CATO Institute Sells Out RKBA

[TommyGunn]

Whenever someone (present company included) starts preaching about "gun violence" or "gun crimes", you can be certain that they don't really give a damn about the violence or the crimes, all they care about is the guns.

So you don't think anyone could honestly believe gun regulations might reduce deaths, and prioritise that over gun rights?

This is not even straw man territory - that's a straw clown you constructed there

I think what zxcvbob means is "gun control" is really about "people control."    Perhaps you've lived in Oz so long you don't remember what American politicians are like. 
Or maybe you just trust Oz politicians more than you should.....

[Perd Hapley]

So you don't think anyone could honestly believe gun regulations might reduce deaths, and prioritise that over gun rights?

This is not even straw man territory - that's a straw clown you constructed there

What he means is that those people are focused on guns, and ignoring the violence done by other means. Ironically, I think you just set up a straw man of your own, there.

[zxcvbob]

So you don't think anyone could honestly believe gun regulations might reduce deaths, and prioritise that over gun rights?

This is not even straw man territory - that's a straw clown you constructed there

No I don't.  If they did, they would be talking about reducing crime in general and guns might be a part of it. Instead, they (you) specifically talk about "gun crime", and the only possible solution is taking the guns away from the people that are not the problem

[De Selby]

What he means is that those people are focused on guns, and ignoring the violence done by other means. Ironically, I think you just set up a straw man of your own, there.

Except the evidence I posted is about overall declines in violence, and to maintain that gun controllers don't care about total violence is just ridiculous.

[Perd Hapley]

Except the evidence I posted is about overall declines in violence, and to maintain that gun controllers don't care about total violence is just ridiculous.

You'll have to take that up with the clown.

[RoadKingLarry]

You'll have to take that up with the clown.

So....he's gonna talk to himself?

[Hawkmoon]

So you don't think anyone could honestly believe gun regulations might reduce deaths, and prioritise that over gun rights?

Only someone who is incredibly naive.

Me, I wouldn't consider a nationally uniform and convenient to use licence monstrous compared to what we have now.

You're an ex-patriot, Mate. What's this "we" stuff? You are not part of "we" any more. You don't even spell "license" the way "we" do.

[Ron]

Isn't the issue who is committing the disproportionate share of firearms related crime?

Why argue about the natural right to own firearms for sustenance and self defense when that right is not the cause of firearm violence?

Arguing for or against gun control is ceding the choice of the field of battle to the enemy.

The true field of battle is "who is committing the firearm crimes, where can we find these people concentrated and what can be done to control them?"

Gun control, to borrow a phrase, is a solution in search of a problem.  

[MechAg94]

Isn't the issue who is committing the disproportionate share of firearms related crime?

Why argue about the natural right to own firearms for sustenance and self defense when that right is not the cause of firearm violence?

Arguing for or against gun control is ceding the choice of the field of battle to the enemy.

The true field of battle is "who is committing the firearm crimes, where can we find these people concentrated and what can be done to control them?"

Gun control, to borrow a phrase, is a solution in search of a problem.  

Agreed.  Criminal Control is rarely a subject of discussion.  Of course, that is largely because the stupid and often draconian steps politicians want to take to effect criminal control can't seem to tell the difference between criminals and everyone else.  Since everyone else is a much larger number of people, we end up talking about natural rights again.

[birdman]

Here's a peer reviewed study

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

Using your data:
So the homicide rate in Australia went from 0.95 to 0.4 (58% lower) 1995-2006, and the suicide rate went from 5.25 to 3, (43% lower)
While in the US, it went from 11 to 10 for suicide (same period) and 7.4 to 5.7 homicide (23% reduction)

HOWEVER, your own home office's data:
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html
Contradicts your source and yields the following
Year. Murder+ manslaughter
1995 2
2006 1.6
2013 1.4
(Manslaughter is 0.2 for all three points, so feel free to remove if you want to tweak)
That means a reduction (relative to 2005) of 20% by 2006, and 30% by 2013.

In the US, the homicide+negligent manslaughter rate was the following
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls
1995 8.2
2006 5.7
2013 4.5
Or a reduction (relative to 1995) of 30.5% by 2006, and 45% by 2013.

So over the same time period, EVEN THOUGH Oz heavily restricted firearms, while the US not only added substantially to the inventory, but dramatically REDUCED firearm restrictions...our murder rate has fallen by more than yours.

Hell, even if you assume ALL murder in the US is firearm, the Oz firearm homicide rate went from 0.35 to 0.15 in 1995-2006, (55%) while ours dropped by 30.5%...(note, that the current stat for 2013 is basically the same as 2006, so we achieved 45% while you achieved 55-60%), meaning with basically COMPLETE OPPOSITE methods, the overall reductions were...comparable in terms of firearm deaths, and we actually did BETTER in terms of overall homicide deaths.

So while correlation doesn't imply causation, it IS required for causation.

So what this means is:
Interpersonal violence fell from 1995-2013 effectively across the entire developed world, regardless of firearm laws.
Violence fell by a greater degree in the US vs {Australia, the U.K. Etc, countries which went the "less guns route} even though we went the less restrictions and more guns route.

What this tells me is if you attribute -any- of the crime reduction to lower firearm ownership, you have no proverbial leg to stand on...at least statistically.

And...lawyered
<drops mic>

[Scout26]

This is terrible reasoning.  "Chicago's very different gun laws in a country where cash private purchases are legal all over don't seem to affect murder rates.  Therefore the academic piece on guns in Oz is questionable."

BZZZZZZZTTTTTTT. 

WRONG !!!!!!


Illinois requires that each and every sale (even between private citizens) be called into to the state version of NCIS, to make sure that their Magic Firearm Card is valid.   Not that they are keeping track or anything....

https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Firearms/FOID/PersonToPersonFirearmTransfer.aspx



The relevant statue is quoted at the top of the webpage.

[birdman]

BZZZZZZZTTTTTTT. 

WRONG !!!!!!


Illinois requires that each and every sale (even between private citizens) be called into to the state version of NCIS, to make sure that their Magic Firearm Card is valid.   Not that they are keeping track or anything....

https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Firearms/FOID/PersonToPersonFirearmTransfer.aspx



The relevant statue is quoted at the top of the webpage.

I think he means in the whole country...he is forgetting of course that is is illegal (already) to purchase a handgun face to face from a private seller in a state not your own (same with long guns)
So the fact that the rest of the country may have less restrictive laws doesn't change your point...

[De Selby]

I think he means in the whole country...he is forgetting of course that is is illegal (already) to purchase a handgun face to face from a private seller in a state not your own (same with long guns)
So the fact that the rest of the country may have less restrictive laws doesn't change your point...

No, I'm not forgetting it - I'm pointing out that there's no effective way of preventing a criminal end running the Chicago law by just buying privately elsewhere.  That's just red tape that stops honest people from moving and purchasing guns across state lines, which is one of things I think we could easily improve on with a national scheme.

[Perd Hapley]

No, I'm not forgetting it - I'm pointing out that there's no effective way of preventing a criminal end running the Chicago law by just buying privately elsewhere. 

Wouldn't that also be illegal?

[Jim147]

Yes that is already illegal so damn we must need more laws.

[De Selby]

Using your data:
So the homicide rate in Australia went from 0.95 to 0.4 (58% lower) 1995-2006, and the suicide rate went from 5.25 to 3, (43% lower)
While in the US, it went from 11 to 10 for suicide (same period) and 7.4 to 5.7 homicide (23% reduction)

HOWEVER, your own home office's data:
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html
Contradicts your source and yields the following
Year. Murder+ manslaughter
1995 2
2006 1.6
2013 1.4
(Manslaughter is 0.2 for all three points, so feel free to remove if you want to tweak)
That means a reduction (relative to 2005) of 20% by 2006, and 30% by 2013.

In the US, the homicide+negligent manslaughter rate was the following
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls
1995 8.2
2006 5.7
2013 4.5
Or a reduction (relative to 1995) of 30.5% by 2006, and 45% by 2013.

So over the same time period, EVEN THOUGH Oz heavily restricted firearms, while the US not only added substantially to the inventory, but dramatically REDUCED firearm restrictions...our murder rate has fallen by more than yours.

Hell, even if you assume ALL murder in the US is firearm, the Oz firearm homicide rate went from 0.35 to 0.15 in 1995-2006, (55%) while ours dropped by 30.5%...(note, that the current stat for 2013 is basically the same as 2006, so we achieved 45% while you achieved 55-60%), meaning with basically COMPLETE OPPOSITE methods, the overall reductions were...comparable in terms of firearm deaths, and we actually did BETTER in terms of overall homicide deaths.

So while correlation doesn't imply causation, it IS required for causation.

So what this means is:
Interpersonal violence fell from 1995-2013 effectively across the entire developed world, regardless of firearm laws.
Violence fell by a greater degree in the US vs {Australia, the U.K. Etc, countries which went the "less guns route} even though we went the less restrictions and more guns route.

What this tells me is if you attribute -any- of the crime reduction to lower firearm ownership, you have no proverbial leg to stand on...at least statistically.

And...lawyered
<drops mic>

You do realise there's an entire section devoted to explaining how they separated gun buyback effects from overall trends? (They did so by comparing differences in buyback results between different states).

It looks like you just looked at the results table and then quoted some other data.  Maybe you are right, but you should probably comment on their discussion of how they controlled for overall trends.

[De Selby]

Wouldn't that also be illegal?

Yes it would.  So what?  It's impossible to enforce and hence only a burden on law abiding people, which is why I'd do away with it.

By contrast, having a national licence that any person wishing to sell a gun could recognise and verify would make it far, far easier for private sellers to avoid selling to prohibited people.  State by state restrictions wouldn't add anything.  Tracing guns back to the person who sold them (or revoking the licence for people who get caught funnelling guns to crooks) is over time far more likely to be effective at preventing criminal purchase.

My point here is that a far more effective method of controlling access by criminals can be introduced with better convenience to gun owners.

[Jim147]

So you think all the crooks would suddenly start showing a card to buy their weapons?

[De Selby]

So you think all the crooks would suddenly start showing a card to buy their weapons?

No, I think that people who bought guns legitimately would not sell to people without a card.  There's one avenue for effectively preventing access by criminals.

If their only avenue becomes people who can be caught and cut out of the licensing scheme, or smuggled imports, that's a plus.  It's better than what we do now.

You could also greatly simplify the lives of gun owners by getting rid of the possession rules that vary across states and just making having the card good enough.  Then it's a very simple way for gun owners to know they're right or not.

[Hawkmoon]

I think he means in the whole country...he is forgetting of course that is is illegal (already) to purchase a handgun face to face from a private seller in a state not your own (same with long guns)
So the fact that the rest of the country may have less restrictive laws doesn't change your point...

Some other states, in addition to Illinois, also require state permission for any transfer of a firearm.

Naturally, the gang-bangers have the state police transfer approval desk on speed dial ...

[Hawkmoon]

Yes it would.  So what?  It's impossible to enforce and hence only a burden on law abiding people, which is why I'd do away with it.

By contrast, having a national licence that any person wishing to sell a gun could recognise and verify would make it far, far easier for private sellers to avoid selling to prohibited people.

Any requirement for a license or permit is a burden on law-abiding people. I fail to see how a national license could possibly make it any easier to avoid selling to a prohibited person. Every state except Vermont issues licenses -- if anyone who is selling a firearm wants to ensure that a buyer is not a prohibited person, all they have to do is ask to see the buyer's carry permit/license. Granted, not everyone has a carry permit/license. But you didn't propose making your national license mandatory, so your proposal accomplishes ... nothing. (Other than allowing the federal government to stick their fingers in yet another pie where they don't belong.)

[De Selby]

Any requirement for a license or permit is a burden on law-abiding people. I fail to see how a national license could possibly make it any easier to avoid selling to a prohibited person. Every state except Vermont issues licenses -- if anyone who is selling a firearm wants to ensure that a buyer is not a prohibited person, all they have to do is ask to see the buyer's carry permit/license. Granted, not everyone has a carry permit/license. But you didn't propose making your national license mandatory, so your proposal accomplishes ... nothing. (Other than allowing the federal government to stick their fingers in yet another pie where they don't belong.)

I thought it was obvious that the point was for it to be mandatory

[Boomhauer]

I thought it was obvious that the point was for it to be mandatory

I think I prefer the system I have now which is not compulsory to have a license to buy and sell privately.

[De Selby]

I think I prefer the system I have now which is not compulsory to have a license to buy and sell privately.

What do you see as the advantage?

[Nick1911]

Are legal owners selling to prohibited persons a significant enough use case by which firearms end up involved in the commission of crimes to justify such a system?