Orlando Shooting

[Windsurfer]

As spouses of scientist and even potentially scientists yourselves, the objective thing to do is to look at actual statistics of existing examples and try to emulate those that are successful. The problem with statistics is that they get skewed in 100 different directions at political whim. I am not a proponent of gun control measures that are being proposed because they dont address the core issues they claim to. Both homicide and gun crime are down approximately 50% from their heyday in 1993, and are actually at 51 year lows according to the FBIs most recent publication in 2014. So when the media circus begins and we think these things are in crisis mode, naturally we panic. One of my football coaches once said that it doesnt matter if you run a 4-4:40 if youre running in the wrong direction from the ball. Thats partially what we have a case of here. Were focusing on rifles that cause a fraction of overall gun violence in the US. If politicians were really trying to make a difference, theyd look at handguns and the .22LR round, which kill more people than all other rounds, and its not close. But they wont do that because its much harder to demonize those things.

In the UK, Ireland and New Zealand, firearms bans had statistically no impact on overall homicide rates. The gun control proponents are left looking to Australia (which touts a 40% reduction in homicides between 1991 and today). Their rates effectively went from 1.7 per 100k annually, to 1.03. So Australia was already at a very low rate. During that same time, the US more than doubled their gun ownership and saw a reduction of 50+% in their homicide rate. A drop from 9.7 per 100k to 4.1 per 100k. A drop of more than 4.5 per 100k, and drastically more than Australias decline. Especially when you consider that our population is 10x theirs. What this may tell us is that guns have less to do with murder rates than either side would like to claim, and potentially more to do with advancements in society. As we reduce poverty and increase technology, healthcare, food, etc.. people in general are getting more wealthy. For the first time in the history of mankind, less than 10% of the worlds population is in extreme poverty. Lacking for nothing leads fewer people to resort to crime, etc..

What is evident from the UK, Ireland and other examples, is that firearms bans in and of themselves do nothing to change the inclinations of murderers. Take the gun, theyll find another implement.

Hope we can continue to have a rational discussion and not just scream at each other in a panic.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

That premise is based on looking at something that has changed (tighter or looser gun regulation) and then try to prove that it does or does not correlate with a change in gun deaths over some limited time period. It may be more useful (e.g. higher statistical significance) to look at countries that consistently have the low gun death rates people wish the US had and then try to figure out why.

I agree. Let's let the rationale discussion on guns and mass shootings continue without the counterproductive emotional overlay.

[Kudzoo]

Well, its obvious that in the absence of firearms, firearm deaths will be low. But that is much of what we are looking at in the UK, Ireland and New Zealand. Lower firearm homicide rates, but statistically no real change from overall homicide rates prior to their absence. We focus myopically on gun violence, but forget that it doesnt matter if a family member is shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, poisoned, etc.. What we really want to stop is violence. People who kill other people are not normal. They require both motive and a lack of respect for human life. That cannot be provided by any law.

However, what can be lessened is violence committed in the act of another crime, where the criminal is trying to make up for deficiencies in other things and simply makes a bad decision in the moment. i.e. robbery, etc.. These numbers are already on the decline, but statistically they continue to go down as relative poverty declines. Consider that 25 years ago computers became accessible to the general public, but still had limited use for even the most wealthy of the world. Now nearly anyone can carry a computer that is immensely more powerful than those computers 25 years ago, in their pocket. So even the poorest among us are in many ways richer than the richest 25 years ago.

One of the ties to gun violence to come out of Obamas 2013 firearms study was the drug war. We're all aware of what black markets and prohibition do. Eliminating the war on drugs, which is disproportionately biased against poor minorities would eliminate a lot of the issues that we see with community in urban environments and reduce a significant portion of those gun violence statistics. It would probably also reduce illegal immigration as we cease to export drug violence south of the border. So there are a lot of issues that arent being talked about because its easier to demonize guns than people or real policy.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[Kudzoo]

Scary looking black metal rifles are definitely easy to target, but the former assault weapons ban had restrictions on all weapons with greater than a 10 round magazine, I think. And it seems like a good chunk of the mass shootings of the past 10-15 years would have been made harder under those restrictions, cosmetic though some of the limitations were.

I believe it was something like that. The problem is that fewer than 3% of homicides are committed with long rifles, and the numbers continued to decline with the end of gang culture of the 90's despite doubling the number of private firearms owners in that span. If we take out the mass shooting language and replace it with active shooter scenarios, which is what we are really talking about, you're still only talking about roughly 10 per year and not accounting for what % of those were govt. employees subjected to increased scrutiny like Orlando shooter, the Ft. Hood Shooter, the Chattanooga shooter, etc.. All subjected to major background checks and some even held special weapons permits such as the Orlando shooter. So here we see that not only was the perpetrator screened, but also permitted to carry their weapons. You just can't weed that out.

Then consider that even the Brady bill grandfathered in existing ownership, because no LE officer is interested in confiscation, and you have more than 10 million AR15's in ownership alone. That doesn't include other semi automatic rifles like Mini 14 ranch guns, AK variants, even Ruger 10/22 small game guns. If you want to pass meaningful legislation, you can't focus on the 3%.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[spotty_dog]

So, just so you know, you're really taking on a "mansplaining" kind of tone here that is not really welcomed. We might be a female-dominated site but we don't need to be lectured on the errors of our ways.

My military friend brought out a meme on Facebook that also played up the similarities between an "assault weapon" and a semi-automatic rifle like a mini 14 ranch gun. It did really open my eyes to the whole "scary looking weapon" factor. But there is still a line. California drew it at 10-round magazines and required background checks for acquiring ammunition. Given that the Colorado movie theater shooter bought over 3,000 rounds on the internet, that one seems sane.

You're not making your point well when you emphasize that many of the shooters had passed background checks and obtained their weapons legally. THAT is the crux of the matter.

[Kudzoo]

So, just so you know, you're really taking on a "mansplaining" kind of tone here that is not really welcomed. We might be a female-dominated site but we don't need to be lectured on the errors of our ways.

My military friend brought out a meme on Facebook that also played up the similarities between an "assault weapon" and a semi-automatic rifle like a mini 14 ranch gun. It did really open my eyes to the whole "scary looking weapon" factor. But there is still a line. California drew it at 10-round magazines and required background checks for acquiring ammunition. Given that the Colorado movie theater shooter bought over 3,000 rounds on the internet, that one seems sane.

You're not making your point well when you emphasize that many of the shooters had passed background checks and obtained their weapons legally. THAT is the crux of the matter.

This resorting to sexist terms is exactly why people can't be taken seriously. When anyone challenges with statistics, label it mansplaining, xenophobic, homophobic, any kind of phobic. You cant have your world view challenged without trying to invalidate someones elses argument via ad hominem attacks. It is a valid point to say that long rifles only account for 3% of the numbers we're talking about. If we truly have a crisis, why focus on the minority of gun violence? Truly the only answer must be that you're racist. Black kids get shot up in the inner cities every single day. By the hundreds. It is only when a lone whacko hits white suburbia in a statistically insignificant number that we have a crisis of "guns". Don't like being called racist do you? Probably shouldn't use cliche sexist terms like "mansplaining".

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[spotty_dog]

"Reverse" sexism and "reverse" racism are completely irrelevant terms, becasue sexism and racism are culturally entrenched attitudes that are built up over the course of centuries. I'm sorry if you feel offended by my use of the term "mansplain" but that doesn't make your sex the victim of generations of inequality. And you're totally mansplaining. Your tone is very condescending and you're clearly conscious of being a man among women. Knock that shit off please? I was looking forward to having a conservative member of the community who's willing to engage on political topics. We've gotten a little quieter in that regard in recent years, and I used to learn a lot. Unfortunately I can't really learn anything from this kind of sniping disrespect, and I'm growing less convinced that you actually wish to be a member of this community. What exactly is it that you do want here?

[Kudzoo]

I'm sorry? I thought I read that this was an educated forum to weigh in on gun violence as it regards to the recent shooting, in a forum where spouses of medical professionals who can relate to one another share opinions. Not the circle of liberal affirmation and sexist (not sure where you got the reverse term) ideology as moderated by spotty dog. I don't view the world through gender glasses, but apparently you wear yours on your sleeve.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[spotty_dog]

If you're claiming to be a man affected by sexism, then you are claiming the reverse of what sexism actually is, so…yeah. And you are accelerating your use of ad hominem attack and emotional responses even as you decry them.

I'm not sure what thread you've been reading, but before you got here this one wasn't about liberal affirmation. It was about some people being struck in the gut by the horrific violence we experienced as a country a couple of weeks ago and sharing how overwhelmed they were by that experience, and also about people on various sides of the gun control argument presenting options and opinions. I still think yours are very worth reading, but unfortunately you've stopped engaging with anyone on the actual matter at hand, so there's not really anything to move forward with here?

[Kudzoo]

Have a great day lady. Sorry for whatever men in your life have done to you that would leave your outlook so bleak.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[HouseofWool]

We are a support board for medical spouses who happen to have a debate section.

While we tend to trend left of center, we do not have a specific political allegiance. Our members range from strict Catholic to atheist, from quite conservative to ultra liberal.

To say that we have engaged in ad hominem attacks is a fallacy.

We typically advise newer members to get a feel for the method of debate before launching in full force, in part, because as we get to know people better it is much easier to read their tone, thereby minimizing misunderstandings.

Again, we welcome your opinion.

[SoonerTexan]

Sorry, I very much feel this discussion has gotten inappropriate on all sides, with our long time members being the bigger culprits.

[Kudzoo]

Admittedly, I have a preconceived bias that leans toward "leave people alone". Being shouted down as sexist is a non-starter. Anyone can see the drastically declining membership of groups like the AMA and other medical lobbies because while academia may strongly lean left, there are a plethora of other opinions that are not being represented because they're consistently demagogued and shouted down. Best of luck folks.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[SoonerTexan]

While we tend to trend left of center, we do not have a specific political allegiance

Do we? Or do we just shout over the people who disagree to the point they don't engage anymore. I've noticed it.

[spotty_dog]

Admittedly, I have a preconceived bias that leans toward "leave people alone". Being shouted down as sexist is a non-starter. Anyone can see the drastically declining membership of groups like the AMA and other medical lobbies because while academia may strongly lean left, there are a plethora of other opinions that are not being represented because they're consistently demagogued and shouted down. Best of luck folks.

I apologize for using a charged phrase. I definitely was not shouting anyone down, I was trying to encourage you to keep talking, while warning you that your tone -- given that we don't yet know you, but we want to get to know you, and this forum has historically been a great place to get to know people -- was shutting people out and causing them to call troll. I don't want to call troll and walk away from your interesting conversation, I want to hear what you have to say.

[alotofyarn]

Do we? Or do we just shout over the people who disagree to the point they don't engage anymore. I've noticed it.

This. As one of the conservative members, I generally just keep my mouth shut because I don't appreciate being spoken to as if I'm a moron or worse. There are other groups run by some of our members in which I flat out don't participate for this exact reason.

Sent from Tapatalk