Gun owners in WA have given up

[lilguy]

All these liberal antigun governments are voted in by a majority of the electorate. We can rail on about how they come to their conclusions on specific issues but majority rules. Those states and locals have the governments they want.
I can carry on about my state, Illinois, but the people want one party democratic rule.Nothing will change that, facts on issues are irrelevant.

 

[crstrode]

Hello - McFly!

It's not homicides per-capita that count.

Its the communists per-capita in government that counts.

 

[danez71]

Not trying to prove it invalid, just not effective.

No...Not really. The point you've been driving is that it's not evidence that gun control works and your tactic to prove that is by pointing to individual counties.

YES!!! You have it now!

I've always had that and most here do as well (most likely)

But using examples of select individual counties to prove state data isn't evidence is sorely bad.

Basically, if someone said 'this is a nutritious meal' and your come back is 'the bread doesn't have protein, admit it and then we can talk',,,, your come back is completely out of context of the meal as a whole.

The meal as a whole could be nutritious... your bread comment is out of context as compared to the meal as a whole.

So what's left is that the meal being nutritious as a whole could still be valid, or not, and your comment of the bread doesn't have protein is a valid point but not relevant in the context of the validity, or not, of the nutritiousness of the whole meal including the bread.

Then saying 'admit it and then we can talk'.....?


'the sky being blue isn't proof, H20 is clear, admit it then we can talk'

 

[CoalTrain49]

But not anywhere near equally. There are very few homicides outside of the large urban areas in any given state. 68% US murders are committed in about 5% of US counties*, urban counties. In those other counties, there is no gun violence problem so laws designed to reduce gun violence will have no obvious effect outside of urban areas. If the laws actually work, they will have an immediately noticeable effect on the populations where gun violence is a problem i.e. the cities.

*If the 1 percent of counties with the worst murder rates somehow were to become one separate country, the murder rate in the rest of the U.S. would have been only 3.4 in 2014. Removing the worst 2 percent or 5 percent would have reduced the rate to just 3.06 or 2.56 per 100,000 people, respectively.

If I can't buy a 20 rd. magazine I'm just as affected as someone who lives in a metro area. If you think a law like that only affects those who get busted that's like saying stop signs only affect those who get busted for running stop signs. No, stop signs and mag restrictions affect everyone, one way or another.

As I pointed out, in this state King county can't implement magazine restrictions because that goes beyond the state statute. To date there are no state magazine restrictions.

I understand your point about treating only the sick (people who use high capacity magazines in a crime) but unfortunately that isn't possible in this state. Most people wouldn't know what each county or city had magazine restrictions anyway. The reason for preemption.

 

[TGW1979]

The State senate (Democrat held) passed ESB 5078 yesterday. It's a "high-capacity" magazine ban bill. Goes to house next (Dems hold a majority in the house as well), and Governor Jay will happily sign it (oh, there'll be national press in attendence at the signing ceremony). It'll be law July 1, 2022.

The original bill termed "high-capacity" as magazines holding more than 17 rounds, but guess what? Yep, the ol' bait'n'switch, in the new version of the bill, high-capacity mags are those holding more than 10 rounds.

On my local and regional firearms forums, the consensus seems to be, "Well, good thing I have so many magazines" and "I'm now stocking up on 10-round magazines for my guns." Very few folks standing up and indicating they are still busy contacting their state reps and still fighting the good fight.

Judging by all the commentary I'm hearing and reading, this state's gun-owners have essentially given up and conceded the right to keep buying and using standard-capacity magazines. I just can't believe the acceptance I'm seeing. After the passage by voters of initiatives 594 and 1639, I was pretty disgusted, but today, I'm just sad.

I'll be loading up the moving van before the ink is dry on the sale paperwork of my house here. Sigh.

Here in New Hampshire... We are very firearms friendly. It's the Live Free Or Die state. For now anyway. Now is it a fair assumption that you're not going to be grandfathered in with your higher capacity magazines even if you have a bill of sale for them?

 

[redcon1]

If I can't buy a 20 rd. magazine I'm just as affected as someone who lives in a metro area.

I'm not saying otherwise. Truth be told, you're more affected by such a law than any criminal operating in the city. They aren't going to abide by it. You more than likely will.
What I'm saying is that the law was passed, in the first place, based on the presupposition that it would somehow reduce the number of homicide victims and would somehow reduce the incidence of criminal gun use. I'm just saying look for that reduction in the areas where criminal gun use is prevalent, the cities where the vast majority of homicides occur. There's no point looking for homicide reductions in Mayberry, USA.

I understand your point about treating only the sick (people who use high capacity magazines in a crime) but unfortunately that isn't possible in this state. Most people wouldn't know what each county or city had magazine restrictions anyway. The reason for preemption.

I'm 100% in favor of state preemption laws and I don't think a magazine ban is going to reduce any homicide rate in any way shape or form. My concern is the manipulating of statistics to show a reduction in homicides that isn't based on reality in order to deceive the public into adopting similar or even more restrictive laws in other states and at the federal level. The fact is, there is a high degree of gun crime in California cities just like there is in every other state. Some cities are worse then others just like in every other state. The use of statewide per 100,000 homicide rates as evidence of homicide reductions associated with gun restrictions is misleading and, even worse, it's intentionally misleading.

 

[redcon1]

No...Not really. The point you've been driving is that it's not evidence that gun control works and your tactic to prove that is by pointing to individual counties.

That's true. And if gun control was effective, why would California cities have higher rates of gun crime than Louisiana cities?

But using examples of select individual counties to prove state data isn't evidence is sorely bad.

I'm not cherry picking counties. I'm simply showing that every state has counties with high homicide rates (except Hawaii perhaps) and, outside of those counties, every state is relatively homicide free. As such, gun crime is not correlated with gun control.

Then saying 'admit it and then we can talk'.....?

What exactly would you like to talk about then?

 

[JohnKSa]

YOU forced THIS debate into THESE weeds and now you cry foul. This is EXACTLY why I didn't want to go there. We're done.

1. I forced nothing, you brought up the topic with no prompting.
2. Obviously you are not done since you have posted a half-dozen more times since you were "done".
3. There's no need to get bent out of shape. It's just a reminder that there are places we don't go here and that's one of them.

And if gun control was effective, why would California cities have higher rates of gun crime than Louisiana cities?

Well, it's not effective in the sense of reducing crime across the board at a level that it shows up in raw or per capita statistics. It might have some effect (positive or negative) or it might have no effect, there are other factors that affect crime more than gun control so it's impossible to say what effect gun control has on crime without compensating for those other factors first.

In other words, just as one can't prove the effectiveness of gun control using raw crime statistics (per capita or otherwise) one can't prove that it has no effect-and for the same reason. Any effect it does have is swamped by other factors.

YES!!! You have it now!

He's had it all along.

The point is that, like the vaccine example, gun control might have an effect on crime in some circumstances/populations, so you have to be careful going around picking this city and that city and this county or that county, or even this state or that state and claiming you've proved or disproved something based on that kind of "selective" analysis. Until you have a handle on the other factors that are affecting the situation, you have to be very careful about picking which data you are going to use while ignoring other data. For one thing, it can give a very incorrect picture. For another, it is easily attacked by anyone who understands statistics and logic. It's a bankrupt strategy.

The bigger point is that for the same reason you can't go around picking which statistics and group you want to analyze and ignoring others, you also can't go around trying to throw out statistics because someone tries to use (or misuse) them to prove something you disagree with. The statistics are what they are--just like guns are just guns. The fact that some people use guns to commit murder or other violent crime doesn't mean we throw them out, that they can't be used for good, for positive benefit--we just need to take a close look at the situation and do a more careful analysis. In the same way, the fact that some groups or people try to use homicide statistics or crime statistics to prove gun control doesn't mean that the statistics are problematic, that we need to throw them out. It doesn't mean they aren't telling us something that we might find valuable. It just means that we need to take a close look at the situation and do a more careful analysis.

Knee-jerk rejection of any bit of information that someone uses (or misuses) to prove something we believe is incorrect is counterproductive. A lot of times there are important things to learn that will be missed if we automatically go into the--"Throw it all out! Mode".

 

[Old Dog]

In some states cities can pass their own restrictions regardless of state law. In other states they can't. WA is one of the states that has preemption in the state law. Seattle, for instance, can't pass any restrictions that run counter to state law.

And the state legislature tried again this year to repeal preemption with HR 1313 -- which fortunately didn't make it out of committee.

They will try with the initiative process next time to repeal preemption so that Seattle, Tacoma, Mercer Island, Bellevue and Bainbridge Island can make their own, highly restrictive gun laws which will render legal carry with CPLs moot.

 

[Old Dog]

Now is it a fair assumption that you're not going to be grandfathered in with your higher capacity magazines even if you have a bill of sale for them?

With the present version, it looks as though grandfathering is not addressed, which means it will be allowed -- but we don't know what the final version of the bill will look like when/if it gets through the house.

 

[danez71]

That's true. And if gun control was effective, why would California cities have higher rates of gun crime than Louisiana cities?

As John pointed out, NOLO was higher than Bakersfield with near identical population. As for the reason, I explained why that would/could be and you acknowledged that.

simply showing that every state has counties with high homicide rates (except Hawaii perhaps) and, outside of those counties, every state is relatively homicide free. As such, gun crime is not correlated with gun control

As pointed out already, NOLO higher than Bakersfield, so in that case it did track. You're only pointing out one's that don't track.

What exactly would you like to talk about then?

How about a study that's by county before and after new gun control laws passed.

That would at least fit what you're trying to show.

For the record, I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment. I just think you're wrong in trying to counter a state statistic by presenting individual county/city stats.

Hard to have a discussion about whether a banana split is good or bad if you just want to say cherry on top is red.

 

[redcon1]

As John pointed out, NOLO was higher than Bakersfield with near identical population. As for the reason, I explained why that would/could be and you acknowledged that.

So strict gun control works in some California cities but not in others? That makes zero sense. The idea is ridiculous. California has the strictest gun control laws in the country and is frequently cited as an example of how successful gun control laws are at reducing murders based on their statewide 5.5 per 100,000 homicide rate(pdf), which is still above the 2015, 16, 17, 18 and 19 national averages incidentally and in 2016, California had 45 cities with homicide rates equal to or greater than the 2016 national average of 5.4. The worst was Compton with 35.4 murders per 100,000 people. That's 6.5 times the national average. Compton is subject to the same gun control laws as Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills had zero murders in 2016, 17 and 18. Why is Compton's homicide rate 6.5 times higher than the National average and Beverly Hills is zero? Does California's strict gun control just work that much better in Beverly Hills? Why does gun control work on the people in Beverly Hills but not on the people of Compton and how is that evidence that strict gun control laws lower homicide rates?

How about a study that's by county before and after new gun control laws passed.

OK. How about it? Show me that study. Of course homicide rates vary from one year to the next in every city independent of changes in the state's gun control laws and it doesn't change the fact that California has plenty of cities with rates of gun violence significantly higher than the national average and Louisiana has plenty of cities below the national average, despite their lax gun control laws.
Another statistical trick used to create the illusion that gun control works is to talk about "gun violence" rates but ignore violent crime rates (which includes forcible rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault and murder/non-negligent manslaughter) and is a more comprehensive indicator of a communities relative safety or lack thereof.

In California, in 2019, there were 433.5 violent crimes per 100,000 people
In Mississippi, in 2019, there were 379 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
In the United states, in 2019, there were 366.7 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

So, despite California's strictest in the nation gun control laws, it's still considerably more dangerous than the US as a whole and Mississippi is lambasted by the Gifford's law center for being the second most dangerous state in America and for having the most relaxed gun laws in the nation and yet, here we see that California is a significantly more violent state. It's more violent than the nation as a whole and more violent than Mississippi with its "weakest gun laws in the country" and Mississippi is barely over the national average. So is that too because of how well gun control works? I don't think so. California is kind of a mess really and their gun laws are clearly not a model which we should look to for solutions to our nation's violent crime problems.

 

[danez71]

So strict gun control works in some California cities but not in others? That makes zero sense.

Really? You've already admitted there are reasons, and gave some reasons yourself, as to why the different results can happen.

That would mean you were making zero sense then or zero sense now?

 

[redcon1]

Really? You've already admitted there are reasons, and gave some reasons yourself, as to why the different results can happen.

What reasons are you talking about? I never said that there were reasons that gun control worked in one city but not in another. It either works or it doesn't and based on the everything I just posted, it clearly doesn't. I said that statewide per 100,000 homicide rates are not evidentiary of a reduction in homicides as evidenced by above average homicide rates in the actual areas where homicides are actually a problem in states that have implemented strict gun control measures.

 

[danez71]

What reasons are you talking about? I never said that there were reasons that gun control worked in one city but not in another.

Yes you have. Go back a read your posts.

Apply the reasons you gave and apply them to cities.


If you're denying and/or unable to recall what you wrote, there's probably no reason to continue.

 

[JCJIM]

Statistics are just statistics and are manipulated any way you wish. The gun lobby wants to get rid of guns, they are trying to shape the publics
sediment to accomplish what they want. All factions in all issues in this country do this. It may take many decades but at some point the whole world will be against guns and they will be gone, that's what "governments and corporations want" and what governments and corporations want that's what they'll get no question about it. Who knows how long it will take to disarm everyone we can only hope many many decades but it will happen at some point.

There could be some new legal device that will take the place of guns that people will use to defend themselves, if that happened then guns will disappear much quicker. What's popping up around the country is hunting, there are groups that don't want people to hunt animals any longer. Just another action against guns.

 

[AlexanderA]

It may take many decades but at some point the whole world will be against guns and they will be gone,

More likely, we're heading for a dystopian "Road Warrior" world in which everybody will be armed. We're halfway there already. There's simply no way to remove the existing inventory of guns, laws or no laws.

 

[redcon1]

Yes you have. Go back a read your posts.

Apply the reasons you gave and apply them to cities.


If you're denying and/or unable to recall what you wrote, there's probably no reason to continue.

No I didn't. Go ahead and point out where I listed any reasons why gun control would work in one population but not in another. I have been consistent throughout the near 50 posts I have made in this thread that the fact that strict gun control doesn't reduce homicides equally well in all populations is evidence that strict gun control doesn't actually reduce homicides and that the "other factors" are "irrelevant", "unnecessary" and "distracting" to this argument and, aside from that, "difficult to discuss" and, furthermore, do not support the gun control advocate's theory that strict gun control laws make a society safer. If I have made such a statement than it should be easy enough for you to point it out. Go ahead and do that.

 

[CoalTrain49]

With the present version, it looks as though grandfathering is not addressed, which means it will be allowed -- but we don't know what the final version of the bill will look like when/if it gets through the house.

I don't think the senate bill as written will pass. One thing that needs to be recognized is a persons ability to use existing magazines without penalty. Restricting my use is like saying I can't drive my late model vehicle on the road anymore because the state now deems it unsafe, although it was when I purchased it.

I believe they can make the sale of hicap magazines illegal in this state just as they can restrict future sales of semi-auto rifles, but you can't go back in time and change the rules. My rifle is already registered by the state so they can assume I have hicap magazines because that's what it was designed to use.

 

[redcon1]

Who knows how long it will take to disarm everyone we can only hope many many decades but it will happen at some point

"Everyone" will never be disarmed. Law abiding citizens may be disarmed but criminals and elitists will always be armed and, until phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range are available, the firearm will be the weapon they are armed with.

 

[redcon1]

I don't think the senate bill as written will pass. One thing that needs to be recognized is a persons ability to use existing magazines without penalty. Restricting my use is like saying I can't drive my late model vehicle on the road anymore because the state now deems it unsafe, although it was when I purchased it.

I believe they can make the sale of hicap magazines illegal in this state but, just as they can restrict future sales of semi-auto rifles, but you can't go back in time and change the rules. My rifle is already registered by the state so they can assume I have hicap magazines because that's what it was designed to use.

They'll take as much as you allow. The only thing that limits their grasp is their reach which is why "giving up" is a real bad plan. It's about power and will and if nothing is there to check their power and will, they'll take everything.

 

[danez71]

No I didn't. Go ahead and point out where I listed any reasons why gun control would work in one population but not in another

Your post 133 is an example.

 

[Old Dog]

I don't think the senate bill as written will pass. One thing that needs to be recognized is a persons ability to use existing magazines without penalty. Restricting my use is like saying I can't drive my late model vehicle on the road anymore because the state now deems it unsafe, although it was when I purchased it.

I believe they can make the sale of hicap magazines illegal in this state but, just as they can restrict future sales of semi-auto rifles, but you can't go back in time and change the rules. My rifle is already registered by the state so they can assume I have hicap magazines because that's what it was designed to use.

Marko Illias sponsored this bill (and lied, saying the last "mass shooter" in Mulkiteo was only stopped before he killed more people because he wasn't using "high-cap" mags and had to stop to reload) -- the original version from AG Bob Ferguson was the one he had given the legislature for the past six terms. In the original version, you couldn't carry or transport your "high-capacity" magazines loaded, and they could only be used on an "authorized" shooting range (WTH?). We shall see.

 

[CoalTrain49]

More likely, we're heading for a dystopian "Road Warrior" world in which everybody will be armed. We're halfway there already. There's simply no way to remove the existing inventory of guns, laws or no laws.

That's what I keep telling everyone. For those that believe more gun control will effectively change anything, I tell them that train has already left the station. I think it left about 50 years ago.

 

[rust collector]

The core of the problem which is never successfully addressed by new gun control laws is that criminals by definition do not follow the law.