Pattern Ghost

They are certainly more restrictive. Their sanity is subject to debate, such as with micro stamping and the fact the roster has not added a new firearm since 2014, but we have very strong regulation.
 
Edit: it’s far more complex than what I said regarding adding new firearms to the roster. But it is factually correct that commonly used firearms in most States, are not presently added. And additionally there is a caveat that for every model added, three must be removed. There are significant questions about the legality of that latter regulation, which is currently being challenged and pending ruling, but is the law until overturned.

I'm not PG, but the Shockwave (and the TAC-14) exploit a loophole in legal/regulatory gun definitions where they are not shotguns because they do not have buttstocks. 

OK, I'm going to go on another meandering post here with my current thoughts re: gun laws. As before, I'm using a post as a jumping off point, but that isn't meant to single out Old Man. That'd be mean. We need to be nice to our elders.
 
 
The problem with features lists is human ingenuity. Someone will engineer something just as capable in short order. Here's a more effective features list:
 
1. Is a long gun(rifle or shotgun). That means it can be fired from four points of contact. A handgun, you get two hands, that's it. A long gun, you have a hand on each end, a shoulder and a cheek. That adds massive stability, and increases hit probability exponentially for an average shooter. No brace nonsense here, since they're all designed to allow four points of contact. (They seem to be out for now anyway.)
 
2. Fires calibers commonly used in long guns. So, none of those Shockwave** type non-shotguns, pistol-grip shotguns, or AR/AK pistols, braces or not.
 
That's it. Super easy to enforce feature list. But what to do with it?
 
Here's one way to look at it: I remember my very first introduction to the concept of "rights" in grade school. We were introduced to the concept that rights weren't absolute with the old saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." That's a fair standard. How can it be applied to a right to keep and bear arms?
 
Well, inside your house, and on your private property, you're a lot less likely to do collateral damage. So, have your long guns at home. They're actually great at repelling mutant zombie hordes. As a bone to the pro-gun crowd, get rid of the short barreled rifle and short barreled shotgun restrictions in the NFA. It won't matter in step 2.
 
When you step out into public, you are now at much higher risk of shooting someone who isn't you, or stuck living with you. You're now in the public space, and everyone around you has a right not to have your bullets lodged in their tender parts. But we have that pesky Second Amendment, with that pesky "bear" word. Still: No long guns outside. If you're going hunting or to train, fine. Transport them locked up and unloaded. (Most states have laws about transporting firearms in your vehicle along those lines already.) Do your activity. Pack up. Go home. Don't bring them to Starbucks or just haul them everywhere you go, "just in case." Walter Mitty is not invited into the public sphere, sorry. So, that leaves handguns.
 
Now, we aren't limiting handguns so much. For one, they were specifically called out in the Heller decision as the example of a weapon commonly in use, and thus held to a higher standard as far as restrictions go. And, frankly, they do a lot less collateral damage (though may be slightly more likely to cause it due to being more difficult to aim) than long guns. Around 80% of handgun shooting victims survive if given immediate aid and taken to a trauma center, due to the their wounding characteristics (poking holes rather than liquidating interior body parts with hydrostatic shock). Does that mean we allow just anyone to carry a handgun in public, any which way? Nah. Nobody likes having holes poked in them, or being in that other 20%.
 
Now, if you've got your firearm to protect your home and keep it at home, fine. No requirements aside from the normal background check. There are ample firearms safety resources available. My state (WA) incentivizes safe storage for firearms by removing the sales tax from safes. Something similar could be done for safety training, perhaps. But training requirements for exercising a fundamental right at the most basic level is probably a bit much. (Though there are lots of things to do to encourage both safe storage and general safety.)
 
But you want to take your weapon outside? You'd better be a) a damned good shot, b) inoculated to stress by fire/no fire training and testing, c) very thoroughly vetted by a background check, and d) very well-versed in self defense laws. School shootings aside, I'm also getting annoyed by just plain idiot shootings where people imagine themselves to have all kinds of non-extant rights, like the right to start an altercation then shoot the person when you get your ass kicked by said person, or the right to stand on your lawn and point your weapons at people who aren't on your curtilage. This carry permit should also be national, same as a driver's license. (It'd be a heck of a lot harder to get than a DL, too.)
 
So, now you have probable cause to stop folks with rifles or shotguns who are running amok. You allow anyone who wants to and who can qualify, to carry outside the home. Is it idiot proof? No. Does the simple definition necessarily prevent anyone from engineering around it? Eh. I came up with that on the fly, so maybe not, but the general idea of long guns stay at home, handguns can come out if they're in responsible and skilled hands should be easy enough to grasp.
 
None of this solves any root problems, because the tools used to commit the crimes do not cause the crimes. But it's more sensible than other toothless bans, while still allowing the exercise of the right mostly unimpeded.
 
Frankly, your brain is a better self-defense tool than a firearm. Not associating with idiots and following some basic situational awareness and crime prevention practices will do more to keep you safe than a gun. I still believe it should be an option on the table, but as the years pass, I see more and more that we just don't live in a society that's really mature enough for all of the responsibilities that come with our rights.
 
So, now I'm sitting at:
 
Raise gun ownership age to 25 Keep long guns at home, no additional restrictions to purchase or possess than normal background checks (but fix that system) Take the SBR and SBS off the NFA (because it won't matter so much at home) Carry outside the home only if highly qualified, but it's a national carry Red flag laws are problematic from a 4th amendment perspective, but appear to be needed (haven't gone into this lately) Red flag laws should have serious consequences for abusers whether it's false reporting or losing or damaging property (guns) Background checks for all transfers of firearms ownership National reporting requirements for law enforcement that are consistent for all crime reporting Provide enough funding for the ATF for it to enforce current laws*  
 
*I haven't gone into this, but this is to address the straw purchaser concerns. I keep seeing these numbers of suspected straw purchases being traced back to certain states or even certain dealers, and a lot of whining about what a big problem this is. Why? If you know the origin point of the weapons points to particular dealers, why haven't those dealers been shut down by ATF stings  yet??? Either someone is lying about these numbers or the ATF isn't being funded enough to do their jobs. I suspect the latter, though I've seen enough of the former to not take it off the table.
 
 
** Picture of a Shockwave under spoiler tag, for the curious. It's another of those engineering around a definition things:

 
 
 
 

OK, I'm going to go on another meandering post here with my current thoughts re: gun laws. As before, I'm using a post as a jumping off point, but that isn't meant to single out Old Man. That'd be mean. We need to be nice to our elders.
 
 
The problem with features lists is human ingenuity. Someone will engineer something just as capable in short order. Here's a more effective features list:
 
1. Is a long gun(rifle or shotgun). That means it can be fired from four points of contact. A handgun, you get two hands, that's it. A long gun, you have a hand on each end, a shoulder and a cheek. That adds massive stability, and increases hit probability exponentially for an average shooter. No brace nonsense here, since they're all designed to allow four points of contact. (They seem to be out for now anyway.)
 
2. Fires calibers commonly used in long guns. So, none of those Shockwave** type non-shotguns, pistol-grip shotguns, or AR/AK pistols, braces or not.
 
That's it. Super easy to enforce feature list. But what to do with it?
 
Here's one way to look at it: I remember my very first introduction to the concept of "rights" in grade school. We were introduced to the concept that rights weren't absolute with the old saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." That's a fair standard. How can it be applied to a right to keep and bear arms?
 
Well, inside your house, and on your private property, you're a lot less likely to do collateral damage. So, have your long guns at home. They're actually great at repelling mutant zombie hordes. As a bone to the pro-gun crowd, get rid of the short barreled rifle and short barreled shotgun restrictions in the NFA. It won't matter in step 2.
 
When you step out into public, you are now at much higher risk of shooting someone who isn't you, or stuck living with you. You're now in the public space, and everyone around you has a right not to have your bullets lodged in their tender parts. But we have that pesky Second Amendment, with that pesky "bear" word. Still: No long guns outside. If you're going hunting or to train, fine. Transport them locked up and unloaded. (Most states have laws about transporting firearms in your vehicle along those lines already.) Do your activity. Pack up. Go home. Don't bring them to Starbucks or just haul them everywhere you go, "just in case." Walter Mitty is not invited into the public sphere, sorry. So, that leaves handguns.
 
Now, we aren't limiting handguns so much. For one, they were specifically called out in the Heller decision as the example of a weapon commonly in use, and thus held to a higher standard as far as restrictions go. And, frankly, they do a lot less collateral damage (though may be slightly more likely to cause it due to being more difficult to aim) than long guns. Around 80% of handgun shooting victims survive if given immediate aid and taken to a trauma center, due to the their wounding characteristics (poking holes rather than liquidating interior body parts with hydrostatic shock). Does that mean we allow just anyone to carry a handgun in public, any which way? Nah. Nobody likes having holes poked in them, or being in that other 20%.
 
Now, if you've got your firearm to protect your home and keep it at home, fine. No requirements aside from the normal background check. There are ample firearms safety resources available. My state (WA) incentivizes safe storage for firearms by removing the sales tax from safes. Something similar could be done for safety training, perhaps. But training requirements for exercising a fundamental right at the most basic level is probably a bit much. (Though there are lots of things to do to encourage both safe storage and general safety.)
 
But you want to take your weapon outside? You'd better be a) a damned good shot, b) inoculated to stress by fire/no fire training and testing, c) very thoroughly vetted by a background check, and d) very well-versed in self defense laws. School shootings aside, I'm also getting annoyed by just plain idiot shootings where people imagine themselves to have all kinds of non-extant rights, like the right to start an altercation then shoot the person when you get your ass kicked by said person, or the right to stand on your lawn and point your weapons at people who aren't on your curtilage. This carry permit should also be national, same as a driver's license. (It'd be a heck of a lot harder to get than a DL, too.)
 
So, now you have probable cause to stop folks with rifles or shotguns who are running amok. You allow anyone who wants to and who can qualify, to carry outside the home. Is it idiot proof? No. Does the simple definition necessarily prevent anyone from engineering around it? Eh. I came up with that on the fly, so maybe not, but the general idea of long guns stay at home, handguns can come out if they're in responsible and skilled hands should be easy enough to grasp.
 
None of this solves any root problems, because the tools used to commit the crimes do not cause the crimes. But it's more sensible than other toothless bans, while still allowing the exercise of the right mostly unimpeded.
 
Frankly, your brain is a better self-defense tool than a firearm. Not associating with idiots and following some basic situational awareness and crime prevention practices will do more to keep you safe than a gun. I still believe it should be an option on the table, but as the years pass, I see more and more that we just don't live in a society that's really mature enough for all of the responsibilities that come with our rights.
 
So, now I'm sitting at:
 
Raise gun ownership age to 25 Keep long guns at home, no additional restrictions to purchase or possess than normal background checks (but fix that system) Take the SBR and SBS off the NFA (because it won't matter so much at home) Carry outside the home only if highly qualified, but it's a national carry Red flag laws are problematic from a 4th amendment perspective, but appear to be needed (haven't gone into this lately) Red flag laws should have serious consequences for abusers whether it's false reporting or losing or damaging property (guns) Background checks for all transfers of firearms ownership National reporting requirements for law enforcement that are consistent for all crime reporting Provide enough funding for the ATF for it to enforce current laws*  
 
*I haven't gone into this, but this is to address the straw purchaser concerns. I keep seeing these numbers of suspected straw purchases being traced back to certain states or even certain dealers, and a lot of whining about what a big problem this is. Why? If you know the origin point of the weapons points to particular dealers, why haven't those dealers been shut down by ATF stings  yet??? Either someone is lying about these numbers or the ATF isn't being funded enough to do their jobs. I suspect the latter, though I've seen enough of the former to not take it off the table.
 
 
** Picture of a Shockwave under spoiler tag, for the curious. It's another of those engineering around a definition things:

 
 
 
 

Similar article if you don't have a WaPo log-in:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/uganda-anti-lgbtq-bill-rcna76630
 
 

Also in the news: Kenya and Uganda passing what's probably the most anti-LGBTQ+ legislation ever:
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/uganda-lgbtq-bill-united-states-republican-anti-gay-connection/
 
 

Also in the news: Kenya and Uganda passing what's probably the most anti-LGBTQ+ legislation ever:
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/uganda-lgbtq-bill-united-states-republican-anti-gay-connection/
 
 

Also in the news: Kenya and Uganda passing what's probably the most anti-LGBTQ+ legislation ever:
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/uganda-lgbtq-bill-united-states-republican-anti-gay-connection/
 
 

They've had an AI coding assistant as part of GitHub for a while called Co-Pilot, and decided to use that brand for all their new AI integration.

That's because the Poles, along with the other NATO states that directly border Russia, harbor no illusions about who they're up against.

I'm not splitting any hairs, LL, and I see where you're coming from. That doesn't change my opinion that marketing doesn't drive gun violence. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to looking at it. It's not a contentious point for me, and I'm open to having my opinion changed. 
 
I think there's a divergence of viewpoint here, and that's OK. We're all adults, and we've known each other for a long while, albeit virtually. I think that the idea of a kid being taught how to use firearms is somewhat shocking to you, where it's not to me, provided that it's handled responsibly. Teaching kids to respect firearms from an early age, in my opinion, heads off more trouble than it causes. Unless the adult responsible for that child is an idiot. And we have plenty of them.
 
Now, I'm going to say something that I think you may -- at least partially -- agree with. I've been ruminating about this age thing a bit these past couple of days. I think it's pretty well-established that young males are not fully mentally developed, particularly when it comes to impulse control, until around 27 years old. I strongly suspect that the age of 25 to rent a car was set by actuaries who looked at traffic accident data to arrive at that number. So, why are we letting 18 year olds (for long guns) and 21 year olds (for handguns), own firearms? We can argue that an 18 year old can be drafted and can join the service and carry a firearm. Heck, I was in charge of the arms room for my unit when I was 21 years old, along with our ammo depot.  But there's the rub: The military strictly controls when and where its troops can carry their issued firearms. (War zones being an obvious exception.) And the military hammers discipline into the troops constantly. Even then, we had negligent discharges by impulsive young men who would be considered experts at handling firearms, due to poor decision making.
 
So, I'm not alarmed by children who are well-supervised enjoying shooting. I am unconvinced that marketing drives mass shootings any more than video games do. Those aren't the root causes of the issue, just more political flag waving and glad handing to get votes, perhaps with some misguided good intentions mixed in. But . . . I am wondering if we need to consider upping the age to own any firearms? And a few other things. I may put together a more comprehensive post on what I think productive crime reduction and gun legislation might look like later.
 
What I don't think it looks like is slapping a bunch of children's bandages on a gushing wound that should be handled with a tourniquet*. Which is what Biden's latest list of do nothing looks like to me.
 
As for the YT sponsorship: No surprise, there. I didn't watch all the way to the end myself, just scanned some of her videos because I was curious about her gun safety. Knowing this doesn't change my earlier opinion about the impact of marketing (and to be clear: I do despise a lot of the marketing).
 
 
 
 
*That would be a metaphor for school shootings. I'm really, really getting tired of those.

I appreciate the concern y'all, but don't worry about me, for now. 
 
I'm not hiding and never will. 
 
In any case, living in Austin, I figure I'm pretty safe until they start actively rounding us up. The odds of that happening before January 2025 are not that high. But if the republicans win in 2024, I'll probably flee to a blue state. I have my kids to think of.

Some people need to learn religious freedom isn't the freedom to inflict your religious beliefs* on everyone else.
 
 
 
 
*Or misbeliefs, in most cases.

Some people need to learn religious freedom isn't the freedom to inflict your religious beliefs* on everyone else.
 
 
 
 
*Or misbeliefs, in most cases.

Some people need to learn religious freedom isn't the freedom to inflict your religious beliefs* on everyone else.
 
 
 
 
*Or misbeliefs, in most cases.

Yes.  I appreciate both Pattern Ghost and Tom talking and sharing more on subjects I don't know about, and having the patience to do so.

Although my Hero gaming is not what it once was, posts like this are a large part of why I still lurk and occasionally post on these forums.  Disputes happen even in this community, but by and large they stay civil and mutually respectful.  Posters also tend to show far more effort and articulate thinking than the average comment section on FB or a typical online news article.  While there are many well-written posts, for me, this one is a recent stand-out.  Thank you for putting in the time and effort it took to write it!

Note: I'm responding to this quote first, but don't take the length of the post as I continue on into the weeds personally, Tricksta. I just found myself expanding on a thought that started here.
 
Microstamping isn't really viable. But, let's say it works exactly as advertised. The police recover a spent casing at the scene of a crime. They run it through a database and determine who the last owner was. Does this solve the crime?
 
Another point Stewart makes is that it should be easier for the ATF to trace gun transfers. Which they can already do.  Do gun traces solve crimes? These are essentially the same result as microstamping. I don't know the answer to that, because Google doesn't return any results for searches for crimes solved by ATW traces (and you can't prove a negative). I suspect the number of crimes actually solved by ATF transfer traces is low, because most crimes are committed by people who aren't the original owners. In the case of mass shooters, most of those (I'm guessing) seem to be legally obtained, but ATF traces are a moot point, because the person is usually caught or killed without the need for a trace.
 
But, let's look at this more optimistically and say that microstamping and better ATF tracing of firearms increases the solve rate for homicides by a significant amount. Does that prevent gun violence? I don't think it would. The death penalty isn't a deterrent, so I doubt an increased chance of getting caught would be.
 
So, even with the best rose-colored glasses on, these things that sound like good, "common sense," ideas just aren't going to curtail our murder rate.
 
Which is another lie told by Stewart in that interview, using statistics. Here's a decent, unbiased (as far as I can tell), analysis of gun death data from Pew:
 
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
 
So, how is Stewart lying about the increased number of murders? He isn't. But he is using the numbers disingenuously to sow fear.*
 
 
So far, so good. The number of gun homicides has clearly gone up. Horrible. We must do something. Stewart says we must reduce the number of guns (probably won't do squat), fund the ATF (agreed), research gun violence (agreed), require microstamping (disagreed), while Fox News says we all need to fund the police better (agreed, but not for their idiot reasons), and all go out and buy a gun (disagreed), because blood is flowing in the streets! Chaos! Calamity! (disagreed, as denoted by the sarcastic exclamation points).
 
OK, so what's the problem? The problem is that the number doesn't have context. Fortunately, the Pew report seems to be pretty clear at providing context:
 
 
OK, we can all breath a sigh of relief. Numbers are up, but it's not quite as bad as the raw numbers show, since our per capita rate is only slightly up.
 
Well, there were still 45,222 gun deaths in 2020, according to CDC data. That's a lot of people dead. This is a picture of a 44,000 people protest in Vienna, and it doesn't even have all the people in it:
 

 
Imagine the United States losing all those people in 2020 from gun deaths. If we could reduce that, we could save a lot of people.
 
According to the CDC, there were 3,358,814 deaths in the US in 2020. I don't think I can find a picture of that many people in one place.
 
The percentage of people who died that died from firearms:  45,222/3,358,814 = 0.013463, so about 1.35%.
 
Now, saving some of those 45k+ lives is a good thing. But you aren't very likely to get shot just walking down the street or engaging in normal daily activities like going to school, going to the movies, going shopping, etc. You might, but it's unlikely.
 
How's our overall death rate looking? Surely we're dropping like flies, right?
 
Here's a sortable ranking of death rates from World Bank. The numbers are from 2020 and per 1000 population. The whole list is rather long, but here are some highlights:
 
Bulgaria is the winner with 18
Ukraine is 3rd with 15.9
Russia is 7th with 14.6
 
OK, that was just to show the higher end of things and the Ukraine/Russia pairing. Not to pick on them, but to give a baseline. Let's look at some countries who have it "good," or at least should: Canada, Sweden and Japan. Just pulled those out of a hat b/c they're frequently mentioned as pretty decent, civilized places.
 
Canada in 84th place at 8.1
Sweden in 50th place at 9.5
Japan in 29th place at 11.1
 
OK, I thought those numbers were going to be better, especially Japan.
 
How about the US?
 
USA in 38th place at 10.3
 
What does this mean? Means we're not quite as horrible as some people would have us think, but we're also not as awesome as others would have us think. We can do better, but we could do much worse.
 
And why did I zoom out to deaths in general vs. gun deaths? Partly for the obvious perspective. We could reduce gun deaths to 0 and it wouldn't move our death rate dial by very much at all. The panic is disproportionate to the threat. This does not mean we do nothing, it means, as the Hitchiker's Guide reminds us:

So, my first point in all of this is we can, and should, approach the problem rationally.
 
My second point is that just as "national death rate" is too broad in scope, so is "gun violence" or even "homicide rate."
 
I'll reiterate my basic stance on the issue again: We need to solve root causes. We need to interpret the data not for the sake of drumming up fear for our proposed solution (including that of "do nothing" that some hold), but for a study of the causes of violence and homicide. At the end of the day, acting like guns alone can cause or prevent homicides is not productive. Neither position is true.

And that's why both Stewart and his interviewees annoy me.
 
How much has been spent by either side on root cause analysis and removing the root causes? I'm betting it's a low number.
 
My point is this: We are not a society of Mutant Biker Cowboy Barbarians.
 
We're a Confederacy of Dunces ruled by an Idiocracy.
 
 
 
 
*Note: That sounds nefarious. I don't think Stewart is nefarious. I think he cares deeply and is simply engaging in his own fears and spreading them around due to not looking at the subject dispassionately.

Note: I'm responding to this quote first, but don't take the length of the post as I continue on into the weeds personally, Tricksta. I just found myself expanding on a thought that started here.
 
Microstamping isn't really viable. But, let's say it works exactly as advertised. The police recover a spent casing at the scene of a crime. They run it through a database and determine who the last owner was. Does this solve the crime?
 
Another point Stewart makes is that it should be easier for the ATF to trace gun transfers. Which they can already do.  Do gun traces solve crimes? These are essentially the same result as microstamping. I don't know the answer to that, because Google doesn't return any results for searches for crimes solved by ATW traces (and you can't prove a negative). I suspect the number of crimes actually solved by ATF transfer traces is low, because most crimes are committed by people who aren't the original owners. In the case of mass shooters, most of those (I'm guessing) seem to be legally obtained, but ATF traces are a moot point, because the person is usually caught or killed without the need for a trace.
 
But, let's look at this more optimistically and say that microstamping and better ATF tracing of firearms increases the solve rate for homicides by a significant amount. Does that prevent gun violence? I don't think it would. The death penalty isn't a deterrent, so I doubt an increased chance of getting caught would be.
 
So, even with the best rose-colored glasses on, these things that sound like good, "common sense," ideas just aren't going to curtail our murder rate.
 
Which is another lie told by Stewart in that interview, using statistics. Here's a decent, unbiased (as far as I can tell), analysis of gun death data from Pew:
 
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
 
So, how is Stewart lying about the increased number of murders? He isn't. But he is using the numbers disingenuously to sow fear.*
 
 
So far, so good. The number of gun homicides has clearly gone up. Horrible. We must do something. Stewart says we must reduce the number of guns (probably won't do squat), fund the ATF (agreed), research gun violence (agreed), require microstamping (disagreed), while Fox News says we all need to fund the police better (agreed, but not for their idiot reasons), and all go out and buy a gun (disagreed), because blood is flowing in the streets! Chaos! Calamity! (disagreed, as denoted by the sarcastic exclamation points).
 
OK, so what's the problem? The problem is that the number doesn't have context. Fortunately, the Pew report seems to be pretty clear at providing context:
 
 
OK, we can all breath a sigh of relief. Numbers are up, but it's not quite as bad as the raw numbers show, since our per capita rate is only slightly up.
 
Well, there were still 45,222 gun deaths in 2020, according to CDC data. That's a lot of people dead. This is a picture of a 44,000 people protest in Vienna, and it doesn't even have all the people in it:
 

 
Imagine the United States losing all those people in 2020 from gun deaths. If we could reduce that, we could save a lot of people.
 
According to the CDC, there were 3,358,814 deaths in the US in 2020. I don't think I can find a picture of that many people in one place.
 
The percentage of people who died that died from firearms:  45,222/3,358,814 = 0.013463, so about 1.35%.
 
Now, saving some of those 45k+ lives is a good thing. But you aren't very likely to get shot just walking down the street or engaging in normal daily activities like going to school, going to the movies, going shopping, etc. You might, but it's unlikely.
 
How's our overall death rate looking? Surely we're dropping like flies, right?
 
Here's a sortable ranking of death rates from World Bank. The numbers are from 2020 and per 1000 population. The whole list is rather long, but here are some highlights:
 
Bulgaria is the winner with 18
Ukraine is 3rd with 15.9
Russia is 7th with 14.6
 
OK, that was just to show the higher end of things and the Ukraine/Russia pairing. Not to pick on them, but to give a baseline. Let's look at some countries who have it "good," or at least should: Canada, Sweden and Japan. Just pulled those out of a hat b/c they're frequently mentioned as pretty decent, civilized places.
 
Canada in 84th place at 8.1
Sweden in 50th place at 9.5
Japan in 29th place at 11.1
 
OK, I thought those numbers were going to be better, especially Japan.
 
How about the US?
 
USA in 38th place at 10.3
 
What does this mean? Means we're not quite as horrible as some people would have us think, but we're also not as awesome as others would have us think. We can do better, but we could do much worse.
 
And why did I zoom out to deaths in general vs. gun deaths? Partly for the obvious perspective. We could reduce gun deaths to 0 and it wouldn't move our death rate dial by very much at all. The panic is disproportionate to the threat. This does not mean we do nothing, it means, as the Hitchiker's Guide reminds us:

So, my first point in all of this is we can, and should, approach the problem rationally.
 
My second point is that just as "national death rate" is too broad in scope, so is "gun violence" or even "homicide rate."
 
I'll reiterate my basic stance on the issue again: We need to solve root causes. We need to interpret the data not for the sake of drumming up fear for our proposed solution (including that of "do nothing" that some hold), but for a study of the causes of violence and homicide. At the end of the day, acting like guns alone can cause or prevent homicides is not productive. Neither position is true.

And that's why both Stewart and his interviewees annoy me.
 
How much has been spent by either side on root cause analysis and removing the root causes? I'm betting it's a low number.
 
My point is this: We are not a society of Mutant Biker Cowboy Barbarians.
 
We're a Confederacy of Dunces ruled by an Idiocracy.
 
 
 
 
*Note: That sounds nefarious. I don't think Stewart is nefarious. I think he cares deeply and is simply engaging in his own fears and spreading them around due to not looking at the subject dispassionately.

Note: I'm responding to this quote first, but don't take the length of the post as I continue on into the weeds personally, Tricksta. I just found myself expanding on a thought that started here.
 
Microstamping isn't really viable. But, let's say it works exactly as advertised. The police recover a spent casing at the scene of a crime. They run it through a database and determine who the last owner was. Does this solve the crime?
 
Another point Stewart makes is that it should be easier for the ATF to trace gun transfers. Which they can already do.  Do gun traces solve crimes? These are essentially the same result as microstamping. I don't know the answer to that, because Google doesn't return any results for searches for crimes solved by ATW traces (and you can't prove a negative). I suspect the number of crimes actually solved by ATF transfer traces is low, because most crimes are committed by people who aren't the original owners. In the case of mass shooters, most of those (I'm guessing) seem to be legally obtained, but ATF traces are a moot point, because the person is usually caught or killed without the need for a trace.
 
But, let's look at this more optimistically and say that microstamping and better ATF tracing of firearms increases the solve rate for homicides by a significant amount. Does that prevent gun violence? I don't think it would. The death penalty isn't a deterrent, so I doubt an increased chance of getting caught would be.
 
So, even with the best rose-colored glasses on, these things that sound like good, "common sense," ideas just aren't going to curtail our murder rate.
 
Which is another lie told by Stewart in that interview, using statistics. Here's a decent, unbiased (as far as I can tell), analysis of gun death data from Pew:
 
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
 
So, how is Stewart lying about the increased number of murders? He isn't. But he is using the numbers disingenuously to sow fear.*
 
 
So far, so good. The number of gun homicides has clearly gone up. Horrible. We must do something. Stewart says we must reduce the number of guns (probably won't do squat), fund the ATF (agreed), research gun violence (agreed), require microstamping (disagreed), while Fox News says we all need to fund the police better (agreed, but not for their idiot reasons), and all go out and buy a gun (disagreed), because blood is flowing in the streets! Chaos! Calamity! (disagreed, as denoted by the sarcastic exclamation points).
 
OK, so what's the problem? The problem is that the number doesn't have context. Fortunately, the Pew report seems to be pretty clear at providing context:
 
 
OK, we can all breath a sigh of relief. Numbers are up, but it's not quite as bad as the raw numbers show, since our per capita rate is only slightly up.
 
Well, there were still 45,222 gun deaths in 2020, according to CDC data. That's a lot of people dead. This is a picture of a 44,000 people protest in Vienna, and it doesn't even have all the people in it:
 

 
Imagine the United States losing all those people in 2020 from gun deaths. If we could reduce that, we could save a lot of people.
 
According to the CDC, there were 3,358,814 deaths in the US in 2020. I don't think I can find a picture of that many people in one place.
 
The percentage of people who died that died from firearms:  45,222/3,358,814 = 0.013463, so about 1.35%.
 
Now, saving some of those 45k+ lives is a good thing. But you aren't very likely to get shot just walking down the street or engaging in normal daily activities like going to school, going to the movies, going shopping, etc. You might, but it's unlikely.
 
How's our overall death rate looking? Surely we're dropping like flies, right?
 
Here's a sortable ranking of death rates from World Bank. The numbers are from 2020 and per 1000 population. The whole list is rather long, but here are some highlights:
 
Bulgaria is the winner with 18
Ukraine is 3rd with 15.9
Russia is 7th with 14.6
 
OK, that was just to show the higher end of things and the Ukraine/Russia pairing. Not to pick on them, but to give a baseline. Let's look at some countries who have it "good," or at least should: Canada, Sweden and Japan. Just pulled those out of a hat b/c they're frequently mentioned as pretty decent, civilized places.
 
Canada in 84th place at 8.1
Sweden in 50th place at 9.5
Japan in 29th place at 11.1
 
OK, I thought those numbers were going to be better, especially Japan.
 
How about the US?
 
USA in 38th place at 10.3
 
What does this mean? Means we're not quite as horrible as some people would have us think, but we're also not as awesome as others would have us think. We can do better, but we could do much worse.
 
And why did I zoom out to deaths in general vs. gun deaths? Partly for the obvious perspective. We could reduce gun deaths to 0 and it wouldn't move our death rate dial by very much at all. The panic is disproportionate to the threat. This does not mean we do nothing, it means, as the Hitchiker's Guide reminds us:

So, my first point in all of this is we can, and should, approach the problem rationally.
 
My second point is that just as "national death rate" is too broad in scope, so is "gun violence" or even "homicide rate."
 
I'll reiterate my basic stance on the issue again: We need to solve root causes. We need to interpret the data not for the sake of drumming up fear for our proposed solution (including that of "do nothing" that some hold), but for a study of the causes of violence and homicide. At the end of the day, acting like guns alone can cause or prevent homicides is not productive. Neither position is true.

And that's why both Stewart and his interviewees annoy me.
 
How much has been spent by either side on root cause analysis and removing the root causes? I'm betting it's a low number.
 
My point is this: We are not a society of Mutant Biker Cowboy Barbarians.
 
We're a Confederacy of Dunces ruled by an Idiocracy.
 
 
 
 
*Note: That sounds nefarious. I don't think Stewart is nefarious. I think he cares deeply and is simply engaging in his own fears and spreading them around due to not looking at the subject dispassionately.

Note: I'm responding to this quote first, but don't take the length of the post as I continue on into the weeds personally, Tricksta. I just found myself expanding on a thought that started here.
 
Microstamping isn't really viable. But, let's say it works exactly as advertised. The police recover a spent casing at the scene of a crime. They run it through a database and determine who the last owner was. Does this solve the crime?
 
Another point Stewart makes is that it should be easier for the ATF to trace gun transfers. Which they can already do.  Do gun traces solve crimes? These are essentially the same result as microstamping. I don't know the answer to that, because Google doesn't return any results for searches for crimes solved by ATW traces (and you can't prove a negative). I suspect the number of crimes actually solved by ATF transfer traces is low, because most crimes are committed by people who aren't the original owners. In the case of mass shooters, most of those (I'm guessing) seem to be legally obtained, but ATF traces are a moot point, because the person is usually caught or killed without the need for a trace.
 
But, let's look at this more optimistically and say that microstamping and better ATF tracing of firearms increases the solve rate for homicides by a significant amount. Does that prevent gun violence? I don't think it would. The death penalty isn't a deterrent, so I doubt an increased chance of getting caught would be.
 
So, even with the best rose-colored glasses on, these things that sound like good, "common sense," ideas just aren't going to curtail our murder rate.
 
Which is another lie told by Stewart in that interview, using statistics. Here's a decent, unbiased (as far as I can tell), analysis of gun death data from Pew:
 
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
 
So, how is Stewart lying about the increased number of murders? He isn't. But he is using the numbers disingenuously to sow fear.*
 
 
So far, so good. The number of gun homicides has clearly gone up. Horrible. We must do something. Stewart says we must reduce the number of guns (probably won't do squat), fund the ATF (agreed), research gun violence (agreed), require microstamping (disagreed), while Fox News says we all need to fund the police better (agreed, but not for their idiot reasons), and all go out and buy a gun (disagreed), because blood is flowing in the streets! Chaos! Calamity! (disagreed, as denoted by the sarcastic exclamation points).
 
OK, so what's the problem? The problem is that the number doesn't have context. Fortunately, the Pew report seems to be pretty clear at providing context:
 
 
OK, we can all breath a sigh of relief. Numbers are up, but it's not quite as bad as the raw numbers show, since our per capita rate is only slightly up.
 
Well, there were still 45,222 gun deaths in 2020, according to CDC data. That's a lot of people dead. This is a picture of a 44,000 people protest in Vienna, and it doesn't even have all the people in it:
 

 
Imagine the United States losing all those people in 2020 from gun deaths. If we could reduce that, we could save a lot of people.
 
According to the CDC, there were 3,358,814 deaths in the US in 2020. I don't think I can find a picture of that many people in one place.
 
The percentage of people who died that died from firearms:  45,222/3,358,814 = 0.013463, so about 1.35%.
 
Now, saving some of those 45k+ lives is a good thing. But you aren't very likely to get shot just walking down the street or engaging in normal daily activities like going to school, going to the movies, going shopping, etc. You might, but it's unlikely.
 
How's our overall death rate looking? Surely we're dropping like flies, right?
 
Here's a sortable ranking of death rates from World Bank. The numbers are from 2020 and per 1000 population. The whole list is rather long, but here are some highlights:
 
Bulgaria is the winner with 18
Ukraine is 3rd with 15.9
Russia is 7th with 14.6
 
OK, that was just to show the higher end of things and the Ukraine/Russia pairing. Not to pick on them, but to give a baseline. Let's look at some countries who have it "good," or at least should: Canada, Sweden and Japan. Just pulled those out of a hat b/c they're frequently mentioned as pretty decent, civilized places.
 
Canada in 84th place at 8.1
Sweden in 50th place at 9.5
Japan in 29th place at 11.1
 
OK, I thought those numbers were going to be better, especially Japan.
 
How about the US?
 
USA in 38th place at 10.3
 
What does this mean? Means we're not quite as horrible as some people would have us think, but we're also not as awesome as others would have us think. We can do better, but we could do much worse.
 
And why did I zoom out to deaths in general vs. gun deaths? Partly for the obvious perspective. We could reduce gun deaths to 0 and it wouldn't move our death rate dial by very much at all. The panic is disproportionate to the threat. This does not mean we do nothing, it means, as the Hitchiker's Guide reminds us:

So, my first point in all of this is we can, and should, approach the problem rationally.
 
My second point is that just as "national death rate" is too broad in scope, so is "gun violence" or even "homicide rate."
 
I'll reiterate my basic stance on the issue again: We need to solve root causes. We need to interpret the data not for the sake of drumming up fear for our proposed solution (including that of "do nothing" that some hold), but for a study of the causes of violence and homicide. At the end of the day, acting like guns alone can cause or prevent homicides is not productive. Neither position is true.

And that's why both Stewart and his interviewees annoy me.
 
How much has been spent by either side on root cause analysis and removing the root causes? I'm betting it's a low number.
 
My point is this: We are not a society of Mutant Biker Cowboy Barbarians.
 
We're a Confederacy of Dunces ruled by an Idiocracy.
 
 
 
 
*Note: That sounds nefarious. I don't think Stewart is nefarious. I think he cares deeply and is simply engaging in his own fears and spreading them around due to not looking at the subject dispassionately.

I'm a believer, and I approve this consequence

Texas conservatives succeed in getting a book featuring graphic descriptions of violence and sexual assault pulled from school library shelves

I saw that. Stewart's argument is kind of weak when "children" are defined as up to 21* years old in those stats, and the majority of those deaths are gang violence related. The more accurate conclusions from that "statistic" are that a) statistics can lie to play on emotions, and b) gang violence and diversion needs to be addressed. To address the number one killer of children, as Stewart laid it out, you would first spend massive funding on gang diversion and gang intervention (encouraging and teaching gangs how to resolve conflicts without killing one another) programs across the country.
 
The fact that we have a politician sitting there who couldn't come to that simple counter to Stewart's argument and that Stewart has (I've recently watched several of his "take down" videos regarding different topics recently) has begun restoring to poor research and talking over his interviewee are both disheartening.
 
My takeaway? The best argument for taking weapons from the population is that we have become an infantile society who as a whole doesn't possess the capacity to be trusted with the power over life and death. People can't even sit down and weigh the pros and cons of an issue with each other from different ideological standpoints without resorting to dirty debate tactics (Stewart) and without the awareness required by their office of public responsibility (any of his victim "interviewees").
 
I'm saying this as a fan of Stewart who mostly agrees with him and respects a lot of the things he's done. He's become deeply (or at least demonstrably) emotional and "fed up" when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues the last few years. He needs to get back to good research and critical analysis of all of his information sources, and be more aware of his own confirmation bias.
 
 
*Edit: That 21 is likely wrong. It looks like the CDC is currently using 19 years old as the break point, and that's likely the source Stewart was using. That same data shows that firearms take over as the leading cause of death starting at age 15. Which reinforces the point about gang activity being the root cause here.
 

I'm torn. I didn't like the quality of that article, but I agree with the general premise.