Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.

And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.

Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?

Because a State doesn't have actual borders like a country does? So bans are pretty much useless because you can smuggle whatever you want pretty easily? See dry laws and things like that.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.

And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.

Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?

Because a State doesn't have actual borders like a country does? So bans are pretty much useless because you can smuggle whatever you want pretty easily? See dry laws and things like that.

Eh... still... how practical could that be done nowadays?

Seems like most state laws are passed for either political purposes or because states like to pretend that they are actual countries.

Let's face it, even though they likely would not admit it (especially the conservatives), lots of politicians would love for us to be like the European Union.

 d-usa wrote:
Seems like most state laws are passed for either political purposes or because states like to pretend that they are actual countries.

Let's face it, even though they likely would not admit it (especially the conservatives), lots of politicians would love for us to be like the European Union.

Sure... I can see that... at least the career politicians.

 Ahtman wrote:
Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.

That's the long term trend. The number of households owning a gun has dropped from over 50% in the 50s, to about 30% now. But the number of guns per capita has increased because the people owning guns have significantly increased the number of guns they're likely to own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KingCracker wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.

And where are you getting that statistic from? Did you actually read that somewhere, or are you just pulling figures out of your ass?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

"The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns."

"The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found"






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?

Border controls.

I mean, it'd be like trying to keep weed out of, like, Nebraska, now that it's legal in Colorado. Everyday there's thousands of cars crossing the border with no checks, any one of them could be carrying stuff legally owned in Colorado that's illegal in Nebraska.

Whereas with a federal ban you wouldn't have that problem. The only concern of guns crossing the border would come from Mexico* and Canada, and those borders are manned and cars are inspected. Stuff still gets smuggled in, but it becomes a much riskier proposition, and that totally changes how the market works.



*And when you add that most of the Mexican guns crossing in to the US were US manufactured in the first place...

 sebster wrote:
And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.

Your (wholly inaccurate) statement was that the complete ban movement was irrelevant to politics on the whole.

Ironically, that's the exact same thing social conservatives were telling us about early gay marriage victories in key states. Maybe it's your lack of living here, but it's actually very important what states do from time to time.

 whembly wrote:
Eh... still... how practical could that be done nowadays?

Well it isn't practical at the state level. That's why single state bans on things like guns aren't going to work. But on a national level, where there already exists border controls, they're a lot more practical.

Here in Australia the number of guns available to criminals has dropped considerably since the weapons ban. They still exist, because no border control system will ever be perfect (and ours is far from perfect anyway), but the difficulty and expense in getting a gun has skyrocketed.

 sebster wrote:
Here in Australia the number of guns available to criminals has dropped considerably since the weapons ban. They still exist, because no border control system will ever be perfect (and ours is far from perfect anyway), but the difficulty and expense in getting a gun has skyrocketed.

How many guns did you have per capita prior to the ban?

 Seaward wrote:
Your (wholly inaccurate) statement was that the complete ban movement was irrelevant to politics on the whole.

"The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban."

That's three times I've had to point out to you the distinction of state and federal. I refuse to believe you aren't getting the difference. Are you doing this on purpose just to annoy me? Or are you like that guy in Memento, and by the time you post a new reply you've completely forgotten any posts that happen before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
How many guns did you have per capita prior to the ban?

A lot less than you. Which would reduce the impact in the medium term in your country, for sure.

Not that there's any point talking about a complete ban, because that is not going to happen. The point was simply that picking out the effect of gun bans in single states is meaningless, because the borders are not secured and guns can easily flow in from other states. On a Federal level, as the borders are secured, that flow is a lot more limited.

 sebster wrote:
"The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban."

That's three times I've had to point out to you the distinction of state and federal. I refuse to believe you aren't getting the difference. Are you doing this on purpose just to annoy me? Or are you like that guy in Memento, and by the time you post a new reply you've completely forgotten any posts that happen before?

Again, sebster - and I'll explain this as many times as needed - numerous movements start out at the state level, learning how to organize and win in the various state legislatures before taking the strategy national. Numerous political ideologies start with only regional support and begin to spread. Pretending that the complete ban movement is irrelevant to politics in the US just because it suits you doesn't pay any attention at all to the whole picture.

Ok, So I know this is something we can all agree on. Guns should stay out of the hands of criminals and the mentally Ill right?
But the question is how do we go about implementing this. Licenses only keep honest people honest. We still have plenty of people who drive without a license.
The question is. How do we regulate guns to keep them out of the hands of those who should not wield them. Without infringing on the rights of those who do.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Your (wholly inaccurate) statement was that the complete ban movement was irrelevant to politics on the whole.

"The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban."

That's three times I've had to point out to you the distinction of state and federal. I refuse to believe you aren't getting the difference. Are you doing this on purpose just to annoy me? Or are you like that guy in Memento, and by the time you post a new reply you've completely forgotten any posts that happen before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
How many guns did you have per capita prior to the ban?

A lot less than you. Which would reduce the impact in the medium term in your country, for sure.

Not that there's any point talking about a complete ban, because that is not going to happen. The point was simply that picking out the effect of gun bans in single states is meaningless, because the borders are not secured and guns can easily flow in from other states. On a Federal level, as the borders are secured, that flow is a lot more limited.

I understand your point-of-view... I just don't think it would ever be practical in this day age...

Had to edit some posts. Let's not make things personal or unpleasant, okay? Keep it friendly, guys.

 AndrewC wrote:
I mentioned it earlier, 1005 people inteviewed to illustrate the gun ownership % in the states. Whats the population of the USA? I wasn't happy using it as a basis of debate, but there was no point in pretending it didn't exist.

Gallup Poll Methodology; Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 6-9, 2011, with a random sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.

 Seaward wrote:
Again, sebster - and I'll explain this as many times as needed - numerous movements start out at the state level, learning how to organize and win in the various state legislatures before taking the strategy national. Numerous political ideologies start with only regional support and begin to spread. Pretending that the complete ban movement is irrelevant to politics in the US just because it suits you doesn't pay any attention at all to the whole picture.

And I'll point out to you that any belief that state level movements, which aren't even banning all guns, could somehow expand out to a complete ban at the national level is an absolute flight of fancy. There is, right now, only the scarcest of majorities in support of bans on assault weapons. And that's assault weapons - expand it out to all guns and that slight majority becomes a very small minority. And that's just at the popular level, without factoring in the structural advantage Republicans hold in the house or the amount of gun lobby funding spread across the whole of US politics.

So by all means, continue to believe that you have to fight because just around the corner there really could be a total ban on guns. Just realise that when you're fighting that fight, those of us who understand the basic arithmetic of politics will think you're exactly as sensible as the people fighting to stop the USA being taken over the by the UN.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I understand your point-of-view... I just don't think it would ever be practical in this day age...

Sure, it isn't politically practical in your country. Feinstein's bill is currently marching its way to inevitable defeat in the House of Reps. Talking about a bill that bans all guns is a thing that just will not happen in the forseeable future.

The only point I was making was that a Federal ban would work in a way that a state ban won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.

In the wake of the last election 538 completed a study, showing how in the last decade Gallup's method had seen them produce increasingly unreliable figures, as more and more of the population isn't accessible by landline. Which is a problem, and one that becomes a really big problem when the population you aren't reaching are largely centred in one demographic.

The end result was that, despite Gallup being a respected name in polling and an organisation with a strong record of results, their accuracy in the last 3 federal elections was mediocre, with each worse than the one before it.

 sebster wrote:
And I'll point out to you that any belief that state level movements, which aren't even banning all guns, could somehow expand out to a complete ban at the national level is an absolute flight of fancy. There is, right now, only the scarcest of majorities in support of bans on assault weapons. And that's assault weapons - expand it out to all guns and that slight majority becomes a very small minority. And that's just at the popular level, without factoring in the structural advantage Republicans hold in the house or the amount of gun lobby funding spread across the whole of US politics.

So by all means, continue to believe that you have to fight because just around the corner there really could be a total ban on guns. Just realise that when you're fighting that fight, those of us who understand the basic arithmetic of politics will think you're exactly as sensible as the people fighting to stop the USA being taken over the by the UN.

And, as ever, we'll continue to care about the opinion of people who do not influence the politics of this country exactly as much as we do now. The fact of the matter is, the anti-gun movement has been using the exact same playbook as the anti-abortion movement for years; lies, ignorance, and, most importantly, a state approach involving incrementalism. When we have states like New York going from a 10-round cap to a 7-round cap - after trying for a 5-round cap with two mag limit - and it appearing as though several states are going to follow suit, that's not a non-issue simply because it didn't happen at the federal level.

Honestly, sebster, if that weren't the case, no one would particularly care what abortion laws Mississippi chooses to write unless they actually lived in Mississippi.

 Seaward wrote:
[ The fact of the matter is, the anti-gun movement has been using the exact same playbook as the anti-abortion movement for years; lies, ignorance, and, most importantly, a state approach involving incrementalism.

That's an interesting parallel to draw, between anti-gun and anti-abortion. I agree on incrementalism, and won't adress the other 2 - we won't agree so why bother - but it's interesting for another reason, in that the anti-abortion movement has been, by and large, losing.

 Ouze wrote:
That's an interesting parallel to draw, between anti-gun and anti-abortion. I agree on incrementalism, and won't adress the other 2 - we won't agree so why bother - but it's interesting for another reason, in that the anti-abortion movement has been, by and large, losing.

Well, the anti-gun movement had, by and large, been losing prior to 2012, too.

It's not a perfect analogue, but I find it useful. The main difference, I think, is that despite the pro-abortion lobby being just as dedicated to a "No compromise!" position as the pro-gun lobby, the pro-abortion lobby has managed to mainstream itself.

 Seaward wrote:
And, as ever, we'll continue to care about the opinion of people who do not influence the politics of this country exactly as much as we do now.

You shouldn't care about any individual opinion. Afterall, your own opinion is just 1/300,000,000 of the sum total of US opinions. And 1/300,000,000 is incredibly close to 0/300,000,000, which is the amount that my own opinion . So, basically, your own opinion is almost exactly as worthless as mine when it comes to contributing to the overall US political opinion, and should be just as readily ignored.

What you should care about are the numbers. And whether those numbers are posted from someone in the US or someone outside, they remain true. And recognising those numbers and using them to inform your understanding of the political environment is how you go from 'thinking stuff about politics and just expecting it's true because I think it' to 'having an informed opinion of the state of US politics'.

It's how for instance, despite living all the way over here, my statements about the US presidential election came true, while yours did not.

The fact of the matter is, the anti-gun movement has been using the exact same playbook as the anti-abortion movement for years; lies, ignorance, and, most importantly, a state approach involving incrementalism. When we have states like New York going from a 10-round cap to a 7-round cap - after trying for a 5-round cap with two mag limit - and it appearing as though several states are going to follow suit, that's not a non-issue simply because it didn't happen at the federal level.

They're not as bad as the anti-abortion movement, which has an vast number of professional hucksters and charlatans posting incredible stupidity on an almost daily basis, but they certainly share a few things in common, that's true. And that's a large part of why the bill put forward is focussed on things that just don't make any real world sense.

But you're living in an absolute fantasy land if you think the NRA works on a playbook with any less lies or ignorance. Which is why they sell their members on this fantasy of 'just around the corner, it's coming, they're going to ban all guns'.

Honestly, sebster, if that weren't the case, no one would particularly care what abortion laws Mississippi chooses to write unless they actually lived in Mississippi.

No, because people care about the welfare of human beings other than themselves. Its what we humans call empathy.

 sebster wrote:
They're not as bad as the anti-abortion movement, which has an vast number of professional hucksters and charlatans posting incredible stupidity on an almost daily basis, but they certainly share a few things in common, that's true. And that's a large part of why the bill put forward is focussed on things that just don't make any real world sense.

Oh, I profoundly disagree. I think they're just as bad, and they certainly have a vast number of professional hucksters and charlatans posting incredible stupidity on an almost daily basis. At least on the abortion issue, the pro-abortion side has a sympathetic media that won't hesitate to learn some basic facts and discredit the opposition, which is unfortunately not the case with guns.

But you're living in an absolute fantasy land if you think the NRA works on a playbook with any less lies or ignorance. Which is why they sell their members on this fantasy of 'just around the corner, it's coming, they're going to ban all guns'.

I don't think at any point that I've said the NRA represents everything good and rational, simply that they're the only lobby with the potential power to actually stand up to this, "Why on earth would anyone ever need more than two bullets in a gun?" nonsense. It'd be great if we could drop the rhetoric from both sides, but that's not happening, so I find the notion that I shouldn't support the side that most closely represents my views - even if they don't do it perfectly - unsound at best.

No, because people care about the welfare of human beings other than themselves. Its what we humans call empathy.

So it would seem there's at least some reason to care about state movements to incrementally ban guns, despite the fact that it's not a federal proposal yet.

I have read it. And what you just said is poppycock. Twaddle. Nonsense. ...
...The bill only looks at rifles...

Except that it is not. I strongly suggest you go back, and ACTUALLY read the text of the bill, rather than imagining that you did so. Here, I will make it easy for you:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

While you are correct it only (Currently) targets semi-autos, the statement that it only engages rifles is factually incorrect... at least according to the author of the bill. Everything from AK clones, most of the competition shotguns i've seen since I began shooting, to a competition .22 target pistol is hit by this. (Many of which either have a magazine outside of the grip for balance, and/or have a threaded barrel for a compensator or counterweight....as do many target pistols regardless of caliber.) Heck, some .22 rimfires were specifically banned, regardless of what "military features" it may or may not have.

Pretty much the ONLY people who won't be hit by this in some way are the folks who have a "dare" rifle, take it out once a year to shoot a deer five times, and then put it away again until the season comes back in, and of those a big portion just got hit because the Mini-14s were specifically banned by name.

I say again, I don't believe you understand how widespread this will be. I am however willing to consider your thoughts on the matter based on your experience with the shooting community over here, which I can only assume is extensive.

I missed that part of the discussion.

The AWB definitely does not cover only rifles. I'm not even sure how someone could get that impression.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Incidentally, New York's newly-passed AWB and mag capacity laws kind of forgot to exempt police officers from the seven-round restriction.

I don't understand what the guy at the end of the article means, though. You can't let criminals have more bullets? Isn't that what this law's for?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.

And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.

Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?

Because a State doesn't have actual borders like a country does? So bans are pretty much useless because you can smuggle whatever you want pretty easily? See dry laws and things like that.

We should try a federal ban on heroin and cocaine and illegal immigrants!

Oh wait...

At the state level, if someone brings guns (or any other comodity) into a state where they are illegal, they are obviously willing to break the law. That does not change when you make it a federal law. All it does is increase the burden on the tax payers and infringe on the rights of the people.

Blah blah blah...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So you admit that a majority is against guns!

The majority is generaly against freedom of speech and for free government stuff. The most popular Twitter account is Justin Bieber.
Its utterly irrelevant.

 d-usa wrote:
Blah blah blah...

So I take it you don't like the fact federal borders are not sacrosanct?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, So I know this is something we can all agree on. Guns should stay out of the hands of criminals and the mentally Ill right?
But the question is how do we go about implementing this. Licenses only keep honest people honest. We still have plenty of people who drive without a license.
The question is. How do we regulate guns to keep them out of the hands of those who should not wield them. Without infringing on the rights of those who do.

If you use a gun in a crime then we put you away...forever.

CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Blah blah blah...

So I take it you don't like the fact federal borders are not sacrosanct?

No, I just ignore the whole "blah blah blah nothing will work we should not do anything cause blah blah blah" argument.

If it doesn't stop 100% then we shouldn't do anything, I get it. Borders don't stop all heroin so we are just going to pretent that there wouldn't be even more drugs without borders. Because guns.

 Seaward wrote:
Oh, I profoundly disagree. I think they're just as bad, and they certainly have a vast number of professional hucksters and charlatans posting incredible stupidity on an almost daily basis. At least on the abortion issue, the pro-abortion side has a sympathetic media that won't hesitate to learn some basic facts and discredit the opposition, which is unfortunately not the case with guns.

Yeah, I agree that media knowledge about guns is terrible and they don't check the anti-gun claims anything like they should. Whereas they have some kind of medical knowledge and so pick up the crazy anti-abortion stuff... which is why the anti-abortion hucksters do all their best work outside of the mainstream media.

I don't think at any point that I've said the NRA represents everything good and rational, simply that they're the only lobby with the potential power to actually stand up to this, "Why on earth would anyone ever need more than two bullets in a gun?" nonsense. It'd be great if we could drop the rhetoric from both sides, but that's not happening, so I find the notion that I shouldn't support the side that most closely represents my views - even if they don't do it perfectly - unsound at best.

Which is fair, especially when it comes to the assault weapon ban - the NRA's desired outcome is the best outcome - no awb.

But the mistake would be to do just that and nothing else. To keep accepting the dodgy NRA stats, and to say nothing when they state their craziest nonsense. It is possible to work with a group and lobby for it to improve. And if guns are to end up with good legislation it may well be necessary.

So it would seem there's at least some reason to care about state movements to incrementally ban guns, despite the fact that it's not a federal proposal yet.

Absolutely. 'They ought to have guns in NY' is a perfectly sensible thing. I was just saying 'if they ban a gun then we're on the path to all guns being banned' is not.

 Mannahnin wrote:

1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.

I think it is when you look at the pool size. 1005 out of 315,000,000 (+spare change). So basically thats 1 out of every 300,000 individuals.

They needed to phone more people.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.

I think it is when you look at the pool size. 1005 out of 315,000,000 (+spare change). So basically thats 1 out of every 300,000 individuals.

They needed to phone more people.

Cheers

Andrew

Almost all polling is done on relatively the same sample size. The sheer logisitics involved in contacting tens to hundreds of thousands of people to produce a daily poll (such as the presidential tracker) would be redonkulous.