PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Country music and guns

I had 6-7 of my ex co-workers there and 2 were hit directly. They are in law enforcement and helped save a large group of people to find hard cover, while the bullets were raining down on the metal awning overhead. Those 2 are in stable condition.

Injured and bleeding, their training kicked in and they were able to direct a large crowd of people to cover.

Several of them went back into the line of fire to gather more people who were also injured and helped them get out of the line of fire.

It takes someone special, with a head on their shoulders to do just that. Fight or flight is the natural response, but luckily they were at the concert and their years of training kicked in and saved several strangers from being killed.

I am proud to call them family.

The Hotel Security/LVMPD did an outstanding job identifying the threat quickly and putting an end to the tragedy.

Until the day comes when we can read people's minds, these type of crimes will continue, unfortunately.

And there you have it. Tell me to day who will kill 100 people in 2021, and I will say "Take his gun in late 2019 so he can't do that in 2020.

People have now been taught to conflate rights and privileges.
Owning a gun is a right. Driving a car is a privilege.

In 2016, just under 40,000 people were killed in or by cars.
In 2016, just over 15,000 people were killed by guns, 383 in mass shootings.

In both cases, that is far too many. However, I have yet to hear anybody want to ban cars.

Data and statistics cannot lie. Only emotional arguments are open to interpretation.

Those who cry "We need gun control" don't understand that we HAVE gun control. We need PEOPLE control. When you figure out how to legislate a conscience into people, let us know.

And now in the spirit of letting this die, I will no longer reply.

I don't have time to properly address all your misinformation so I'll just cover two and leave you to soak in the rest of it.

Explaining Chicago is the simplest one of all but I'll do it for you in case you are truly unable to figure it out. From Chicago you can drive a half hour in any direction except east and buy guns. Then you just turn the car around and drive back to Chicago! Not all that complicated.

And regarding gun shows you absolutely do not require a background check to buy from anyone there who is not a registered dealer. It is called the gun show loophole; maybe you've heard of it? Likewise, you can buy online and there are gun nut websites that work a lot like Craigslist where thousands of such transactions occur, all with no background checks!

Brian, there are a lot of us here who would love to see our country join the civilized world when it comes to guns. But we also still have a lot of people who practically worship these dangerous toys. And of course it all comes down to money. Sad but maybe we will catch up some day. Cheers!

The Chicago thing is an Illinois and other state's issue.

Regarding your gun show information that is dependent on the state laws. Here we have to register our hand guns. If you sell it to another pistol permit owner you must notify the state that you sold it and they must register that gun. If you are missing a gun you must report it immediately otherwise you could be in deep doggie dodo if it is used in a crime.

I will end my involvement in this thread by stating this: this gun issue as well as many other issues there are only two sides, the far right and the far left. Both sides say it is my way or the highway. Compromise is out of the question. Where is the middle ground?

For instance as you know I am a gun owner however myself and other gun owners that I know do not always side with the NRA. For example we do not need or want silencers to be available to the public.

Also I feel that I can respectfully disagree with the fine people on this side without making enemies and I hope that those who disagree with me feel the same.

Over and out - MarioD

Gun laws are state specific. That Illinois thug who tries to buy a gun in Indiana still has to meet the criteria of Illinois when he fills out his forms and meet Illinois criteria. This does NOT resolve straw man sales, where people from Indiana buy guns for those thugs from Chicago for a fee and then hand the gun over. Those sales are already illegal. Similar in concept to Mario coming to visit me and buying a gun in Ohio through me, he would legally have to register than gun when he got back to NY to be law abiding in his state. Once again the issue is trying to legislate human behavior. It would be Mario's choice to follow the law of his state or not. That is already covered in current gun law. Nobody said you can't obtain guns illegally. If you choose to disobey the law, have at it. I prefer not to. I follow proper procedure. I don't know about other state, but her in Ohio you fill out forms when you buy at a gun show. Possibly in liberal California, where I believe even water pistols are illegal, it is different.

All I can control is me, and I am 100% legal in my gun ownership. If other choose to break the law, nobody can legislate against that. Law punishes. It dos not prevent. Current gun law, when followed, is just fine as it is. Continue to bash current gun law if it doesn't fit your anti-Trump agenda. These are the exact same gun laws that were in place when Obama was president, and his own city is the previously mentioned cesspool in Illinois.

The point is Chicago does not have a gun problem because they outlawed guns, rather, they have a gun problem because the bad guys who live there can easily hop in their cars, drive a few minutes and purchase guns. I know the gun crowd loves to point to Chicago as if somehow it proves gun laws don't work but all it proves is guns can still be obtained easily just minutes away. On the other hand, countries that have banned certain types of guns have seen dramatic decrease in the gun violence.


I know plenty of gun owners who share your reasonable view on silencers. They also support mandatory background checks on ALL gun purchases or transfers. So I think there is definitely middle ground that all could agree on but the NRA opposes all of it.

I know that pointing out facts to the anti-gun folks won't change their minds because they tend to operate on emotions rather than facts.

The point about Chicago is that they do in fact, have the strictest gun laws in the country. Right up there with DC and NYC as well as a few other cities. Illinois is not a gun friendly state either. Neither is NY, CA, MD, and a few others. Having those super strict laws does NOTHING to stop the gun violence. In states where citizens have been returned their right to carry a firearm for personal protection, the crime rates tend to drop across the board. In NC, a perp can be shot by the homeowner when they are in the act of breaking in. The presumption by law is that the perp intended to harm the residents and they can act in self defense. No charges are to be filed when it's ruled to be a self defense situation and better yet, no one can file a lawsuit for wrongful death against the homeowners.

Blaming the surrounding states is a cop out. None, of the thugs from the hoods in their respective cities are going to legally buy guns in other states. Since 99% of them have a criminal history, the background check stops the sale in a legal gun shop. Anyone selling or transferring a pistol or other firearm without the proper paperwork is already violating the law.

The guns on the streets in the hands of thugs and criminals are illegal and have been stolen, with very few exceptions. The thugs are violating law just having the gun if they are felons, which most are. It's illegal to have and use a gun in a crime. It's illegal to rob, rape, do drive-bys, and murder.

So what additional law(s) do you think would actually solve this issue?

You should read some of the John Lott guns studies that show no correlation between the number of guns and violent crime with guns.

Another interesting statistic..... America is near the top when it comes to violent gun crime in the world. Fact. But, if you simply remove 4 cities from that statistic, NYC, Washington DC, New Orleans, and yep... Chicago, America falls to very near the bottom on that same list. Interesting.

this is a waste of time trying to convince you of the facts. I'm going to work.... with my 9mm in my holster.

well, you have yet to point out any facts! I get that you love your guns and you are fearful so you feel you need your gun for protection. but here's a fun fact for you: only 0.04% of all gun murders in the US happen during home invasions; read that again...not 4%...not 0.4%...but 0.04%! and over a third of those are killed by their own gun that the criminal has either stolen or taken from them.

and you are in the minority! 77% of all Americans do NOT own a gun! so let that sink in...over 3/4s of us do not feel compelled to shoot things nor do we believe bad guys are coming to get us nor do we have a cowboy complex that drives us to walk around with a firearm.

the simple facts are shown in absolute clarity by all other modern countries where gun laws are much more stringent and the result is crystal clear...fewer guns means less gun violence. so obvious as to be common sense.

Finally, I am quite familiar with Lott's work and it has been rejected by plenty of reputable sources including,

- Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel stated that "Lott's massive data set was simply unsuitable for his task", and that he "compar[ed] trends in Idaho and West Virginia and Mississippi with trends in Washington, D.C. and New York City" without proper statistical controls. He points out that econometric methods (such as the Lott & Mustard RTC study or the Levitt & Donohue abortion study) are susceptible to misuse and can even become junk science.

- Hemenway, David (2006). Private guns, public health. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472023820.

- Ian Ayres, Yale Law School, and John Donohue III, Stanford Law School, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis," Stanford Law Review, 2003.[27] This study found a temporary increase in aggravated assaults.

- Webster et al., "Flawed gun policy research could endanger public safety", American Journal of Public Health, 1997.

- Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University, "Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data", International Review of Law and Economics, 1998.

- Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, "Do 'Right-to-Carry' Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Journal of Legal Studies, (January 1998).

- Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul H. Rubin, "Lives Saved or Lives Lost? The Effects of Concealed-Handgun Laws on Crime," The American Economic Review, 1998.

- Mark Duggan, University of Chicago, "More Guns, More Crime," National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. W7967, October 2000, later published in Journal of Political Economy.

- David E. Olson and Michael D. Maltz, "Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim‐Offender Relationships," The Journal of Law & Economics, 2001. This study found mixed results as to whether right-to-carry laws were associated with similar effects as reported by Lott and Mustard or not.

- Grant Duwe, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Carlisle E. Moody, "The Impact of Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearm Laws on Mass Public Shootings" Homicide Studies 4 (2002).

- Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Thomas B. Marvell, "Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearms and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?" Criminology and Public Policy 2, (2003).

- John J. Donahue III, Stanford Law School, 'The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis', Criminology and Public Policy, 2003.

- Tomislav V. Kovandzic, Thomas B. Marvell and Lynne M. Vieraitis, "The Impact of “Shall-Issue” Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates: Evidence From Panel Data for Large Urban Cities" Homicide Studies (2005): 292-323.

- Michael D. Maltz and Joseph Targonski, "Measurement and Other Errors in County-Level UCR Data: A Reply to Lott and Whitley," Journal of Quantitative Criminology June 2003: 199-206.

- Lisa Hepburn, Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, and David Hemenway "The effect of nondiscretionary concealed weapon carrying laws on homicide", Journal of Trauma March 2004: 676-81.

- Robert A. Martin Jr. and Richard L. Legault, "Systematic Measurement Error with State-Level Crime Data: Evidence from the “More Guns, Less Crime” Debate," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency May 2005: 187-210.

- Rosengart et al., "An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates," Injury Prevention 2005: 77-83.

- Patricia Grambsch, "Regression to the Mean, Murder Rates, and Shall-Issue Laws," The American Statistician (2008).

- Benjamin French and Patrick J. Heagerty, "Analysis of Longitudinal Data to Evaluate a Policy Change", Statistics in Medicine October 30, 2008: 5005-5025. This study concluded that "enacting a shall-issue law is associated with a weak but non-significant increase in firearm-related homicide rates."

- John Donohue and Ian Ayres. "More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977–2006" Econ Journal Watch (2009): 218–238.

- Hoskin, Anthony (March 2011). "Household gun prevalence and rates of violent crime: a test of competing gun theories". Criminal Justice Studies. 24 (1): 125–136. doi:10.1080/1478601X.2011.544445.

- Aneja, A.; Donohue, J. J.; Zhang, A. (29 October 2011). "The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy" (PDF). American Law and Economics Review. 13 (2): 565–631. doi:10.1093/aler/ahr009.

- Wolfgang Stroebe, "Firearm possession and violent death: A critical review," Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2013.

- Sripal Bangalore and Franz Messerli, "Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths," The American Journal of Medicine, 2013.

- Kesteren, John van; Dijk, Jan van; Mayhew, Pat (January 2014). "The International Crime Victims Surveys". International Review of Victimology. SAGE Publications. 20 (1): 49–69. doi:10.1177/0269758013511742.

- Donald J. Lacombe and Amanda Ross, "Revisiting the Question 'More Guns, Less Crime?' New Estimates Using Spatial Econometric Techniques," Social Science Research Network, 2014.

- Manski & Pepper, "How Do Right-to-Carry Laws Affect Crime Rates? Coping with Ambiguity Using Bounded-Variation Assumptions", Review of Economics and Statistics, 2015.

- Steven N. Durlauf, Salvador Navarro, David A. Rivers, "Model uncertainty and the effect of shall-issue right-to-carry laws on crime," European Economic Review, 2016.

With respect to Americans your Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms needs to come of age.
Written over two hundred years ago the right to own and use a gun has no place in this millennium.
Times change, society changes and human values change, it's no longer 1791, it's no longer the Wild West it's 2017.

You seem to forget one simple thing. That pesky second amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Perhaps the most important 27 words ever written by man.

The second amendment is an individual right. It wouldn't matter if 99.99% of Americans were against gun ownership, that amendment, second only to your right to speak freely without fear against the government, is there to protect the rights of the few against the many. And please try not to compartmentalize me into what you think I am. You obviously don't have a clue who I am, what I fear or don't fear, or even why I choose to carry a pistol with me daily.

Yes Brian, the constitution was written over 200 years ago. You must remember that back then, citizens were allowed to own military style weapons and even cannon that were state of the art. That's no longer the case. Yes, society has changed but one thing has not, and that's human nature. And until all humans are kind and gentle souls who help lost kittens find their way home, we are faced with the reality, as Las Vegas has just shown, that evil, deranged people walk among us seeking victims to do harm to.

The folks who later wrote the constitution, went to war with the British King George, when the king and his minions attempted to disarm them. April 19, 1775. We won, and as a result, we choose to keep our guns as free men should and not surrender them to the state and live as serfs at the whim of the lords of the land and government officials.

Lets drop this because it's not getting anyone anywhere.... and go make some music.

That very same constitution originally deemed black people and women to be less than equal to white men but we were smart enough to fix that. And we will some day be smart enough to fix this too! With 77% of Americans not choosing to own guns and a new generation that is not steeped in a wild west mentality I suspect we will in fact repeal the 2nd amendment and replace it with something adults can agree on to improve our society. Sometimes you just have to move forward!

Here is an interesting article about guns:

http://thepoliticalinsider.com/gun-contr...tm_medium=email

PS - for those outside the USA please stay out of this.

Mario,

Regarding your comment about people outside the US staying out of this...

I'm not meaning to be irritating or pointing out the obvious, but these PG Music forums are 'outside the US' and world involvement in them is encouraged by PG Music.

I support John's view from earlier in the thread.


Regards,
Noel

JJJ

Have you actually READ ALL of those papers and studies?

I picked 3 at random and scanned the rest for DATES (I’m not doing any more homework – my consultant rate is probably a little too steep).

1. - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/000313008X362446

This first one only gives an abstract but even in those few words it tells me in they did the statistics BACKWARDS (a typical manipulation trick) essentially trying to prove a negative:

H0: (i.e., the Null hypotheses they have is essentially): Murder rates of Shall Issues laws increased after Shall Issue Policy changes were implemented (note this should not include suicides but were, more later on that)

H1: (i.e., the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis would then be) murder rates of Shall Issues laws decreased or stayed the same after Shall Issues

The POWER (i.e., 1-beta) of any statistical test lies in the REJECTION of the null (i.e., H0). When you FAIL TO REJECT H0 that’s ALL you can say – “you failed to reject.” You can NOT say you ACCEPT the null you can only say there is no evidence AGAINST it. You can never say the H0 is statistically true.

Even just the few studies I looked at, no I didn't read them all, show or discuss weak statistical correlations. One paper (one of those below) had even listed some Rho’s of .5, .6 or worse NONE (which tells me that those referenced studies themselves didn’t use NUMBERS, they were Qualitative studies, i.e., subjective studies, not Quantitative i.e., objective studies). Those small correlations are no better than coin flips of moon cycles causation.

Truth in advertising: when I say I looked at a handful of those studies I mean I skimmed them. i.e., I read intro, assumptions, conclusions and skimmed the tables and data and results. NO I did not do a line by line verification of numbers, methods, statements, etc. like I would if I were peer reviewing them.

2. Next do a search on

“Benjamin French and Patrick J. Heagerty, "Analysis of Longitudinal Data to Evaluate a Policy Change", Statistics in Medicine October 30, 2008: 5005-5025. This study concluded that "enacting a shall-issue law is associated with a weak but non-significant increase in firearm-related homicide rates."
And you get their PDF (which includes suicides lumped in later as general homicides)

Or try below to get PDF

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiI1aS00dfWAhVJ0oMKHR3dBXQQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.668.8730%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AOvVaw0R6ZRGJT-sWkkDKdZLdxGu



3. This one also includes suicides as a spate study which is good work but once you read it you realize it’s not a Shall Issue study before and after – it’s simply firearm OWNERSHIP and the suicides and homicides caused thereby.

Get the PDF here

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwil6qmJ0tfWAhVp5oMKHfqxBCMQFggrMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crema-research.ch%2Fpapers%2F2014-07.pdf&usg=AOvVaw23svo-h5BGGxYxcUzQTWDa



===================

The list you provided, I suspect is a bibliography from one such study or a google list? You didn’t critically read and digest all those did you? Are you a statistician (or mathematician or even a STEM researcher)? I think I used and referenced fewer articles/studies/papers in my Master’s thesis in Ops Research and I know I didn't critically digest and read them over night.

Studies with own data (i.e., originally researched DOJ, FBI, and State crime statistics) tend to only have data up to mid 2000’s (admittedly by quick visual scan of pub. Dates listed). Not all states are Shall Issue (I’ll call it CCW for short) at that point in time or is too early have effect one way or the other for the newer adopters.

Like the other “the science is final argument” most of those studies (all you have to do is just read intro in most of them to get the flavor) are done by those who want to show no improvement or negative impact of CCW on “murders” - and so they all seem to included category SUICIDE!

Yes suicide by gun is a gun death – but someone that determined would run a hose from exhaust into car, or drives at high speed into to something solid, or hang themselves, or cut their wrists, or over dose on something, or… the firearm is not the cause it is simply a means.

And worse for your and their argument: suicides by firearms is unrelated to CCW's laws, since the suicide (i.e., "murderer") could have previously OWNED the firearm. I note that TIME of ownership of a firearm was NOT included in these studies (when and how long was firearm owned – prior to and after CCW laws) and SHOULD have been a factor (i.e., a regression variable)!


Besides states that finally had a policy change (i.e., instituted a CCW law) ALL already had laws to allow purchase of firearms and handguns. In other words the MAJORITY of folks that went out and obtained CCW (concealed carry) ALREADY OWNED firearms and handguns in particular, they just didn’t CARRY them in public. At least they didn’t carry them concealed

Like in Here New Mexico a state that has been run by Democrats since 1912, when we became a State – allowed the CARRY (open carry) of firearms (AND YES tested multiple times in the NM Supreme Court) or carried concealed but unloaded, you can research the NM gun laws yourself . The below was BEFORE the NM Legislature passed its recent Conceal Carry law (and there other states that allowed open carry prior to Policy Change’s to allow Shall Issue):

“Article II, § 6 of the Constitution of New Mexico provides:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
“

Bottom line passing a SHALL ISSUE (CCW) didn’t cause or force people who hated guns to go buy them and those that didn’t hate guns, for the most part, already HAD THEM.


Larry


PS Brian from Jersey Channel Islands, this is not a smirk, smack, flame, critique, finger pointing, nasty attack please imagine I'm talking calmly with a happy lilt in my voice:

I don't think you truly understand WHY, I mean the actual true purpose, we in the U.S. have a 2nd Amendment. Please, take a pleasant boat ride across the channel and ask Parliament and the Royals in Great Britain if they can think of a reason why we might have 2nd Amendment. The reason is no less valid today than in 1791. Maybe more so, but and I'll leave it at that.



PPS TO the OTHER JOHN: Sorry I still concur and I still think this thread SHOULD BE closed, I will put down the keyboard and step away from the computer now.

No good will ever come of this thread. I've deliberately stayed out of it because the most contentious discussions we've ever had on here were about guns.

I was always right in the thick of it before and looking at who is participating now, it's the same players making exactly the same arguments. If I were to join the fray, I'd have the same position I had before too.

No one is changing anyone else's mind. Since we know the outcome of the previous gun debates on here, why don't we take a lesson from an old quote:

"If we always do what we always did then we'll always get what we've always gotten."

Hard feelings and strained relationships are the only thing we'll reap by continuing a gun debate on a music forum.

Sorry I started this and hope everyone has had enough of it.
If we put our strongly held points of view in our songs perhaps we may even help a tiny bit.
Cheers. (over and out)

Read and memorized them!

Doesn't matter. Plenty of examples in the world that do not involve opinion where countries have outright banned certain types of guns and had an immediate and lasting reduction in gun violence. Would some folks still kill with handguns and hunting rifles? Of course. But they wouldn't kill 58 and injure over 500! Would suicides continue? Of course. But there is no doubt having a quick and easy lethal means makes it far more likely someone will go through with it.

You see, most of us on the side of advocating sensible gun laws don't expect to eliminate all violence or deaths. But if we save one class full of children or even a handful of people or even one person by not allowing the general public to possess military style weapons then that is worth it! The "rights" of people to play with deadly toys should not supersede the rights of their fellow citizens to live!

This is from Caleb Keeter, a member of the 'Josh Abbott Band' (from Texas)... one of the acts at the Las Vegas festival.



Here is a link to the article from which the above was obtained.

https://www.spin.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooting-josh-abbott-band-caleb-keeter-we-need-gun-control-right-now/


I hope PG Music lock this thread so that it can pass into posterity. That will keep everyone's views intact and will, most likely, save on-line friendships. (My 2¢'s worth.)