Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Pursesnatcher
Oct 23, 2016



Grimey Drawer

Alright, someone put up a spreadsheet, so what the hell. I did some digging. I dug. People keep saying "guns don't kill people, people do". And it looks like people are right.

I sifted through all the data I could find on homicide numbers from all US states and Canadian provinces, plus most of Europe and Latin America. That wasn't too hard, even though some places report homicides in strange ways, and strange things as homicides. Whenever possible, and comparable, I used data directly from the various stats agencies in the places listed.

Then I started trying to piece together how many guns there are in the various places. For most of Europe, that's easy-ish. For the US, it's a goddamn nightmare. I did my best though, trying to find the most reasonable estimates available from as neutral sources as possible. In some states, that wasn't possible, so I had to just use the average of [some source wanting to inflate the numbers] and [some source wanting to minimize the figure]. It ought to be close enough to the truth, anyhow.

Everything is 2011, because that's the latest year I could find from which I could get data from the most sources at once. Don't ask me which sources I used, because I'm an idiot and didn't save them, and compiling this poo poo took me so long I couldn't possibly recover all of them. If you try double-checking this, though, you'll find it checks out for the most part.



Full size

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

"Be grateful we aren't loving you more" isn't a compromise

People opposed to lightly regulated civilian gun ownership have every reason to believe the future belongs to them; even beyond the background level of Clintonista end-of-history triumphalism. The old gun-clutching country boy base that made the NRA a political force is dying off, the organization itself is rapidly drifting towards the Richard Spencer fringe, in a couple decades the Bradys' kids will be free to gently caress you as hard as they like if the negatives of gun ownership are still as visible as they are now. "Get your house in order or we'll do it for you" is plenty compromise from that perspective; something like how industries move to self-regulate after a big scandal to get out ahead of far more restrictive legislation.

Javid posted:

One compromise I'd accept without a specific loosening of existing law is if a new law had a clause baked in that automatically repealed it if A) a specific, pre-defined drop in the crime it was meant to prevent does not occur, or B) any further gun restrictions were passed.

A big issue with existing laws is that when they accomplish nothing, they stay on the books instead of being correctly treated as a failed experiment. Fix that attitude and clean out the existing chaff and I'll be far more open to trying new laws.

It'd be pretty nice if laws defaulted to sunsetting generally but not gonna happen under this Constitution.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 18:56 on May 29, 2018

CainFortea
Oct 15, 2004





A Wizard of Goatse posted:

"Get your house in order or we'll do it for you" is plenty compromise from that perspective;
And yet those same people (rightfully) throw a poo poo fit when some sheepdog highspeed lowdrag operator stands around schools with a tac vest and an AR.

FruitNYogurtParfait
Mar 29, 2006

Sion lied. Deadtear died for our sins. #VengeanceForDeadtear
#PunGateNeverForget
#ModLivesMatter

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

People opposed to lightly regulated civilian gun ownership have every reason to believe the future belongs to them; even beyond the background level of Clintonista end-of-history triumphalism. The old gun-clutching country boy base that made the NRA a political force is dying off, the organization itself is rapidly drifting towards the Richard Spencer fringe, in a couple decades the Bradys' kids will be free to gently caress you as hard as they like if the negatives of gun ownership are still as visible as they are now. "Get your house in order or we'll do it for you" is plenty compromise from that perspective; something like how industries move to self-regulate after a big scandal to get out ahead of far more restrictive legislation.

It's not a compromise, it's an ultimatum dressed up so the people issuing it can sit back and smugly tsk "oh you're just being unreasonable" at anyone who argues with them

Jack B Nimble
Dec 25, 2007




Soiled Meat

I want to give that spreadsheet the attention it deserves, but right now all I can do is thank you for sharing it.

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!



That is a cool thing, though uh, could you just link the actual spreadsheet instead? Assuming it's google sheet? Big giant images aren't the best thing to parse.

That Works
Jul 21, 2006


Pursesnatcher posted:

Alright, someone put up a spreadsheet, so what the hell. I did some digging. I dug. People keep saying "guns don't kill people, people do". And it looks like people are right.

I sifted through all the data I could find on homicide numbers from all US states and Canadian provinces, plus most of Europe and Latin America. That wasn't too hard, even though some places report homicides in strange ways, and strange things as homicides. Whenever possible, and comparable, I used data directly from the various stats agencies in the places listed.

Then I started trying to piece together how many guns there are in the various places. For most of Europe, that's easy-ish. For the US, it's a goddamn nightmare. I did my best though, trying to find the most reasonable estimates available from as neutral sources as possible. In some states, that wasn't possible, so I had to just use the average of [some source wanting to inflate the numbers] and [some source wanting to minimize the figure]. It ought to be close enough to the truth, anyhow.

Everything is 2011, because that's the latest year I could find from which I could get data from the most sources at once. Don't ask me which sources I used, because I'm an idiot and didn't save them, and compiling this poo poo took me so long I couldn't possibly recover all of them. If you try double-checking this, though, you'll find it checks out for the most part.



Full size

I really like this but I really really wish you could dig up most of the source materials, or at least the agencies they came from.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



That Works posted:

I really like this but I really really wish you could dig up most of the source materials, or at least the agencies they came from.

Yeah. It's amazing but without the sources it's not really all that useful for actually showing people who aren't already on Team Guns.

Something like that you can totally be forgiven for having a loving list of 100 footnotes pointing to each individual stat.

Captain Log
Oct 2, 2006

Captain Log posted:

"I AINT DYING! Choo choo motherfucker!"




That graph does re-affirm what my buddy who owns a coffee shop in Bogota says, "Come to visit, stay to get murdered."

He grew up in Colombia in the nineties, and we went to Mexico together. I trust that dude when he says, "Don't get shot here."

Pursesnatcher
Oct 23, 2016



Grimey Drawer

I do beat myself up for not saving them, but I'll try recovering as much as I can. The amazing part is how it shows so well the lack of correlation between [raw number of firearms per capita] and [murder rate], something which the Mother Joneses of the world really need to be told to understand. Looks even better when you mapify it.

So yeah, I'll be back. Will take time though.

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



I'm kinda interested to see the substantiation of how Serbia has effectively zero firearms homicides, and how that's possible. Maybe that graph would be better served by making it per 10k or 100k

FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

It's not a compromise, it's an ultimatum dressed up so the people issuing it can sit back and smugly tsk "oh you're just being unreasonable" at anyone who argues with them

this is the basis of 99.999% of gun "debate" in 2018, yes. It's still an entirely valid and fair argument from their perspective, they're not obligated to offer you a rollback on the NFA in exchange for California laws any more than anyone has to let BP frack the shale fields for free in exchange for trying not to do another Deepwater. Far closer to an actual good-faith offer than the "compromises" TFR posters keep throwing out that ask for repeals of extremely established legislation yet don't concede anything substantive like 10+rd magazines.

The disconnect is they're confident that the NRA and its politics are in a tenuous and declining minority position where they can either strike a deal or watch a deal be made without them, and the gun crowd is equally convinced both that they can unilaterally dictate the terms of national legislation and that Nancy Pelosi is going to send ATF deathsquads to round up gun owners and put them in camps any day now. There's no discussion to be had between people who don't occupy at least vaguely similar realities, just the total defeat of the other.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:30 on May 30, 2018

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



The problem with the 'get your own house in order or we'll do it for you' argument is that unless someone can propose a new gun law that will make mass shootings stop nearly entirely, then the demand for new gun laws won't stop, either. We should support laws that make sense and are likely to help at least a little (like emergency gun restraining orders) for their own sake, not because we think maybe they're going to prevent future more restrictive laws (they're not).

Pursesnatcher posted:

I do beat myself up for not saving them, but I'll try recovering as much as I can. The amazing part is how it shows so well the lack of correlation between [raw number of firearms per capita] and [murder rate], something which the Mother Joneses of the world really need to be told to understand. Looks even better when you mapify it.

A scatterplot is effective for that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/27e9n5/correlation_of_intentional_homicide_rate_and/

Pursesnatcher
Oct 23, 2016



Grimey Drawer

Phoneposting earlier, just wanted to say thanks, and yeah, I can stick it into Google Sheets when I've dug up the sources (right now it lives in a good old-fashioned Excel sheet). Before I get up sources, linking the actual sheet around would just open the door to a lot of "SAUCE PLX".

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

I'm kinda interested to see the substantiation of how Serbia has effectively zero firearms homicides, and how that's possible. Maybe that graph would be better served by making it per 10k or 100k

The thing with Serbia, just like Switzerland, is they have a homicide rate on par with much of Europe, but they also have a poo poo-ton of firearms per capita. "Gun violence" does not figure in this sheet, because if "more guns = more killing", you shouldn't have to stick the word "gun" before "killing" as a caveat.

E:

Ohh that is nice. I wanted to include US states and Canuckistan territories as well though, because the US as a whole is just too drat big and populous to compare to other countries, while places like Quebec and Yukon might as well be on separate planets.

Pursesnatcher fucked around with this message at 17:37 on May 30, 2018

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



frunksock posted:

The problem with the 'get your own house in order or we'll do it for you' argument is that unless someone can propose a new gun law that will make mass shootings stop nearly entirely, then the demand for new gun laws won't stop, either. We should support laws that make sense and are likely to help at least a little (like emergency gun restraining orders) for their own sake, not because we think maybe they're going to prevent future more restrictive laws (they're not).


A scatterplot is effective for that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/27e9n5/correlation_of_intentional_homicide_rate_and/

I don't know that that's necessarily true. Certainly the Clintons and Bradys aren't gonna stop pushing for bringing the AWB back so long as mass shootings happen (and wouldn't stop pushing for it even if they did), but they are the people you're absolutely not gonna convince of anything, and they have about as bright a political future as Ted Nugent right now. There's a huge contingent of people who aren't fanatically obsessed with guns either way, but are appalled by kindergartens getting liquidated and willing to accept easy answers to that that don't impact their own lives, who you should be more worried about.

As this thread keeps pointing out, people die to text-driving and industrial accidents all the time and there's nothing like a comparable push for mandating phones disable themselves while moving or enforcing all the workplace safety regs that are getting rolled back doubletime. Hell, we've been having Port Arthur grade shootings on the regular for most of our lifetimes, clearly school shootings alone aren't enough to move the needle on gun laws. It's the combination of the spectacle of mass shootings and the high-profile pro-gun response being to send out literal traitors and pedophiles on broadcast to yell about how what we really need to do is outlaw doors and kill all the reporters that makes guns uniquely repellent, where all the other sources of mass deaths in this country have slick PR teams on the case to smooth stuff over and offer token gestures and make it somehow a freak lapse of personal responsibility. I don't think you'd need to "make school shootings stop entirely" to take the wind out of efforts to strictly regulate firearms, just offer some kind of plausible appearance that gun owners on the whole are positive contributors to society who take kids dying seriously and not a bunch of fascist loons lurking around schools in full battle rattle looking for a black boy to defend themselves against.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 18:31 on May 30, 2018

FruitNYogurtParfait
Mar 29, 2006

Sion lied. Deadtear died for our sins. #VengeanceForDeadtear
#PunGateNeverForget
#ModLivesMatter

Hard to get much airtime for "Actually guns not bad" when the media is focused on showing the latest rear end in a top hat's entire life in as much detail as possible between smash cuts of crying people and monsanto pr executives demanding things.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Hey, at least a lawmaker came out today with the real cause of school shootings: porn.

E: Not even online incel snuff porn or something.

quote:

"Pornography. It's available. It's available on the shelf when you walk in the grocery store. Yeah, you have to reach up to get it, but there's pornography there," Black says in the audio. "All of this is available without parental guidance."
She adds, "And I think that's a big part of the root cause, that we see so many young people that have mental illness get caught in these places."

Grocery store softcore skin-mags, the place all the kids these days get porn! All these Maxim magazines make me want to shoot a place up!

Glad so many pro-gun allies are just the pro-gun version of idiots talking about shoulder thingies that go up.

mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 19:30 on May 30, 2018

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

Hard to get much airtime for "Actually guns not bad" when the media is focused on showing the latest rear end in a top hat's entire life in as much detail as possible between smash cuts of crying people and monsanto pr executives demanding things.

What would your "actually guns not bad" story be if they wanted to show it? You, gun owner, pay your taxes?

Sixgun Strumpet
Feb 16, 2009

Heh, yeah, 'round here I call myself The Enabler. I suspect pretty much everyone wishes they could be me -- I'm kind of a big deal, you see.


A Wizard of Goatse posted:

I don't know that that's necessarily true. Certainly the Clintons and Bradys aren't gonna stop pushing for bringing the AWB back so long as mass shootings happen (and wouldn't stop pushing for it even if they did), but they are the people you're absolutely not gonna convince of anything, and they have about as bright a political future as Ted Nugent right now. There's a huge contingent of people who aren't fanatically obsessed with guns either way, but are appalled by kindergartens getting liquidated and willing to accept easy answers to that that don't impact their own lives, who you should be more worried about.

No, they aren't. They find kindergartens getting liquidated to be useful for pushing their political agenda.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/23/obama-white-house-figures-sought-tap-peoples-emoti/

Let's stop kidding ourselves that the hardcore anti gun people are anything but cynical unfeeling pieces of poo poo who see dead children as nothing more then a valuable political resource to construct a blood soaked soap box out of.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Sixgun Strumpet posted:

Let's stop kidding ourselves that the hardcore anti gun people are anything but cynical unfeeling pieces of poo poo who see dead children as nothing more then a valuable political resource to construct a blood soaked soap box out of.

I think they don't like when kids die.

I don't think they're literally giggling with glee when they see children die.

I think that's a very bad and unsupported opinion you have there, but it would be an effective one if your desire is to never engage with those you disagree with.

Are you, as a person who owns guns for personal defense, happy and pleased when you see someone killed in violent crime, because now you can use it as evidence that you need guns for self defense? I would hope not!

mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 30, 2018

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



Sixgun Strumpet posted:

No, they aren't. They find kindergartens getting liquidated to be useful for pushing their political agenda.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/23/obama-white-house-figures-sought-tap-peoples-emoti/

Let's stop kidding ourselves that the hardcore anti gun people are anything but cynical unfeeling pieces of poo poo who see dead children as nothing more then a valuable political resource to construct a blood soaked soap box out of.

I very explicitly was not talking about the "hardcore anti-gun people" in the very sentence you quoted, but insisting that actually no, other people only pretend to care about dead children to serve their interest in your hobby is some insanely obvious projection.

FruitNYogurtParfait
Mar 29, 2006

Sion lied. Deadtear died for our sins. #VengeanceForDeadtear
#PunGateNeverForget
#ModLivesMatter

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

What would your "actually guns not bad" story be if they wanted to show it? You, gun owner, pay your taxes?

If we're speaking the same language as the poo poo that dominates the air now? Top story today: Heroic civilian saves X or Disabled woman fends off attacker, poo poo that's way more common per year than all the mass shootings combined ever

ed: I know these get played but they dont get played every day for weeks without end, where everything relates back to This Thing

FruitNYogurtParfait fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 30, 2018

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Gun owners use terrible crimes and incidents and good guy with gun stories all the time to argue for gun ownership rights. It doesn't mean that they are HAPPY that such incidents occur and that innocent people are victimized regularly. I hope.

FruitNYogurtParfait
Mar 29, 2006

Sion lied. Deadtear died for our sins. #VengeanceForDeadtear
#PunGateNeverForget
#ModLivesMatter

mlmp08 posted:

I think they don't like when kids die.

I don't think they're literally giggling with glee when they see children die.

I think that's a very bad and unsupported opinion you have there, but it would be an effective one if your desire is to never engage with those you disagree with.

Do you, as a person who owns guns for personal defense, happy and pleased when you see someone killed in violent crime, because now you can use it as evidence that you need guns for self defense? I would hope not!

You can like the effect something has on and for you without liking the actual event.

Also you can not care about something except its use to further an agenda (which is what he said) without getting joy over it.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

You can like the effect something has on and for you without liking the actual event.

OK, he didn't say "happy" he said unfeeling. So a lack of feeling. Except the feeling of their political agenda? This is a weird caricature.

I still think that's overstating it. The effect being useful is one thing. Wishing you never had to use said effect is another.

To use a different subject, while scientists often cringe a bit, plenty of people use things like major weather events to bring up climate change. It doesn't mean they "like" the effect of the weather event, but sure, they can use it to beat the "address climate change" drum. That said, if tomorrow we all found out "Hey, actually, poo poo's fine, we're fine, no worries!" and that was scientifically supported, they wouldn't be wishing for more tragedies to bring up climate change again. It'd just be "cool, phew."

I tend to think that if gun crime and violence in the US just went away tomorrow, you'd suddenly see little or no wind in the sails of gun control advocates, aside from an extreme fringe group.

mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 20:02 on May 30, 2018

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

If we're speaking the same language as the poo poo that dominates the air now? Top story today: Heroic civilian saves X or Disabled woman fends off attacker, poo poo that's way more common per year than all the mass shootings combined ever

Agreed; I think the gun community would get a lot of mileage out of feting these instead of George Zimmerman, but with the tremendous amount of airtime Wayne and the ever-douchier AR-wielding progun protesters get they effectively never mention them except in an abstract, 'hypothetically if this were to happen it would totally justify my point' kind of way. Like, without googling, how many can you name right now, who used the kinds of guns the antis are targeting, in the last year?

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:16 on May 30, 2018

FruitNYogurtParfait
Mar 29, 2006

Sion lied. Deadtear died for our sins. #VengeanceForDeadtear
#PunGateNeverForget
#ModLivesMatter

mlmp08 posted:

OK, he didn't say "happy" he said unfeeling. So a lack of feeling. Except the feeling of their political agenda? This is a weird caricature.

I still think that's overstating it. The effect being useful is one thing. Wishing you never had to use said effect is another.

To use a different subject, while scientists often cringe a bit, plenty of people use things like major weather events to bring up climate change. It doesn't mean they "like" the effect of the weather event, but sure, they can use it to beat the "address climate change" drum. That said, if tomorrow we all found out "Hey, actually, poo poo's fine, we're fine, no worries!" and that was scientifically supported, they wouldn't be wishing for more tragedies to bring up climate change again. It'd just be "cool, phew."

I tend to think that if gun crime and violence in the US just went away tomorrow, you'd suddenly see little or no wind in the sails of gun control advocates, aside from an extreme fringe group.

People absolutely positively do like it when bad things happen that help them because it allows them to rub noses in it. SEE ITS 100 AGAIN JEREMY I TOLD YOU so on anad so forth. That doesn't mean they like that its 100 outside. Same deal with dead kids. Like the aid it give you, dislike the thing happened.

As to if everything dried up, maybe? We'll never know because we'll never fix people as a whole.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

People absolutely positively do like it when bad things happen that help them because it allows them to rub noses in it. SEE ITS 100 AGAIN JEREMY I TOLD YOU so on anad so forth.

That's not the same as deaths and tragedy.

When I hear of someone getting hosed over by some asinine bullshit gun law, I'm not pleased that I get to use that as an example of a hosed up law. I feel bad for that person. I will also use that as an example of a hosed up law or application of the law. Usefulness and using persuasive or emotional rhetoric like a human does not preclude empathy and humanity on a personal level. Often, the most convincing, fired up appeals to emotion are born out of a very legitimate feeling from the speaker.

Gun control advocates would be dumb not to "use" tragedies when trying to build popular support. That does not mean that they like or are even neutral when events happen, such as a bunch of kids dying.

This is doubly true among Joe or Jane Citizen, who doesn't rely on expressing the proper checklist either for or against gun control in order to get political endorsements or financial support. Joe or Jane Citizen who doesn't really have a dog in the fight simply hears about kids dying and is like "this poo poo is hosed!"

Yes, there are always going to be the most hardcore anti-gun state authority types who just simply hate guns for no good reason and seek very strong collective/state authority. There will also always be Johnny Gun-Owner who thinks that his gun is the one thing standing between sacred freedoms and deepstate drones enslaving the nation. But the vast majority of people are neither of these caricatures and reacting most strongly to these types is one of the most frustrating failings of both the pro and anti-gun side.

FruitNYogurtParfait
Mar 29, 2006

Sion lied. Deadtear died for our sins. #VengeanceForDeadtear
#PunGateNeverForget
#ModLivesMatter

mlmp08 posted:

That's not the same as deaths and tragedy.

When I hear of someone getting hosed over by some asinine bullshit gun law, I'm not pleased that I get to use that as an example of a hosed up law. I feel bad for that person. I will also use that as an example of a hosed up law or application of the law. Usefulness and using persuasive or emotional rhetoric like a human does not preclude empathy and humanity on a personal level. Often, the most convincing, fired up appeals to emotion are born out of a very legitimate feeling from the speaker.

Gun control advocates would be dumb not to "use" tragedies when trying to build popular support. That does not mean that they like or are even neutral when events happen, such as a bunch of kids dying.

This is doubly true among Joe or Jane Citizen, who doesn't rely on expressing the proper checklist either for or against gun control in order to get political endorsements or financial support. Joe or Jane Citizen who doesn't really have a dog in the fight simply hears about kids dying and is like "this poo poo is hosed!"

Yes, there are always going to be the most hardcore anti-gun state authority types who just simply hate guns for no good reason and seek very strong collective/state authority. There will also always be Johnny Gun-Owner who thinks that his gun is the one thing standing between sacred freedoms and deepstate drones enslaving the nation. But the vast majority of people are neither of these caricatures and reacting most strongly to these types is one of the most frustrating failings of both the pro and anti-gun side.

So you have never had bad poo poo happen to somebody else that benefited you and had the thought process of "oh no that sucks for them - yay for me!" Because that's what I'm trying to get across here. If you haven't then you're a better person than me and good job. If you have then you're a human failure like the rest of us.

Or maybe it's just me and I'm a real piece of poo poo

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

So you have never had bad poo poo happen to somebody else that benefited you and had the thought process of "oh no that sucks for them - yay for me!"

I have, but typically in situations like... an opposing military force loving up or when there are only so many promotions to go around and, hey, someone's probably bummed they didn't get promoted, but that doesn't mean I'm turning down a promotion. I really can't imagine a pro or anti-gun situation where I'd feel that way. Like I would never think "that sucks for them, but yay for me" when I hear that someone got victimized and they were disarmed due to a dumb gun law, like at the Luby's massacre or some unarmed student being killed.

Well, there's Leyland Yee! I certainly felt schadenfreude when that fucker went down. On the other hand, I wish he hadn't been crooked, because his crimes probably got people killed, whether he was a two-faced person or not.

I guess self-owns amuse me. Like when someone does something that just makes their lives worse to prove a point, and I find it amusing, but overall it's pretty bad and dumb that people sometimes cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Sixgun Strumpet
Feb 16, 2009

Heh, yeah, 'round here I call myself The Enabler. I suspect pretty much everyone wishes they could be me -- I'm kind of a big deal, you see.


Man, when I apply some of the same style of rhetoric to the anti-gun people that gets applied to the NRA that really stirs things up a bit.

I wonder if this could have something to do with why NRA members are increasingly unwilling to engage on any level?

Jehde
Apr 20, 2010



mlmp08 posted:

I tend to think that if gun crime and violence in the US just went away tomorrow, you'd suddenly see little or no wind in the sails of gun control advocates, aside from an extreme fringe group.

Do you honestly believe this? Think about who the majority of vocal anti-gun people attack, and how they do it.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Jehde posted:

Do you honestly believe this? Think about who the majority of vocal anti-gun people attack, and how they do it.

Yeah. I think there's a smallish group of people who "identify" as anti-gun. I think for Jane/Joe Voter, they wouldn't give two shits about guns one way or the other if our crime rate was zero. The gently caress do they care if no one's dying?

Like I said, there will be those simply ideologically for or against personal firearms, even if there were zero crime whatsoever or alternately if we were being nuked from 200,000 miles away by space aliens who said "we're going to destroy Earth and not even reap the resources, get dead bitches."

But for the voters who really run this place? Nah, if gun crime disappeared, they'd likely not give one poo poo about guns outside of maybe some NIMBY bullshit regarding shooting ranges.

Sixgun Strumpet posted:

I wonder if this could have something to do with why NRA members are increasingly unwilling to engage on any level?

That's a method. It might work.

CainFortea
Oct 15, 2004





Well, the anti gun group comprises a very significant chunk of the population and crime is pretty loving rare. So already the vast majority of all gun control advocates have never experienced violence or gun crime.

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



Jehde posted:

Do you honestly believe this? Think about who the majority of vocal anti-gun people attack, and how they do it.

i think you should probably prioritize whether you care more about the greater bulk of the population who otherwise doesn't give a poo poo being convinced to vote against your interests, or a super crazy antigun strawman person yelling at you on Twitter

they're not the same thing or the same people, in much the same way that gun control isn't actually homophobia, you aren't a jew in the Holocaust, etc.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

CainFortea posted:

Well, the anti gun group comprises a very significant chunk of the population and crime is pretty loving rare. So already the vast majority of all gun control advocates have never experienced violence or gun crime.

Statistically, a lot of communities are quite safe. But the US is still very unsafe compared to a lot of "peer" nations, but whatever, crime stats get boring.

I think you may be wrong about saying "the vast majority of all gun control advocates have never experienced violence or gun crime."

First, anecdotally, my most anti-gun friends have generally been the victims of violent crimes. That's not when they became anti-gun, necessarily, but they sure as poo poo have experienced serious violent crimes. I live in a very pro-gun community, and it's about the most middle class gated community you can live in. We got a bulletin, because someone was found with weed!

Second, in the digital age, lots of people behave as if they've "experienced" something when they didn't physically. Think of reaction to small terror attacks. Think of the times we share stories of defensive gun uses, even if we've never personally defensively used a gun. Think of connections people retain to places they used to live or have family. A school system I attended had a school shooting recently. I wasn't in danger, but it certainly hit home for a lot of people my age or older who said "my school was shot up," even though they graduated years ago. People in the middle of nowhere in whites-ville USA retweet articles about border crossings in Arizona.

Not being personally attacked or shot at, yet having an opinion on it, doesn't necessarily point to a hardcoded ideological belief. It can just be a case of being tied into occurrences that happen elsewhere and thinking "what if that were me?!" The end result they draw from "what if that were me?" varies a lot person to person.

mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 21:26 on May 30, 2018

A Wizard of Goatse
Dec 14, 2014



I'm in Baltimore so to clarify; for it to count as having "experienced" gun crime do all my neighbors have to actually be hit by the bullets or is it enough to have drivebys down the block on the monthly, maybe a near miss or two?

Jehde
Apr 20, 2010



mlmp08 posted:

Yeah. I think there's a smallish group of people who "identify" as anti-gun. I think for Jane/Joe Voter, they wouldn't give two shits about guns one way or the other if our crime rate was zero. The gently caress do they care if no one's dying?

Like I said, there will be those simply ideologically for or against personal firearms, even if there were zero crime whatsoever or alternately if we were being nuked from 200,000 miles away by space aliens who said "we're going to destroy Earth and not even reap the resources, get dead bitches."

But for the voters who really run this place? Nah, if gun crime disappeared, they'd likely not give one poo poo about guns outside of maybe some NIMBY bullshit regarding shooting ranges.

Ah I thought you were talking about gun control advocates, not fickle voters. Gun control advocates conflating personal firearm ownership with mass murder-suicides for the purpose of deceiving fickle voters is a huge problem in the debate. Feel free to counter with how pro-gun people do their own lovely deception too, but doesn't detract from the issue at hand, which is the nature of the current "momentum" of anti-gun people.

People don't want kids to die in schools. Instead of getting mad at the schools (or themselves) for doing such a crap job of looking after their kids, they're getting mad at the NRA and vilifying personal firearm ownership. This is why I balk at your claim that people would stop caring when kids stop dying... Because the NRA is still going to keep on their lovely ways.

Jehde fucked around with this message at 21:30 on May 30, 2018

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Jehde posted:

Ah I thought you were talking about gun control advocates, not fickle voters. Gun control advocates conflating personal firearm ownership with mass murder-suicides for the purpose of deceiving fickle voters is a huge problem in the debate.

I do feel their numbers would whither. Financially, if no other reason. Some might actually conclude it wasn't a problem. Others might find another thing to champion, if they're just the type of person who always needs a thing to champion. Still others might revert to the role of the doomsday predictor who says that any day now, they'll be proven correct.

CainFortea
Oct 15, 2004





According to a Politico article a few months back, about 2 in 3 Americans support greater gun control. That's about 217ish million people. In order for me to be wrong about the majority never experiencing violence or gun crime, that would mean 108ish million people would have had to experience those. That assumes of course that every single victim of violence or gun crime would end up in the gun control side.

Honduras doesn't have that kind of crime rate.

So no, your anecdotal evidence aside, the vast majority of gun control supporters have never experienced violence or gun crime.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jehde
Apr 20, 2010



mlmp08 posted:

I do feel their numbers would whither. Financially, if no other reason. Some might actually conclude it wasn't a problem. Others might find another thing to champion, if they're just the type of person who always needs a thing to champion. Still others might revert to the role of the doomsday predictor who says that any day now, they'll be proven correct.

The point is it's not the gun violence they feel strongly against (like no poo poo, everyone wants less gun violence), it's the gun culture that they're against. Gun violence being a subset to gun culture, from their point of view. Gun violence is generally decreasing, again feel free to prove me wrong with whatever stats, the numbers don't really matter. The thing that has sharply increased is gun culture, after 8 years of Obamarama blowing the industry up in a pretty crazy way. This is what people are mad about, they use kids dying as justification to act against it.

  • Locked thread