New "assault weapons" ban?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cosermann

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Aug 15, 2008
    8,372
    113
    If one looks at countries by per capita homicide rate, out of the 195 countries listed at Wikipedia [1], the U.S. comes in about a third of the way down the list at #59.

    Yet, our firearms ownership rate is about twice that of the nearest country [2]. {Data references below.)

    Fact: Every single country with a murder rate greater than the U.S. has a small fraction of firearm ownership compared to U.S.

    Examples:

    Homicide country #2, Jamaica (44.7 per 100k), has about 1/13th (7.6%) the gun ownership we do.

    Our nearest "neighbors in terms of homicide rate, #58 Tanzania (6.5/100k) and #60 Bolivia (6.2/100k) have 1/150th (0.6%) and 1/60th (1.7%) the firearms ownership of the U.S.

    What's the relationship here between firearms and homicide? There isn't much of one. (Which is why, at the same time, it's also true that every country with a homicide rate less than the U.S. has a firearms ownership rate a fraction of ours.)

    Part of the issue is that the conversation is often about "gun violence," or "gun deaths," or "shootings," when it should simply be about violence, deaths, or homicides. Why? Well, 100% gun violence/gun deaths/shootings involve a firearm. It immediately skews the data. It makes assumptions and biases up front (which is the goal of the rhetoric surrounding this issue).

    What if the conversation was about "automobile deaths," or "automobile violence" or "automobile crime." You know there's a lot of accidental and intentional deaths and crime out there involving automobiles. People run others down. People kidnap and murder people using cars. People steal things using automobiles. People commit suicide by inhaling exhaust fumes. People commit all manner of crimes using automobiles to facilitate. Etc. You can paint a picture by making assumptions and biasing your look at the data upfront. It's accurate as far as a goes, but it has the potential to be really skewed, and paints only a caricature of reality.

    The only way to objectively evaluate the data is to look at simply violence, homicides, etc., without regard to the particular tool (if any) is used. Then the real picture becomes clearer - violence and homicides are fairly independent of tool availability.

    In the end, gun control is not really about crime, death, "the children," or whatever plausible political reason/cover is bandied about.

    It's about control. The rhetoric and selective presentation of "data" are simply a means to that end.

    1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
    2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
     

    indyblue

    Guns & Pool Shooter
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Aug 13, 2013
    3,590
    129
    Indy Northside `O=o-
    If one looks at countries by per capita homicide rate, out of the 195 countries listed at Wikipedia [1], the U.S. comes in about a third of the way down the list at #59.
    In the end, gun control is not really about crime, death, "the children," or whatever plausible political reason/cover is bandied about.

    It's about control. The rhetoric and selective presentation of "data" are simply a means to that end.

    1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
    2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
    This ^^^

    It's not merely homicides that rile up the politicians, it's the "mass shootings" they claim we have the most of, which still isn't true. The stats are difficult to parse since the definition of "mass shooting" varies so much it makes it near impossible to compare.

    No official, universally accepted definition for a mass shooting exists. Rather, each stat-tracking organization has its own qualifying criteria. For example, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) defines a mass shooting as a single attack that happens in a public place and in which three or more people are killed with a firearm. However, most other stat trackers require at least four fatalities. As a result of these mismatched definitions, database-to-database differences are both common and confounding.

    Similarly, some databases include events in which at least four people were wounded, but not necessarily killed. Others do not. Some databases include occurrences in which the shooter killed only family members (but still in a public place, such as a restaurant). Others do not. Some databases include organized terrorist attacks, armed robberies gone wrong, and gang-related shootings. Other databases discard some or all of these incidents. In fact, in a 2019 study that compared four different databases, the number of mass shooting events recorded in the U.S. for the year 2017 ranged from a low of 11 to a high of 346. Clearly, a significant error margin exists, particularly when creating country-to-country comparisons.

    Although events in the U.S. tend to get the lion's share of media exposure, mass shootings are clearly a worldwide issue.
    In a widely publicized study originally released in 2015, the pro-gun nonprofit Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) compared the annual number of mass shooting deaths per million people in the U.S. to that of Canada and several European countries from 2009 to 2015. The result? Norway led the world with 1.88 deaths per million, followed by Serbia, France, and Macedonia. Where did the U.S. rank? 11th place.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,007
    77
    Porter County
    Serious question, or being ironic?
    Some of both.

    This would seem to follow the marijuana happenings today. A federal law making something illegal, would have to be enforced by Feds.
    The supremacy clause really wouldn't do much in making the local governments also outlaw stuff, and they can't force the locals to enforce Federal law. The locals just would not be able to stop enforcement of the law by the feds if they chose to do so in their jurisdiction.

    Do I have something wrong?
     

    duanewade

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 12, 2019
    464
    93
    Columbia City
    Actually what we need to do is have a convention of states and invalidate any and every law that is unconstitutional... am I dreaming or what?

    Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
     

    Shooter5

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Jun 19, 2008
    161
    43
    Indiana
    I think the leftists need to invalidate the 2nd Amendment, and eliminate gun ownership in this country to finally force the final steps to a totalitarian takeover of the US. The only way to get to total control in the US is the elimination of gun ownership. Every elitist and globalist world viewers knows that the millions of firearms in the US is a major hinderance to their plans. Pay attention to what is being said by the World Economic Forum.
    That being said…if he is successful in passing a law - the rise of 2A sanctuary states and counties will explode. I also believe that SCOTUS will shut it down.
     
    Top Bottom