The REAL Reason the Hard Left Supports Gun Control

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Ethereal, Jan 26, 2019.

  1. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is not relevant to the discussion. The united states is not similar to any other nation in the world, and thus cannot be compared to them.

    Thus, once again, ignoring that the problem lays with the individual, not the implement. Or is it going to be claimed on the part of yourself that Nikolas Cruz was a fine, morally upstanding individual who did not pose a risk to anyone, despite the claims to the contrary.

    It is neither hand wringing nor whining to acknowledge the futility of a proposal. Rather it is simply a matter of being smart.
     
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because there is no point in implementing a useless proposal just to see what happens, when there is no effective way of eliminating the proposal when it proves itself to be useless.
     
    Rucker61 likes this.
  3. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please explain how a UBC can be enforced.
     
    Well Bonded likes this.
  4. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    GCAs know well the only means of enforcement, which if they can get buy-in by dishonestly selling UBCs, is their next step, asking for the missing piece.
     
  5. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are enforced all over the world
     
  6. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We would not be inventing the wheel. Many countries do this already
     
  7. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not without registration and won’t solve strawbuyer purchases that aren’t being enforced, nor those rejected by BC’s that aren’t being prosecuted now or stop other criminal means of acquiring guns.
    I’ve spent years in places like the EU and south of the border; anyone really wanting a gun can get one, in many ways, easier than here.
     
  8. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is nowhere easier to get a gun than the US
     
  9. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How would you know? I have done so both in the EU and South of the border, not only pistols, but full auto weapons... no BCs and no questions.
     
  10. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude I am in Thailand right now and have traveled all over the world.

    What can be easier than shopping on armslist?
     
  11. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Making a phone call.
     
  12. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I dont know how to do that to get a gun anywhere but the US. Almost everyone is like me not you
     
  13. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The above is incorrect, a major component of marketing is ‘demand' marketing. This is the process by which marketers get people excited about a new brand or product for the sole purpose of raising its social profile and generating demand.

    The advertising and marketing (of a good) have primarily one goal and one goal only - to maintain or increase the market share of the product being advertised thereby increasing the profit of the company selling the good in question. If this is not true why do companies spend billions off dollars a year on market research, advertising and marketing? It's certainly not out of a need to satisfy their burning social consciousness.

    Firstly 'best practice' is in all situations is empirical, not relative. It is based on hard evidence. The 'rules' encompassing safe firearm storage and handling are based on hard evidence. They are adopted because they work - or rather they are adopted because failing to do so results in casualties.

    Secondly the above statement only applies if you argue that you cannot both secure a weapon and access it quickly. This is incorrect the two are not mutually exclusive. If self defence is a key motivator then there are host of rapid access firearm lockers/safes both mobile and static available on the US market. If the self defense situation really is so critical that immediate access is required then the weapon needs to worn/carried during he period concerned - assuming he average civilian can maintain situational awareness for long enough to actually use the weapon effectively when the need arises. And in any case the stats on civilian 'self defence' shootings as a proportion of the total number of firearm incidents in the US are woefully small.

    All true but the the type of weapon used does not detract from the need for responsible use as previosuly discussed.

    Its not the fault of the owner if their car is stolen either. That doesn’t mean leaving the keys in the ignition is smart or responsible. It’s not legally my fault if my home is burgled while I’m out of town but just happen to have decided to leave the front door open and post a note on saying how long I’ll be gone. There is legal ‘fault’ and there is stupidity, lack of responsibility and carelessness.

    Perhaps but from personal experience over here public health campaigns (and that is what we are talking about) work. Doesn't matter if it's anti-smoking, breast cancer, pool safety or mental health - they all have an impact on death rates over time. Not because people here are sheep but because when confronted with clear facts and choices, people over time will decide to modify their behaviors out of self interest. I can't speak to how successful or even how often such campaigns are used in the US but around the rest of the world they can be and often are highly effective given time.

    Of course the owners of property are not complicit in a crime committed with that property (unless they actively see to aid and abet the offence by voluntarily handing over the item involved.

    Referencing the car key analogy above again it may not be the owners ‘fault’ in the strict and absolute meaning of the word but that does not mean choosing to leave the keys in the car is a socially responsible course of action.

    It never fails to amaze me that on the both the far right and far left of society there are people who will always be among the first to demand their 'rights' while at the same time also also being the first to disavow any sense of responsibility for their actions.

    Does not have to be if the campaigns focus on public health issues not 'rights and wrongs'.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2019
  14. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps for a single product. But most certainly not in the manner that has been seen as the shift in focus has moved from firearms for sporting purposes, to defensive purposes. To conclude the above occurred purely because manufacturers were operating on assumptions, rather than taking note of shifting public interests, would be illogical. The Volkswagon manufacturing company is certainly not engaged in the acquisition of machinery to enable the production of bicycles because more individuals are interested in alternative transportation.

    It is called situational awareness. Either one has it, or they do not. There is no sense investing significant resources into the production of an entirely new product if the market is simply not interested in the new product. Focusing on market trends through research, is far different from investing the necessary funding for the production of new machinery and tools to produce a product that does not yet exist.

    The above is ultimately nothing more than an assumption. What qualifies as "best practice" is indeed relative, as there are few situations where a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate for everyone in every situation. One who lives alone does not need to observe the same operational procedures as one who has numerous children who cannot be controlled.

    Ultimately such does not matter. The Heller ruling is legally binding, and any measure that requires a firearm kept in a manner that renders it inaccessible for immediate self defense, especially within the confines of the home, is unconstitutional.

    Has such even been suggested in this ongoing discussion? If so then point it out.

    And an individual choosing not to lock their firearms in a safe counts as none of the above. Even if it can be concluded as being one of the above, it is ultimately a decision that must be made by the individual, rather than being made for the individual by someone far removed from the situation simply because it sounds good to them under different circumstances.

    The problem with such a strategy, treating private firearms ownership as a public health issue, is that the only course of action available would be to advise the public to not exercise their constitutional rights, which transforms it from a matter of a public health campaign, to a political advocacy effort, and would be no different than telling the public to refrain from exercising their first amendment rights to criticize Donald Trump as president of the united states.

    Beyond that matter, unlike tobacco products, there are those who believe owning a firearm is indeed in their own self interest and will not refrain from such. It it seen in those who can legally own a firearm, just as it is seen in those who cannot legally possess a firearm but choose to do so regardless.

    Just as it is not socially responsible to repeatedly release career criminals back into society where they pose the most risk, after they have demonstrated repeatedly that they simply will not abide by the rules of society for any reason. Eventually the focus needs to stop being on the ones who do not actually have the criminal record and/or connections.

    Exactly what disavowment of responsibility is being suggested in this particular case?

    Which, once again, would be nothing more than imploring members of the public to simply refrain from exercising their constitutional rights.
     
  15. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All products sold on the market are single products. VW doesn’t sell a single product ‘cars’ it’s market is divided into numerous different subcategories, Family, SUV, sports , Light industrial etc. And all companies including firearm manufacturers research the market looking for opportunities. Once identified they then develop a product to fill that opportunity which is then ‘targeted’ at the consumer segment concerned via persuasive marketing.

    Situational awareness leads people to pay attention to be broadly interested in the type of product, be it home entertainment, fashion, or guns that they have an interest in to begin with. It causes them to frequent suppliers of those goods. It does not lead them straight to the counter to buy a specific product over all others. That last stage is sales and marketing.

    I did stress use the term rapid access when referring to firearm lockers/safes. And it is not unconstitutional to use such safety measures it is unconstitutional to force firearm owners to use them. They can elect to use them or not, ideally based on a best practice choice. For that matter they can also educate themselves or be educated in best practice firearm handling techniques which would lead to a reduction in firearm accidents as well.

    It doesn’t have to be implied it is clearly demonstrated by US gun casualty statistics.

    If it's OK to market firearms in a particular manner then it is also OK to market ideas on how they should be stored and handled. Nothing forces a US citizen to watch or read an add promoting the purchase of a particular firearm. And no-one makes them decide to purchase it either, they do that themselves. Likewise nothing forces a gun owner them to watch/read/listen to a firearm safety campaign. They will also decide for themselves whether or not to act on the advice in that campaign.Some will, some won't.

    Nowhere was it suggested that they not exercise their right to own firearms. And you are adopting an ‘absolutist’ argument by suggesting it i.e. any discussion about voluntary change is automatically a breach of constitution rights. You fail to acknowledge the difference between exercising a right and choosing how to exercise it. All American citizens have a right to vote. Whether or not they exercise that right is a choice they make for themselves, as is how (who) they choose to vote for. And politicians and political parties spend a great deal of money every election trying to influence that decision. Which is a far less appealing prospect than a public health campaign directed at a major cost to the US economy and the health of its citizens. Also I would note that Donald’s supporters are always telling US citizens to refrain from criticizing the Trumpster.

    And there are of course smokers who will adopt exactly the same argument about their use of tobacco. Nowhere did I suggest a public health campaign would solve the problem. Thee would always be a % of firearm owners who 'opt out' of the message just as there are smokers. That doesn't mean an education campaign would not reduce the scale of the problem.

    To accurately answer the first part of your statement would require figures as to what % of gun crime is caused by repeat offenders as opposed to ‘first time’ offenders. And by first time offenders in this instance I means those arrested for their first serious (injury inflicting) firearm offense as opposed to their first ever arrest. And I don’t have those at hand at this time.

    However given the penalties for such offenses I suspect a large % of gun crime (at least those involving death or serious injury) are ‘first timers’ because the other will be serving lengthy sentences. (I'm sure you could point to exceptions but exceptions don't do to the core of the argument.)

    As for the release of career criminals I’m afraid you can’t put forward constitutional rights as a blanket argument opposing any kind of firearms reform while at the same time opposing access to those same rights by others. The governments elected under your constitution and the courts established by them set the sentences. Not to mention the already huge cost placed on the taxpayer by the US prison system as it stands. Again though this is a matter for the US.

    The widespread failure of many US firearms owners to securely store or handle their firearms properly - as demonstrated by US gun fatality and injury statistics.

    Again - not refrain from the excise of their rights, instead changing the manner in which at least a proportion of US citizens choose (that word again) to exercise those rights.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2019
  16. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meaning that the desire for certain products existed before the aforementioned new product was built and marketed. Just as was being stated on the part of myself.

    Situational awareness as the purchaser differs from situational awareness as the producer or distributor.

    And if the public concludes that the best available practice is to dispense with safe storage measures, simply because a significant portion believes it has no actual need for such, the measure goes unused, just as is being done today, even in states where such storage is actually mandated by law.

    The majority of firearm-related deaths in the united states are a matter of suicide, meaning someone has concluded that they no longer wish to continue existing. That is ultimately their decision to make, and it is not the place of yourself, myself, or any elected politician to claim to have better judgement than the individual that wishes to end their own existence.

    The prospect being entirely on a voluntary basis is not the problem. The problem stems from politicians deciding to mandate the matter in a one-size-fits-all approach to law, thus taking the decision away from the public who must actually abide by such.

    Do public health campaigns seek to encourage as many individuals as possible from refraining in a particular behavior that is known to have a negative impact on health?

    Such is ultimately why it is being noted that treating privately owned firearms as a public health issue, would be nothing more than political advocacy as those targeted would be advised to not own firearms, which is no different than telling the targeted members of the public to refrain from exercising their constitutional rights.

    It such an attempt were made, to advocate for safe storage standards, it would also be necessary to inform the public of the Heller precedent holding that they can neither be required to store firearms in a safe manner, nor can they legally be punished for failing to do such.

    Is a perceived one tenth of one percent reduction a worthwhile result? Or is it nothing more than a waste of finite resources?

    According to the findings by the FBI, eighty percent of all non-suicide, firearm-related incidents in the united states that lead to a victim are perpetrated by an individual who is already a known criminal. Not simply known by having been arrested for misdemeanor offenses, but rather disqualifying felony offenses that legally prohibit them from owning, acquiring, or otherwise possessing a firearm.

    The above operates under the assumption that the one being addressed is a citizen of the united states. No personally identifying information that would confirm or deny such an assumption has ever been presented, as it is irrelevant to the discussion.

    That detail aside, what is the cost to the taxpayers who must pay for a new trial every time a previously convicted career criminal is caught in the commission of a new serious offense, and must be retried all over again?

    Explain. How exactly is such regarded as being evidence of a disavowment of responsibility?

    How exactly is such any different from the assessment that was presented?
     
  17. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to CDC data, the unintentional firearm death rate has fallen 80% since 1981.

    Is there any actual opposition to these marketing efforts? I'm pretty sure every safe and cabinet company is marketing all they can to sell their product.

    Project Childsafe ads pop into my Facebook feed multiple times each week.

    How would you feel about tax incentives for purchasing gun safes?
     
    Ddyad and 6Gunner like this.
  18. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A desire to purchase a class of products exists – in this case firearms. The producer must persuade the consumer to purchase a specific product in that class by marketing it. The producer has to make a conscious decision to push the item at the consumer.

    The fact that a buyers awareness differs from a sellers or producers is irrelevant to the process, the awareness of all participants need to intersect for a sale to occur. Marketing's job is to encourage that sale on behalf of the seller. And since the seller can’t go to the buyer (outside of advertising) they have to encourage the buyer in.

    If the public concludes. That is an assumption not a fact, an argument that something should not be attempted because the final outcome is unknown. Gun manufactures don’t ‘know’ that new products will be popular yet they still market them. Likewise the record of well-planned public health campaigns (which at the end of the day use the same mechanic as firearm marketing campaigns) is good. The position can’t be that it’s OK for one side to ‘market’ itself but not the other.

    Which might be fine if you assume that all suicides are of sound mind at the time they make the decision to end their lives. The vast majority are not. They are suffering from recognized medical conditions i.e. depression that, in the majority of cases are treatable. But leaving that aside you are assuming that the person using the firearm to commit suicide is the owner rather than a member of the family (say a depressed teenager) who has access to the firearm because they reside with the owner who in turn can’t be bothered securing it properly.

    I don’t understand your point. What law? A decision is made to run a long term professionally designed public health campaign does not require the passing of any law (expect perhaps in relation to financing) and places no legislative burden on the firearm owner. As for ‘one size fits all’ again all public health campaigns do is lay out options – and potential consequences the consumer decides if the measures being recommended are appropriate.

    Where is it written that a campaign would say ‘don’t buy guns’ that would be entirely at cross purposes with the stated intention which is to change habits around the handling and storage or firearms. And Heller is a non-starter, either tell people specifically about it or just make it clear they can continue to leave them unsecured - but point to the potential consequences.

    Why assume so small a percentage in the first place - you are in effect falling back on an entrenched ‘it won’t work so don’t try it’ argument.

    The above operates under the assumption that the one being addressed is a citizen of the united states. No personally identifying information that would confirm or deny such an assumption has ever been presented, as it is irrelevant to the discussion.

    That detail aside, what is the cost to the taxpayers who must pay for a new trial every time a previously convicted career criminal is caught in the commission of a new serious offense, and must be retried all over again?[/QUOTE]

    Please read my previous response more carefully, I didn’t say anything about misdemeanor offenses. In essence I stated that criminals who use firearms to commit violent crimes, once caught are incarcerated for lengthy periods. And the cost of a trial is far outweighed by the cost of even a medium length term of incarceration. In effect they are removed from the ‘queue’ and replaced by the next felon in line who hasn’t yet used a firearm to commit violence. So in the absence of either a) and army of trained psychics or B) a fleet of time machines you cannot stop them doing so unless the whole black market/ leakage issue is dealt with.

    Err… sorry I don’t understand your first point - are you referring to illegal aliens? Because if so they commit only a tiny percentage off the violent crime in the US. Most of your violent criminals (like ours) are citizens. And my point was that while you (correctly point to the protections to gun ownership granted by the Constitution. You cannot then complain - if that was your intention that the government fails to lock up criminals indefinitely which would also be a breach of the Constitution - for most of the criminal population. Even if was practicable.

    Sorry what assessment?
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2019
  19. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One company producing its own AR-15 for sale in a market full of similar rifles is hardly the introduction of a new concept. If one looks closely at available firearms, one will see little variance in the offered goods outside of appearance. Nearly everything available conforms to certain standards of operation, caliber, platform type, and the like. One firearm manufacturer introducing its own take on the tried and true semi-automatic pistol chambered for the 9mm cartridge is far from the manufacturer deciding to enter a brand new market that does not yet exist. It is not a matter of setting a trend, but rather following a trend.

    Perhaps such is the case. But the marketing staff of various firearm manufacturers is not the reason for current trends of defensive firearms as opposed to firearms suited primarily for sporting purposes. Rather that fault lies with the consumer that created the demand for such.

    First, a requirement that is unenforceable is devoid of reason for even being proposed in the first place.

    Second, exactly what is involved with public health campaigns? Elaborate on such.

    Then the individual who does own the firearm will simply have to live with the knowledge of the consequences of their actions. They will either do better the next time around, or they will be incapable of handling the stress and guilt of their inaction and end their own existence in turn. Actions have consequences, and those who cannot act in a reasonable manner will have to face said consequences for said actions, as is the nature of the real world.

    Mandatory child access prevention laws that in exist in various states in the united states, requiring the firearms be stored in a secure manner that renders them inaccessible to a minor. All unconstitutional in the wake of the Heller ruling, but still in place because the states and lower courts have so far refused to actually recognize Heller as being legitimate or binding.

    Would such not ultimately be better carried out by the advertisement of the manufacturers of firearm safes, who advertise their products right alongside the firearm manufacturers themselves?

    It is being questioned, exactly how many lives must actually be saved by any particular piece of legislation, or public health campaign, or marketing effort, for the matter to be considered successful? No matter which organization attempts what, there are finite resources at their disposal to utilize. If there is no significant measurable change that can be documented from the efforts, then the efforts are deemed a failure and the resources are essentially wasted on addressing those who have no interest in accepting the message.

    It is being misunderstood. It is not the question of the cost of a single trial compared to a lengthy incarceration. Rather it is a question of the cost of a new trial for the same individual each time they are released, subsequently re-offend, must be retried in a court of law, and subsequently re-sentenced for their new offense. It does indeed happen in the united states, as murderers rarely ever serve the full duration of their sentences.

    A supposed disavowment of responsibility by firearm owners was referred to on the part of yourself. So now it is being questioned just what this supposed disavowment of responsibility actually entails to demonstrate its validity. What actions have been demonstrated on the part of firearm owners to suggest they have no interest in being responsible, and rather wish to act in a reckless, dangerous manner that puts others a the risk of harm?

    The assessment of what a public health campaign relating to firearms would involve.[/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2019
  20. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    meanwhile Conservatives want to criminalize abortion, make all drug use illegal again, ban assisted-suicide for the terminally ill, monitor mosques.

    sounds like you guys have some authoritarian motives as well.
     
  21. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All pro-2A people aren't conservatives or Conservatives.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  22. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    most are
     
  23. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wide brush you're painting with there. You were okay until you conflated the pro-2A folks here with all Conservatives.
     
  24. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And here is one of those odd moments when you and I find common ground.
     
  25. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All new products are marketed as new or better concepts. Whether its breakfast cereals with added ‘this’ or TVs with improved ‘that’ or firearms with 'high tech' X. And there doesn’t need to be much variation between competing products either - most of the time its all in the marketing. For example Ford, Chrysler and other car makers introduce ‘new’ model SUV’s onto the market every year, they are all targeting exactly the same market segment and they all come up with reasons to suggest their model is ‘better’ than their competitors. (With greater or lesser effect depending on how successful the marketing is.) Same thing applies to firearms. When did you ever hear anyone manufacturing a 'new product' try to sell it by saying ‘this is exactly the same as the crap we sold you last year in a new cover'? Even if it was true.

    Market demand for any product is not binary i.e its never all consumer d riven and its never all ‘push’ from the manufacturer. It’s a combination of both. Yes, there has to be an initial degree of interest from consumers to warrant launching a new product into the sector concerned to start with. After that the manufacturer tries to maximise demand for that product through marketing. The aim is never to just meet that pre-existing level of demand, it is also to increase that level of demand to the greatest extent possible. All manufacturers, including those making assault rifles operate on this basis.


    Your first statement is incorrect, public health campaigns are never enforceable, you can’t ‘force’ someone to stop smoking, swim between the flag at beaches or eat healthy foods. You can only persuade. And such campaigns are not ‘devoid of reason’ because they do work i.e. they are proven to lead to changes in behavior – with varying degrees of success depending on the amount on exposure.

    None of which is an argument against trying to persuade firearm owners to change behaviors. Some will, some wont. But the result will be a reduction in people ‘having to live with the knowledge’.

    It’s the Supreme Court of the United States! Its decisions are binding on all 49 states and Texas. The States can’t ‘refuse to comply’. If they are not complying with some aspect of Heller it’s because there are exceptions carved out in the judgement. In fact reading a summary of Heller (and I’m prepared to be corrected obviously) it looks like the Supreme Court recognized exceptions relating to certain defined locations in their ruling. So the States aren’t refusing to recognize anything.

    They could perhaps contribute but public campaigns can’t be seen to be tied to any particular manufacturer likely to benefit from its success. Not only is it conflict of interest it lessens the likelihood of success precisely because it would be seen as a profit making exercise not a public service. Then again many safety products producers may well be owned by firearms manufactures in the first case. And they may not want to contribute anyway for fear of lost sales

    Obviously the success can be calculated post the campaign based on % reductions in deaths injuries and thefts – to the extent the last is relevant.. But that takes time to become apparent, any significant public health benefits from such campaigns are graphed over years not days. Anticipated outcomes are much harder to predict. They can only be estimated based on current death/injury rates with projections being made assuming various rates of compliance. However statisticians and public health experts are good at this type of thing and can after some work can give estimates that will tell you if it is worth doing. Given the scale of the problem in the US the answer is probably yes.

    Not an issue.

    The average cost of incarceration in the US is somewhere between 30 and 60,000 (USD) P.A. depending on the State involved.

    From a study by the RAND corporation in 2016 - 'Researchers found that every reported homicide, for example, cost the judicial system $22,000 to $44,000. In other categories the costs were estimated at $2,000 to $5,000 for a rape or other sexual assault, $600 to $1,300 for a robbery, $800 to $2,100 for an aggravated assault, $200 to $600 for a burglary, $300 to $600 for larceny/theft, and $200 to $400 for a motor vehicle theft.'

    So for example taking a State with the highest court costs for say robbery (e.g. 1300 USD) and then even assuming that state also has the lowest imprisonment costs i.e. 30,000 USD P.A. (which IMO is unlikely) then you find the trial 'pays for itself ' so to speak after the felon has been inside for about week! And that's assuming the suspect was on bail, not locked up on remand beforehand - which a repeat offender almost certainly would be.

    You insist on lumping all firearm owners in the one basket. It’s as if criticizing the conduct of any one firearm owner is to criticize them ALL. That’s like arguing that because some US motor vehicle drivers are negligent all drivers in the US must be. It’s a false equivalence (and not one made by me). There are millions of conscientious firearm owners in the US (if there weren’t your firearm statistics would be far worse). And (again based on the statistics) there are millions who aren’t as conscientious - again this is demonstrated by the statistics, they would be far lower if this were not the case. The issue is addressing the behaviours of those who don’t handle or secure their weapons properly not the ones who do.

    It would involve standard a marketing practices i.e. advertising on all media, focus groups and test marketing to refine measure effectiveness and perhaps financial incentives e.g. sales taxes on gun safes etc could be reduced or eliminated for a period of time for private buyers.

    And before criticizing the cost of such incentives it would be minimal compared to the cost of the injuries prevented, just like free public vaccination programs. They would also be one off purchases. Like firearms themselves safes and other security devices tend to last a long time so at the end of the day the average owner only needs one - if its a safe or one for each gun if it's some other type of security device. (Again the idea is to educate people on the options available, not mandate the method of security to be adopted. They choose what, if anything suits them.)
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2019

Share This Page