Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

[PtldPlatypus]

Interesting. Earlier, you were claiming that licensure regulations are clearly ineffective because 1.3M people die per year from auto accidents.

You can tell by the data that it's not very effective. 1.3M/year die in spite of the regulations. That's a really large number.

Yet this CDC factsheet you posted indicates that the actual number of auto deaths is more like 35,000 (based on the 10,265 DUI related deaths being 29% of the overall total)


​

​

​

So, is that a sufficiently low enough number to suggest that perhaps licensure requirements might actually provide public health value? Or are you sticking to your guns on this one?

​

 

[RR7]

Interesting. Earlier, you were claiming that licensure regulations are clearly ineffective because 1.3M people die per year from auto accidents.




Yet this CDC factsheet you posted indicates that the actual number of auto deaths is more like 35,000 (based on the 10,265 DUI related deaths being 29% of the overall total)



​

So, is that a sufficiently low enough number to suggest that perhaps licensure requirements might actually provide public health value? Or are you sticking to your guns on this one?

​

Denny, for some reason, went with global deaths to get the high number. Seems irrelevant to a discussion on US laws and regulation

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting. Earlier, you were claiming that licensure regulations are clearly ineffective because 1.3M people die per year from auto accidents.




Yet this CDC factsheet you posted indicates that the actual number of auto deaths is more like 35,000 (based on the 10,265 DUI related deaths being 29% of the overall total)



​

So, is that a sufficiently low enough number to suggest that perhaps licensure requirements might actually provide public health value? Or are you sticking to your guns on this one?

​

My bad. I may have misunderstood the source I used. The 1.3M is worldwide.
http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics

However, I don't see much of a difference, deaths per 100K population, from the early years before licensing (1920s, 1930s) to the present. In fact, given the focus of automakers on vehicle safety, it's difficult to show any public health value to licensing at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

The CDC fact sheet sure looks like drunk driving hasn't declined much at all since 1993, the year the CDC started keeping the data.

 

[riverman]

The airlines banned smoking on almost all flights before the government passed any law.

why....people complained...that's how these seeds take root

 

[dviss1]

Sometimes. The airlines banned smoking on almost all flights before the government passed any law.

Bartenders and establishments that serve alcohol have long been subject to liability in lawsuits. Since the 1800s, even.

Can you smoke in bars now in Portland? Why can't you?

Because of health and safety regulations.

 

[dviss1]

The CDC fact sheet sure looks like drunk driving hasn't declined much at all since 1993, the year the CDC started keeping the data.

So we should get rid of the drunk driving laws then? They're ineffective!!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

My bad. I may have misunderstood the source I used. The 1.3M is worldwide.
http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics

However, I don't see much of a difference, deaths per 100K population, from the early years before licensing (1920s, 1930s) to the present. In fact, given the focus of automakers on vehicle safety, it's difficult to show any public health value to licensing at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

The CDC fact sheet sure looks like drunk driving hasn't declined much at all since 1993, the year the CDC started keeping the data.

Per your Wikipedia link, deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled seem to have declined pretty steadily throughout the past century and have been holding relatively steady since 2009. I think 1 death per 100M miles is a pretty amazing statistic, honestly.

 

[riverman]

I'll give the administration credit today for meeting with parents and students and actually asking real questions and appearing to listen...I watched the feed and it was in my view constructive dialogue....interesting reference to Australia passing legislation after a 1996 school shooting and having NO school shootings since...can't argue with that fact

 

[Denny Crane]

Per your Wikipedia link, deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled seem to have declined pretty steadily throughout the past century and have been holding relatively steady since 2009. I think 1 death per 100M miles is a pretty amazing statistic, honestly.

Like I said, cars have gotten safer. How many deaths saved can we attribute to windshield wipers? That's one of many safety features added to cars over the years. My car has a crush proof/resistant passenger cabin and other features designed to make it so you can drive the car away from most accidents.

Your 1 death per 100M miles is equivalent to gun homicide stats, FWIW.

Also, it's way easier for a population of 300M to get 100M miles than it is for a population of 150M.

 

[Denny Crane]

So we should get rid of the drunk driving laws then? They're ineffective!!

They're not regulations.

They're criminal penalties and civil liability.

People drive drunk no matter what laws you pass. That's your problem; for your argument.

 

[Denny Crane]

Can you smoke in bars now in Portland? Why can't you?

Because of health and safety regulations.

A lot of people think it's fascist.

It really should be up to the bar owners, no? If people don't want the smoke, they can go somewhere else, and the bar loses money.

Free market rules.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Your 1 death per 100M miles is equivalent to gun homicide stats, FWIW.

Interesting claim. How are they equivalent?

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting claim. How are they equivalent?

~300M cars/guns, ~35,000 deaths.

I wouldn't count suicides in my methodology, which would radically change the equivalency. People who want to kill themselves will find a way, and there are plenty of easy ones. Jump off a bridge, etc.

21,000 suicides by gun included in those 35K. So ~12K gun homicides/accidents otherwise.

Like with cars, the VAST majority of guns and owners do not shoot and/or kill people.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

~300M cars/guns, ~35,000 deaths.

I wouldn't count suicides in my methodology, which would radically change the equivalency. People who want to kill themselves will find a way, and there are plenty of easy ones. Jump off a bridge, etc.

21,000 suicides by gun included in those 35K. So ~12K gun homicides/accidents otherwise.

Like with cars, the VAST majority of guns and owners do not shoot and/or kill people.

The ~300M cars travel over 3T miles per year. Unless the ~300M guns are firing over 3T cartridges and only resulting in ~35K fatalities, there's really no equivalency here (by my estimation).

 

[Denny Crane]

The ~300M cars travel over 3T miles per year. Unless the ~300M guns are firing over 3T cartridges and only resulting in ~35K fatalities, there's really no equivalency here (by my estimation).

There are certainly 10s of billions of rounds of ammo in circulation and 12 billion sold each year.

12B / 12K = 1,000,000 bullets per homicide.

Not sure your miles traveled is equivalent.

I've seen claims of trillions of rounds. I chose the least number I found.

 

[MarAzul]

Free market rules.

Dang! This seems right.

 

[barfo]

Free market rules, public health drools?

barfo

 

[Further]

Scalia's interpretation is that the feds cannot infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

But the states can.

Now we need to get those states infringing.

 

[MarAzul]

Now we need to get those states infringing.

So just for the sake of clarity, you want the Constitution to be meaningless? Is that a fair take?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

So just for the sake of clarity, you want the Constitution to be meaningless? Is that a fair take?

I think he is saying that he wants the states to take as much leeway as the constitution and Supreme Court allow. Can't see anything wrong with that.

 

[MarAzul]

I think he is saying that he wants the states to take as much leeway as the constitution and Supreme Court allow. Can't see anything wrong with that.

When you infringe on what shall not be infringed, I do see wrong in the intent. The only way to do that is give the word infringed a new meaning. Now we have done that sort of thing already. Continuing to do it will make the Constitution meaningless and I am asking if that is the intent?

 

[barfo]

When you infringe on what shall not be infringed, I do see wrong in the intent. The only way to do that is give the word infringed a new meaning. Now we have done that sort of thing already. Continuing to do it will make the Constitution meaningless and I am asking if that is the intent?

The original intent of the phrase "shall not be infringed" was that you shouldn't be like this guy:

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

When you infringe on what shall not be infringed, I do see wrong in the intent. The only way to do that is give the word infringed a new meaning. Now we have done that sort of thing already. Continuing to do it will make the Constitution meaningless and I am asking if that is the intent?

I suppose if the court lets stuff pass that shouldn't be the system still works as designed right? It all boils down to 5 out of 9 people voting on how they see things.

 

[RR7]

So just for the sake of clarity, you want the Constitution to be meaningless? Is that a fair take?

Are you upset about all of the added amendments beyond the original bill of rights in the constitution?
Do you feel like the founders got everything right, and adding or changing anything about their words and thoughts from 230 years ago makes the constitution meaningless?
Was it wrong to abolish slavery, as times and thoughts changed on the subject some 80 years after the founders got it right?
Was it wrong to give women the right to vote 130 years or so after the founders knew everything there was to say on anything?

 

[AFully22]

I turn on CNN and there’s a teenager yelling at me about gun control...

I switch to FOX and there talking about if we should reimplement prayer in the schools to see if that could help...

This ain’t going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Nate]

I turn on CNN and there’s a teenager yelling at me about gun control...

I switch to FOX and there talking about if we should reimplement prayer in the schools to see if that could help...

This ain’t going anywhere anytime soon.

I’m just over here trying to enjoy some tide pods.

 

[AFully22]

I’m just over here trying to enjoy some tide pods.

If you think tide pods are good you should try the cotton candy stuffed behind the walls. A little itchy and burny, but deliciousss.

 

[MarAzul]

Are you upset about all of the added amendments beyond the original bill of rights in the constitution?

>>>>Not at all.

Do you feel like the founders got everything right, and adding or changing anything about their words and thoughts from 230 years ago makes the constitution meaningless?

>>> No, it certainly does not when done by amendment.

Was it wrong to abolish slavery, as times and thoughts changed on the subject some 80 years after the founders got it right?

>>> No, and excellent use of the amendment process. The founders did get it right. They gave us the amendment process to correct what we find needs correction.

Was it wrong to give women the right to vote 130 years or so after the founders knew everything there was to say on anything?

>>> Oh, I would say, it appears they knew there might be more to say. Thankfully they gave us the amendment process and the women's vote is now a matter of record.

 

[Stevenson]

So, @MarAzul, since you clearly love the Constitution, and you rightly say that it says the right, "shall not be infringed," what do you do with the phrase "well-regulated"? And also "militia"? That boy in the school was not in any militia.

 

[RR7]

>>>>Not at all.


>>> No, it certainly does not when done by amendment.



>>> No, and excellent use of the amendment process. The founders did get it right. They gave us the amendment process to correct what we find needs correction.


>>> Oh, I would say, it appears they knew there might be more to say. Thankfully they gave us the amendment process and the women's vote is now a matter of record.

Then it just seems weird that you demand suggestions that don't infringe, when obviously the framers left open the option to amend, even with infringement. Now, whether you WANT that or not doesn't change whether it COULD be constitutional, if through the proper channels.