It's time for another episode of EVERYONE'S favorite game show
STRANGER TROLLING BINGO!

Today's winning picks are:

Gun nuts!
Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Suicide!
Assault weapons!
Apples and oranges!
You just do not care about X dead Y's!
Tautological tautologies!
Picking cherries!
I don't want to ban all guns but ... !
The NRA!

Beat a straw man for big bonus points!

Here's what I think is kind of funny. You know the standard position about gun politics is that you must walk on eggshells when talking about guns. Every discussion must begin with an assurance that you have no intention of taking away everyone's guns. For example, see the the overview at How the Gun-Control Movement Got Smart. It's why Clinton won. It's why Gore lost.

So then everywhere I look on Facebook and Twitter and at forums all over the web, pretty much nobody follows that advice. There's a few exceptions, but by and large anybody sick of gun violence is happy to say how they'd take every motherfucking gun and melt it if they could, but in the mean time let's see how far we can go. Alarming! Gun nuts do in fact flip completely the fuck out when you say that to them, no question.

The part I think is funny is that the whole time this has been going on, public support for universal background checks and the assault weapons ban and so on has steadily risen. So really there's no reason to be afraid of offending gun nuts.

Obviously politicians can't say it. They never have much to gain by offending people. And it's politically wasteful to spend time on unrealistic goals, and there is zero chance of ever taking away every gun. So of course it's best for them to speak only of practical steps to limit the most egregious gun problems.

Hey!
Hey!
HEY!
Speaking as a fact hating gun nut ...
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

"would you like to hear about all firearm deaths, then?"

Yes.
And not just the deaths.
Include the shootings where people are just wounded.
Include the shootings where no one was shot.
With as many details as possible.
Who shot at whom with what gun (including magazine size) and why.

Don't act surprised.
I've been posting this for months.
Yet The Stranger will not report on such incidents in Seattle.
But you will read about incidents all over the nation.

Did you get it THAT time?

Saying gun nuts hate facts is like saying terrorists hate our freedom. It is utterly idiotic and polarizing. Gun nuts simply don't think the data presented is compelling. They think the data presented by Fox News and talk radio is likely to be more valid than the data presented by the CDC. Why filtered by the media? Because gun nuts aren't sitting down and reading scientific reports. They use their media to tell them what the reports say and then to debunk them. Their media tells them about the secret agendas of the CDC and why their reports must be biased. The problem is that Michelle Malkin is more credible to them than a CDC researcher. Thus, it is not a bad thing to limit the ability of the CDC to put out 'biased' reports on gun control topics.

Talk with a conservative sometime. You will see that they are considerably worried about secret agendas of government agencies and scientists and don't trust them. They don't hate facts.

@6: So what you're saying is they're mentally ill and delusional on purpose?

@6- your last paragraph, were in you state (correctly) that Conservatives are consumed with unfactual conspirancy theories disproves your thesis that conservatives "don't hate facts".

Where in...

@6 Incorrect. They are indifferent to these kinds of data.

The basic stance of the "Gun Nut" (your term, not mine) is a Freedom Isn't Free sort of thing. Like "too bad about all those dead kids in Connecticut but 2nd Amendment, yo". Of course they can't say it so frankly because they know how barbaric it sounds. So you get a thick smoke screen of non sequitor.

You could spend the rest of your life on message boards trying to get gun nuts to answer the question "just how many dead kids per year would you tolerate before considering strict gun control laws" and you will never get a straight answer. Because one thing (societal costs) has nothing to do with the other (aesthetic preferences.)

@7: Mental illness is not a joke and is about as fun as cancer. A political viewpoint is not a mental illness. Do you think calling anybody "mentally ill" is a valid way to insult them? Or are you just a royal asshole who doesn't give a shit about stigmatization?

@8: Then you missed the entire point. Credibility is what matters. If what you call a 'fact' is not credible to them, then they will not accept it as a 'fact'. I know you are going to retort that there is only one reality and that any theory that doesn't conform to what is observed is automatically wrong, thus nobody can have their own facts. That is fine except that they would use the exact same argument against you since you can't see the secret agendas. Again, it is credibility that matters in these discussions.

@10: I talk to gun nuts all the time. They give logical impassioned arguments that I think are based on the wrong assumptions. They do believe that guns reduce violence and that arming teachers would be a good thing. And they do think that having a well armed society is better than the alternative. I think they are wrong and I challenge their assumptions. I don't think they are stupid. They have simply internalized the propaganda. Most of the ones I talk to are engineers.

@11

Those who think Kim Jong Ill is a messiah are delusional. Those who think global warming is a conspiracy are delusional. Those who think Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya who wants to take all their guns are delusional. Those who who think they and their beloved gun are going to star in a real life version of "Red Dawn" are delusional.

You're saying nobody is allowed to call delusional people delusional because... because... what? Political correctness? I don't get it. They're delusional. It's a fact and I'm allowed to say so.

@13: If it is a mental illness then it meets diagnostic criteria. And if it is a mental illness then the person deserves sympathy and help, not mockery. You are just using the stigma that millions of people have to face as an excuse to insult someone. And you are calling them mentally ill or delusional because you consider that one of the worst insults you could use. Get it?

Whoopsies!!! The anti-gun commie-humpers forgot their history again...!!

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-contr…

Now how did that happen? How do you suppose the wittle socialistas forgot all of this really nasty wasty stuff?

@14

Yeah yeah. Political correctness it is. You be politically correct if you want to. I'll go on calling it like I see it.

If somebody tells me Xenu put alien souls in volcanoes and dropped nuclear bombs on them from space ships that looked like Boeing 707s, I'll say "That's delusional." You may then run for your fainting couch because some guy with diagnosed bipolar disorder is going to get a sad that I called the Scientologist delusional. You can report me to the US Department of You May Not Say That they can send the PC Police to kick in my door and scold me soundly.

PBS did specials on gun violence all this past week. I think it was last night that one of the programs discussed the cost, not in lives, but in $$$.

If you account for lost income and medical costs of those injured by gun violence, not just deaths, (including rehabilitation, prosthetics, SSDI, care, etc.), the best estimate of the economic cost is $68 Billion (yes, with a "B," a.k.a. 68 thousand millions of dollars). Per year.

Per year.

PER FUCKING EVERY SINGLE FUCKING YEAR!

"every time a gun is fired."

Sounds like a very expensive way to establish by statistical means the location of shooting ranges. Also where there are lakes, rivers, cornfields and prairie dog towns near the middle of Fucking Nowhere, NE.

Maybe you mean to add "except for recreational purposes," or something. Then the results might be interesting.

Great post. Spot on.

@16: You realize that you've just used the historical argument to defend bigotry in all of its forms, right? Do you deny that people with mental illnesses are consistently discriminated against in employment, housing, social relations, and are even commonly beaten on the streets? And do you think the stigma has nothing to do with that?

I think The Stranger's coverage of gun issues is about as impartial as the NRA's stances... I don't see either side using numbers without spinning them. The Stranger is a great weekly, but on this issue, they are little more than lobbyists. Not once have I seen The Stranger cover any of the recent stories in which a gun owner used their gun to save a life, but I have seen stories in every other local paper. It is challenging to take The Stranger or the NRA seriously on gun issues, they are both driven not by facts, but by their own desire to have the law reflect their own view point, not the actual hard data.

@20

Well, apparently 4% of CEOs are psychopaths. Who knows how many psychopaths have sat in the Oval Office? It's clear that being delusional can take you far in life. I make fun of Tom Cruise but which one of us has his own jet? Lots of crazy people do really well in our world.

But yeah. Every time a homeless guy gets beaten up on the sidewalk, it's all my fault for calling gun nuts and Scientologists delusional. It's all me. Racism still going on? My fault. Injustice anywhere? Me again. I did it. Cute kittens sad? Yep, me again. No kitten will ever feel true joy until I learn to be politically correct.

The sick part? No matter how politically correct you are, it can never make up for even a little tiny bit of political incorrectness on my part. A million PC lifetimes can never erase the most infinitesimal non-PC stain. I'm that powerful.

@19
"Great post. Spot on."

Thank you for your adulation but it is kind of embarrassing.
I just keep posting that as a public service.

Acting like your political position is the only sane one is stupid and divisive.

The one-sided tone-deaf harping is pushing away level headed, sane, and intelligent allies who are itching for rational and level headed discussion.

Also @23, you are a crazy person. Chillax, brother.

@25: if Ph'nglui... is crazy, point me at the folks on Slog who meet your criteria.

Chicago Fan's post contends that a basic, common set of facts about guns in America are missing, BECAUSE of the gun lobby's success. As a result, we can't have the "level headed discussion" you say you want. How about we gather the facts and let the chips fall where they may?

Even Fairly Unbalanced agrees with that.

@25 I love that you're calling someone crazy for calling nuts insane. Oh what a tangled weft we warp, when first we practice to herp the derp.

@ 28, f.u. (notice the initials - a coincidence?) may say he agrees with that, but actually engaging with him belies that statement.

Frankly, I would go one step further. I do not support the idea of private gun ownership, with the exception of hunters in remote regions who should only be allowed access to firearms useful in securing sustenance or in fending off snakes, polar bears, etc.

I know this is a deeply unpopular position to take, and most would consider it radical. I don't care. It's not my responsibility to tiptoe around the paranoid delusions of idiots, so if this stirs up the NRA crowd, fuck them. And if you are going to shush me for having caused Glenn Beck to start ranting again, fuck you too. When you suggest that someone's position cannot be challenged (even if its only because you fear upsetting them), you legitimize their position. And the sentiment that private gun ownership should be legal and unrestricted has no legitimacy.

America has a gun problem. Statistically speaking, the number of violent deaths in this country compared to the rest of the world is disgusting. Children at school have to pass through metal detectors. Batshit as that fact is, you've grown so accustomed to it you probably think it normal. Well, it isn't. Childhood is supposed to be a time of safety and security, when the adults of this world make an effort to create an environment conducive to growth and learning for youth to grow up in.

I hear people freak out about children being exposed to seeing gay people kiss or learning that adult humans have sex or smoke pot or whatever. But you're perfectly okay with them getting shot??? I'd much rather hear that some 13 year old stole a copy of his uncle's Playboy and found out what tits are than hear that he'd been shot to death on a playground.

America has a violence problem. And by eliminating private gun ownership with the aforementioned exception, i think we can make a giant step toward solving that problem.

@32: Sounds good. Swing by and grab mine when you have a minute.

@31
"f.u. (notice the initials - a coincidence?) ..."

No coincidence at all.
I specifically chose that name.
The reason is that there is a certain class of people who think that focusing on a NAME makes some kind of point.
I like having those people identify themselves.

Just like certain right-wing commentators have to refer to Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

The mentality is the same.
No matter which side of the aisle it is from.
And you've just shown that you operate from that same mentality.

It'd be nice if ATF could actually enforce existing laws, oh wait they can't. The NRA convinced conservatives that actually enforcing existing laws is bad. Darn.

@34 It's no coincidence then that the third letter in each of your names reading backward spells 'bi' as in bisexual. And whenever I encounter a bisexual, excuse the the intolerance, I say Bye Bye.

If I were a responsible sports hunter I'd be scrambling to distance myself from the mean-spirited and blood-stained paranoid fantasies of the assault weapons apologists. What a pile of selfish, shitty douchebags.

Also, what Gus (@19) said. Good post. Keep them coming.

Guns! Evil! Scary! Repeat and stroke to tepid flaccid orgasm. Cry.

@39:

Rent a room, buddy! And throw the sheets in the laundry when you're done...

If my fellow liberals were truly interested in saving lives, they'd be advocating ignition-interlock breathalyzers in every vehicle in America.

That alone would save roughly 12,000 lives a year without sacrificing anyone's rights.

@41 WTF are you even talking about besides being half way through 1984 and digging some of the ideas about totalitarianism? Yeah it fucking would sacrifice rights. I don't give a shit. But it is normally impossible on any given day for someone to pass a breathalyzer in the capricious terms granted our policemen and women.

Breathalyzers need to be CALIBRATED, chief. Are you saying one must at least every month go down to the CALIBRATION DEPT and get it checked out for the $45 or whatever it would cost, make sure it hasn't been tampered with and RE-CALIBRATE it, all to make sure you're able to drive and if not your car won't start?

Gotta say, that is probably the most idiotic idea and analogy I have possibly read about such an important issue I may have ever read in life.

Hey Chicago Fan, way to, as our friend Ph'nglui puts it: "piece together all sorts of disparate clues, pick out certain statistics while ignoring others, and make a huge deal out of well-chosen outliers."

The reason why the NRA took issue with spending money on "gun-control" research which was biased and later debunked, is because Federal funds should not be used to promote political views. If you want to blame someone for it, why don't you blame Kellerman, the author of the flawed research in question and Mark Rosenberg who supported spending CDC money on political biases?

If the CDC started funding research "proving" that gay people could be "cured", would you support that? Or would you want that funding cut off?

Incidentally, the CDC does compile firearm related injuries, along with all sorts of other reported injuries:

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.…

If you are honest in using statistics, there is no correlation between firearm ownership and homicides:

Let's take a look at the homicide rate for the top 5 states/firearm ownership:

Wyoming: 47th for firearm homicides @ 0.59/capita
Alaska: 26th for firearm homicides @ 2.58/capita
Montana: 29th for firearm homicides @ 2.31/capita
South Dakota: 43rd for firearm @ 0.74/capita
West Virginia: 31st for firearm homicides @ 1.9/capita
Average of 1.62/capita

Now, let's compare them with the 5 lowest states for firearm ownership:
Hawaii: 48th for firearm homicides @ 0.51/capita
New Jersey: 25th for firearm homicides @ 2.65/capita
Massachusetts: 33rd for firearm homicides @ 1.53/capita
Rhode Island: 34th for firearm homicides, @ 1.48/capita
Connecticut: 37th for firearm homicides @ 1.4/capita
Average of 1.5/capita

-----

You can also compare the top/bottom 10 or the top/bottom 25.. In fact, the only way to show that more firearms == more homicides is to include Louisiana without including a fair range of other high-firearm ownership states. And that's because Louisiana has a homicide rate almost double the average.

@ 34, hmmm. So a deliberately chosen handle, which isn't your birth name or current legal name, one you chose to make some kind of statement with, is judged precisely the same way as one foisted upon an infant at birth? And an innocent question (mine about your handle) is the same as a deliberate attempt to take advantage of widespread Islamophobia?

That's as good as your claims that you never lie. (Such as when you claim that my "verbal abuse" was the result of being too challenged by another's argument, and not because of that other's deliberate misstatements and distortions of my position.)

@41

Not a liberal. Liberals are interested in things other than opposing gun control. If you care about one and only one thing, and that thing is relaying NRA talking points against any and all gun regulations, then you are a conservative.

This is obvious to anybody who reviews your comment history.

Why not be more granular than "gun nuts" and instead discuss differing points of view and stances on proposed legislation. That would lead to a more mature discussion.

@42

Fine. Then ban alcohol altogether. That will save thousands more lives and won't interfere with anyone's rights.

Ignition interlock devices would be unnecessary because nobody would be able to drink. Hell, if you banned alcohol gun deaths would probably go down as well. It would be a double win!

@ 41/48, I think such devices would actually violate due process, since it basically punishes people whom haven't committed the crime of DUI.

@49, You mean, kinda like all these various gun-control proposals that basically punish people who haven't committed any firearm related crime?

@48, Actually, I'm pretty sure that Prohibition proved that banning alcohol (or marijuana or cocaine..etc..etc) increases gun related violence.

@50

You mean that banning alcohol has already been tried and it didn't work? Who woulda thunk...

My earlier point is that for most anti-gun liberals, it isn't about saving lives at all. That's just the bullshit they tell themselves to feel better. If it were actually about saving lives, there are many problems that are much larger than gun violence and more effective ways to save lives.

What it's really about is that guns are scary and they're afraid them and despise those who have them. To insist otherwise is either self-delusional or deliberately disingenuous.

@51

My earlier point is that for most anti-gun liberals, it isn't about saving lives at all. That's just the bullshit they tell themselves to feel better. If it were actually about saving lives, there are many problems that are much larger than gun violence and more effective ways to save lives.

While I agree that their efforts are principled, and not directly about saving lives (speaking of "hating facts," check out all of the focus on an assault weapons ban, while assault weapons account for a tiny minority of homicides; around 3%, as opposed to more than 50% for handguns), I do think that gun violence overall is an issue that needs to be addressed.

@51

We restricted machine guns and that worked. We restricted silencers and that worked too. Not to mention outlawing things like bazookas, yet outlaws do not have bazookas. And they hardly ever have machine guns or silencers. Why not?

Most gun owners support almost everything on Obama's gun agenda. Why would liberals hate gun owners if most gun owners share their goals? It's only you far-right NRA members who have a problem.

And more evidence that background checks and restrictions on buying guns by people with a history of violence reduces violence.

It's notable what a low opinion you have of real liberals. Why do you keep pretending you are one? Who do you think you're fooling?

@ 50, there could be a case there, but the nature of guns (tools for harming or killing people and animals) placed them in a separate category from cars. If you buy a car, you anticipate using it for transportation. When you buy a gun, you anticipate using it to maim or kill. There are legitimate reasons for that (hunting, self defense), of course, but lets be honest here.

Hey #53, silencers are legal. They are on the showroom floor of gun shops in this state. Pay 200 and pass a check the ATF check & it's yours

@44
"And an innocent question (mine about your handle) is the same as a deliberate attempt to take advantage of widespread Islamophobia?"

You displayed the same mentality as those right-wing commentators who have to keep repeating Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
And it was no more "innocent" than their actions.

Because you cannot address the real issues, you try to attack the person.

@53, As we've previously discussed the vast majority of firearm violence is done with cheap handguns. There's no special law against expensive handguns, yet most criminal acts are with cheap ones. Machine guns and silencers are expensive. As Lew points out, other than the $200 tax stamp and the background check, there is nothing, at the Federal level, stopping you from purchasing a silencer or a machine gun (pre '86 machinegun).

@54, Actually, almost all of the firearms I've purchased, I anticipated using solely for target shooting and competition.

@55: as are automatics/machine guns in most states, but not WA. I think 53 was being pretty careful by stating that they're "restricted," not outright banned. I'm curious as to what "We restricted silencers and that worked too," means, though. What did it work to accomplish?

@ 57, "almost all" being the key phrase.

@55 @57

Indeed! Strict controls work. They worked beautifully for silencers and machine guns. The argument that if you outlaw something, only outlaws will have it is proved false by our history with these weapons. A strong regulatory framework, with a clear paper trail, is exactly what we need to reign in the crazy gun free for all that plagues us today.

These comparions with alcohol prohibition are inane. Compare gun restrictions with gun restrictions. They work with machine guns. They work with silencers. They worked with semi-automatics in Australia. They work in countries across the world.

And if you want a machine gun? You can have one. Amazing! You have nothing to complain about. Gun nuts are just paranoid, hysterical, and emotionally fragile. Calm the fuck down.

@59
"'almost all' being the key phrase."

And yet it was not a "key phrase" you included in your original claim in #54.

"When you buy a gun, you anticipate using it to maim or kill. There are legitimate reasons for that (hunting, self defense), of course, but lets be honest here."

So if someone buys a gun to shoot targets then that reason is invalidated if that person has ever considered or bought a gun for home defense or hunting.
Which seems to indicate that this is more about ideological purity than a discussion of gun violence.
Thought crime rather than real crime.

They worked beautifully for silencers and machine guns

I wasn't aware that there was an epidemic of innocent people being cut down by silenced weapons prior to their restriction. What precisely "worked beautifully" about restricting silencers? I don't have an issue that they are restricted, exactly - if I wanted one I'd be happy to wait the six or seven months required to get the ATF stamp. I'm just curious why you seem to think that they are a great illustration of government intervention saving lives.

And if you want a machine gun? You can have one. Amazing! You have nothing to complain about.

Not in Washington, you can't.

@62

You know there used to be this gangster named "Machine Gun Kelley", right? He wasn't born with the name "Machine Gun". He earned the name because he went around shooting people with a fucking machine gun. Or take the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre". Gangsters used to blast each other with machine guns all the time, because there was a fully legal civilian market for them.

We put in place restrictions that shrunk the size of the civilian market for these guns to the point that it wasn't worth the trouble any more. It's possible for crooks to get an illegal machine gun, but not worth it.

Which flatly contradicts the comparison of guns with alcohol or drug prohibition. If you want to make comparisons of gun laws, compare guns with guns. We restricted machine guns, and yet the American Bald Eagle did not shed a single dramatic tear. Freedom did not end. America somehow kept going, and those who really wanted machine guns could have them.

The rules prevented reckless fuckheads and criminals from getting machine guns. We can do that with assault weapons if we wanted. And even handguns. It's nothing like booze or drugs.

Or Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. It's getting so we massacre each other so often you can't keep track any more.

@63: Back on subject: you said the law worked out great for silencers. I think the law was effective in restricting silencers, but that's a means, not an end. What was the end goal in this case, when you say that the laws "worked beautifully" to restrict silencers?

@65

To prevent criminals from using silencers?

It's worth noting that the gun corporations have been using the NRA to carry on a campaign of "normalizing" silencers. They want more childen to shoot guns, and they think by muffling the sound, kids will be less scared of guns. And they want to sell more silencers to everybody. Why? $$$$$$

So the NRA has been pushing lots of crap about how silencers don't help you commit crimes and how Jesus would use a silencer and so should Grandma and your baby girls and boys. See Silencers: The NRA’s latest big lie.

It's really sickening, but if you just remind yourself that the NRA exists to help gun makers move product, it makes perfect sense. They hate the fact that machine guns and silencers are used by small numbers of very serious gun enthusiasts. They want any fuckhead with a credit card to have one. Why? $$$$$$ $$$$$$$$ and $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Simple.

@65: Do you have anything to demonstrate that criminals using silencers was a widespread issue at any point, and that restricting them was as wildly successful at reducing their illegal use as you claim them to be?

@67

I look at the lack of common street crimes, as well as massacres, committed with silencers, and I say so far, so good. Why anybody would want to take one of the only things that actually seem to be working with gun regulation and fuck with it is beyond me.

You know the real reason fewer kids shoot guns now? Fewer hunting licenses. Why? Shrinking hunting grounds. Why? Uncontrolled urban sprawl. And why doesn't the NRA address that? Because the NRA is run by corporations and corporations do not like restrictions on sprawl. So they dig their own grave, letting game grow scarcer and the number of hunters decreases with each passing generation, and their only answer is pushing gun silencers on kids.

Bat shit. That's what we call that.

And of course the relative lack of crimes committed with machine guns makes the point even stronger. When machine guns are outlawed, outlaws do not get their hands on machine guns. We can build on that success.

I look at the lack of common street crimes, as well as massacres, committed with silencers, and I say so far, so good.

This reminds me a lot of Lisa's tiger repelling rock from the Simpsons:
Lisa: "By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Hmm; how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!"
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

Without any information about the rate of crimes involving silencers prior to restrictions being placed on their ownership and use, one cannot make *any* statements as to how effective the restrictions are.

@67
You are arguing with someone who believes that suppressors operate the same way that silencers do in movies and TV shows.
Where the gun makes the fffffut sound instead of BANG.

The movie "The Sting" even had a silencer on a revolver. But it was still a good movie.

So obviously all criminals would want something that would make guns silent like that.
Therefore, if criminals are not using something that makes guns silent like that then it is because the legislation was successful in stopping them.

As opposed to the laws of physics which determine how real world suppressors work.

@69

It's all good with me. Let the NRA push silencers. Just makes them look even crazier. Good luck with that.

@71: I don't understand what point you're trying to make now. Are you just pouting because I called you out on being in the same fact-hating camp with the gun nuts you hate?

@70

You're lying again and you know it. We've been over this before. Everyone sees how much you lie from one day to the next and you go on pretending the things you say are taken seriously.

Have you not noticed how much you get ignored now? You copy-paste the same shit every day and you get ignored like just another crazy troll or obsessive spammer.

@72

You think it's an amazing great point that there isn't some obvious big drop off in silencer crimes after the 1934 firearms act. Great. Congratulations. I don't see a big problem here. I think anybody who wants to argue that we should experiment with opening the floodgates and letting silencers spread across the land is going to do nothing but make gun nuts look even more crazy. It's obvious that would be a very foolish experiment. You want to be the guy who wants to try that experiment? Be my guest.

I say that it's a good thing that when criminals, or drunks, angry husbands, or random gun nut fuckheads fire a gun, the sound carries a good long way, and it's much easier to tell which direction the shot came from. So witnesses can tell the police where to go. And run for cover, for that matter. And, incidentally, tyrants have not risen and taken over in spite of the restrictions on silencers.

And that goes even more for machine guns. We have been successful with them. And, special pleading aside, we can count the success of all the other countries that did the same thing. Europe and Australia and Japan and so on are free countries, with healthy democracies, little corruption, and lower crime and lower homicide rates than the US. Gun control did not destroy their freedom, and it gets credit for reducing crime there.

But you want more facts? So do I. So does Obama. So do social scientists, and the CDC. Who has stood against learning more? The NRA. That says it all right there.

You think it's an amazing great point that there isn't some obvious big drop off in silencer crimes after the 1934 firearms act.

No, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that trying to reach any conclusion about the efficacy of a piece of legislation without any data or facts to back up one's opinions is dumb.

Like I said, you're lumping yourself into the same category of fact-haters as the NRA when you try to ignore data to reach a conclusion.

@75

OK, yes. The NRA Talking Point Sheet says that the "gun grabbers" are just as bad as the gun nuts. Everything that gets said about gun nuts, the same goes double for the anti-gun crowd. The more general term is false equivalence. The purpose is to make the general public lose interest. The NRA desperately wants everyone to stop paying attention to guns, and stop talking about guns.

So congratulations again. You have delivered today's NRA talking points.

Next week? Rinse. Repeat.

Ph'nglui (various @#'s), even if silencers didn't require a tax stamp, the likelihood that they'd be used in a "lot" of crime is very low because they're pretty expensive. Someone who is only willing to pay $100-200 for a handgun (perhaps illegal handguns actually cost a lot more, I don't actually know, but the common crime-guns are in that range when purchased legally) is unlikely to be interested in spending 600+ for a silencer.

As far as "widespread" use of machineguns before the ban, that simply didn't happen. A select few gangsters used them (mostly stolen, from the Postal Service and not purchased) because they were really expensive, about half the price of a car, at the time. Additionally, the Saint Valentines Day Massacre that you refer to, the victims were lined up against a wall, after being taken there at gunpoint, and then shot. It isn't like having machineguns made the death toll any higher.

You can get a bump fire stock for an AR15 type firearm which essentially allows legal full-auto fire. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever used one in a crime. That's probably because an AR15 costs $800+ (actually currently they're $2k+) and the bump fire stock costs $300+ which puts them out of the range of your typical criminal. Plus, a fully-automatic weapon is much harder to control and actually hit anything when used on full auto. Which is why the army basically only uses full auto weapons for suppression fire.

I've said it before - you really want to reduce firearm violence, put a $300-500 tax on all handguns that cost less than $500.

@76: You can't just say "false equivalence" and expect that to hold up on its own. If you actually believe that it's a false equivalence, please explain why it's different when you argue about how effective legislation is while ignoring facts, as opposed to how "gun nuts" argue about how effective legislation is while ignoring facts.

It's just the same bullshit on the other side of the coin.

@ 61, teh reading comprehension isn't working so well for you today, is it?

@79

I get it. I get it. You want to just keep repeating yourself. Proceed. The floor is yours.

I recently learned from an Unbalanced friend that being well calibrated and functioning as expected is part of the equation that makes up the vague, somewhat confusing and grammatically incorrect 2nd amendment. I am grateful to him/her/cis for that.

He/she/cis was less then forth coming on what was to be well calibrated and functioning as expected, the armament itself or the militia, he implied the former and stated the latter. What constitutes a militia he/she/cis never really addressed. So I can only assume he/she/cis considers the word "militia" meaningless in the context of the 2nd amendment.

Nonetheless I'll accept his/her/cis's definition. That the armament itself should be well regulated, i.e. well calibrated and functioning as expected. And. That the militia be it an individual or a group should also be well regulated.

Now not infringing on citizens rights is no small feat. But surely just as we spell out both in industry standards and product legislation what constitutes a well regulated lawn mower, we can do so for a gun.

Likewise is it that unreasonable that an individual or a group of individual demonstrate some level of well calibrated functioning as expected, understanding and ability to handle the armament they are buying? e.g. complete a gun handling/safety class, prior to purchasing.

At least some evidence that both the armament and the militia are well regulated would then exist.

Or maybe words don't matter.

@81: I'm not trying to proceed with anything. I'm trying to get you to explain a post that you just made, which you are clearly unable to do.

Why would anyone care what Chicago Fag says? I'm sure the "culture" of the south side will magically change when the guns are gone.

@83

I gave you my explanation, and you explained why you didn't like it. I explained why your dissatisfaction with my explanation is just fine with me.

So why would I be interested in giving you a better explanation? I'm happy with this state of affairs. But you think if you keep repeating yourself, something new will happen?

You're sitting here hectoring because the NRA pays you by the word or something. I dunno. Aspergers? OCD? Something.

@80
"teh reading comprehension isn't working so well for you today, is it?"

Here, I'll explain this again.
You have to provide a SPECIFIC example of something I said instead of just a GENERALIZED claim.
For example, when I say that you get verbally abusive when presented with facts and opinions that you do not like I can reference a post of yours where you were verbally abusive.
www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/0…

And I can reference the SPECIFIC items where you were verbally abusive in that post.

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

You cannot do that for my posts.

You have absolutely not addressed my issues with you claiming a "false equivalency" between two sides that don't give a shit about facts or real data.

While I have no such mental issues, please reconsider using mental illnesses as a cudgel against people who disagree with you politically. I can't imagine that someone who actually has Aspergers appreciates it.

@15: Wow. Nothing like blinktags to convince me of the one world conspiracy. You are on to us! I'm off to spin up the Strangers' cordite supressor ELP at HAARP.

Protecting personal privacy should be a priority for everyone. Instead, both parties are fine with infringing on individual rights, or against it, depending on the topic. I feel the same way about one party getting all hot and bothered about the inanimate object locked safely in my gun cabinet as I do about the other party getting emotional about my birth control choices. I am not a member of the NRA, but I also object to these studies because it a misuse of the information we all voluntarily provide when we legally obtain our firearms. I understand the need for this information to be tracked, for permits and waiting periods and background checks. But for anyone to then access my information, without my consent, without a warrant . . . I don't like it. I wouldn't want any organizations accessing my medical records, even for studies to provide information relevant to the birth control or abortion debates. The end does not justify the means.

"One world is enough for all of us".... great now the Police are stuck in my head.

I would just like to remind everyone that just as there is an "anti-gun crowd", there is also an "anti-porn crowd" and an "anti-abortion" crowd, and an "anti-anything-to-do-with gays" crowd. Everyone has things they find dangerous, or immoral, or distasteful, and those things usually exist perfectly safely in the lives of many, many other people. You may object to whatever gun I may happen to own and how many bullets it can fire in rapid succession, but as long as said bullets are fired in a safe and legal manner on my own property, I see no reason why my gun should be your concern any more than my uterus should be. For people who don't like or understand guns, the false sense of security you might get from placing arbitrary restrictions on mine is not a good enough reason to infringe on the rights I have had my whole life and never once misused.

Damn, some of you guys have nothing better to do on weekends than this?

This thread reminds me of a "death spiral" in skydiving.

Oh, and no one is getting fucking paid to be here. This blog has a real problem with "you disagree with me and so you must be getting paid to do so." Does anyone here really think that this extremely small blog with an extremely small readership is causing lobbying groups to hire scads of paid commenters?

I hate to burst your bubble guys, but you just are not that important. Get over it. No one is spending money to silence you or counteract a bunch of pedantic and sophomoric "arguments."

Absolutely. And the non-nut gun enthusiasts should support this too. After all, it will also show how many times a gun is fired in a legitimate sporting or hunting situation.

The cool thing about holding non-idiotic opinions is that I don't have to be afraid of research.

Likely, it will corroborate my non-idiotic beliefs. And even if it doesn't, then I, being a non-idiot, will change those beliefs to accommodate the facts.

Gun control, climate change, drug prohibition, whatever the issue: facts are facts and research uncovers them. Only an idiot has a vested interest in preventing that.

@94, See: my post @43

95: I did see it. And it doesn't invalidate my point: if research shows that gun ownership isn't correlated with homicides, so be it.

The point of the article, though, is that there's some value in looking at injuries and attempted murders/injuries (ie, "shootings") alongside successful homicides when assessing gun violence. You're being disingenuous when you claim that this research would be done in order "to prove" that gun violence is overwhelming. It isn't. Rather, someone has observed that there's a variable being left out which may be relevant. If we're debating whether or not guns are dangerous, injuries and attempted assaults are just as relevant as successful homicides. They don't simply "not count" as violence (or danger) just because the shooter missed or at least failed to kill their victim.

It's one thing to oppose biased research, wherein it is conducted in a way that leads to inaccurate conclusions. But you have to make a case that this would be the result in expanding our definition of "gun violence" to include more forms of it, including unsuccessful shootings. Otherwise, you're merely opposing the existence of research in a given area and crying "bias," which is basically crying wolf.

There's manipulating research to support a foregone conclusion (bad!), and then there's updating research to address its potential shortcomings (good!). I think there's a case to include unsuccessful shootings in our definition of gun violence, and that's why I support this research idea.

If you care to argue that unsuccessful attempted homicides do not count as gun violence, feel free to argue your case; you might be right. But you should at least admit that anti-gun bias isn't the only reason a person might disagree with you. I own several guns myself, but I don't rely on pretending that near-misses are irrelevant to gun crime in order to feel justified in my gun ownership. And in any case, your point shouldn't include blanket statements about how it's biased to conduct any research in a given area, as the NRA knee-jerkers tend to do.

Such research very well might show a similar lack of correlation between gun ownership and shootings. If you're confident that this would be the case, then you should be clamoring for this research so your point will be proven! If you think that this research would disprove your beliefs, then why believe them in the first place?

Or if your fear is that city/state governments will manipulate their numbers in order to make guns look more dangerous, then why even focus on this cop's idea? Couldn't they fudge the numbers already if that's what they wanted? This person's idea needs to be looked at on its own merit, without resorting to conspiracy theories-- are unsuccessful assaults as relevant as successful ones when evaluating what guns are used for, or not?

If it makes any difference, I also advocate comparing how many of each type of gun are used responsibly vs. irresponsibly, because I believe responsible gun owners are also a relevant variable when assessing the likely danger of any given gun in our society. All the uses of guns should be evaluated- recreation, hunting, protection, threats, injury, murder, and attempts at any of the above. I'm wary of anyone proposing that we ignore any form of gun use when trying to assess dangerous vs. innocuous gun usage.

Good research only promotes political views if they're actually valid. I have no problem with climate science "promoting" the belief in climate change. I have no problem with biological sciences "promoting" the belief in evolution. I have no problem with psychology "promoting" pro-gay beliefs at the expense of the ex-gay quackery you mention. Whatever side of the gun debate this more in-depth research would promote, I'm for it. If I ever find myself wanting to block information about a relevant aspect of an issue, that's a sure sign that I haven't thought out my beliefs properly.

@96, Quick answer: My response was addressing my perceived question, of yours, as to why the NRA doesn't want Federal Funds going to biased, and later debunked research. I happen to agree with that. And since I believe that it is almost impossible to find non-biased researchers in regards to firearm violence I would also be perfectly happy to see Federal Funds being spent equally on both sides of the issue.

My own, personal reading of the available statistics is that more guns does not mean more violence. So, I have no problem whatsoever with either unbiased research or equal amounts of biased research.

As far as "Good research only promotes political views if they're actually valid." Kellerman's study is widely quoted (if I remember correctly, both Goldy and Chicago Fan have quoted it) and held as accurate even though it has been widely debunked as being poor. So I'd have to take issue with that statement. Conversely, on the other side, "gun-nuts" like to quote Kleck's research on self defense, and it has been used to impact gun-control legislature. However, it has also been criticized as being poor research. I personally find his study flawed and never use it.

And, as I stated previously, injuries are tracked by the CDC, and the data is widely available. So I'm not sure what it is that we are missing. It is hard to track every attempted injury/homicide because we don't yet live in a police state and if someone shoots at you and no one knows about it, there's nothing to track. However, local police absolutely do track firearm discharges if they are reported. My reading of the article is that McCarthy's problem is not that the data doesn't exist but how the data is classified.

To the best of my knowledge, I never made this claim: " You're being disingenuous when you claim that this research would be done in order "to prove" that gun violence is overwhelming. " I'm not sure what you are referring to?

I've also, other than my comment in the preceding paragraph, never said anything whatsoever about "near misses".

So are you okay with teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools that are funded with Federal Funds? There's a whole host of proposed legislation regarding it based on "scientific" studies. (Don't get me wrong, if you want to teach "Intelligent Design" as part of a Religious curriculum, that's great, but it is not science.)