment nor for national obesity figures) and we should probably be trying to stop those trends, not encourage them.

[morriswalters]

No, you misunderstand how the law works here. It's an NFA regulated piece. That means it IS a machine gun, and is legally treated as such. The parts(trigger groups, lower receivers, etc) that make a gun swap to full auto are regulated as full auto firearms. In short, not easily available.

I misunderstand nothing. $49.99 plus shipping, and the last time I was at a gun show I could have bought hundreds. The not sold as conversion parts is the legal cover. From the NFA Handbook.

NOTE: standard selective fire HK
trigger housings and trigger paks as originally manufactured are component parts for machineguns. These unmodified parts, in and of themselves, are not subject to the NFA. However, when adapted to function with a semiautomatic HK firearm the modified parts have been redesigned and are intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.

Cops have a lot of nightmares, evidently. Can you show actual statistics of cops killed because of this? Lost control of their own gun and shot by it?

If you're looking for data sources, feel free to explore https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2014. Swap out the year for whichever year you want.

If you don't want to spend the time, the quick summary is that statistically speaking, it doesn't happen.

2011 must have been an outlier. From the FBI database.

3 officers were killed with their own weapons.

Over 6 million deer get killed per year. Just from hunting, mind you. We're not counting the million and a quarter car accidents due to hitting them. This death rate is sustainable, and is managed by various federal agencies, as are other fish and game resources.

For beef the number is 39 million head(at about 1200 lbs per), yearly. Of course beef are bigger than deer(about 100 lbs per). However I support hunting, but it isn't a major source of protein for almost anyone, including hunters. Just like fishing isn't. In my state both are big, but big is a relative term. And most is controlled by the state.

[Tyndmyr]

Cross-weapon components like that are intentionally manufacturered to different standards to avoid drop in replacement. Different heights on lowers, different sears...I mean, yes, you can illegally mash them into the right shapes, because it's only a gross physical shape in metal, but at that point you are doing construction, not just stuffing in a different trigger. If you try that, they won't fit. See also, AR-15/M-16. Now, as previously mentioned, building a gun isn't THAT hard, and likewise, machining your own pieces is pretty doable, but that's no longer something that can be addressed significantly by legal restrictions. Anyone willing and capable of going that far can do the whole ball of wax.

3 people per year in the US is the tiniest of rounding errors, not a real risk.

[morriswalters]

There's at least three other ways for criminals to have access to firearms in Mexico.

I stand corrected. However.

A finished lower receiver might be what makes a gun “a gun” in the eyes of the law on both sides of the Mexico-US border. But even a firearms novice knows there’s a lot more to a gun than that. Where did all the other gun parts—the stocks, grips, magazines, barrels, ammo, and so on—that funneled to the Jalisco cartel’s illegal arms factory come from?

Special Agent Keith Heinzerling, of the US ATF, said we don’t know because gun parts cannot be traced as they are recovered within Mexico. A serial number is required to conduct a trace via the ATF’s e-Trace system for tracking recovered firearms, and gun parts, with the exception of the receiver or frame, do not bear serial numbers per the GCA. They therefore cannot be traced.

“You could surmise that [the parts] are coming from the US, since most of the weapons that come down here illegally are from the US,” Heinzerling, the ATF country attaché to the US Embassy in Mexico City, told me over the phone. “But we don’t have our finger on that. There’s no way to trace them back.”

3 people per year in the US is the tiniest of rounding errors, not a real risk.

I'll pass the word.

[Tyndmyr]

Serial numbered parts vary depending on firearm. A lot of parts are actually traceable in origin, either because they are also serial numbered or branded, or for other reasons. But it would be kind of unreasonable to smuggle some AK parts from the US, not others, in some kind of convoluted conspiracy to make the US look good, when the US is a fairly expensive and not really AK-47 centric source.

The rest of the world, however, makes AK-47s for cheap.

Thus, you see the AK-47 in basically every conflict ever.

[cphite]

Consider a home invasion. The average response time for a residential emergency is around 10 minutes. And that is assuming an urban or suburban area. If you live in a rural area it can take far longer. And, that ten minutes is only the time to actually get to your home; that doesn't include assessing the situation, deciding a course of action, etc.

I would ask you to show me data, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. How you respond to a home invasion will depend on how it goes down. At least twice in the last months people have shot their children who they mistook for an intruder. If the cops need time to evaluate a threat, so do you. If it's dark or you're asleep, at dinner, or otherwise involved in your life, you aren't ready. Even if you keep the gun on you at all times.

The average response times you can find all over Google. The point is, it takes time for the police to get there.

As for the rest... sure, a lot depends on the gun being accessible, the exact details of a break-in and so forth. Nobody is suggesting that merely having a gun is, in and of itself, going to guarantee that you live through a home invasion. Nothing does that. Literally any strategy can be negated by dark, sleep, dinner, etc, etc. That doesn't negate the fact that a weapon is a useful tool; and that a gun is an effective weapon.

For street crimes (muggings and the like) a weapon can also be incredibly useful. Again, it doesn't have to be a gun... but a gun is hard to beat assuming you can get to it and use it properly.

The last is a rather large assumption. Even if you carry concealed, once someone gets close enough to touch you the issue will be who ends up in control of the gun if it comes out. This is a cops nightmare scenario, shot with their own gun. It isn't that a gun can't make a difference, but like most things, how much of your life are you prepared to give to it.

Well no kidding! That's what I meant by the "assuming you can get to it and use it properly" statement. Part of learning to use a weapon (whatever it is) is knowing how to get it and use it once you have it. That is true whether it's a gun, a knife, a stick, or your bare hands. Nobody is suggesting that that the weapon is a talisman that protects you just by having it on your person.

Hunting is actually very popular in rural areas exactly because it's a way of getting a whole lot of really good meat for a very low amount of money. And in addition to it being a LOT cheaper it can also be a lot higher quality, and not full of steroids, hormones, or antibiotics.

With the stipulation that if many people in rural areas hunted for game on a regular basis, very quickly there would be no game. It isn't a stretch to suggest that most people rural or otherwise are eating meat produced on industrial farms. Hunting is time consuming and safe huntable areas are declining.

Nah. There are something like 6 million deer killed each year which sounds like a lot but it's very sustainable. And yeah, obviously most people in rural areas are also buying meat from stores and farms; very few people live completely off of game they hunt - but that really wasn't an argument anyone was making.

Hunting lands are shrinking, yes, but there is still a whole lot of land on which to hunt all across the country. As for the time consuming part... aside from the cold, getting to sit for a couple of hours in the woods listening to the sounds of nature isn't exactly a bad thing

[morriswalters]

As for the time consuming part... aside from the cold, getting to sit for a couple of hours in the woods listening to the sounds of nature isn't exactly a bad thing

I wouldn't know, I'm a city boy. Sitting in the cold woods isn't in my frame of reference.

Just to be clear, I don't think I said AK's were widely used in Mexico, I said the conversion parts were freely available. They are. I could do the conversion if I were so inclined. I have all the needed tools.

[Tyndmyr]

As for the time consuming part... aside from the cold, getting to sit for a couple of hours in the woods listening to the sounds of nature isn't exactly a bad thing

I wouldn't know, I'm a city boy. Sitting in the cold woods isn't in my frame of reference.

Just to be clear, I don't think I said AK's were widely used in Mexico, I said the conversion parts were freely available. They are. I could do the conversion if I were so inclined. I have all the needed tools.

I can and have built firearms entirely from raw materials, I'm certain doing conversions is no more difficult...but this side thread is only relevant so far as it ties back to the "Mexican crime orgs get their firearms from the US" proposition. And that's not terribly plausible. The US has legal and technical roadblocks nobody else does. Either they're getting them from elsewhere, or those legal and technical obstacles are utterly meaningless indeed.

Neither is terribly good for the pro-gun control argument.

[cphite]

As for the time consuming part... aside from the cold, getting to sit for a couple of hours in the woods listening to the sounds of nature isn't exactly a bad thing

I wouldn't know, I'm a city boy. Sitting in the cold woods isn't in my frame of reference.

Go outside in the city and listen to the traffic and other noise; smell the car exhaust and the garbage; watch all the people milling around... now try to imagine the opposite of that. It's a glorious thing.

And even if you're absolutely set against the hunting part, just go out to the woods and hang out a while. It's good for you.

Just to be clear, I don't think I said AK's were widely used in Mexico, I said the conversion parts were freely available. They are. I could do the conversion if I were so inclined. I have all the needed tools.

The whole point of the AK is that it's simple.

[morriswalters]

Go outside in the city and listen to the traffic and other noise; smell the car exhaust and the garbage; watch all the people milling around... now try to imagine the opposite of that. It's a glorious thing.

And even if you're absolutely set against the hunting part, just go out to the woods and hang out a while. It's good for you.

Sorry, I believe hunting is an important part of managing populations. I support hunting and hunters. And I like the woods. On the other hand trooping around in the brush has zero appeal to me.

but this side thread is only relevant so far as it ties back to the "Mexican crime orgs get their firearms from the US" proposition. And that's not terribly plausible. The US has legal and technical roadblocks nobody else does. Either they're getting them from elsewhere, or those legal and technical obstacles are utterly meaningless indeed.

Neither is terribly good for the pro-gun control argument.

Meaningless would pretty much be my characterization. That is unless you want me to believe that they are manufactured and shipped from elsewhere in Central America. Certainly the President of Mexico thinks it's true. If you have the money in the US somebody will sell you a gun. 13 year olds can buy them. Cartels have lots of money. And as I have said repeatedly Gun Control isn't my point.

[Tyndmyr]

Go outside in the city and listen to the traffic and other noise; smell the car exhaust and the garbage; watch all the people milling around... now try to imagine the opposite of that. It's a glorious thing.

And even if you're absolutely set against the hunting part, just go out to the woods and hang out a while. It's good for you.

Sorry, I believe hunting is an important part of managing populations. I support hunting and hunters. And I like the woods. On the other hand trooping around in the brush has zero appeal to me.

I feel similarly. A certain level of it has to be done. If folks enjoy that, good on them. I, however, do not. I grew up hunting. It isn't fun or a challenge for me, it's just work.

but this side thread is only relevant so far as it ties back to the "Mexican crime orgs get their firearms from the US" proposition. And that's not terribly plausible. The US has legal and technical roadblocks nobody else does. Either they're getting them from elsewhere, or those legal and technical obstacles are utterly meaningless indeed.

Neither is terribly good for the pro-gun control argument.

Meaningless would pretty much be my characterization. That is unless you want me to believe that they are manufactured and shipped from elsewhere in Central America. Certainly the President of Mexico thinks it's true. If you have the money in the US somebody will sell you a gun. 13 year olds can buy them. Cartels have lots of money. And as I have said repeatedly Gun Control isn't my point.

13yr olds cannot. An adult can buy a firearm for their 13yr old child, but if you are not 18(21 for handguns), you are not buying yourself a gun in the US.

As far as pricing goes, it makes a great deal of sense that they're shipped from central america or elsewhere. The US is not particularly known for cheap manufacturing. Shit, even we outsource a ton of our production of stuff in general. If you're looking to have something fairly simple and standard produced somewhere, the US is probably not a go-to place.

[Dr34m(4+(h3r]

Maybe Obama was including zip guns or potato guns or toy guns.

[Tyndmyr]

Nerf guns are pretty available.

But it definitely changes the meaning of the statement, I think. Talking about availability of toys is a very different conversation from talking about weapons and culture.

[morriswalters]

13yr olds cannot. An adult can buy a firearm for their 13yr old child, but if you are not 18(21 for handguns), you are not buying yourself a gun in the US.

13 year olds can't buy alcohol or reefer either. Adults are a dime a dozen.

[SDK]

What are the laws regarding giving guns away though? If that hypothetical 13 year old used his gun in a crime, surely the adult that purchased it could be tracked down (and punished?)?

[morriswalters]

What are the laws regarding giving guns away though? If that hypothetical 13 year old used his gun in a crime, surely the adult that purchased it could be tracked down (and punished?)?

Guns move in a lot of ways, but essentially once in private hands they are semi uncontrolled. If you sell one privately you may not need to keep a record or do a background check.

When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping.

This can happen at gun shows or in somebodies home. the applicable state law of course varies. Here is the Wikipedia entry for Kentucky.

[Tyndmyr]

13yr olds cannot. An adult can buy a firearm for their 13yr old child, but if you are not 18(21 for handguns), you are not buying yourself a gun in the US.

13 year olds can't buy alcohol or reefer either. Adults are a dime a dozen.

Oh, sure. I assume that pretty much everyone has tasted alcohol before 21, despite that being taken fairly seriously in a legal sense. Laws only get you so far.

What are the laws regarding giving guns away though? If that hypothetical 13 year old used his gun in a crime, surely the adult that purchased it could be tracked down (and punished?)?

As the last registered owner, it would indeed go to the adult, who then be asked some pointed questions about why his gun was involved in a crime.

It is not, however, illegal for him to transfer ownership to the child(if it is a rifle. Handguns are special here) or another individual. However, if he's doing so as a straw purchase(like, say he knows the gun is to be used in a crime, and is trying to confuse the tracking), yeah, that's a felony, ten years in jail, and a half million in fines or something like. Most gun penalties are pretty intense if you do get caught.

But, if it's never used in a crime, as is the case the vast majority of the time, nobody will ever come looking.

And frankly, even in a crime, how are they going to know it was THAT gun unless the gun was recovered? Serial number tracking only matters if you can recover the gun. If you don't have that, you don't have a route to the serial number.

[jestingrabbit]

...

I already have an experiment I consider sufficient. It's called "every developed nation that isn't the US".

That's not a particularly good experiment. Nations aren't apples to apples in that way. And even within that dataset, you get instances like Norway, which has the most guns of Europe, but which generally has a nice, low homicide rate, even by European standards.

It boils down to 'everyone else does x, you should do x too'. It ignores facts like the Australians having a lower proportion of homicides than us BEFORE they went gun ban happy. Or Canadians still having a fair number of guns(and oddly enough, some that are not generally legal in the US. Some short barrelled firearms.), and being generally pretty content to not murder each other.

Tell you what, when the US has nationally instituted, lets say any 3 of the regulations on this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway

you get to bring up Norway again.

[leady]

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.

In practice its pretty easy to show its no where near this simple. Gun availability has a significant impact on:

Suicide method and success rates
Spree killing events

largely due to the very obvious factor of guns being very good at the task they are created to do

but they have a very murky impact on murder rates because two the key types of murder (passion or real estate) are largely unconcerned with method and more so on the outcomes.

[jestingrabbit]

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.

[leady]

doubtful because the American, British and Australian experiences don't back that up. I struggle to see a good mechanism even, bar maybe a small proportion whose anger gets thwarted by lockboxes or something

[Tyndmyr]

...

I already have an experiment I consider sufficient. It's called "every developed nation that isn't the US".

That's not a particularly good experiment. Nations aren't apples to apples in that way. And even within that dataset, you get instances like Norway, which has the most guns of Europe, but which generally has a nice, low homicide rate, even by European standards.

It boils down to 'everyone else does x, you should do x too'. It ignores facts like the Australians having a lower proportion of homicides than us BEFORE they went gun ban happy. Or Canadians still having a fair number of guns(and oddly enough, some that are not generally legal in the US. Some short barrelled firearms.), and being generally pretty content to not murder each other.

Tell you what, when the US has nationally instituted, lets say any 3 of the regulations on this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway

you get to bring up Norway again.

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

Unless you were referring to restrictions like age restrictions(which are identical to ours)? I mean, they do have a few silly restrictions, but moving away from them(such as the ammo storage requirement) does not seem to be turning their country into a murderfest.

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.

Regulation is not a thing that can be simply quantized, like butter or apples.

And the US has a LOT of firearm regulations. They cannot be reasonably described as unregulated. So, I have absolutely no idea how you're differentiating here. If you have specific regulations in mind, we can look for data pertaining to that, but it can't possibly be as simplistic as "more regulations are always good, less is always bad, where regulations are measured by number of times 'firearm' appears in a law" or something.

[commodorejohn]

Regulation is not a thing that can be simply quantized, like butter or apples.

It can't be meaningfully quantized, but it can be evaluated for quality, which I think is what jestingrabbit was getting at. The problem is that what "well-regulated" means depends entirely on who you ask.

[cphite]

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.

People who want to murder tend to find guns, even when guns are illegal. And when they can't find guns, they find something else. There isn't much evidence to suggest that there is any significant number of people set on murder (or willing to kill in the process of committing some other crime) who are dissuaded by gun laws, or even the lack of available guns.

[jestingrabbit]

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.

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?

[EdgarJPublius]

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

What do you expect caliber restrictions would accomplish?

How would you enforce safe storage laws and prevent them from posing an unequal burden to the poor?

[Chen]

I don't know how safe storage laws would really amount to any reduction in criminal behavior. It's not something that can be easily (if at all) verified by the authorities, so if the person is apt to do illegal acts with their guns, they're probably not storing them according to the law either.

If the law was somehow enforced, I could see it helping prevent accidents. But I see no way of actually enforcing the law except AFTER the fact. So it would really just be punishing the person after whatever accident occurred and you were at their home investigating.