February 17, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: From what I've seen about 4x as many guns per 100k people are sold now vs 1960. Number of homes with guns has remained steady (though it spiked in 2022), but people with guns have a LOT more of them. My main issue is the culture there. Half the reason I think more guns are being sold is that not only gun ownership, but ownership of many guns with some quite capable of targeting mass amounts of people in a short time, is now a virtue signal. 100 years ago a Tommy gun cost over $200, which is about 7-8% of a person's annual salary at the time. An AR-15 can be picked up for less than $1k in 2024 dollars, which is less than 2% of an average salary now. Some can be had for $500, which is less than 1%. Access to weapons isn't just a question of regulations and gun control, but also economics. The average person can afford a lot more firepower now than 100 or 50 years ago. And a colt AR-15 in 1960 was 3% of the average annual salary.
February 17, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Except the post you responded to was not. No kidding, that’s why I said 100 years ago. Because I was talking about gun availability even further back than what he mentioned.
February 17, 20241 yr 35 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Correlation is not causation. You are being lazy in the data analysis bc you arent interested in considering you are wrong. Which is the core of logic Correlation is not always causation. But sometimes it is. It's not difficult to see how broader availability of firepower, regardless of the toothless gun control measures that have managed to be passed and rolled back over the last 50 years, for the same buying power has led to greater access to more guns by people who represent a threat to friends, family, and neighbors. You're lazily rejecting the hypothesis because you dislike its inevitable conclusions.
February 17, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, Bill said: And a colt AR-15 in 1960 was 3% of the average annual salary. Price is irrelvant as commoditization and tech would be normal for almost anything. Its not the barrier to entry for any felon either
February 17, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Correlation is not always causation. But sometimes it is. It's not difficult to see how broader availability of firepower, regardless of the toothless gun control measures that have managed to be passed and rolled back over the last 50 years, for the same buying power has led to greater access to more guns by people who represent a threat to friends, family, and neighbors. You're lazily rejecting the hypothesis because you dislike its inevitable conclusions. More lazy thoughts. Basically saying "nuh uh you are” so you now concede the pendulum of regulations has been going back and forth? At least thats some sign of intelligent thought
February 17, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, Bill said: No kidding, that’s why I said 100 years ago. Because I was talking about gun availability even further back than what he mentioned. That's called moving the goal posts. Also not sure referring to prohibition-era violence as a catalyst for the NFA is the flex you think it is.
February 17, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said: Price is irrelvant as commoditization and tech would be normal for almost anything. Its not the barrier to entry for any felon either No, especially not back in the 20s and 30s since most of the gangsters of the era got their guns by stealing them.
February 17, 20241 yr Just now, we_gotta_believe said: That's called moving the goal posts. Also not sure referring to prohibition-era violence as a catalyst for the NFA is the flex you think it is. So the prohibition era violence was the catalyst for the NFA?
February 17, 20241 yr 8 minutes ago, Bill said: And a colt AR-15 in 1960 was 3% of the average annual salary. ok, yeah, and now it's less than 1%. that's my point; guns are more readily available for the same purchasing power.
February 17, 20241 yr Just now, Bill said: No, especially not back in the 20s and 30s since most of the gangsters of the era got their guns by stealing them. Still do. and if you try price exclusion you just increase the incentive for org crime to smuggle them in via mexico
February 17, 20241 yr Just now, JohnSnowsHair said: ok, yeah, and now it's less than 1%. that's my point; guns are more readily available for the same purchasing power. No he actually shot holes in your price/accessibility argument
February 17, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said: More lazy thoughts. Basically saying "nuh uh you are” so you now concede the pendulum of regulations has been going back and forth? At least thats some sign of intelligent thought my statement was that guns are more available. and they are. gun control in this country has never been very effective, and the threat of gun control has done more to increase sales than anything else. there are far more guns sold per capita every year than there were 50 and 100 years ago. hence, there are more guns in circulation. you're rejecting a logical line of thinking because you disagree with the conclusions.
February 17, 20241 yr Just now, ToastJenkins said: No he actually shot holes in your price/accessibility argument uh, no. he didn't.
February 17, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Price is irrelvant as commoditization and tech would be normal for almost anything. Its not the barrier to entry for any felon either are you seriously going to argue that a white market flush with cheap guns more accessible to the average citizen's buying power has no impact on the black market gun trade? seriously?
February 17, 20241 yr I can readily acknowledge that our culture (or that is to say, varied cultures across large sometimes disparate geographic regions) plays a big part in gun violence. I can also acknowledge that lack of access to asylums that mentally unstable individuals might have been thrown into in previous generations has a big effect specifically on the mass shootings that make the news. (regardless of whatever other problems these asylums caused, they did serve the public in this one regard) yet you cannot acknowledge that 4-5x as many guns in circulation per capita, and the ability to purchase 3-5x as many guns with the same buying power as 50-100 years ago, also contributes. who's the one being lazy?
February 17, 20241 yr 14 minutes ago, Bill said: So the prohibition era violence was the catalyst for the NFA? Uhh yea, dude. Organized crime turf wars (of which bootlegging and speakeasies were major sources of revenue) were spilling over into the public, putting innocent bystanders in the crossfire, and the federal government looking to clamp down on them had enough after local police were ineffectual at curbing the violence (they were either bought off or outgunned at every turn.) You literally even mentioned the guns of choice for the mob at the time. Prohibition ended, but the mobs had already grown to be massively powerful and entrenched in major cities by then so the threat remained and gave birth to the NFA.
February 17, 20241 yr 21 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Uhh yea, dude. Organized crime turf wars (of which bootlegging and speakeasies were major sources of revenue) were spilling over into the public, putting innocent bystanders in the crossfire, and the federal government looking to clamp down on them had enough after local police were ineffectual at curbing the violence (they were either bought off or outgunned at every turn.) You literally even mentioned the guns of choice for the mob at the time. Prohibition ended, but the mobs had already grown to be massively powerful and entrenched in major cities by then so the threat remained and gave birth to the NFA. So, as it turns out most of the guns used my criminal organizations in the 20s and 30s were stolen. From the government. National Guard armories were just locked up and left with nobody around. Turns out that was a bad idea. So why would we need an NFA if most of the guns used in gang violence were stolen in such a manner? But then why would the NFA even make certain weapons legal to be purchased so long as one bought a tax stamp at a then exorbitantly high price? And why were guns like the BAR and Thompson, popular amongst the gangsters, not banned? Why did the NFA restrict the purchase of short barreled rifles and shotguns, which were not predominately used by prohibition gangsters? And why did they wait 14 years and a 1 year after prohibition to restrict the purchase of those firearms?
February 17, 20241 yr 11 minutes ago, Bill said: So, as it turns out most of the guns used my criminal organizations in the 20s and 30s were stolen. From the government. National Guard armories were just locked up and left with nobody around. Turns out that was a bad idea. So why would we need an NFA if most of the guns used in gang violence were stolen in such a manner? But then why would the NFA even make certain weapons legal to be purchased so long as one bought a tax stamp at a then exorbitantly high price? And why were guns like the BAR and Thompson, popular amongst the gangsters, not banned? Why did the NFA restrict the purchase of short barreled rifles and shotguns, which were not predominately used by prohibition gangsters? And why did they wait 14 years and a 1 year after prohibition to restrict the purchase of those firearms? Oh ok. So the NFA had nothing to do with prohibition era gun violence and had no effect on reducing the number of automatic weapons like the Thompson and BAR in circulation. Have I got that right?
February 17, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: are you seriously going to argue that a white market flush with cheap guns more accessible to the average citizen's buying power has no impact on the black market gun trade? seriously? Its always been flush with cheap guns. Its a nonsense argument
February 17, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said: Oh ok. So the NFA had nothing to do with prohibition era gun violence and had no effect on reducing the number of automatic weapons like the Thompson and BAR in circulation. Have I got that right? You don’t know why, but you do in fact have that right.
February 17, 20241 yr 14 minutes ago, Bill said: You don’t know why, but you do in fact have that right. Yeah you're kinda dumb
February 17, 20241 yr 19 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Yeah you're kinda dumb So here’s a question, why did they not ban them outright and only require a prohibitively expensive tax stamp?
February 17, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, Bill said: So here’s a question, why did they not ban them outright and only require a prohibitively expensive tax stamp? Hey look at that, you're starting to get it.
February 17, 20241 yr 13 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Hey look at that, you're starting to get it. You are so naive
Create an account or sign in to comment