Can’t believe we are back to the media freaking out over printable gun plans on the interwebz. Some federal judge already stopped it which will just be overturned by someone. It is way cheaper to buy a shitty gun off some private citizen then any 3D printed gun that would be good.
Also, for the love of God, will media outlets hire one dude with an ounce of gun knowledge? FFS. “Undetectable” guns, fully 3D printed ARs, they can’t get things more wrong.
There is a video from ABC News on Facebook of a Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut ranting and raving about how no one is safe anymore. Not a single thing he said had any basis in reality.
posted by BoatShoesSo let's show some of the other side. This was quite fun for me on this rainy day at the office.
1. Crimes Prevented:
My understanding is that the author takes into account estimates of hypothetical crimes deterred & prevented - I agree we could use a lot more research in this area. Maybe if firearm advocates would let the CDC study it, etc. we could get better data. As it stands the surveys done in the 90's that suggests there's all kinds of defensive gun use that is often parroted by firearm rights advocates makes climate change research look like undeniable logic by comparison.
The latest study I ran across was this from 2015: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188?via%3Dihub
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
Conclusions
Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
So - this study suggests no evidence of a crime reduction benefit. Let's consider this video:
Merely brandishing his firearm wouldn't have reduced any further harm to his person from the guy defending his girlfriend than simply walking away. The firearm made a lesser social harm - two minor crimes - escalate into a death & prosecutors with a tough case.
Find some research that adheres to your very high standard of acceptability for climate science with regard to guns and I'll listen. But please, let's do more research. I'm all for it.
2. Hunting:
I'll give you the general past time of hunting overall and not just "hunting for food versus buying it" - a pro-hunting web site I found points to studies showing a $38.9 Billion direct impact from Hunting - a rough idea of its utility. http://protecttheharvest.com/2014/11/14/hunting-america-economy/
3. "Reduced Cost of Military 'Need'" - The U.S. Military budget is $550 Billion Dollars. I.E. Mass firearm ownership is not reducing our military budget. Indeed, it's increased the need for police forces to militarize and to have to mobilize the National Guard domestically. For example, The Federal Government began providing military firearms to police officers after the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout when ordinary patrol officers were badly outgunned. As such, mass firearm ownership in reality has contributed to bigger government and the militarization of law enforcement. As you would say "that's your opinion, not a fact" and the evidence seems to support the opposite conclusion.
4. Had to quote this one directly "No one has invaded the US mainland mainly for fear that there is a gun behind every door. The Japanese said so explicitly in WW2."
Nothing screams engineer like propagating folklore.
You're referring to this:
But it's made up!
Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.
How do we know? We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" (1993) and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor" (1981). He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."
In an exchange of e-mails he said:
Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.
We included this in an update to an Ask FactCheck item we posted May 10, debunking an error-filled "gun history lesson" circulating by e-mail.
We make no argument either for or against gun ownership. But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.
https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
^^^Ahh - this shit still makes it fun to come here lol.
Oh yeah and the United States mainland was invaded in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and of course - the Civil War.
5. "Suicide would not got down":
A University of Indianapolis study has found that a law allowing authorities to temporarily remove guns from those considered a risk to others or themselves has helped reduce Indiana's firearm-related suicides.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518361/
Suicide is a serious public health concern that is responsible for almost 1 million deaths each year worldwide. It is commonly an impulsive act by a vulnerable individual. The impulsivity of suicide provides opportunities to reduce the risk of suicide by restricting access to lethal means.
In the United States, firearms, particularly handguns, are the most common means of suicide. Despite strong empirical evidence that restriction of access to firearms reduces suicides, access to firearms in the United States is generally subject to few restrictions.
Implementation and evaluation of measures such as waiting periods and permit requirements that restrict access to handguns should be a top priority for reducing deaths from impulsive suicide in the United States
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.
The lesson? Many lives would likely be saved if people disposed of their firearms, kept them locked away, or stored them outside the home. Says HSPH Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway, the ICRC’s director: “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”
There is much more empirical evidence that reducing access to firearms can reduce suicide. (Way more than there is that there were dinosaurs walking the earth with humans but hey what are you gonna believe!) "Again the argument to me is not that it can't work - it's that I have the liberty to own my guns and I don't care if a consequence is that more people will kill themselves" (And I'm ok with that - let's just find a way for the people who demand this market and all of its social costs to exist to bear those costs as they should in a truly free and transparent marketplace).
6. "Violent Attacks Would Still Happen"
I agree and it is desirable for motivated criminals to use less effective instruments of harm.
7. "You're giving one biased view"
Please - let's have the funding from Congress to the CDC, Department of Justice, National Institutes of Health, ATF and whoever else to study this matter. Why do firearm lobbyists block it when they're so confident firearms save millions of lives per year, etc? (Because they know it's bullshit. The argument for mass firearm ownership is that none of the vast negative consequences outweigh my individual liberty).
In any case I'll summarize what I've found. Looks like the evidence is not in your favor on most of your assertions but that the hunting economy reduces the $300 billion in negative social costs by about $40 Billion. Okey Dokey - that's how much we'll reduce the bill.
Does anyone have the tl;dr or Cliff's Notes version of this?
posted by justincredibleThere is a video from ABC News on Facebook of a Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut ranting and raving about how no one is safe anymore. Not a single thing he said had any basis in reality.
It can be hard to keep up with technology - do 3D printed guns still fire metal bullets? :)
posted by gutIt can be hard to keep up with technology - do 3D printed guns still fire metal bullets? :)
Link to the video on twitter:
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1024309860471472129
I love that he's holding a giant photo of guns that are still 90% metal saying that are undetectable. And people are dumb enough to buy what he's saying.
posted by gutIt can be hard to keep up with technology - do 3D printed guns still fire metal bullets? :)
Yes, the casings and primer are still metal, gun powder has a metalic residue. The actual bullet is metal unless it is a specialized ceramic/polymer bullet.
Either way the rest of the round is still metal.
posted by BoatShoesThe economic utility of school buses clearly outweighs the risk that my kid would die on a school bus
But help me understand this.
First, in order for this to be true, you have to assume that the two things being compared are quantifiable in the same respect (in this case, financially, since that's how you'd quantify economic utility).
Now, I'm not sure we can resolutely quantify all this, but suppose we could.
The economic utility would be the sum total of reduced cost in transportation with regard to transporting children to school. Something like this (assuming all other factors to be equal):
the total transportation expenses ($) incurred in a society without busing within a given time frame = x
the total transportation expenses ($) incurred in a society WITH busing within a given time frame = y
the economic utility of busing ($) within a given time frame = z
So:
x - y = z
Now, for the purposes here, let's just assume we can know with certainty that this economic utility would be positive.
Since we have the number of children killed in busing-related deaths per year, we can use a year as our time frame.
If six kids die per year, and if we assume your statement as true, then:
z / 6 > 1 child death
That is, ultimately, what is being said with the statement that the economic utility of busing provides more value than is necessary to counter the loss of six students. Whatever the actual financial value is of z (and whether or not we can know it, it does theoretically exist), your statement would state with certainty that one-sixth of that value is greater than the value of the student life lost.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that flippantly, and I'm making a concerted effort to avoid hyperbole, but if we understand the economic utility to be a real, quantifiable thing ... again, whether we can know the actual number or not ... then we're saying that the economic utility of busing is greater than the value of the lives of the kids who are lost as a result.
Certainly, I'm not saying it can't be argued from an angle other than societal utility, but I can't get on board with that notion.
posted by justincredibleI love that he's holding a giant photo of guns that are still 90% metal saying that are undetectable. And people are dumb enough to buy what he's saying.
One of the comments said plastic shows up on current TSA scanners. I happen to have seen some of those scans at the airport - I was surprised by the clarity and definition. I'm pretty sure they could spot the components of a 3D printed plastic gun in a suitcase.
posted by gutOne of the comments said plastic shows up on current TSA scanners. I happen to have seen some of those scans at the airport - I was surprised by the clarity and definition. I'm pretty sure they could spot the components of a 3D printed plastic gun in a suitcase.
Last month, I forgot to take my stupid little credit card knife out of my wallet when I went to the airport.
They spotted that and confiscated it.
I'm thinking they'll probably see such a gun.
posted by gutOne of the comments said plastic shows up on current TSA scanners. I happen to have seen some of those scans at the airport - I was surprised by the clarity and definition. I'm pretty sure they could spot the components of a 3D printed plastic gun in a suitcase.
I have too, but don't forget about the people who are actually running them...
posted by O-TrapLast month, I forgot to take my stupid little credit card knife out of my wallet when I went to the airport.
They spotted that and confiscated it.
I'm thinking they'll probably see such a gun.
I have heard plenty of stories of TSA missing guns.
posted by gutOne of the comments said plastic shows up on current TSA scanners. I happen to have seen some of those scans at the airport - I was surprised by the clarity and definition. I'm pretty sure they could spot the components of a 3D printed plastic gun in a suitcase.
Oh they can and do. I have a tool for work that is mostly plastic that analyzes the emissions out of an industrial furnace. The probe that pulls the gases out to the instrument is vaguely shaped like a gun. It gets seen and flagged every time through TSA and they have to open the box, swab everything, ask me a few questions about what the thing is, etc.
I always get through, only once had to ask for a "supervisor" because the agent wasn't going to let me through (the supervisor knew what the device was and immediately let me through). My local airport (CAK) they see me enough that they never question, just open it up, swab it, and let me go now.
Long story short, yes, they can/will see it in the carry on bag and if you have it while going through the body scanner it will set off the "we need to pat you down" alarm.
Only way it would get through is if you got "lucky" that they were busy and opened up metal detector only lines (happens infrequently). And even then you aren't getting the bullets through as previously discussed.
posted by like_thatI have heard plenty of stories of TSA missing guns.
I don't doubt that. We all know they've missed bombs more than once.
As you said, the people have to still operate them, but it's still a hilariously far cry from the TSA being incapable of picking them up.
posted by jmogOh they can and do. I have a tool for work that is mostly plastic that analyzes the emissions out of an industrial furnace. The probe that pulls the gases out to the instrument is vaguely shaped like a gun. It gets seen and flagged every time through TSA and they have to open the box, swab everything, ask me a few questions about what the thing is, etc.
I always get through, only once had to ask for a "supervisor" because the agent wasn't going to let me through (the supervisor knew what the device was and immediately let me through). My local airport (CAK) they see me enough that they never question, just open it up, swab it, and let me go now.
Long story short, yes, they can/will see it in the carry on bag and if you have it while going through the body scanner it will set off the "we need to pat you down" alarm.
Only way it would get through is if you got "lucky" that they were busy and opened up metal detector only lines (happens infrequently). And even then you aren't getting the bullets through as previously discussed.
I had this happen with an IT toolkit once.The screwdrivers were really fine, and apparently, it looked like I had a little kit of metal shivs. Thought maybe I was flying across the country to shank someone.
posted by O-TrapI don't doubt that. We all know they've missed bombs more than once.
As you said, the people have to still operate them, but it's still a hilariously far cry from the TSA being incapable of picking them up.
posted by jmogOh they can and do. I have a tool for work that is mostly plastic that analyzes the emissions out of an industrial furnace. The probe that pulls the gases out to the instrument is vaguely shaped like a gun. It gets seen and flagged every time through TSA and they have to open the box, swab everything, ask me a few questions about what the thing is, etc.
I always get through, only once had to ask for a "supervisor" because the agent wasn't going to let me through (the supervisor knew what the device was and immediately let me through). My local airport (CAK) they see me enough that they never question, just open it up, swab it, and let me go now.
Long story short, yes, they can/will see it in the carry on bag and if you have it while going through the body scanner it will set off the "we need to pat you down" alarm.
Only way it would get through is if you got "lucky" that they were busy and opened up metal detector only lines (happens infrequently). And even then you aren't getting the bullets through as previously discussed.
I had this happen with an IT toolkit once.The screwdrivers were really fine, and apparently, it looked like I had a little kit of metal shivs. Thought maybe I was flying across the country to shank someone.
The actual name of the device I use is a Combustion Analyzer. I never tell them that however (all I need is one of those Barney Fife's to hear the word combustion).
I tell them its an air polution monitor/analyzer, which is technically not a lie.
