Law, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary, Technology and Society

Gun Control

18 Comments

A statistician changes her mind after actually looking at the data:

“A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible,” Libresco concludes. “We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.”

Libresco says she still does not endorse gun ownership, “but I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.”

What a concept.

18 thoughts on “Gun Control”

  1. It’ll be interesting to see how many bump stocks (like silencers) actually get turned in now that everyone no longer claims to own one.

    Love that security theater.

    1. Bump stocks are mainly about people horsing around a homemade range seeing how many expensive holes, at current prices of ammo, they can put in something.

      In a way they are kind of stupid because if you want to scatter rapid shots in that manner, there are videos showing you how to hold a semi-automatic rifle to do much the same thing.

      Silencers, (ahem) suppressors, have a utility and logic to them. They don’t waste ammo, they don’t scatter shots. They have a legitimate purpose for persons exercising their 2nd Amendment right to not only own a firearm but to shoot it on a range (or hunt or engage in other lawful uses of a firearm) to maintain proficiency without going deaf.

      Yeah, yeah, ear muffs, but they only afford so much protection. I am told contrary to Hollywood assassins who shoot these things making “phew, phew” sounds, a suppressed firearm is still pretty loud, so it is not like you are a threat to society with a silent weapon. It is about letting citizens, the Well-Regulated Militia become well regulated in practicing with their firearms without going deaf.

      1. “a suppressed firearm is still pretty loud”

        Depends on the firearm. With a subsonic .22 it can reduce the muzzle blast to the point where the firing pin hitting the cartridge is the loudest noise you’ll hear.

        A supersonic .223… yeah, it’ll still be fairly loud. But mostly downrange, not at the muzzle.

        Hollywood, of course, loves putting silencers on revolvers, which is clearly retarded. But so is Hollywood.

      2. In additional to the impracticalities of bump stocks, whatever political capital might be spent arguing that they aren’t “automatic weapons” for regulatory purposes, would probably go further if spent on easing the burden of legally obtaining automatic weapons and other NFA items.

  2. Libresco notes that “two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides,” …
    Are they also going to make suicide illegal? Incarcerate the cadaver if they used a firearm?

    1. They want suicide to be legal if you are a burden to the healthcare system and then it should be oaid for by the state.

  3. To the hoplophobes, guns = cigarettes. They are using the same tactics – make the offending object more and more difficult to use or own by harassing laws combined with extensive propaganda. The “assault weapon” ban in California was not about banning assault weapons, it was about turning 99 percent of the owners into criminals who can’t take their guns out in public without the worry that Deputy Barney Fife wouldn’t bust them for not registering and paying a yearly fee on them.

  4. For what it’s worth, “silencers” are legal with a tax stamp. I don’t recall how much but sort of expensive. Machine guns also, provided they were manufactured before 1986?, again don’t recall exactly but considerably more expense/hassle with registration.

    1. That’s a $200 tax stamp, and a background check and a wait of several months. So doable, but hardly simple.

      It really is ludicrous. In many countries, silencers are recommended or required because they protect shooters’ hearing and reduce the noise that might annoy the neighbours. When I was younger and living in the UK, anyone could buy one with no questions asked; now I believe you need a firearms license, but you can still just buy one if you have a good reason.

      1. So many people in their 60’s and 70’s are deaf af now because of shooting and a general disregard for loud things in their youth and middle age. It really is a safety issue.

        OT, but I think jerk activists who put a bullhorn in your ear and yell or make noises should be charged with assault. That can cause some damage and in that case, the right to free speech actually is violence.

        1. What? Say again?

          Having grown up on a soy/corn/wheat farm in the mid-west, in that time-frame, it’s a race to see if I go deaf from the machinery noise exposure before I die from the chemicals used.

          As to your point; it’s not the right, it’s the improper exercise thereof.

          Not to mention the damage done on a daily basis by the thousands of municipal fire and police departments around the world!

  6. Statistically speaking, the average American is far more likely to be killed by a doctor making a mistake (80,000 a year according to some sources) than by a firearm. There are about a million MDs in the country compared to over 200 million firearms.

  7. But “gun owners hate them” is what sells, and what seems to motivate a substantial (and devoted) minority of gun-ban types.

    (The other motivation seems to be just “think of the children!” Maude Flandersism, combined with “guns are for The Other who Aren’t Like Us” not caring or actual antipathy.

    Of course, the latter half of that shades into “gun owners hate it so it must be good”…)

    2. It is a lot like the PC drive to make words taboo. It is less about any specific word than who uses the word. I bet you would find that any activity or viewpoint, even to a trivial detail, by non-Democrats receives this treatment.

Comments are closed.