[mullingitover]

> hasn't done much to curb violent crime.

> they have to keep the boogeyman alive rather than admit that the policies have been a failure.

It's a documented, empirical fact that there is a marked correlation between common-sense gun laws and reduced rates of gun deaths.[1]

[1] https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

[tracker1]

Until knife killings start to rise (UK). Beyond this, I've seen several interventions of armed citizens stopping a crime in progress, when the police are still in route. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

My dad was ex-army, retired PD (detective, undercover) and a heavy 2A advocate. I grew up with guns around so it wasn't some weird, scary thing to see. I have many friends who also are heavy 2A who also grew up with guns in the home. It's first a matter of familiarity and second a matter of civil defense. I'm not a fan of "must flea" laws, and not a fan of restricting gun rights at all.

And yeah, if you can afford a tank and the ammo for it, as far as I'm concerned, you should be able to own and operate it. I would draw the line at nuclear weapons and materials.

[grantith]

I was with you until the whole tank thing.

Where's the line you're drawing between tanks + everything else up until nuclear weapons?

[maxlybbert]

It is, in fact, legal (but very expensive) to own a tank ( https://www.drivetanks.com/ , yes, that's a company, but a rich enough motivated person could fill out the same paperwork). Apparently each exploding shell is a NFA taxed destructive device ( https://youtu.be/GW2U0qORdLE ).

[tracker1]

Who do you think makes the tanks? It's typically corporations, but could just as easily be a person... It isn't a socialist/communist company doing the work.

It's pretty much already the case that people can have access to these weapons, I'm just being explicit.

[MostlyStable]

"documented, empirical fact"

I won't try to make as strong a claim as the person you are responding to, but unfortunately, the politicized nature of the topic makes research on gun violence, especially as it relates to gun laws in the US, extremely fraught. The vast majority of research articles are plagued with issues. One should not just blanket trust the research (in either direction, and there are definitely peer reviewed journal articles pointing in different directions).

The claim you responded to was too strong, but for similar reasons, yours is also far far too confident.

[ottah]

Same thing with anything in regards to drug use in the United States. Dr Carl Hart talks about how hard it is to get anything that doesn't show harm published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hart

[mullingitover]

I'm responding to someone making assertions with zero cites, and I cite a source. If anyone has a cite showing that loose gun policies results in lower rates of gun deaths, they're free to present that.

[MostlyStable]

I'm impugning the entire field of research, why would I then provide an opposing citation? My own claim should lead you to not trust it. I'm also not making any particular directional claim that would require such a citation.

I'm arguing that your statement, citation supported or otherwise, was stronger than I believe is warranted. You (correctly) criticized the original comment for making a stronger claim than they were able to support. You then technically did a better job in supporting your own claim (in the sense that you made any attempt to support it at all), but, in my opinion, you still made the same mistake of making a claim that was much stronger than warranted.

[antonvs]

> My own claim should lead you to not trust it.

Your own completely unsupported claim?

No, that's not how it works.

[MostlyStable]

I didn't say it was strong evidence or that one should just accept my claim, but regardless you have to agree it would be weird for me to say "the entire field is untrustworthy....but here is a paper anyways".

[antonvs]

Your entire position is weird. The claim that there isn't a single source worth citing strains credulity. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[AngryData]

I would dispute your source just by look at my own state, which has incredibly open gun laws, including free open carry and having had these laws since before anyone here was born, and a massive hunting population, and yet is claimed to be in the top half of strong gun laws. It is ranked significantly above Texas, and yet I know for a fact that my state has way more permissible gun laws than Texas, both historically and currently.

So I already know they are fudging the numbers, presumably because my state usually votes democrat and they want us to look good.

Hell its got Vermont as #17, but it has some of the highest gun ownership rates and most permissive gun laws in the nation.

[15155]

"a source" - You "cited" the most left-leaning, well-funded anti-gun lobby in the United States. Is that who passes for a "source" these days?

[mullingitover]

Attack the source as much as you like, it's not refuting the point in any way.

[ottah]

Isn't the validity and credibility of the source critical to it being supportive of your argument? Seems like a reasonable counter-argument in my opinion.

[mullingitover]

I provided a source, and so far all those who’ve disagreed have only provided opinions. No one has cited anything that contradicts my source, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the validity and credibility of my source has been impeached. ‘I don’t like it’ is not a valid criticism of a source.

[Brian_K_White]

Not only the source, but the specific repoprting has been refuted already by others.

So you have failed to present an argument, and then continued to fail to support it. So all you have done is express an opinion. Those are fine and allowed, but of no significance to anyone else.

[bigbuppo]

Do you have a source that isn't the anti-pickle alliance's statistics on anti-pickle laws proving why you should implement their anti-pickle laws?

[themafia]

"gun deaths."

You ever wonder _why_ they state the problem in such an abstract way?

It's because that statistic is an abstract itself. It combines, in my view inappropriately, suicide, murders, and accidental injuries.

There are 2x as many suicides every year over murders.

Anyone bandying about the "gun deaths" statistic has either been misled or is attempting to mislead others.

[tracker1]

Not only that, the vast majority of gun related killings are with handguns, but they keep trying to outlaw the "scary" rifles.

[bombcar]

The most common gun death is suicide so that tracks pretty well.

But I doubt most people count suicide as “violent crime”.

[kevin_thibedeau]

They do get included by anti-gun people who want to pump up the numbers. You can't trust anything but the government statistics broken out by type of death.

[mulmen]

“Common sense” is a red flag for me. Obama (who I voted for twice, don’t come at me) pitched revoking second amendment rights for people on the Do Not Fly list as “common sense”. My common sense says we shouldn’t use a secret, extrajudicial government watch list with documented problems with false positives to revoke constitutional rights.

[15155]

"Common sense" is an oft-used tactic in this space: if what I am pushing is common sense, whatever you are pushing is senseless.

[wagwang]

Garbage methodology, state by state policies need to use something like a difference in difference study measure actual effect sizing

[delaminator]

It's also a documented empirical fact that arresting the criminals in DC has reduced shootings to virtually zero.

[noosphr]

https://www.criminalattorneycincinnati.com/comparing-gun-con...

Yet another lie by ommision. Violent deaths by guns have no relation to strength of gun laws. What your link measures is the number of accidental deaths by guns. If gun owners want to kill themselves it's not my job to keep them safe.

[mullingitover]

> If gun owners want to kill themselves it's not my job to keep them safe.

Not so fun fact, the person most likely to be killed by a gun in your home is you.

Some places deal with that reality head on, and it has an outcome that a lot of people are okay with.

[tracker1]

Well, Canada is trying to keep guns away from you but is also perfectly willing to help you kill yourself.

[15155]

> Not so fun fact, the person most likely to be killed by a gun in your home is you.

No shit: people commit suicide (which your "statistic" you lifted from Everytown, Giffords, or VPC - anti-gun lobbies includes.)

Suicidal people aren't a valid reason for my rights to be restricted, sorry.

[mullingitover]

> Suicidal people aren't a valid reason for my rights to be restricted, sorry.

You also have a right to travel around the country, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to drink and drive. There are plenty of valid, constitutional reasons for firearm ownership to be restricted to qualified individuals. When these restrictions are in place, many fewer people die. It is what it is.

[tracker1]

According to the first militia act, every able bodied male over 18 is what defines a qualified individual. Beyond that, you're actually required to own a firearm in that case.

[15155]

Can you show me where the right to drive a car is Constitutionally-protected?

Also, what a shitty analogy: suicide is by definition a self-harmful act, DUI is almost always a socially-harmful act on its own.

(And in many states, you can DUI on private property, by the way.)

[mullingitover]

> Also, what a shitty analogy: suicide is by definition a self-harmful act, DUI is almost always a socially-harmful act on its own.

"59% of people who died in crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers in 2022 were the alcohol-impaired drivers themselves"[1]

Also, people who commit suicide with their firearms typically have families who suffer.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/impaired-driving/facts/index.html