Obama prepares order on guns

[Aber]

Gun accidents are a tiny fraction of the problem, and therefore even more of a strawman. It might help if TF was open and honest about the nature of the problem he is trying to solve and the evidence he has that his solution would work, but he seems committed to being exactly not those things. So bullet holes it is.

Just no.

Bullet holes are caused by accidents, suicides and deliberately shooting other people.

For accidents and suicides, simply reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of bullet holes (see studies on reduction in number of suicide deaths in the UK when a simple and sure method (gas) was removed). However pro-gun proponents seem reluctant to even admit these as valid arguments.

Deliberately shooting other people is more complex, and brings in arguments about types of guns and owners. This is the argument that Chuck Giteau wants to have, while ignoring the rest of it.

 

[theprestige]

Just no.

Bullet holes are caused by accidents, suicides and deliberately shooting other people.

For accidents and suicides, simply reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of bullet holes (see studies on reduction in number of suicide deaths in the UK when a simple and sure method (gas) was removed). However pro-gun proponents seem reluctant to even admit these as valid arguments.

Deliberately shooting other people is more complex, and brings in arguments about types of guns and owners. This is the argument that Chuck Giteau wants to have, while ignoring the rest of it.

As TF has pointed out, this thread isn't about him. It's no about CG either, but they're both very active in this thread. It's definitely about the arguments they're making. If you want to have a different argument, feel free to make it any time.

The vast majority of gun owners aren't involved in accidents, suicides, or murder sprees. It's hard to think of a gun control measure that won't disproportionately affect those people. But you're welcome to try. Is that the argument you want to have?

Or maybe the benefits of some gun control proposal are so big that they justify the impact on most owners. Maybe the impact is small. Maybe the benefit is really big. Is that the argument you want to have? That seems to be the argument CG wants to have. That seems to be the argument TF wants settled without having to have it.

If that's the argument you want to have, would you mind putting some numbers to it? Would you mind putting some details to it?

What are the numbers of gun ownership? What are the numbers of accidents and suicides? What are the details of your proposal for reducing these numbers? What are the details of how your proposal will impact lawful and unlawful gun owners? What are the numbers of your estimate of how much your proposal will reduce accidents and suicides?

That seems to be what CG is asking for. That seems to be what TF is avoiding. If you don't like the way the argument is going, make it better.

 

[casebro]

So no new Obama Executive Order going into effect?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So no new Obama Executive Order going into effect?

Nope, you can keep your guns one more day.

 

[Ranb]

So no new Obama Executive Order going into effect?

Not yet. Nothing here about guns; https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions Biggest news is easing restrictions on Iran.

Fact sheet here; https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

We have to wait and see how they change who is defined as a dealer. It might be changed to include anyone who sells a gun at a gun show, not just those who make a living at it.

ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity.

I suppose this would be the 41P change to the regulations son how machine guns and other NFA firearms are transferred. It eliminates the CLEO signature, requires better identification of corporate officers and trustees and requires mere notification of the CLEO.

The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.

About time. A 6 month backlog sucks.

2. Make our communities safer from gun violence.

The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws.

The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws.

Maybe they can get around to arresting those tens of thousands of criminals they claim are denied a transfer when applying for a bkgd check.

4. Shape the future of gun safety technology.

The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology.

The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.

He can start by encouraging states (like NJ) not to pass legislation that discourages smart gun tech from being adopted.

Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

When I read the law is seems rather clear that this is already the case.

Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.

I wonder what those other conditions were that led to a single sale being used to show a person was engaged in business?

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. .... ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.

I take exception to the tone of this paragraph. I created a trust to own NFA firearms simply to allow avoid the hassle of the CLEO signature (some don't even bother to do bkgd checks) and to allow ease of multiple person's possession. It was never about avoiding a bkgd check. The government has been all up in my business since 1982, they don't seem to care that I collect "the most dangerous weapons" that are somehow associated with the least amount of crime in the country.

Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the theft or loss of their guns.

Two words; DC sniper.

Ranb

 

[The Fool]

As TF has pointed out, this thread isn't about him. It's no about CG either, but they're both very active in this thread. It's definitely about the arguments they're making. If you want to have a different argument, feel free to make it any time.

The vast majority of gun owners aren't involved in accidents, suicides, or murder sprees. It's hard to think of a gun control measure that won't disproportionately affect those people. But you're welcome to try. Is that the argument you want to have?

Or maybe the benefits of some gun control proposal are so big that they justify the impact on most owners. Maybe the impact is small. Maybe the benefit is really big. Is that the argument you want to have? That seems to be the argument CG wants to have. That seems to be the argument TF wants settled without having to have it.

If that's the argument you want to have, would you mind putting some numbers to it? Would you mind pu tting some details to it?

What are the numbers of gun ownership? What are the numbers of accidents and suicides? What are the details of your proposal for reducing these numbers? What are the details of how your proposal will impact lawful and unlawful gun owners? What are the numbers of your estimate of how much your proposal will reduce accidents and suicides?

That seems to be what CG is asking for. That seems to be what TF is avoiding. If you don't like the way the argument is going, make it better.

What I am trying to avoid is repeating myself. Do you really want me to run off and lookup the list of stats you ask for and report back?

Reduce the vast number of guns in the US. What details will help clarify that what that means is reduce the number of guns in the US?

This is likely to affect people who have guns disproportionately to people who do not have guns.

What else can I clarify?

Maybe you could offer your opinions on the suggestion to reduce the number of guns in the U S. Maybe you could offer alternate suggestions or maybe you could just as for details to be repeated.

 

[The Fool]

Just no.

Bullet holes are caused by accidents, suicides and deliberately shooting other people.

For accidents and suicides, simply reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of bullet holes (see studies on reduction in number of suicide deaths in the UK when a simple and sure method (gas) was removed). However pro-gun proponents seem reluctant to even admit these as valid arguments.

Deliberately shooting other people is more complex, and brings in arguments about types of guns and owners. This is the argument that Chuck Giteau wants to have, while ignoring the rest of it.

Deliberately shooting someone is a much more available option if you habitually have a gun down your pants. Human conflict is inevitable it cannot be legislated away. The means of making it far less deadly can be addressed if there is the political will to do it.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

What I am trying to avoid is repeating myself. Do you really want me to run off and lookup the list of stats you ask for and report back?

Reduce the vast number of guns in the US. What details will help clarify that what that means is reduce the number of guns in the US?

This is likely to affect people who have guns disproportionately to people who do not have guns.

What else can I clarify?

Maybe you could offer your opinions on the suggestion to reduce the number of guns in the U S. Maybe you could offer alternate suggestions or maybe you could just as for details to be repeated.

What I want you to do is show a causal link between lawful ownership and firearms violence. Until you can do that your assertion that reducing the number of guns is meaningless.

 

[theprestige]

What I want you to do is show a causal link between lawful ownership and firearms violence. Until you can do that your assertion that reducing the number of guns is meaningless.

I have to admit, I do admire the disingenuousness of his firearms reduction plan: Make ownership so cumbersome that most people give up trying, and insist that you're not actually banning anything.

Presumably Australians also believe that Texas isn't banning abortion clinics, and that poll taxes don't disenfranchise voters.

 

[The Fool]

What I want you to do is show a causal link between lawful ownership and firearms violence. Until you can do that your assertion that reducing the number of guns is meaningless.

It's meaningless to you obviously.

Can I ask why you hang around this thread insisting that a claim nobody makes is proven to you?

Violence and crime are inerrant in all societies.

There is no causal link between legal gun ownership and the owners tendencies towards gun violence. Can you stop demanding I prove it to you?

Violence is just more efficient with a gun...please don,t tell me you want that proven?

 

[The Fool]

I have to admit, I do admire the disingenuousness of his firearms reduction plan: Make ownership so cumbersome that most people give up trying, and insist that you're not actually banning anything.

Presumably Australians also believe that Texas isn't banning abortion clinics, and that poll taxes don't disenfranchise voters.

So are regulations that make gun ownership more cumbersome a ban?

At what point do they click over to being a ban. Unless you believe that guns are banned in the US now because there are regulations that make ownership more cumbersome.

What is this mysterious cut off point?

We are all gun control advocates but only some of us appear to be ban advocates, what is the trigger point. Why are you a gun control advocate but not a gun ban advocate whereas I am apparently both?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

It's meaningless to you obviously.

Can I ask why you hang around this thread insisting that a claim nobody makes is proven to you?

Violence and crime are inerrant in all societies.

There is no causal link between legal gun ownership and the owners tendencies towards gun violence. Can you stop demanding I prove it to you?

Violence is just more efficient with a gun...please don,t tell me you want that proven?

If there is no causal link between lawful ownership and gun violence then your whole case falls apart. Why reduce the number arbitrarily when you cannot establish that less guns would result in a lowering of violent crime?
Causality is what separates any possible logical result of reduction from being just another post hoc logical fallacy.

 

[The Fool]

If there is no causal link between lawful ownership and gun violence then your whole case falls apart. Why reduce the number arbitrarily when you cannot establish that less guns would result in a lowering of violent crime?
Causality is what separates any possible logical result of reduction from being just another post hoc logical fallacy.

ok chuck this the last time.

Less guns would not result in less violent crime. As I have repeated violent crime is inerrant in all societies. The crazy number of guns just makes it much more deadly.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

ok chuck this the last time.

Less guns would not result in less violent crime. As I have repeated violent crime is inerrant in all societies. The crazy number of guns just makes it much more deadly.

If less guns would not result in less violent crime (as you admit), then what is the purpose of further restrictions that only apply to lawful ownership?

 

[The Fool]

If less guns would not result in less violent crime (as you admit), then what is the purpose of further restrictions that only apply to lawful ownership?

The purpose of the restrictions is to reduce the number of guns.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

The purpose of the restrictions is to reduce the number of guns.

The circular logic of that statement is incomparable:
Q. Why are guns restricted?
A. To reduce their number.
Q. Why reduce their number?
A. Because they're restricted.

I hope you don't mind if I save that. It's priceless.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The purpose of the restrictions is to reduce the number of guns.

What else can you do, mate.

 

[The Fool]

The circular logic of that statement is incomparable:
Q. Why are guns restricted?
A. To reduce their number.
Q. Why reduce their number?
A. Because they're restricted.

I hope you don't mind if I save that. It's priceless.

Why on earth would you say the reason to reduce the numbers is because they are restricted?

Who has suggested that?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Why on earth would you say the reason to reduce the numbers is because they are restricted?

Who has suggested that?

Do you have a particular reason for for wanting the number of guns reduced in the US?
We've already established that it isn't to reduce the rate of firearms violence, so what reason do you give for your suggestion?
Let me guess: to reduce the number of bullet holes.
Which would prompt a reasonable person to ask: how would this reduce the number of bullet holes?

Less accidental deaths? That's a small hook to hang your hat on. We're at an all time low for firearm AD's and have been on this trend for many years.
Less than .2% of all firearms deaths are accidental. A reduction in the number of firearms could not possibly account for more than that.

Suicides? You first have to explain how the State has a right to interfere with that decision to begin with, something that didn't get very far when I posted a topic on the subject. Then you have to show that simply depriving potential suicides of one method among many (even the most popular one) provides anything but a temporary drop (if that) as potential suicides begin to use other methods.Using the UK "gas" policy won't get you very far as the rates have gone back up. They are currently at roughly the same rate as they were before (11.4/100K in 1971 vs 11.8/100K in 2011). Gas was simply replaced by hanging.
And this has to be weighed against lawful DGU's (whether you personally recognize the right to self defense or not is immaterial to the situation in the US). Even by the most conservative standards this dwarfs the possible net reduction in suicides.

 

[The Fool]

Do you have a particular reason for for wanting the number of guns reduced in the US?
We've already established that it isn't to reduce the rate of firearms violence, so what reason do you give for your suggestion?
Let me guess: to reduce the number of bullet holes.
Which would prompt a reasonable person to ask: how would this reduce the number of bullet holes?

Less accidental deaths? That's a small hook to hang your hat on. We're at an all time low for firearm AD's and have been on this trend for many years.
Less than .2% of all firearms deaths are accidental. A reduction in the number of firearms could not possibly account for more than that.

Suicides? You first have to explain how the State has a right to interfere with that decision to begin with, something that didn't get very far when I posted a topic on the subject. Then you have to show that simply depriving potential suicides of one method among many (even the most popular one) provides anything but a temporary drop (if that) as potential suicides begin to use other methods.Using the UK "gas" policy won't get you very far as the rates have gone back up. They are currently at roughly the same rate as they were before (11.4/100K in 1971 vs 11.8/100K in 2011). Gas was simply replaced by hanging.
And this has to be weighed against lawful DGU's (whether you personally recognize the right to self defense or not is immaterial to the situation in the US). Even by the most conservative standards this dwarfs the possible net reduction in suicides.

How does this wall of text relate to the question?

Who has proposed that the reason to reduce gun numbers is because they are restricted?

Actually chuck. Don,t bother. You are not even making the slightest effort.

I say...quote....less guns would not lead to less violent crime. You immediately report this as being less guns would not lead to less gun violence.

I think you are simply trolling.