Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 167
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    What kind of Mass killings are you trying to talk about? Is it just school shootings, or public shootings?
    Are we talking about gang shootings?

    Is there a reason you don't want to include family killings in your argument?
    I include all these things in my argument, because my argument is that the rate of gun violence in the US is embarrassingly high. Mass shootings are just a byproduct of poor regulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Well, the kind of shootings seem to matter in regards to what kind of law is going to address it.
    I don't see how this is even remotely true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    For example, a family killing isn't going to be stopped by a gun registry, because for the most part family guys who lose it and kill their family probably purchased the gun legally to begin with.
    We may as well be trying to stop family stabbings of the same nature, or family arson.. which apparently is a thing.
    No one is saying that all gun violence will end with a gun registry. The simple fact of the matter is, when you have greater restrictions/barriers in place for ownership of a device, less ownership will ultimately occur than otherwise. Family killings will unquestionably be reduced because it will be more difficult to acquire a gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    That is very different then gang shootings, which in turn are different than the kind of school shootings we have seen.

    Am I wrong? Do you think that all shootings are inherently the same and can be fixed in the same way?
    I fully agree that the issue is complex. I don't think there will ever be a magical legislation that eliminates gun violence forever. People will always try to circumvent the law. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. What we do know is that placing restrictions on the ownership of weapons will reduce the ownership of weapons. This in turn will reduce the incidences of gun violence across the board.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Well, lets assume for a moment that your correct. The problem is what works for them may not work for us. We can see that in our own states as there are plenty of states with very strict laws that have higher rates of gun violence, then ones with less strict gun regulation.
    There is also the matter of enforcement. Squatch highlights this in his participation rate example.
    One of the problems with our system is the breakdowns in communication and poor record-keeping between federal and state agencies, which hinders enforcement. Something that would be improved with a national, digital registry.

    Should we not at least try to learn from other nations' gun control policies and try to implement our own version? I get that it won't be exactly the same, but the line "what works for them might not work for us" shouldn't be used as justification for maintaining the status quo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Finally, I don't see the mechanics that connects the law to the outcome. I mean, what about the state knowing who has what gun, prevents any of the shootings we have seen?
    Guns that are stolen aren't going to be fixed by it, and guns that are purchased legally aren't going to be effected by such a law. ... So what is the law doing, because that is pretty much the extent of the possibilities.
    Again, we're not going to magically solve gun violence forever in one bill. It is not reasonable, however, to hold the position that unless we can completely resolve gun violence, that we should not implement any measures to limit it. This is seemingly your position, unless I have missed something.

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,715
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What about all the times when someone uses a gun to threaten and intimidate someone else but doesn't actually use it? I'm pretty sure that is incredibly common as well.

    And how many times when someone felt scared and threatened someone else with a gun, was their life actually in danger? That we don't know either.
    That is important to keep in mind.
    I don't think a thug showing his gun to you so that you leave his drug deal area alone. Is the same as a woman showing her gun and thus preventing a rape.
    We may not have the numbers on either one, but the latter is important enough to allow for the former.



    Quote Originally Posted by SIG

    What we do know..
    Suicides are around 62% of gun deaths. Most people that die from a gun, die from their own gun.
    The number of people shot and killed in self-defense is very small, less than 300 or so in a year, around a third were during a home invasion type scenario.
    The number of women killed by their romantic partners is around 1000 in a typical year, about half of those were with guns.
    More people are killed by accident (500 or so) than with guns that are shot in self defense (around 300).

    The fact is, a gun in your home is far far far more likely to kill you or someone you love than to kill someone threatening you or someone you love. (mind you most gunds don't kill anyone)

    It may make people feel safe ,but it doesn't generally make you any safer.[COLOR="Silver"]
    Then you are simply incorrect when you say you are far far far more likely to kill you.
    They are most likely to not kill anyone. Also, the killing you part is simply not relevant to the debate. See my last response.


    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    What most people propose however are restrictions that still allow for those lawful and justified uses, but decrease their ability to be used for unlawful uses. The rebuttals to those tend to be arguments related to self-defense or defense against the government. The first being very rare in reality, and the second being strictly illegal by definition.
    I don't agree. I haven't seen any law or proposition that would decrease unlawful uses. Or more importantly the unlawful act.



    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Cars are essential to our economy so they are deemed a necessary evil. We are constantly working to make them safer and we have a number of rules and restrictions to that end.
    Well guns are about as safe as they come. .. not sure what kind of regulations have made them that way, but guns don't generally explode in your face or fire without cause. They are pretty much fool proof and only personal miss use causes injury. So when you are talking about regulations to make safe, you MUST be talking about the actions people take in them. Such as drunk driving, using it in a robbery, kidnapping people and children with it, sex traficing, drug trafficking etc. Basically all the illigal uses of it... I guess suicide is in there as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I am addressing the "self-defense" justification for firearms and saying that if you want a gun to protect your life, you are likely a fool in that regard. That is a dumb reason to have a gun in most cases because it is far more likely to kill you than to kill someone threatening your life.
    You and I have both agreed that, that is not the end of that equation and the vast majority of it is simply unknown. So you simply can't use this point. It isn't valid. Unless you can show how many times a life was saved by simply having a gun... then your point is an argument from ignorance.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, but we may well let us make restrictions on the type of guns that are legal to own, how they should be bought and sold, how they are registered, how they should be stored and so forth...
    None of which appears to be relevant to the current crimes that are done with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Plenty. Many more crimes are commited while breathing air! If you have a proposal for making cars safer, by all means, such have lead to lower rates of traffic fatalities over the years.
    First, see my point about guns being safe vs cars being safe in the same manner. You are I think inadvertantly conflaiting the way we are talking about safty.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Why have any laws at all then? **** life right? Anachy for all!
    WERE GOING TO LIVE FOREVER!!! WHOOOT!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Look, its always a balancing act. Every law should have a public purpose, and be weighed agaisnt what its costs are in treasure and liberty. But really, that's why my focus is on saying "Stop bying guns and live a safer life."
    Tat balancing act is EXACTLY what my point was. Not anarchy.. like a duche.
    If we are going to have guns, we are going to have mis use of them, and I am all for ideas to lower the mis-use. Just looking for the connection of those ideas with how they will actually work.
    no one seems willing to point that out or explain that to me. Also, my point about outrage is.. at what point am I to be concerned?
    Because far to many in the anti-gun argument rely on this "one life" crap which basically denies that bad things happen in a free society.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Thy have a nice safer society for it. Seems like a pretty good decision from where I'm sitting.
    But not clearly because of the gun laws. See my last post that quoted that from the source material used.
    That is the problem I am having. That balancing act is between freedom and safty. And the latter is not really clear while asking for the giving up of the former.
    So the trade off needs to be established before it can be discussed reasonably. .. That we don't know some of the numbers (like illegal brandishing of a weapon vs legal brandishing of a weapon that prevents crimes of rape, murder and theft). Means that we will no doubt have unintended consiquences.

    ---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by freund
    I don't see how this is even remotely true.
    So you think a gun registry is going to effect suicides the same way it is going to effect gang violence?

    I don't see how we can lump them all together and expect a given law to work.. I don't even see how the proposed laws are supposed to effect any gun crime.
    So, I would like to see this connection developed if you are going to argue for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    No one is saying that all gun violence will end with a gun registry. The simple fact of the matter is, when you have greater restrictions/barriers in place for ownership of a device, less ownership will ultimately occur than otherwise. Family killings will unquestionably be reduced because it will be more difficult to acquire a gun.
    I'm questioning exactly that. I don't see how a gun registry would effect family killings, as there seems to be no indicator as to why those people would be denied a gun to start with, nor
    does knowing that they have a gun appear to have any deterance that I can see.

    So, yea it is not unquestionably going to reduce it.
    Even your sources couldn't UNQUESTIONABLY link the gun legistation to a decrease in gun deaths.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    I fully agree that the issue is complex. I don't think there will ever be a magical legislation that eliminates gun violence forever. People will always try to circumvent the law. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. What we do know is that placing restrictions on the ownership of weapons will reduce the ownership of weapons. This in turn will reduce the incidences of gun violence across the board.
    We already have a reduction in gun violence going on (I thought).
    Also the connection you are making is not true, as we now have more guns and ownership and less crime by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    One of the problems with our system is the breakdowns in communication and poor record-keeping between federal and state agencies, which hinders enforcement. Something that would be improved with a national, digital registry.
    I'm not sure I see how a registry helps the FBI talk the state of florida in a way that would effect any crime.
    could you please explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    Should we not at least try to learn from other nations' gun control policies and try to implement our own version? I get that it won't be exactly the same, but the line "what works for them might not work for us" shouldn't be used as justification for maintaining the status quo.
    No, but it remains a valid question so that proposals need to be justified. I don't want to create more criminals for no good reason.
    And in america a gun registry would result in currently law abiding citizens becoming criminals. For example, I'm not going to register my gun.
    So.. there is that.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    Again, we're not going to magically solve gun violence forever in one bill. It is not reasonable, however, to hold the position that unless we can completely resolve gun violence, that we should not implement any measures to limit it. This is seemingly your position, unless I have missed something.
    Absolutly not my position. I just want the connection made as to why a proposed change would work and how it is going to effect gun crimes.
    Also, what is going to be given up in the process.

    I don't see that discussion being had in general, because no one seems to be able to connect a specific legislation idea to how it is going to stop or effect a given crime.
    To serve man.

  3. #23
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Fair point. From the data we cannot definitively state that the gun control legislation caused the drops. I fully admit that this is a complex issue, and that similar regulations might be more or less effective depending on the country and cultural background. I am more concerned with the lack of real progress and often obstructionist behavior in Congress on this issue, even if that meant research (see Dickey Amendment).
    Interesting, I think some defenders of the Dickey Amendment (myself included) argue that government has a hard time really funding research without puttings its thumb on the scale of outcome. I'd rather ask you, though, what (if you were king for a day) would be the policies you think could make a difference in the US? [Apologies if you've already answered this and I missed it.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Freund
    The 2.1/100,000 is still higher than every European country--the closest being Albania at 1.72/100,000. I likewise do not think it is reasonable to use the white murder rate as a measure of our actual violence levels--this kind of selection isn't accounted for in the European/Global models so the comparison isn't really appropriate.
    Two points, we must be using different sources. I have the Albanian murder rate as 2.28 not 1.72. And again, Europe publishes murder rates while I was talking homicide rates for the US. That isn't an apple to apple comparison, if I stuck to murder we remove 2/3ds of that 8600 number that makes our rate higher than the European average.

    Murder

    US: 3.81/100k
    Europe: 2.97/100k

    Those are much closer numbers already without accounting for the gang violence numbers as listed above. From a purely murder perspective, we only have to remove Chicago and New York and we are essentially at the same average as Europe.


    I also want to clarify the comments at the end about racial differences. I wasn't implying that the white murder rate was comparative to Europe. I was detailing an argument that often gets presented when we discuss the US and Europe. It isn't uncommon to see on forums the argument presented that the reason the US is so higher is because of the disproportionate violence of young African-American males. I think that argument misses the mark a bit and substitutes race for a more likely causal factor, culture (which was my argument), but given how common it was, I wanted to detail it a bit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Precise aiming isn't really a big deal when shooting at a crowd. the general area of heads and hearts is probably fine.
    I had a nagging feeling after I posted that last response that I should have clarified. I think this is a point that is hard to translate for those who haven't shot an automatic (or high rate of fire) weapon.

    From an elevated platform, a large crowd is still relatively small (remember that small angles translate into large lateral movements at long distances). For example, from the hotel room of the vegas shooter, if you were to move an AR15 sight from the bottom of the crowd to the top of the crowd, you are talking about a movement (at the muzzle) of about 3-4 inches. That isn't a lot when you are dealing with significant recoil. Aiming does matter, even then. If you are trying to indiscriminately mow down a large group of people, you do need to have effective aim. I used to teach a class called Machine Gun Theory in Officer Candidate School. We talked about what is called an T&E (transverse and elevate) mechanism that is used to stabilize a weapon on a tripod and provide the stability needed to effectively engage targets at more than 100 yards.

    If you are up on a building, looking down on a crowd, it doesn't take much movement to start missing the crowd.

    It also matters if that device (like a bump stock or belt loop, or the thousand other homemade variants that do the exact same thing) causes the weapon to fire faster than its cyclic rate of fire, and thus causes it to jam in a way that isn't easily fixed. There is a reason the Vegas shooter had 17 weapons in the room, because the bump stocks kept causing the weapons to break.

    I think you are also incorrect on the rushing up or charging you. There is a chance, of course that no one will rush you, but if you were in a crowd and they didn't feel they could escape, there is a good change at least one person is going to pick fight over flight. Regardless, even if 0 people rush you, the pistol is equally effective in that scenario because you are almost certainly closer than 25 meters. So you obtain no benefit, and some risk by picking the AR15.

    I also think you misunderstand the issue I raise about flagging around corners. I'm not talking about performing perfect four man stack drills, I'm talking about being able to actually point the gun around the room. Have you ever tried to accurately move an AR15 to all parts of a room as you open a door? Its actually pretty challenging. If your goal is really to kill a bunch of even cowering people, you are going to be far, far, far, more effective with a single handed pistol, than a two handed AR15. You don't have to enter the room as much to aim everywhere in the room, your ability to shoot under a table, or around a desk, or whatever is far easier with the more mobile pistol, than the long rifle.

    Remember, as a soldier in a CQB situation, I want to apply violence of action, and stop the threats in a building as fast as I can. The same factors apply to a mass shooter, he just picks his targets with no discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    That's why I used you in both situations. and for the most part, these folks aren't fighting back, they are in a dark movie theater where someone is opening fire on them. And you probably want something that will go through a theater seat and still be lethal. (not sure if a 9mil will do that or not, I'm no expert on that side of things but I'm told one of the advantages of an AR 15 is round speed and penetration.
    That is more of a trope than a tactical consideration here. No one has body armor, a 9mm will go through a plywood seat or a sheetmetal seat. Hitting two targets with one bullet is a hollywood consideration, not an actual one. Even if every bullet you had perfectly went through (most will break apart and tumble into the ground), the odds of a person being exactly behind that other person are pretty low. Secondary wounds of that sort virtually never occur in real life.

    And again from above, the manueverabillity of the pistol wins out. They probably won't attack me, but even if they don't, it is a lot easier to transverse a pistol around a room like that than a rifle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    I mostly agree, but the line of argument is that with legislation, we can make it somewhat more difficult to kill as many people without seriously impacting the lawful uses for fireamrs (beyond collecting and sheer amusement of course).
    Definitely understand the motivation and intent. I think the problem is that a lot of people (in general, not necessarily here) approach this from a perspective of what makes them feel uncomfortable, not on what the evidence says. When you have prominent people advocating policies who admit they have no idea how a weapon functions and argue that they shouldn't have to understand how a weapon functions, we've moved beyond a clear assessment of threat reduction.

    I also think that approaching it from a tool perspective rather than a person perspective is a little like weatherstripping your window while leaving the door open. It might help, but at best marginally compared to addressing the actual problem. What I think bothers me most is that I think quite a few people use the tool excuse to avoid the hard problem of dealing with the underlying problem. Like taking asprin to avoid going to the doctor. I'd rather have gun control be an insurmountable issue for all time if it forced people to address the actual mental health and community breakdown issues at play.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Correct. That was not the main intent of the 2nd ammendment, though some may have had it in mind. Some states specifically called out a right to self defense in their state constitutions. Other didn't. Some didn't have gun rights in theirs. The federalist papers specifically discuss state militia and defense agaisnt federal troops when discussing the second ammendment. That, and the language of the ammendment make it clear to me that was the primary intent of it.
    Gotcha, just wanted to clarify and I don't disagree with your assessment here (though I would quibble that at the period a militia was, often, a non-state organized body of troops). Ironically, technically I don't get 2nd Amendment protections because I'm in the National Guard, which is not part of the militia.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    The right wing media will tell you that, sure, but it's not accurate. There was an increase in the year of the ban, but after that it steadily declined.
    I don't think I've ever heard the "right wing media" even mention that, so that is a bit of a swing and a miss. It steadily declined after the ban at...about the same rate it had been declining since the 1960s according to the journal article in JAMA linked.




    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    It is always self reported (use of a gun in defense).
    I'm afraid this isn't the case either. I'm guessing you are referring to the Kleck and Gertz study. The did conduct a survey, but employed methodological screening and criminologists to assess whether the level of violence in the incident met the "almost certainly would have been killed otherwise" standard. They found just shy of 400,000 defensive gun uses a year. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...3&context=jclc

    If you are referring to the National Crime Victimization Survey, that isn't a self-report, it is an interview follow up following a police report. I should note that those instances must be confirmed by a trained law enforcement officer as a valid case. They found 235,000 defensive gun uses a year. https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

    The CDC found that a gun is used 498,000 times a year to deter a home invasion. https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-conte...Households.pdf

    I think what you are forgetting (and which the CDC and NCVS included) is that all states have brandishing laws. You don't simply get to pull a firearm out without having to explain why to police. In most cases a victim reports a crime (attempted rape, mugging, home invasion, etc) and mentions to the police officer that they used a firearm. In most states, a police officer specifically has to determine then in the report whether the firearm was lawfully brandished. That provides a backstop that isn't available in just random surveys.

    I also think it strains a bit of believability to think that federal and CDC PHDs are just "taking people's word for it."


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    But that isn't part of what your gun in your home is going to be a part of.
    But when you throw around the homicide numbers like you did above, you are including those incidents. You can't use generic homicide numbers and then not acknowledge that in a large portion (majority if I recall correctly) those guns were illegally obtained.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Still more than all justifiable gun homicides.
    I would be cautious with that claim. The FBI doesn't collect justifiable gun homicide statistics. It collected them for one year, and only collected them for a limited number of jurisdictions, and even then, that number only includes times when the DA chose to prosecute, but the person was found not-guilty. It doesn't include situations where a DA didn't prosecute because it was clearly a justifiable homicide.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Sure, but where we might part ways is that I think one of the biggest social changes we could make is to convince people not to keep a gun in their home.
    I think you are correct that we would part ways here. The evidence just doesn't support this at all I think. A large portion of this argument relies on assuming correlation is causation. Suicides and domestic violence just aren't caused by gun ownership. Suicides and domestic violence hasn't decreased as Illinois implemented stronger gun control, ditto California (especially when you realize that actual gun ownership in those areas has become more concentrated, with fewer people owning firearms). Nor did it increase in South Carolina, Florida, or Georgia following changes eliminating Jim Crowe era laws limiting gun ownership.

    The absolute best data we have for your argument, in my opinion comes from South Carolina and Florida, where concealed carry was extremely limited until about ten years ago. The numbers in those respective states exploded within the first year of legal changes. In both states the rate of crime decreased quickened and, more importantly to your view, virtually no crime or violent incidents occurred from that population. In fact, in both states, Concealed Carry holders were 6 times less likely to engage in crime than police officers. The idea that gun ownership is dangerous or that gun owners are more likely to commit a crime just doesn't bear out.

    Your argument about gangs is also important to this discussion because it we also should include in this conversation about legal vs illegal gun ownership. To the extent we can, when we remove those crimes committed by people with illegally held firearms, the numbers change drastically. A lot of the effects you are putting forward are, imo, a common cause fallacy, as they also tend to be associated with other negative outcomes like unemployment, non-violent crime, etc. If we remember that there is a distinction between a person who owns a gun and a criminal that obtains a gun, a lot of the concern you have I think is hollowed out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    That part we do agree on. Again, like the second ammendment, the first ammendment poses challenges. And the first I'm pretty much a firebrand for. So it falls on all of us to try and just be responsible... tough that.
    To my knowledge a lot of those changes were internal and not necessarily issues that would be related to First Amendment challenges. More of a journalism culture change.

    Curious if you are aware of French's Gun Restraining Order concept or not? I'm curious to see if it, as an idea, has expanded.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  5. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Replying to Squatch

    Let's discuss your 9mil pistol for a few moments more.

    I appreciate your efforts to sing the praises of the mighty 9mil and its other handy pistol friends. I think you are under-selling the other weapons a bit but let's say for now, you are correct a 9mil automatic pistol is the best choice for mass murder.

    So, at that point, you are pretty much making an argument for banning 9mil pistols. Lets say I'm convinced, they are dangerous. To effectively have less mass murder friendly self-defense arms, we should ban all semi-automatic actions, and hey, fast loaders too since I know you can limk me to a video for someone shooting a revolver at fairly high speed using those. That's where that line of argument is taking you for anyone commited to limiting access to dangerous weapons.

    And frankly, if they did go there, that seems a perfectly rational answer to your arguments. If 9mil is the real danger, then get rid of those too!

    Let's forcus on the people

    Sure, we can, though anyone will tell you that controlling people's behavior is notoriously tricky. And most gun control advocates will reply to you. We can do both, try to stop the behavior and lessen the number of dangerous weapons.

    Australia
    Your chart does show that it is at nearly a historic low right now. The other period coincides with the end of WW II a period, interestingly enough, in which handguns were banned in some parts of Australia, only to be reversed in the 1950s and they became very popular... coinciding with a big rise in suicide rates. Not enough to show causality, but it is plausable due to the correlation and we have hard data showing access to guns does increase suicide risk, so there is a causal mechanism to explain the correlation.

    Gun Defense
    My statement was that most estimates of gun use for defense are self reported. AKA they are counted by asking people in surveys about their gun use. You said this is not true.

    You mention Kleck and Gertz. It's been pretty widely criticized. They use their results to extrapolate a number of defensive gun uses. But if you also exptrapolate the numbe of attackers killed in the same way, some 200,000 criminals are killed each year by defensive gun use. That is not a number that is anywhere close to being born out. That is in fact 10 tines more than the total homicide rate in the US. Something is very very wrong with their survey. The well known phenomena of over sampling of rare events is the most likely explination for their out of kilter results. So basically that one is crap.

    NCVS is still self reported, but it is at least part of a verified crime, so it's a more reliable number. Mind you, it doesn't demonstrate that anyone's life was in danger when a gun was used, or speak to how often the gun helped, or what effect brandishing the gun had on fatality. My overarching point is that Guns don't make you much safer on a personal level. The fact that the same survey shows nearly 13 million instances where no defense was offered, speaks to the fact that most of these violent crimes didn't involve a moral threat (again considering the homicide number in the US is around 15K. People without guns do not seem to be an any appreciably greater risk of harm from crime.

    CDC numbers: also a self reported survey.

    So, all self reported, as I said. I'm not saying that automatically means the numbers are wrong, but it does make them subject to the respondants interpretations of the questions and the situation they were in.

    Illegal guns
    That is utterly outside my line of argument. I am arguing that owning a gun, (be it legal or illegal) is statistically bad for your health. You are more likely to die if you own a gun than if you don't own a gun. I immagine if you have illegal guns, then your risk factor is even higher, but I haven't seen numbers on that. Bottom line, if your personal safety or that of your family is your primary concern, its generally unwise to own a gun.

    I would be cautious with that claim. The FBI doesn't collect justifiable gun homicide statistics. It collected them for one year, and only collected them for a limited number of jurisdictions, and even then, that number only includes times when the DA chose to prosecute, but the person was found not-guilty. It doesn't include situations where a DA didn't prosecute because it was clearly a justifiable homicide.
    A good point and fair enough. One problem with all the data is we collect such data very poorly in the US.

    Not having guns
    The vast majority of people in the US don't go around toting guns. The vast majority of people exeriencing crime don't get into fights with the criminals. They allow the police to do that for them. Most of the people that do die from a gun, kill themselves, by a big margin. A gun does not make you safe, it makes you less safe. It only makes you feel like you are safe by giving you some illusion of control.

    Now, if... and this is a bunch of ifs. If you are very skilled with guns, if you have a calm demeanor, if you have no real risk of suicide and no one in your family does either, if you are not prone to being a dumn ass and shooting yourself dicking around, if you are likely to be exposed to violent crime, if you get the drop on the person threatening you, then a gun may well protect your life more than threaten it. But that ain't most people.

    Many are dumb, many are not skilled, many are not wise, many aren't calm, many are prone to suicide, many can be a dumbass with their gun, many never face violent crime, and many who are are caught by surprise and don't put up a fight.

    Concealed carry
    I think that people with concealed carry permits tend to represent the cream of the gun owning crop. They have to jump through various hoops that help ensure they are responsible, or at least get them to think critically about how to be responsible with a gun. They are also relatively rare. If every gun owner had to do what they do, that would probably be a good measure I'd support.

    Curious if you are aware of French's Gun Restraining Order concept or not?
    Not. But I looked it up. Seems a reasonable thing to try. Though I would expect the NRA and company to strongly object to it.

    Getting the input of Gun experts on Gun legislation
    I tend to agree that would be a good thing, but here is the problem.

    Most self aclaimed gun experts just tell you, none of it will work, don't put restrictions on my guns.

    If you can find me some gun experts that will give us a set of well informed restrictions on firearms that will lower death tolls, by all means, bring em forward!

    To me, this line of argument, while accurate, is also kind of pointless for the reason explained.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I'd rather ask you, though, what (if you were king for a day) would be the policies you think could make a difference in the US? [Apologies if you've already answered this and I missed it.]
    No problem. I think that a national, digital gun registry would improve the communication issues which exist between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Similar to how HIPAA impacted medical records. I likewise think that in tandem with this, that all sales transactions of weapons, including private party transactions, must be reported to law enforcement and that anyone who owns a gun must register it.

    This is similar to how we deal with cars. We are required by law to register them (cars) with the state DMV, to ensure that they meet safety standards (in some states), to ensure they meet emissions standards (in some states/metro areas), and if we sell them, to transfer ownership via the title, which is used to register the car in the buyer's name with the DMV.

    Again similar to how we deal with cars, the ability to own a gun should require a license, regardless of type. Similar to concealed carry now, licensure should require training, much like we do not let anyone get a driver's license without taking a driver safety course and passing a driver's exam and road test. This would increase knowledge--which I feel is always a good thing--and ensure that those who do choose to own firearms understand the risks involved and store them correctly. It should--again just like with concealed carry--require a background check and if below a certain age, a psychiatric evaluation.

    I think these are common sense approaches to controlling firearms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Two points, we must be using different sources. I have the Albanian murder rate as 2.28 not 1.72. And again, Europe publishes murder rates while I was talking homicide rates for the US. That isn't an apple to apple comparison, if I stuck to murder we remove 2/3ds of that 8600 number that makes our rate higher than the European average.
    That's probably because I'm not using the murder rate because we are talking about deaths via firearm. Source.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Those are much closer numbers already without accounting for the gang violence numbers as listed above. From a purely murder perspective, we only have to remove Chicago and New York and we are essentially at the same average as Europe.
    We aren't talking about murder though, we are talking about deaths by firearm. Why should we consider statistics for murder when this includes death via alternative means? This seems to be outside the scope of the discussion but I welcome your input.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Also the connection you are making is not true, as we now have more guns and ownership and less crime by it.
    If reduction in gun violence can't be conclusively proven to be the result of increased gun control legislation, then this assertion is likely even less conclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    And in america a gun registry would result in currently law abiding citizens becoming criminals. For example, I'm not going to register my gun.
    So.. there is that.
    It's all about contributing to society in a positive way. If everyone thought this way, then we would have chaos. If I decided that I didn't want to honor your right to privacy and ownership of property, then rolled into your house and took your stuff, I'm pretty sure you would want me to be prosecuted. Of course if we followed your logic, I was simply doing what I wanted to without respect to the law and why we have it in the first place--and somehow this is justifiable behavior.

  8. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The "no mass shootings have occured" seems to be false.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

    There are at least 3 with the title "mass shooting" in the tag.
    an example. ...
    2002 .. multiple hand guns were used in a school shooting.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash...rsity_shooting

    also, it's not like Australia had a lot of mass shootings before the law was passed to take the guns.
    This proves my point. Even without guns, disturbed individuals intent on taking lives will find a way, even without guns.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  9. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    This proves my point. Even without guns, disturbed individuals intent on taking lives will find a way, even without guns.
    Why is it this such a prevalent argument? It's basically an argument against having laws.

    People will find a way to commit murder anyway, so why should we have laws that ban murder?

    People are going to drive drunk anyway, so why should we have laws that ban drunk driving?

    People are going to steal things anyway, so why should we have laws that ban theft?

    It's absurd. A law does not have to be perfect in order for it to be effective.

  10. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,715
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by fruend
    If reduction in gun violence can't be conclusively proven to be the result of increased gun control legislation, then this assertion is likely even less conclusive.
    That doesn't follow at all. In fact, it is the very fact that gun violence goes down in the absence of new legislation and in the face of rising gun sales, that makes your assertion that gun control leads to less gun violence unproven.
    As an assertion the claim that gun violence has fallen as gun ownership has risen, is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#270f94123f7c


    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    It's all about contributing to society in a positive way. If everyone thought this way, then we would have chaos. If I decided that I didn't want to honor your right to privacy and ownership of property, then rolled into your house and took your stuff, I'm pretty sure you would want me to be prosecuted. Of course if we followed your logic, I was simply doing what I wanted to without respect to the law and why we have it in the first place--and somehow this is justifiable behavior.
    Well, there is a bit of question begging in this statement. namely if society is best contributed to in the way you propose.

    I am only offering a realistic expectation for some of your proposals. This point was echoed, or maybe first pointed out by squatch with our expected participation rate in gun buy backs like occurred in Australia.
    For example, if you were suggesting out right gun confiscation. IE door to door search and sizier. I would point out that there are at least 2 million gun owners that would resist with deadly force. Meaning such a proposal is a proposal to create at least 2 million more criminals where prior these same people were not criminals. You could of course retort with what you said above, but that does nothing IMO to asses if we SHOULD create more criminals in such a way. Especially when the trade off is not clear.
    you want to make some number of currently law abiding citizens into criminals.. in the HOPE of reducing gun crime.. but probably not the crime itself, just the tool it is done with.

    So far it isn't very convincing. Especially as you have yet to connect your proposals (thanks for offering them so clearly), with how they are going to decrease any of the specific crime we are talking about.


    ----
    My growing concern..

    In the link offered earlier which showed that so much of the mass killings we have in America involves the killing of families by a family member, I am concerned that the discussion is about the tool and not the crime itself.
    I don't think taking guns away from these people is generally possible, without depriving most law abiding people from access to a fire arm (IE without violating the 2nd amendment). I am also concerned about the dis-regard for the right to have a gun, and treating it as though it is like driving a car. To me Licensing to own a gun is out of the question as a solution because it destroys the 2nd amendment and makes it a privilege. It seems to me that an underlying assumption by some in the thread is that Gun ownership is not a right at all.

    So I will offer what I think are some solutions.


    1) Address the mental illness side of the problem of mass shootings. (I don't know how to do this..) This seems to be the major problem that is going un-addressed. By focusing on the numbers and statistics the major problem is being missed. Like how setting the range of mass shootings at 5 instead of 4 passes over 80+ events, which the only reason they were not 5,6 or 7 deaths in those instances, is because families generally arn't that size.

    2) General Gun education of the population.
    By this I mean bring back the gun ranges in schools and teaching children how to shoot and handle a fire arm. Some of the largest shooting ranges in America are under public schools and unused. This should partly address the concern that people with guns should be trained before they have them. However instead of requiring training for ownership (something that denies the right), this would create a general population that is not ignorant of this common and necessary tool.

    2A) Increase availability for gun training to the general public after highschool. (This same public that has a right to own a fire arm). If we are going to have an armed population, we are better off if they are better trained. We do this with sex education.

    3) Allow the cream of the crop gun owners (those with concealed carry licenses) To carry wherever they go, across state lines. This is about decreasing the needless criminalization of gun ownership in America that occurs today. A person who is fit to carry in one state, should be free to cross state lines without becoming a criminal.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; March 30th, 2018 at 02:06 PM.
    To serve man.

  11. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    It's all about contributing to society in a positive way. If everyone thought this way, then we would have chaos.
    You seem to be thinking that he's saying that one can break any law they want for any reason they want and that's not the case. As an example, Rosa Parks broke the law because she didn't agree with the law and that ultimately had a positive effect on society.

    I'm not saying that MT and Rosa are one and the same but if him not following the law doesn't hurt anyone (and I don't see why it would) then he would become a criminal even though he's not really harming anyone else which means that at least in his particular situation, the law is a net negative (which is not to say that it might not be a net positive when we figure in everyone).


    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    If I decided that I didn't want to honor your right to privacy and ownership of property, then rolled into your house and took your stuff, I'm pretty sure you would want me to be prosecuted. Of course if we followed your logic, I was simply doing what I wanted to without respect to the law and why we have it in the first place--and somehow this is justifiable behavior.
    But the difference is robbing someone is causing them harm. Who gets harmed if MT doesn't register his gun?

  12. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  13. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    That doesn't follow at all. In fact, it is the very fact that gun violence goes down in the absence of new legislation and in the face of rising gun sales, that makes your assertion that gun control leads to less gun violence unproven.
    As an assertion the claim that gun violence has fallen as gun ownership has risen, is true.
    It's not that simple. Gun violence certainly has gone down in states such as Texas, but it has likewise gone down in California and New York, states with stricter gun laws. In order to conclusively say one way or the other, we need data. Unfortunately our ability to trace guns is abysmal due to the lack of a gun registry among other reasons. If we truly want to understand whether what you say is true, then a gun registry is one way to do that.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You seem to be thinking that he's saying that one can break any law they want for any reason they want and that's not the case. As an example, Rosa Parks broke the law because she didn't agree with the law and that ultimately had a positive effect on society.

    I'm not saying that MT and Rosa are one and the same but if him not following the law doesn't hurt anyone (and I don't see why it would) then he would become a criminal even though he's not really harming anyone else which means that at least in his particular situation, the law is a net negative (which is not to say that it might not be a net positive when we figure in everyone).

    But the difference is robbing someone is causing them harm. Who gets harmed if MT doesn't register his gun?
    "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone" is not a sufficient reason to break the law. In a democratic society with free elections and a due process, it should never be necessary to break the law. The Civil Rights movement was a prime example of where law-breaking had a purpose--breaking the law in large numbers effectively garnered the attention of the country and swayed public opinion sufficiently to change the laws.

  14. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,715
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    It's not that simple. Gun violence certainly has gone down in states such as Texas, but it has likewise gone down in California and New York, states with stricter gun laws. In order to conclusively say one way or the other, we need data. Unfortunately our ability to trace guns is abysmal due to the lack of a gun registry among other reasons. If we truly want to understand whether what you say is true, then a gun registry is one way to do that.
    Why, we don't need to have a gun registry to know there are more guns in the U.S. And for those trying to equate more guns = more crime, that is a serous problem. It isn't lack of data that we have, it is simply that the data doesn't support the assertion that more guns = more gun crime.

    That is precisely the kind of point being made in this thread. I don't see how your position can deal with that data.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone" is not a sufficient reason to break the law. In a democratic society with free elections and a due process, it should never be necessary to break the law. The Civil Rights movement was a prime example of where law-breaking had a purpose--breaking the law in large numbers effectively garnered the attention of the country and swayed public opinion sufficiently to change the laws.
    It isn't breaking the law that isn't hurting anyone. It is the fact that the law would be making a criminal out of someone who is not hurting anyone.
    I would go further and say it is creating a criminal out of someone who is simply expressing a natural right. (Ie a Right that is not given by the gov but which exists before the gov).
    To serve man.

  15. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone" is not a sufficient reason to break the law. In a democratic society with free elections and a due process, it should never be necessary to break the law. The Civil Rights movement was a prime example of where law-breaking had a purpose--breaking the law in large numbers effectively garnered the attention of the country and swayed public opinion sufficiently to change the laws.
    I never argued otherwise.

    What I am saying is that "not hurting anyone" is a good reason for someone to not be subject to arrest. So if a law turns people who are not hurting anyone into criminals, that's a good reason to have that law.

  16. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Why, we don't need to have a gun registry to know there are more guns in the U.S. And for those trying to equate more guns = more crime, that is a serous problem. It isn't lack of data that we have, it is simply that the data doesn't support the assertion that more guns = more gun crime.
    Just because we cannot determine causation, does not mean that we cannot look at the raw data to see a correlation. There are numerous studies out there that are able to correlate higher gun ownership with higher homicide rates. The data we do have definitely doesn't support your assertion that more guns = less gun crime.

    The American Journal of Public Health published a study in 2013 that showed gun ownership to be a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates. (Source)

    In Australia, firearms deaths fell the most in the states that had higher buyback rates after the NFA was implemented. (Source)

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center showed that accidental gun deaths were higher in states with more guns. (Source) (Source)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    It isn't breaking the law that isn't hurting anyone. It is the fact that the law would be making a criminal out of someone who is not hurting anyone.
    I would go further and say it is creating a criminal out of someone who is simply expressing a natural right. (Ie a Right that is not given by the gov but which exists before the gov).
    That person would only be a criminal if they refused to register their weapon(s).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    What I am saying is that "not hurting anyone" is a good reason for someone to not be subject to arrest. So if a law turns people who are not hurting anyone into criminals, that's a good reason to have that law.
    If someone disobeys a law, that is a criminal act. If we extended this logic to cars, you can see the absurdity of it i.e. if I refused to register my car, even though I technically wasn't hurting anyone because I'm a good driver, it would still be a criminal act.

  17. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,715
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    Just because we cannot determine causation, does not mean that we cannot look at the raw data to see a correlation. There are numerous studies out there that are able to correlate higher gun ownership with higher homicide rates. The data we do have definitely doesn't support your assertion that more guns = less gun crime.
    The problem is, non of your links equate to "MORE CRIME". It only means more of the crimes are done with a gun. Your burden IS to make a CAUSAL connection. Otherwise, any law you pass is not directed at the cause of crime, and thus won't effect it. You also have a burden to connect proposals with outcomes. (See what works there vs here point)

    Problem is guns don't cause suicide attempts or homicide attempts. That is why the first link says
    "Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."


    Again, if more guns = more homicide then how can this be?
    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2013.301409





    Point is, it isn't causal.


    There is also the "what works there won't work here" point
    Which is echoed in your second link.
    "And third, the ability of an island nation to restrict illegal gun imports, coupled with the absence of any domestic gun manufacturers producing for the retail market, meant that legal restrictions on gun ownership were more likely to ‘bite’ in Australia than would be the case in countries with porous land borders."


    --Interesting note about the Australian Buy back- from second source. pg 13
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Although the NFA buyback targeted firearms that were of the type that had been commonly used in crimes, an important feature of the buyback is that very few of the firearms handed in to police were military-style automatic-fire weapons. For the state of Victoria (the only jurisdiction to provide a breakdown of the types of guns handed in), Reuter and Mouzos (2003) report that nearly half of the guns were .22 caliber rifles, and almost all the remainder were shotguns. Less than one in 1000 of the weapons handed back in Victoria was an automatic.
    So basically they don't have hand guns on the island, as they are already very restricted. .. This is a very, very different culture than our own. I don't see how we can apply that to the U.S.
    Especially with the proposals forwarded so far.

    ---
    Here is the problem, Guns don't cause crime they are a tool. If there were no guns in the world at all, then of course there would be no crimes with guns. The point is that if the world has guns, it doesn't follow that it will have more crime.

    https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
    For example, suicide rates in the U.S. went up. But not in proportion to the number of guns in the u.s. So of course you may find that more suicides were done with a gun. It doesn't follow that it was the greater gun ownership rate that caused the suicides. So if your goal is to reduces suicides, then making guns disappear doesn't fix suicide, it just shifts the tool used. Owning a gun doesn't make someone suicidal. (of course sigs point about the success rate of suicides with a gun is relevant).


    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    That person would only be a criminal if they refused to register their weapon(s).
    Right, but we can expect many to do exactly that, because they disagree with your proposed solution so strongly.
    So lets suppose we put some % of these people in jail. Then all the economic negatives that come with jail would apply. .. like increased crime rate.


    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    If someone disobeys a law, that is a criminal act. If we extended this logic to cars, you can see the absurdity of it i.e. if I refused to register my car, even though I technically wasn't hurting anyone because I'm a good driver, it would still be a criminal act.
    Well using your logic we could pass any law no matter how much in infringed on our natural rights. We are going to kill all the 2 year olds without red hair because it is now illegal to not have red hair. .. Wait, you don't want to obey the law? Anarchist! I'm sure we will find many that simply choose be a criminal there.

    My case however would fall much more in line with Prohibition. Basically, if you create a law that enough people are motivated to disobey, then the law will not work for it's proposed end.
    This is why making alcohol illegal, didn't result in rainbows and sun shine. It created organize crime.. which is pretty bad.
    Like wise, there are many people who see a gun registry as simply a precursor to gov gun confiscation, and would not simply rather not comply, but will refuse to. This is where that participation rate point made earlier comes in as significant.


    ---Gun saturation--
    At some point there is a supply and demand issue here. IE I want to do a crime with a gun, are there enough guns around to supply the demand? If no more guns were made or sold. The U.S. has a sufficient supply of guns to meet any reasonable estimation of demand. Your second link points that out, when it appeals to the populations inability to access other kinds of guns other than the ones they removed from the population.

    So applied. You outlaw AR-15's .. shooters will choose an AK47. Outlaw 9mm shooters will use a 40 or a 380. America simply has enough choices available, and an easy enough access for criminals to get whatever they want through the drug trade to not expect similar results as Australia.

    Which in turn justifies those unwilling to comply as the end goal is complete confiscation.

    ---------- Post added at 09:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------

    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...d-States/Crime

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The use of guns features in only 14% of homicides. The two leading causes of homicide are stab wounds (38%) and beatings (25%).

    This trend is supported by longer-term Australia Bureau of Statistics data that shows the use of firearms in homicides remains at historically low levels. In contrast, UN data indicates that about 40% of global homicides are caused by firearms.

    Of note is that the use of firearms in homicides in Australia has increased since a low in 2005.

    Only 16% of homicide incidents between 2012 and 2014 came following, or in the process of, committing another crime. The most common offences that later led to a homicide were robbery, sexual assault, and break-and-enter.
    Note rise in Gun use homicides. As well as large fall off of no weapon homicides.
    To serve man.

  18. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    If someone disobeys a law, that is a criminal act. If we extended this logic to cars, you can see the absurdity of it i.e. if I refused to register my car, even though I technically wasn't hurting anyone because I'm a good driver, it would still be a criminal act.
    But not registering your car is not a criminal act. You are only required to have your car registered if you are going to drive it on public roads. If you are just going to keep your car on your property, you don't need to register it. And if you do drive without registration and are caught, the penalty is a ticket which typically just results in a fine (I'm pretty sure that you don't even get points for that violation).

    So I don't think you can become a "criminal" if you don't register your car.

    And besides that, I just said that a law turning those who aren't harming anyone into criminals is a reason to not have a gun registry. You can argue that there are better reasons for having a registry that outweigh this issue but that does not change the fact that potentially turning people who are doing no harm into criminals is a reason to not have a particular law.
    Last edited by mican333; April 1st, 2018 at 11:45 AM.

  19. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  20. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    The problem is, non of your links equate to "MORE CRIME". It only means more of the crimes are done with a gun. Your burden IS to make a CAUSAL connection. Otherwise, any law you pass is not directed at the cause of crime, and thus won't effect it. You also have a burden to connect proposals with outcomes. (See what works there vs here point)
    You can make that point until your blue in the face--the data still does not support your assertion that more guns = less gun crime.

    I can't help if your bar for making changes to laws is to require that the law be perfect prior to passage. We have to take risks and make moves sometimes, and gun reform is no different. The fact still stands that our gun violence rate is far higher than any other first-world nation by a long shot, and that is frankly embarrassing. I personally think it would be a good idea to know where the guns are, who owns them, and that the owners are held accountable for their actions. I also think that it is a good idea that as a result of this system (gun registry), that we would likewise know when a gun goes missing or is stolen (because it would be required for the owner to report it). I likewise think that licensure should be a requirement to purchase and own guns in the same way we license drivers to drive on public roads.

    I don't think any of these measures is unreasonable or outrageous. Most other countries have these requirements--so what's the big deal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Again, if more guns = more homicide then how can this be?
    You keep changing my argument. Please stop. My argument is that more guns increases the risk of gun violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    So basically they don't have hand guns on the island, as they are already very restricted. .. This is a very, very different culture than our own. I don't see how we can apply that to the U.S.
    Especially with the proposals forwarded so far.
    How about Germany? They are considered to have the strictest gun laws in Europe. Seems to work for them, and they have borders open to more countries than the US does. Of course they have a very, very different culture than our own so we shouldn't even bother learning from them, right? (For the record, I lived in Germany and have family there, so I know for a fact that they are not all that different from us culturally).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Here is the problem, Guns don't cause crime they are a tool.
    This assertion isn't supported. You're welcome to support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    For example, suicide rates in the U.S. went up. But not in proportion to the number of guns in the u.s. So of course you may find that more suicides were done with a gun. It doesn't follow that it was the greater gun ownership rate that caused the suicides. So if your goal is to reduces suicides, then making guns disappear doesn't fix suicide, it just shifts the tool used. Owning a gun doesn't make someone suicidal. (of course sigs point about the success rate of suicides with a gun is relevant).
    It's like we're trying to eliminate the most effective and common tool used in a suicide to reduce the total amount of successful suicides...novel concept, that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Right, but we can expect many to do exactly that, because they disagree with your proposed solution so strongly.
    So lets suppose we put some % of these people in jail. Then all the economic negatives that come with jail would apply. .. like increased crime rate.
    There's always a way to encourage people to register their gun--I see that as a problem to solve. Why would we have to put them in jail? Fines could work as well.

    ...and you're going to throw out economics as an argument? If the gun reform works, that means that we have more people that are alive, which is of far greater economic benefit than a few people in jail for a short time period--and that assumes that we don't have a way to sweeten the pot enough for even the stubbornest of citizens to register their weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Well using your logic we could pass any law no matter how much in infringed on our natural rights. We are going to kill all the 2 year olds without red hair because it is now illegal to not have red hair. .. Wait, you don't want to obey the law? Anarchist! I'm sure we will find many that simply choose be a criminal there.
    As far as I was aware, gun ownership isn't a natural right. That seems an absurd position to hold, especially as a Christian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    My case however would fall much more in line with Prohibition. Basically, if you create a law that enough people are motivated to disobey, then the law will not work for it's proposed end.
    This is why making alcohol illegal, didn't result in rainbows and sun shine. It created organize crime.. which is pretty bad.
    Like wise, there are many people who see a gun registry as simply a precursor to gov gun confiscation, and would not simply rather not comply, but will refuse to. This is where that participation rate point made earlier comes in as significant.
    So again, because the proposed reforms aren't perfect before they are implemented, they should never be implemented. This is unreasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican333
    But not registering your car is not a criminal act. You are only required to have your car registered if you are going to drive it on public roads. If you are just going to keep your car on your property, you don't need to register it.
    Sorry--not registering your car with the intent of driving it on public roads is a criminal act, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And if you do drive without registration and are caught, the penalty is a ticket which typically just results in a fine (I'm pretty sure that you don't even get points for that violation).
    Who says that the penalty for failing to register a gun has to be jail?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And besides that, I just said that a law turning those who aren't harming anyone into criminals is a reason to not have a gun registry. You can argue that there are better reasons for having a registry that outweigh this issue but that does not change the fact that potentially turning people who are doing no harm into criminals is a reason to not have a particular law.
    Thanks for your contribution. I think it's a poor reason.

  21. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Thanks for your contribution. I think it's a poor reason.
    Well, for those who think that generally people who are not harming anyone should not be consider criminals, it's a pretty good reason.

    So it's not an accepted premise here that it's generally a bad thing for those who aren't harming anyone to be considered criminals? I think it's a pretty reasonable premise that most would agree with.

  22. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,715
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    You can make that point until your blue in the face--the data still does not support your assertion that more guns = less gun crime.
    I don't think I have made that point here.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    I can't help if your bar for making changes to laws is to require that the law be perfect prior to passage.
    Again not what I have argued for. I have asked some simple questions with no answer given. Specifically how is a proposed law supposed to be connected to the outcome that is desired.
    So far all the studies you have pointed to make clear that there is no conclusion that what you propose actually helps.
    You have some inclination that it may help, and you are calling that "reasonable".

    I think your missing the mark by focusing in on the wrong thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    We have to take risks and make moves sometimes, and gun reform is no different. The fact still stands that our gun violence rate is far higher than any other first-world nation by a long shot, and that is frankly embarrassing. I personally think it would be a good idea to know where the guns are, who owns them, and that the owners are held accountable for their actions. I also think that it is a good idea that as a result of this system (gun registry), that we would likewise know when a gun goes missing or is stolen (because it would be required for the owner to report it). I likewise think that licensure should be a requirement to purchase and own guns in the same way we license drivers to drive on public roads.

    I don't think any of these measures is unreasonable or outrageous. Most other countries have these requirements--so what's the big deal?
    For the most part we don't have some of those things because many people think they are not going to be effective at the stated goal, and pose a more of a risk to eventual gun confiscation.
    Which we have seen the reasoning used here in the thread that will lead to that. When someone points out that XYZ gun is equally capable at creating the kind of death a given law is aimed at, the natural flow is to say "lets get rid of that one too".
    Which ends up being basically all the guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    You keep changing my argument. Please stop. My argument is that more guns increases the risk of gun violence.
    Sorry, my mistake.

    I don't really care about gun violence. That isn't something that needs to be avoided.
    Violence needs to be avoided. Gun homicides are not a concern for me. Homicides are.
    I have no interest in giving up any of my freedoms, or facilitating the loss of those freedoms in order to shift gun murders into stabbing, beating, arson, or vehicular murders.
    Or to stop people from offing themselves with a gun, as opposed to just slitting their wrists, or ODing prescirption drugs.

    If your focus is on gun's for the sake of guns... I am not very interested, and don't understand why you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    How about Germany? They are considered to have the strictest gun laws in Europe. Seems to work for them, and they have borders open to more countries than the US does. Of course they have a very, very different culture than our own so we shouldn't even bother learning from them, right? (For the record, I lived in Germany and have family there, so I know for a fact that they are not all that different from us culturally).
    What about Germany? Is Chicago's problem the same as Germany? Germany has the same gang problem? They are boardered by a major drug country like Mexico (I Have family there).

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    This assertion isn't supported. You're welcome to support it.
    Easy. I have a gun burried in the back yard that has proven incapable of committing any crimes. I suspect it lacks motivation and is rather lazy.
    My hammer however is quite motivated and has managed to repaire the back fence over the weekend.

    See objects at rest tend to stay at rest, and objects in motion tend to stay in motion. ... unless acted on by some outside force.
    tools of the sort above don't have internal force, and must be acted on by an outside agent. It's that outside agent tht is the cause for crimes in which the tools are involved.
    Like my hammer was involved in assaulting me recently, i'm not sure how I am to prosecute myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    It's like we're trying to eliminate the most effective and common tool used in a suicide to reduce the total amount of successful suicides...novel concept, that.
    No, I get that part of it. that is not the same category as Homicides.
    forgive me if I think it is less harmful to my rights, and more effective to simply improve evaluation and figure out a psycological treatment.. which we will have to do anyway as taking away their access to succefully ending their life.
    Doesn't change the fact that they still will need that help.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    There's always a way to encourage people to register their gun--I see that as a problem to solve. Why would we have to put them in jail? Fines could work as well.

    ...and you're going to throw out economics as an argument? If the gun reform works, that means that we have more people that are alive, which is of far greater economic benefit than a few people in jail for a short time period--and that assumes that we don't have a way to sweeten the pot enough for even the stubbornest of citizens to register their weapon.
    No, I was pointing to jail as a factor that increases crime. If you go to jail you have a harder time getting a job, leaving crime as a more viable option(maybe only option).
    So just pointing out that your fix could (if it included jail) cause more crime. fines would probably be fine (pun).

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    As far as I was aware, gun ownership isn't a natural right. That seems an absurd position to hold, especially as a Christian.
    Well you have to consider what a natural right is, vs a gov created right.
    So for example, ownership is a natural right. I could own and posses things without the gov, I do it simply by existing and thus "owning" myself.
    As I can create a gun, again without the gov invovled at all. It follows that I would naturally own what I create.
    Guns are thus a natural right. For example, I would have a right to a gun without the 2nd amendment.. as it is aimed at limiting the gov not me.

    In contrast a Gov issued right would be like my right to social security. Without the gov social security doesn't exist. If I were on an island alone in the world.. I couldn't yell at the sky for denying my "right" to social security.

    So, that is how natural rights vs gov issued rights work. (note this is not an argument for gov not infringing on natural rights, but clarity is important).

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    So again, because the proposed reforms aren't perfect before they are implemented, they should never be implemented. This is unreasonable.
    Well, killing all the non-red headed two years old isn't perfect iether, I'm sure with some time and effort we can achieve the ultimate goal of peace on earth.

    No, it doesn't have to be "perfect" that isn't the standard I am expecting of you. However doing something without evidence is not the definition of "wise", and those who disagree are not
    inherently "unreasonable" for not going along with what you propose, backed by a correlation in some places but not others, and no conclusive studies to support your position.


    The biggest problem I see, is that you don't realize what you are asking people to give up. (by your incorrect context of natural rights on the issue).
    Your support is weak, and there are other options that would be more agreeable, and IMO more moral.
    Finally, Your position kinda cherry picks a tool to target.
    Cars are used to kill lots of people. I don't think I have ever heard of not allowing a person to own a car.
    Not drive a car, yes... So equal would be saying you aren't licensed to shoot a gun.. but you can own one.
    To serve man.

  23. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    I don't think I have made that point here.
    I was reviewing the thread and I think this is where I got that:

    We already have a reduction in gun violence going on (I thought).
    Also the connection you are making is not true, as we now have more guns and ownership and less crime by it.

    Reading it through again it's possible I conflated the two. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Again not what I have argued for. I have asked some simple questions with no answer given. Specifically how is a proposed law supposed to be connected to the outcome that is desired.
    So far all the studies you have pointed to make clear that there is no conclusion that what you propose actually helps.
    You have some inclination that it may help, and you are calling that "reasonable".
    I thought I made the point that what a gun registry, etc. would do was to improve our existing systems and make them more effective. If the existing systems were improved, Dylan Roof might not have been able to acquire a weapon to murder the churchgoers in Charleston. The Las Vegas shooter might not have been able to stockpile as many weapons without raising red flags. Improving the system is a preventative measure that may or may not be the cause of a reduction in gun violence, but I think it is well worth pursuing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    For the most part we don't have some of those things because many people think they are not going to be effective at the stated goal, and pose a more of a risk to eventual gun confiscation.
    Which we have seen the reasoning used here in the thread that will lead to that. When someone points out that XYZ gun is equally capable at creating the kind of death a given law is aimed at, the natural flow is to say "lets get rid of that one too".
    Which ends up being basically all the guns.
    Who made this argument (regarding confiscation) in this thread? Did Australia ban or confiscate all guns? No. Why then in the US of all places would this occur? The fear that modest gun control reform leads to confiscation is irrational paranoia. It simply does not follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    I don't really care about gun violence. That isn't something that needs to be avoided.
    Violence needs to be avoided. Gun homicides are not a concern for me. Homicides are.
    I have no interest in giving up any of my freedoms, or facilitating the loss of those freedoms in order to shift gun murders into stabbing, beating, arson, or vehicular murders.
    Or to stop people from offing themselves with a gun, as opposed to just slitting their wrists, or ODing prescirption drugs.

    If your focus is on gun's for the sake of guns... I am not very interested, and don't understand why you are.
    What reason do you have to believe that gun violence would shift to stabbing, beating, arson or vehicular murders--and more importantly at a 1:1 rate? The problem is, guns are incredibly efficient and effective tools when it comes to killing the target--probably because they were designed for that purpose. That's why they are the #1 tool for homicide and suicide by wide margins.

    We do have sufficient data to show that suicides are much less successful (i.e. no death) in countries and states with stricter gun controls. You can't stop people, but you can make it harder for them to kill themselves. I think that is a positive result.

    I am not focused on "guns for the sake of guns"--it just happens to be a fact that guns are the primary tools used in homicides and suicides by wide margins. If stabbings, arson or vehicular homicides were more common, I could understand your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    What about Germany? Is Chicago's problem the same as Germany? Germany has the same gang problem? They are boardered by a major drug country like Mexico (I Have family there).
    Chicago's problem is that it's right next door to a state with lax gun laws (Indiana), where someone can easily go to a gun show and purchase a weapon without any restrictions and drive them back over the state border. Germany, as the richest country in Europe, has to contend with millions of refugees as well as migrant workers who come to live and work there. It's not the exact same problem, but it doesn't have to be the exact same in order to make a point and draw a comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Easy. I have a gun burried in the back yard that has proven incapable of committing any crimes. I suspect it lacks motivation and is rather lazy.
    My hammer however is quite motivated and has managed to repaire the back fence over the weekend.
    Don't be daft. The phrase "guns don't cause crime" is not meant to be taken literally. It's obvious that what is meant is "gun ownership doesn't cause crime". That has not been supported here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    forgive me if I think it is less harmful to my rights, and more effective to simply improve evaluation and figure out a psycological treatment.. which we will have to do anyway as taking away their access to succefully ending their life.
    Doesn't change the fact that they still will need that help.
    Has that proven to be more effective? Should I apply the same "perfect law" standard you are forwarding for the psychological treatment solution and require it to be an absolute fact before implementing such a law?

    Have I suggested that we not improve mental health screenings? No. I even suggested that as part of the licensure requirement that youth have a psychiatric evaluation. I'm all for improving those systems and I think they probably would help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Well you have to consider what a natural right is, vs a gov created right.
    So for example, ownership is a natural right. I could own and posses things without the gov, I do it simply by existing and thus "owning" myself. As I can create a gun, again without the gov invovled at all. It follows that I would naturally own what I create.
    If you made all of the components of that gun as well with materials on property that you owned, you might have a point. I somehow doubt that you mine your own metal, though. This means you utilize the benefits of an economic framework that enables you to build what you want on your property. This comes from being a member of a society. If the members of society deem what you are building on your property as hazardous to the welfare of society as a whole, they should have a say in what you can and cannot do. If for example you shoot too many deer, this causes no individual harm, but does cause society harm in that you took more than society agreed was the limit. Thus you breached the social contract. If you want to be a part of society, you need to be willing to compromise so that you can benefit from all that it offers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Cars are used to kill lots of people. I don't think I have ever heard of not allowing a person to own a car.
    Not drive a car, yes... So equal would be saying you aren't licensed to shoot a gun.. but you can own one.
    A car isn't built with the express purpose to kill. Guns are.

  24. #40
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I appreciate your efforts to sing the praises of the mighty 9mil and its other handy pistol friends. I think you are under-selling the other weapons a bit but let's say for now, you are correct a 9mil automatic pistol is the best choice for mass murder.
    Just to clarify a bit, I was specifically saying that it was the best weapon (though other calibers would work essentially as well) for the kinds of mass shootings we've seen the most of. I did give an example of when the use of a semi-automatic rifle (AR, AK, M1A, etc) was the better choice, Vegas (I only thought his use of a bump stock probably saved lives). While not a mass shooting, the DC Sniper case was also one where a semi-automatic rifle was probably the best bet.

    But for the kinds of shootings we are talking about; indoors with crowded areas, I think the pistol is probably the most effective weapon.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    So, at that point, you are pretty much making an argument for banning 9mil pistols...And frankly, if they did go there, that seems a perfectly rational answer to your arguments.
    I'm not sure that is a rational argument. It seems, at best, a knee jerk reaction which doesn't consider any other factors, and at worst, an irrational emotional response. Simply noting one particular negative aspect to a thing is hardly good reason to ban it. Chemo drugs have really nasty, negative side effects, surely no one is talking about banning them. The same could be said for cars. Cars kill a lot of people, if we only consider that one isolated fact, we might want to ban autos, but I suspect there are some mitigating points we would raise if that debate happened.

    I would argue the same is true here, both from the firearm's ability to equalize body size (giving those who might be victims a fighting chance) and from its general use as a defensive tool. I know you will speak on that more later, so I'll keep the specifics for that section. Sufficed to say however, there are other mitigating factors beyond their use in a vanishingly small fraction, but large in public conciousness event.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Your chart does show that it is at nearly a historic low right now. The other period coincides with the end of WW II a period, interestingly enough, in which handguns were banned in some parts of Australia, only to be reversed in the 1950s and they became very popular
    That is a very odd reading of that graph. We generally don't measure correlation by single datapoints in time as you did. Rather, we look at trends. In this graph, we see that;

    From 1930 to 1940 when there were no restrictions on firearms Steady drop in suicide rates
    1940 to 1956 the period of the New South Wales ban Steady increase in suicide rates.
    1956 to 1994, no major restrictions on firearms Steady decrease in suicide rates
    1994 to present, post ban and "confiscation" Continued decrease in suicide rates

    If anything, the correlation seems to be going the other way. I think the correlation is weak however given that you generally see the suicide rate (outcome) preceding the legal change (cause). It is even weaker given that there is no observable change in the rate of decrease from the 94 ban.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    You mention Kleck and Gertz. It's been pretty widely criticized. They use their results to extrapolate a number of defensive gun uses. But if you also exptrapolate the numbe of attackers killed in the same way, some 200,000 criminals are killed each year by defensive gun use.
    No argument against it being widely criticized (or for that matter widely praised as well), but then so are all kinds of peer-reviewed works when they touch upon sacred cows of someone's politics. I think we need to remember what the scope of that criticism is. A lot of the discussion is whether they should have used one particular treatment vs another. Generally, these are of the form "we think methodology x is more appropriate, if applied we get 1.8M DGUs rather than 2.5." (a number K&G note as likely high) We don't get criticism of the sort that would cause a retraction, "this data is fake or this is completly invalid" or even letters to journals of that sort. And that is important because of just how much attention this and its companion papers have recieved.

    I could be wrong, but I've yet to see anyone apply a statistical treatment to this work that does anything like find that DGUs are below or even relatively close to other uses for firearms. The lower end of the range of estimates is still something like 760,000. Even if we accept that conservative figure, this dwarfs all other uses combined. Even the low end figures I can find unrelated to this study still put that at 300-400,000.

    Even if we cut the conservative 760,000 number in half, we are talking an order of magnitude difference. 10 DGUs for every 1 other use. That is pretty ridiculously lopsided.




    Let's actually look at the 200,000 claim. We should note that this paper doesn't say killed, it says wounded. That is a remarkably different effect.

    And if we note that about 99,000 people a year seek medical attention for non-fatal firearms wounds a year, while the CDC estimates only about 10-15,000 accidental woundings (earlier CDC study), and that many wounds do not require medical attention, especially if you get them committing a crime, that number isn't quite as implausible as you make it.

    However, if we actually look at their estimate, we find that the 200,000 number is only if you take the raw data at face value, which, nowhere in the actual study do the authors not apply corrective and limiting factors. In fact, they discuss these factors quite openly (emphasis mine);


    Only 24% of the gun defenders in the present study reported firing the gun, and only 8% report wounding an adversary...Low as it is, even an 8% wounding rate is probably too high, both because of the censoring of less serious cases, which in this context would be cases without a wounding, and because the survey did not establish how Rs knew they had wounded someone. We suspect that in incidents where the offender left without being captured, some Rs "remembered with favor" their marksmanship and assumed they had hit their adversaries. If 8.3% really hit their adversaries, and a total of 15.6% fired at their adversaries, this would imply a 53% (8.3/15.6) "incident hit rate," a level of combat marksmanship far exceeding that typically observed even among police officers. In a review of fifteen reports, police officers inflicted at least one gunshot wound on at least one adversary in 37% of the incidents in which they intentionally fired at someone. A 53% hit rate would also be triple the 18% hit rate of criminals shooting at crime victims. Therefore, we believe that even the rather modest 8.3% wounding rate we found is probably too high, and that typical DGUs are less serious or dramatic in their consequences than our data suggest.

    If we apply the police rate, it is 139,622 woundings a year. If we apply the far more reasonable criminal marksmanship rate we get 67,924 woundings, well within the known value for gunshot wounds not associated with suicide/crime stated above.

    That doesn't seem so unreasonable in context.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    NCVS is still self reported, but it is at least part of a verified crime, so it's a more reliable number.
    Just as K&G note their numbers are probably on the high end, NCVS acknowledges that theirs are on the low end because reports are user generated and you are not allowed to withhold personal information. Even they found 82,000 DGUs a year.

    I think it is important to detail just how low the NCVS is compared to other data. From the National Academy of Sciences:

    At least 19 other surveys have resulted in estimated numbers of defensive gun uses that are similar (i.e., statistically indistinguishable) to the results founds by Kleck and Gertz. No other surveys have found numbers consistent with the NCVS

    David McDowell (a relatively pro-gun control academic) applied the NCVS data to a broader survey that allowed for anonymity and found that their data set represented for about 983,000 per year if you corrected for some of NCVS's reported undervalue factors.

    The CDC also noted that the NCVS reported dramatically low numbers because "respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use." And, rather, that more reliable works "rang[e] from about 500,000 to more than 3 million….”


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    The vast majority of people exeriencing crime don't get into fights with the criminals.
    True, but we do know that in communities where concealed carrying is common, overall crime rates (including homicide) are lower than in communities where it is not. We also know that in situations where violence occurs with a firearm;

    Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies...

    Both are from the CDC study above.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Most of the people that do die from a gun, kill themselves, by a big margin. A gun does not make you safe, it makes you less safe.
    And again, this is a huge, and completely unwarranted jump in causality. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere suggesting that the gun causes you to be less safe or commit suicide. That is unsupported editorialization.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Not. But I looked it up. Seems a reasonable thing to try. Though I would expect the NRA and company to strongly object to it.
    And this is part of why the most recent discussions have simply polarized the electorate I think. The gun control crowd too often lets people say that they are looking for mass confiscation (a ridiculous idea for several reasons). Perhaps that is representative of that general population's goals, I'm not sure. Regardless it is far too often the message coming out just after "sensible gun control."

    The second is the perception of the NRA as some evil, bloodthirsty, careless organization. Setting aside the fact that the vast majority of its funding is related to gun safety, not politics, it is far more moderate of an organization than Everytown, for example. The NRA does, in fact, support these kind of due process restrictions based on credible evidence. The NRA also helped and supported Sen. Cruz's attempt to mandate DoD to report offenses to NICS (which would likely have stopped the Texas Church shooting), fund prosecutions of straw purchases (more related to individual gun crime), and modernize the NICS system. The amendment was fillibustered twice in favor of Rep. Pelosi's desire for a more wide ranging ban on, essentially, all semi-automatics. Its hard to see the NRA as the more rabid one in that situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    If you can find me some gun experts that will give us a set of well informed restrictions on firearms that will lower death tolls, by all means, bring em forward!
    I think that might be audience selection bias. I doubt you're a big reader over at Funker, or the Firearms Blog, or other firearms places. The Cruz Amendment referenced above was widely supported, for example. As is French's proposal (thought not Trump's seize then due process idea).

    I think you artificially self-select out any advice because you insist that their recommendation be to restrict firearms. A lot of experts, people who actively use firearms daily, who have experience directly confronting people trying to harm and kill you support a wider legal use of firearms rather than an attempt to restrict access because it is more likely to be succesfull. We've seen a dozen or so failures with existing restrictions in the last decade that resulted directly in a mass shooting. Just like with illegal drugs, really prohibiting access is somewhat of a losing battle.




    I'm curious though, you are king for a day Sig, what specific policies would you implement?




    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    No problem. I think that a national, digital gun registry would improve the communication issues which exist between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Similar to how HIPAA impacted medical records. I likewise think that in tandem with this, that all sales transactions of weapons, including private party transactions, must be reported to law enforcement and that anyone who owns a gun must register it.

    This is similar to how we deal with cars. We are required by law to register them (cars) with the state DMV, to ensure that they meet safety standards (in some states), to ensure they meet emissions standards (in some states/metro areas), and if we sell them, to transfer ownership via the title, which is used to register the car in the buyer's name with the DMV.

    Again similar to how we deal with cars, the ability to own a gun should require a license, regardless of type. Similar to concealed carry now, licensure should require training, much like we do not let anyone get a driver's license without taking a driver safety course and passing a driver's exam and road test. This would increase knowledge--which I feel is always a good thing--and ensure that those who do choose to own firearms understand the risks involved and store them correctly. It should--again just like with concealed carry--require a background check and if below a certain age, a psychiatric evaluation.

    I think these are common sense approaches to controlling firearms.
    Interesting, thanks for the input. I should note that you don't actually have to license a car, license an owner, or report a sale. Those are only steps if you intend to take the vehicle out in public. That is incredibly similar to how we currently operate gun laws.

    One other practical problem, you'd have to amend the Constitution to require checks between private parties and willing of firearms, the Commerce Clause doesn't allow for that.

    I do appreciate the clear input though, sometimes its hard to get a clear solution from either side.

    A follow up, if I may? What would you say to those of us who worry about national registry systems historically being phase I of confiscation?


    Quote Originally Posted by Freund
    That's probably because I'm not using the murder rate because we are talking about deaths via firearm. Source.
    Ahh, from my alma mater, Go Huskies! It looks like they are using a range of sources and trying to average them. Their estimates seem to range 1.31 to 2.64. I can't see their underlying data source or what it is, but I'm sure its valid. I was using the UNODC murder rates tables: https://data.unodc.org/

    The key point is the difference between US homicide rates, and European Murder rates. If we account for that discrepency, the US number is much, much closer to the European average.



    Quote Originally Posted by Freund
    We aren't talking about murder though, we are talking about deaths by firearm. Why should we consider statistics for murder when this includes death via alternative means? This seems to be outside the scope of the discussion but I welcome your input.
    I think we have to stick to murder rates, rather than the more broad homicide rates because European countries have different legal systems and thus don't present homicide numbers we can compare too. Their definition of murder, however, is essentially the same as ours, and provides a clear comparison.

    I'd also not restrict this solely to firearm murders because part of the argument is that restricting firearms only changes the method. It isn't really relevant to the victim if they are murdered by bullet or murdered by knife. The real question we are answering is, if we restrict firearms access, will deaths decrease rather than simply change forms?

    This is, admittedly, only a single data point, but London's murder rate, which has historically always been lower than New York's, just surpassed it. They aren't murdering with firearms, but usually knives. What matters is that the rate of actual people being killed has changed. https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...tys/480860002/


    Quote Originally Posted by Freund
    If everyone thought this way, then we would have chaos.
    I know this is a response to MindTrap, but I wanted to offer a point about this. For those that this law would effect, it is essentially everyone. Registry systems in several US states have had almost no compliance. NY was less than 5%, Connecticut less than 10%.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  25. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes Sigfried liked this post
 

 
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. There is no tenable stance against gay marriage
    By Zhavric in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2011, 10:57 AM
  2. Your stance on overpopulation
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 09:11 AM
  3. Something from nothing: the THEIST stance.
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 08:27 AM
  4. Abortion Stance
    By Meng Bomin in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: October 21st, 2004, 10:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •