Gun control

senorgregster said:
I think @Gannicus is right (depressingly) that guns are here to stay. The only viable option is to limit what guns are here to stay and to start making owners accountable (e.g. parents above locked up for manslaughter). I went to buy a sled this week and they were right next to the gun section in a leading sports store (they were actually in 3 stores I visited to buy a sled). I felt like fainting at the vast quantity and diversity of guns and I'm sure I was looking at just hunting guns. It really is depressing there is so much desire to have these things.
Click to expand...

Every so often I have to travel into the interior and southern states of the United States and I'm telling you caftards that it's a completely different planet in those states ("red states", if you like) when it comes to guns than Northern California, where I live, or all the coastal states generally. Guns and Bibles, often in that order, define one's identity in places like Arkansas and Alabama. But even in Oregon, a fairly liberal state, the thought of banning guns would get you recalled from elected office. Jerry Brown (trust me on this) will go nowhere a proposal to ban guns.

Bottom line, amigos, is that it's best to concentrate your aspirations on restricting the legal use of gun to a limited set of circumstances and to forget about a gun sale ban, let alone a grand plan to confiscate 300m or so guns.

I would definitely support some kind of parental liability for the accidental shooting by a child. But even such a common sense policy raises a number of complicated questions.
 
I think some people have selective memory since Europe have more violent crime than US and we do have more murders but most of the murders are between gangs so no big lost anyway. Yes we do have our occasional crazy bastard who kills innocent people but you guys aren't off the hook with the terrorism.
 
barros said:
I think some people have selective memory since Europe have more violent crime than US and we do have more murders but most of the murders are between gangs so no big lost anyway. Yes we do have our occasional crazy bastard who kills innocent people but you guys aren't off the hook with the terrorism.
Click to expand...
Would love to see data on that. Specific data comparing the exact same type of crime.
 
barros said:
I think some people have selective memory since Europe have more violent crime than US and we do have more murders but most of the murders are between gangs so no big lost anyway. Yes we do have our occasional crazy bastard who kills innocent people but you guys aren't off the hook with the terrorism.
Click to expand...

Good point.

I've never thought about trying to parse out data on the number of deaths of individuals whose deaths we couldn't give two fecks about anyway due to bad behavior or that they otherwise "had it coming". My guess is that the number is pretty significant, maybe 80%. For the most part it really is shitbags killing each other.

But we do see the occasional tragic accident like the one in Idaho, which really rips your heart into pieces.
 
@Gannicus @barros

It's only a good point if you have real numbers to back it up. For what it's worth, I wouldn't call near 20,000 suicides by guns "occasional" unless we have suicidal gangs on our hands.

Look forward to seeing actual data to back up the good points being made.
 
barros said:
I think some people have selective memory since Europe have more violent crime than US and we do have more murders but most of the murders are between gangs so no big lost anyway. Yes we do have our occasional crazy bastard who kills innocent people but you guys aren't off the hook with the terrorism.
Click to expand...

Europe probably does have more violent crime, it has a population of 740 million. If you mean higher crime rates that probably isn't true, I only say probably because it is impossible to prove one way or the other with crime being defined differently in every country. I'd bet most Western European countries have lower crime rates than the US.

Gannicus said:
Good point.

I've never thought about trying to parse out data on the number of deaths of individuals whose deaths we couldn't give two fecks about anyway due to bad behavior or that they otherwise "had it coming". My guess is that the number is pretty significant, maybe 80%. For the most part it really is shitbags killing each other.

But we do see the occasional tragic accident like the one in Idaho, which really rips your heart into pieces.
Click to expand...

Gang homicides account for just 13% of total murders according to National Gang Centre estimates.
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
 
senorgregster said:
@Gannicus @barros

It's only a good point if you have real numbers to back it up. For what it's worth, I wouldn't call near 20,000 suicides by guns "occasional" unless we have suicidal gangs on our hands.

Look forward to seeing actual data to back up the good points being made.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of accidental shootings (such as children shooting their moms or siblings), not suicides. No one here believes, I hope, that suicides would end if we banned guns.
 
Nanook said:
Europe probably does have more violent crime, it has a population of 740 million. If you mean higher crime rates that probably isn't true, I only say probably because it is impossible to prove one way or the other with crime being defined differently in every country. I'd bet most Western European countries have lower crime rates than the US.



Gang homicides account for just 13% of total murders according to National Gang Centre estimates.
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
Click to expand...

Gang shootings are only a part of, but not the whole of, shootings we might describe as between bad actors.
 
Gannicus said:
I was thinking of accidental shootings (such as children shooting their moms or siblings), not suicides. No one here believes, I hope, that suicides would end if we banned guns.
Click to expand...
Suicide with a gun is quicker and easier than almost all other methods and there is little backing out once the finger is on the trigger and the barrel is between your teeth. There's countless more points of hesitation and backing out with hanging, gassing, pills, jumping etc so whilst removing guns from the hands of the common man might not eliminate suicides it's very easy to surmise that there'd be far fewer completed suicides without guns.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

24 independent academic studies on US gun ownership rates vs suicide rates conclude exactly the same way.
 
barros said:
Look the total number of crimes of US, UK, and Germany

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes
Click to expand...

Nationmaster isn't reliable, UK crime rate fell to a record low this year with 3.7 million crimes being recorded, so where does that 6.5 million figure come from? If you look at those figures there is as much crime in Japan as Russia, Germany has a much higher crime rate than South Africa and Mexico, do you honestly believe that?
 
Last edited:
I think the theory and idea behind the second amendment in America is sound and I quite like it, but let's be honest if the US Gov and Military wanted to completely take over the population, the "people" wouldn't even stand a chance :lol:
 
Bury Red said:
Suicide with a gun is quicker and easier than almost all other methods and there is little backing out once the finger is on the trigger and the barrel is between your teeth. There's countless more points of hesitation and backing out with hanging, gassing, pills, jumping etc so whilst removing guns from the hands of the common man might not eliminate suicides it's very easy to surmise that there'd be far fewer completed suicides without guns.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

24 independent academic studies on US gun ownership rates vs suicide rates conclude exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

People who commit suicides don't reach that conclusion because they own a gun.

Folks jump off the Golden Gate Bridge all the time. Is it the bridge's fault that they do so? People die in car accidents in huge numbers, and while sometimes it's the car's fault it's almost always not. Little kids fall into swimming pools. Old people die of cancer. Should we ban bridges, cars, swimming pools and unhealthy food? Probably not. Yes, the purpose of a bridge, a car, a swimming pool and unhealthy food is not to defend yourself, but they lead to bad consequences more often than we'd like. Banning guns altogether, which in the US would be unconstitutional right out of the gate, would not solve the crime problem or the suicide problem.

I support almost all gun control laws, but even I don't fall victim to the belief that guns make people do stupid things. People kill each other for a lot of reasons, but it's almost never because they have a gun in their hand and they'd like to see what it's like to kill someone with their gun.

If you really want to ban a product that leads to bad behavior, you ban alcohol. Good luck with that!
 
barros said:
Look the total number of crimes of US, UK, and Germany

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes
Click to expand...
You've cited exactly what I said would not suffice. Total Crime /= Violent Crime. Has to be a comparison of actual crime types, one by one, where oranges are compared to oranges. For example, on the source you provide, which incidentally is totally out of date (2002), the number of murders is 722 for the UK and 12996 for the USA. Let's call that one violent. Rape is 0.9% for the UK versus 0.4% for the USA (I doubt the later number is true given the recent findings that most school campus rapes are covered up). Another interesting number on that site... the UK has 183,419 drug offences per 100,000 :wenger: people whereas the USA has 560.1 per 100,000 people (:lol: pass the sniff test? :lol:) Apparently the UK has 6 cases of fraud per 1000 people versus the USA that only has 1.29 (guns help with that?). Also it appears the UK is a bunch of embezzlers! Best get some guns! My point being many of those stats (even if they were real) are totally irrelevant to the matter on hand.
 
Gannicus said:
People who commit suicides don't reach that conclusion because they own a gun.

Folks jump off the Golden Gate Bridge all the time. Is it the bridge's fault that they do so? People die in car accidents in huge numbers, and while sometimes it's the car's fault it's almost always not. Little kids fall into swimming pools. Old people die of cancer. Should we ban bridges, cars, swimming pools and unhealthy food? Probably not. Yes, the purpose of a bridge, a car, a swimming pool and unhealthy food is not to defend yourself, but they lead to bad consequences more often than we'd like. Banning guns altogether, which in the US would be unconstitutional right out of the gate, would not solve the crime problem or the suicide problem.

I support almost all gun control laws, but even I don't fall victim to the belief that guns make people do stupid things. People kill each other for a lot of reasons, but it's almost never because they have a gun in their hand and they'd like to see what it's like to kill someone with their gun.

If you really want to ban a product that leads to bad behavior, you ban alcohol. Good luck with that!
Click to expand...

The GGB... About 50 a year I believe? It's on a totally different scale. Clearly a bridge, this being the worst of cases in the world(?), is not an attractive enabler and gives a person too much time to think and reconsider. A gun on the other hand is an easier and more abrupt end. I think a good example would be suicide methods in young people. For example, take a look at Table 4 on Page 6 which highlights the problem of impulsiveness:
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rhuef/courses/Notes5321-6321/trauma_article.pdf

Some other interesting stats...

The gender difference in the rates of completed suicide is largely explained by the gender differences in suicide methods. Females are more likely to poison themselves whereas males are more likely to shoot themselves. Firearms are more lethal than poison.

For every completed suicide, an estimated 100 to 200 suicide attempts are made <--- guns not so much!

Comparing to cars/pools/cancer etc is not credible... but cancer causing foods have actually been banned so there is precedent :)
 
senorgregster said:
The gender difference in the rates of completed suicide is largely explained by the gender differences in suicide methods. Females are more likely to poison themselves whereas males are more likely to shoot themselves. Firearms are more lethal than poison.
Click to expand...

Smart!

I jest, of course
 
senorgregster said:
The GGB... About 50 a year I believe? It's on a totally different scale. Clearly a bridge, this being the worst of cases in the world(?), is not an attractive enabler and gives a person too much time to think and reconsider. A gun on the other hand is an easier and more abrupt end. I think a good example would be suicide methods in young people. For example, take a look at Table 4 on Page 6 which highlights the problem of impulsiveness:
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rhuef/courses/Notes5321-6321/trauma_article.pdf

Some other interesting stats...

The gender difference in the rates of completed suicide is largely explained by the gender differences in suicide methods. Females are more likely to poison themselves whereas males are more likely to shoot themselves. Firearms are more lethal than poison.

For every completed suicide, an estimated 100 to 200 suicide attempts are made <--- guns not so much!

Comparing to cars/pools/cancer etc is not credible... but cancer causing foods have actually been banned so there is precedent :)
Click to expand...

The point is that we could ban a lot of bad things in life, but bad outcomes will still happen.

If there were a way to wave a wand to make all guns disappear, I would be the first to wave that wand. If Kwai Chang Cain doesn't need a gun, the rest of us don't either.

There are a lot of different ways to commit suicide. I know a woman who attempted suicide a month ago but failed (she tried to OD on some over the counter drug) and is now in treatment in a hospital. I do readily concede that she had a gun that should might have used it successfully on herself, so I want to be clear that I understand and appreciate that if we banned guns some good could come from it.

But the problem is that the American people, or at least about 2/3 of Americans, view ownership of a firearm to be a fundamental right that is protected by the US Constitution. They -- or perhaps I should say we -- take their rights very serious and they're simply not going to give up their guns. But most Americans will abide by laws that restrict which guns you can legally own and when you can use them.
 
Wibble said:
Toddler kills himself with gun "secured" in the glove compartment of the family car.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/22/florida-toddler-fatally-shoots-himself-father-gun
Click to expand...

This one pissed me off to no end @Wibble

Loaded gun in the glovebox, that's real secure. The worst part is that Florida's carry laws make that true, if I remember my mjs correctly. On your person is the only place you have optimal control over the gun, all other times you should put on a trigger lock and lock it in a cabinet.

adexkola said:
I sometimes feel as if people on the other side of the Atlantic choose to be deliberately obtuse on the matter of gun control.

Guns aren't going to be banned. Severe restrictions on guns are not going to be implemented on a federal level. Getting an amendment removed/added to the constitution requires

1. A two-thirds majority in BOTH the House of Representatives and the Senate
2. Ratification by at least 38 out of 50 states.

Between the coasts of America which are largely liberal, lies this large conservative God n gun-loving population. And they are the majority in more than 12 states. The Supreme Court has struck down very restrictive laws aiming to control guns.

Not even the murder of more than a dozen children in Connecticut made the populace seriously consider limiting guns a little bit.

So yes, we Americans are idiots. No shit. Arguing the number of guns needs to be reduced is flogging the dead horse.
Click to expand...

Love guns/Hate God.
 
Dwazza Van Hernandez said:
This one pissed me off to no end @Wibble

Loaded gun in the glovebox, that's real secure. The worst part is that Florida's carry laws make that true, if I remember my mjs correctly. On your person is the only place you have optimal control over the gun, all other times you should put on a trigger lock and lock it in a cabinet.
Click to expand...

I'm not really convinced that a gun being on your person makes it under your control TBH.

Of course loaded in a glove compartment is only 1 step above leaving a loaded weapon on the passenger seat of an unlocked car.

The problem regarding trigger locks and locked cabinets is that this makes a weapon useless for self defence, which challenges one of the main NRA and US gun advocates beliefs. While I hate guns with a passion and I would love to see them far more seriously restricted on a journey to a virtual ban, it seems close to insane to allow such casual usage of them.
 
Arguing that banning guns is hard so we should not only not try but not bother with regulation either is a silly argument. A generation ago smokers were in the majority (men at least) and now you are close to being a social leper if you smoke in public (damn good thing too) so the constantly increased taxes and restrictions have caused a mentality shift that has allowed further eradication. Guns could go the same way with a great deal of effort.

A massive gun and ammo tax combined with real regulations and registration would be a good start.
 
Gannicus said:
I was thinking of accidental shootings (such as children shooting their moms or siblings), not suicides. No one here believes, I hope, that suicides would end if we banned guns.
Click to expand...

Gun use is the highest suicide statistic annually, higher than all other uses for suicide combined. It would certainly lessen the overall number of suicides. Persons use guns as it's instant death in the majority of attempts, and gives the person the belief it will be instant.

But the more important statistic that would lower is the murder-suicide rate, which accounts for 3% of homicides per year. We simply won't have people going into homes and public areas hanging, poisoning, stabbing, suffocating others then doing the same to themselves to make up the numbers. Studies indicate upwards of 90% of murder-suicides occur with a firearm. Imagine fewer innocent persons being killed off simply because the individual had access to a firearm and decided to take out a few others before him/herself (almost exclusively male committing such atrocities). Far less likely to have more Columbine or Sandy Hook episodes.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/amroul2012.pdf
 
Wibble said:
I'm not really convinced that a gun being on your person makes it under your control TBH.

Of course loaded in a glove compartment is only 1 step above leaving a loaded weapon on the passenger seat of an unlocked car.

The problem regarding trigger locks and locked cabinets is that this makes a weapon useless for self defence, which challenges one of the main NRA and US gun advocates beliefs. While I hate guns with a passion and I would love to see them far more seriously restricted on a journey to a virtual ban, it seems close to insane to allow such casual usage of them.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not foolproof but it is the optimal method of maintaining the most control.

As for self defence I'm of the opinion that keeping a handgun anywhere other than on you in a holster is useless but that's me and I'm most uncomfortable leaving loaded firearms lying about carelessly.
 
Wibble said:
Arguing that banning guns is hard so we should not only not try but not bother with regulation either is a silly argument. A generation ago smokers were in the majority (men at least) and now you are close to being a social leper if you smoke in public (damn good thing too) so the constantly increased taxes and restrictions have caused a mentality shift that has allowed further eradication. Guns could go the same way with a great deal of effort.

A massive gun and ammo tax combined with real regulations and registration would be a good start.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing no one here argues against the regulation of guns.

Restrict the kinds of guns one can own, restrict how they may be used, require background checks to ensure and felons and mentals cannot buy any guns, require registration so we can trace them, tax the shit out of ammo and microstamp ammo so we can identify who bought the ammo, and impose some kind of liability on patents of kids who shoot other kids. I stand in the front of the line to sign up for all this!
 
Gannicus said:
Is it the bridge's fault that they do so?
Click to expand...

Not the bridge's owners fault that someone is suicidal but it is there responsibility to make jumping off it difficult at least. Duty of care and all that.

die in car accidents in huge numbers, and while sometimes it's the car's fault it's almost always not.
Click to expand...

It would be great if we could manage without cars but currently the are largely a neccesary evil. Guns aren't.

Little kids fall into swimming pools.
Click to expand...

Which is why sensible jurisdictions mandate pool fencing and self closing gates.

Old people die of cancer
Click to expand...
Due to
unhealthy food?
Click to expand...

We should encourage good eating, incrwase tax, ban fast food advertising and branding (cigarettes) which will reduce some cancers plus other health benefits but again we have to eat.

The items you name have neccesary or at least desirable purposes. Guns are designed to kill and do so very efficiently. They serve no defensive purpose as they achieve the opposite (more death), doubly so if they are stored securely.

Banning guns altogether, which in the US would be unconstitutional right out of the gate,
Click to expand...

Which is why most of the rest of the world thinks your constitution and democracy is ludicrous.

would not solve the crime problem or the suicide problem.
Click to expand...

Solve? No. Massively reduce the death rate? Yes.

but even I don't fall victim to the belief that guns make people do stupid things. People kill each other for a lot of reasons, but it's almost never because they have a gun in their hand and they'd like to see what it's like to kill someone with their gun.
Click to expand...

People get angry and then get violent. Given only fists they punch each other, with knives they can kill a few people, a gun and massacres happen, a nuke and loons would take out New York. I'd like to avoid all that but the bloke just with fists is very much the lesser evil.

If theyreally want to ban a product that leads to bad behavior, you ban alcohol. Good luck with that!
Click to expand...

We don't control alcohol enough but it points the way - control, tax and break the criminal association then start changing hearts and minds towards a defacto ban as we are heading for with cigarettes.
 
Wibble, I can't copy and paste each point conveniently on an iPad so I'll just respond to the last point, which speaks to the need for the heavy regulation of products we disapprove of. I think we agree on that.

We tax and regulate alcohol, but we do not ban it.
We tax and regulate tobacco, but we don't ban it.
We regulate (no special taxes that I'm aware of), but we don't ban them.

The Americans love their guns, probably more than they love alcohol amd certainly more than their tobacco. I personally hate guns and tobacco, but don't you dare take my alcohol from me!
 
Gannicus said:
Wibble, I can't copy and paste each point conveniently on an iPad so I'll just respond to the last point, which speaks to the need for the heavy regulation of products we disapprove of. I think we agree on that.

We tax and regulate alcohol, but we do not ban it.
We tax and regulate tobacco, but we don't ban it.
We regulate (no special taxes that I'm aware of), but we don't ban them.

The Americans love their guns, probably more than they love alcohol amd certainly more than their tobacco. I personally hate guns and tobacco, but don't you dare take my alcohol from me!
Click to expand...

Alcohol and Tobacco =/= Guns.

You cannot compare them. They are not the same.
 
Indeed, tobacco kills way more people than guns do. The CDC estimates 480k Americans die each year from tobacco use.
 
Well, I was supporting the idea that they are not equal. Tobacco products are much more lethal and they way they kill causes much more suffering. The great revenge of the extinguished tribes of the Americas.
 
Nobby style said:
Yet another disingenuous argument.

Yes, tobacco in the hands of a mentally ill youth shot 20 school kids.
Click to expand...
Do you know how much damage can cause one drug dealer in a school ? Slow death is also death. Mental illness you speak of is often caused by drug use.

Not trying to attack your stance on the gun control but it seems like it's just a one part of a bigger problem in US. It will take few generations to naturally get rid of guns which are tools in the hands of already damaged people.
 
RexHamilton said:
Alcohol and Tobacco =/= Guns.

You cannot compare them. They are not the same.
Click to expand...

Nothing is the same as something else.

The argument being made here is that guns are a serious problem and that we should therefore ban them. Everyone here agrees that guns are a serious problem, but they simply cannot be banned. Guns can, should AND ARE be regulated, but a gun ban is off the table for two undeniable reasons.

First, the US Constitution protects the right to bear arms.

Second, the American people love their guns.

There's a Republican clown out there by the name of Mike Huckabee, who was Governor of Arkansas and ran for potus. He's threatening to run again. He's just written a book, which I do not intend to bother reading, titled "God, Guns, Grits and Gravy". It has a five star review on Amazon and apparently will be #3 on the NYT best seller list. Who knows what he says in his book but it should be instructive that a conservative manifesto (assuming that's what it is) includes word "Guns" immediately after the word "God". Tens of millions of Americans own guns, total number of which is estimated to be 300m. Democrats will go nowhere near a total gun ban. The courts have already said that the Second Amendment prohibits a total gun ban.

I have no quarrel with anyone who wishes for a world in which guns do not exist. I'd go one step further and wish for a world in which bad actors do not exist, but I'm as likely to see my wish come true as the wish that guns would disappear come true.
 
It will be sad to see TSA type of checkpoints at the gates of every US school to prevent future shootings... Wait for it.
 
Gannicus said:
Nothing is the same as something else.

The argument being made here is that guns are a serious problem and that we should therefore ban them. Everyone here agrees that guns are a serious problem, but they simply cannot be banned. Guns can, should AND ARE be regulated, but a gun ban is off the table for two undeniable reasons.

First, the US Constitution protects the right to bear arms.

Second, the American people love their guns.

There's a Republican clown out there by the name of Mike Huckabee, who was Governor of Arkansas and ran for potus. He's threatening to run again. He's just written a book, which I do not intend to bother reading, titled "God, Guns, Grits and Gravy". It has a five star review on Amazon and apparently will be #3 on the NYT best seller list. Who knows what he says in his book but it should be instructive that a conservative manifesto (assuming that's what it is) includes word "Guns" immediately after the word "God". Tens of millions of Americans own guns, total number of which is estimated to be 300m. Democrats will go nowhere near a total gun ban. The courts have already said that the Second Amendment prohibits a total gun ban.

I have no quarrel with anyone who wishes for a world in which guns do not exist. I'd go one step further and wish for a world in which bad actors do not exist, but I'm as likely to see my wish come true as the wish that guns would disappear come true.
Click to expand...
Guns aren't banned in the UK either, they're just regulated to within an inch of it. That's what most who advocate a "gun ban" are calling for.
 
Ubik said:
Guns aren't banned in the UK either, they're just regulated to within an inch of it. That's what most who advocate a "gun ban" are calling for.
Click to expand...

He doesn't understand. He'll tell you again, about the second amendment, the 300m guns and so on. If America wanted, they could, eventually have gun control similar to the UK. I understand many/ most don't want that, but to say it's impossible is just not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.