Gun Control

[Spoonist]

Just in a couple of weeks we have had several topics that have all spilled into gun control.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=156235
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=156078
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=156259

So this seems like an issue that people want to talk about, but couldn't we just have one topic instead of relying on tangents in all of the above?

If you agree and want to remake an argument wihtout rewriting it then feel free to link to a specific post, but please don't expect that all posters have read all of the posts in those topics.

[madd0ct0r]

reposted from here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 9&start=50



the thing that really got it for me was that discussion we had a while back about lefty vs righty values.

it was actually impossible to construct an argument against gun control in america that was based on the right wing value set. Not just difficult, impossible.

The closest I could get was a call for right thinking folks to leave their guns at home, since the chance of them wounding an innocent was so much higher then helping, but actually banning the guns? no way.

and now this thread is starting to bring me round to the idea that gun control is a distraction. you want to reduce the killings - social safety net, better healthcare and mental health care. Get those right and the gun density becomes irrelevent. Ignore them, and people will still get shot or knifed daily.

[Purple]

Gun control is not about preventing violent crime. It's about making it more difficult to commit such crimes and making the consequences of them less severe. If someone ambushes you with a knife and tries to kill you there are all sorts of variables that can play for or against you. You can try to run, fight or various other things and you have a decent chance of wining. With a gun the opposite is true. Even if you have a gun the attacker is at a huge advantage. And there is nothing much you can do other than comply and pray he does not decide to kill you anyway. And this reflects on the minds of would be criminals. An unstable or desperate (or just plain criminal) person with access to a gun is far more likely to feel confident enough to try something violent. And because of that gun control can have a beneficial effect. Especially in a society that is so far gone like parts of America are that there just can't be no quick and easy solution short of ripping the whole system down and building it back up from scratch. It's not the cure all people call it but it would help make the situation more controllable until things are brought into order by doing what you said.

[Jub]

I've done some thinking on how gun density doesn't have much effect on gun crime, at least from the stats AD has posted, and I think I know why. Even in a state with relatively few guns and stricter than average gun laws, the availablity is still high enough that if a criminal wants a gun they can get one with little effort, mass shooters also tend to be in the same situation. So the study might be flawed due to that.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that I'm not.

[Broomstick]

Gun control is not about preventing violent crime. It's about making it more difficult to commit such crimes and making the consequences of them less severe. If someone ambushes you with a knife and tries to kill you there are all sorts of variables that can play for or against you. You can try to run, fight or various other things and you have a decent chance of wining. With a gun the opposite is true. Even if you have a gun the attacker is at a huge advantage. And there is nothing much you can do other than comply and pray he does not decide to kill you anyway.

Guns aren't magic death rays. Handguns are notoriously inaccurate. Sure, if someone is holding a gun barrel to your skull you're fucked, but the same is true of a knife held against your throat. I've been shot at and had no trouble running away (indeed, that might have been the fastest sprint of my life). Past about 20 feet, particularly with the pansy-ass way gangbangers hold their pistols, you have a decent chance of getting away.

Sniper rifles are a different matter, of course, but then, they aren't the sort of weapons typically used by criminals.

[General Zod]

I've done some thinking on how gun density doesn't have much effect on gun crime, at least from the stats AD has posted, and I think I know why. Even in a state with relatively few guns and stricter than average gun laws, the availablity is still high enough that if a criminal wants a gun they can get one with little effort, mass shooters also tend to be in the same situation. So the study might be flawed due to that.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that I'm not.

All of the recent mass shooters acquired their guns legally. Try again.

[Jub]

I've done some thinking on how gun density doesn't have much effect on gun crime, at least from the stats AD has posted, and I think I know why. Even in a state with relatively few guns and stricter than average gun laws, the availablity is still high enough that if a criminal wants a gun they can get one with little effort, mass shooters also tend to be in the same situation. So the study might be flawed due to that.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that I'm not.

All of the recent mass shooters acquired their guns legally. Try again.

Where did I suggest they didn't get their guns legally? I suggested that due to the amount of weapons present even in the states with the fewest guns and the harshest laws, that if you want to use a gun for crime they're going to be easy to find. Thus making the correlation between numbers of guns and violent crimes in the US pretty meaningless because even in the harshest states you can still get a firearm with minimal effort.

Do you disagree with this?

[General Zod]

Where did I suggest they didn't get their guns legally? I suggested that due to the amount of weapons present even in the states with the fewest guns and the harshest laws, that if you want to use a gun for crime they're going to be easy to find. Thus making the correlation between numbers of guns and violent crimes in the US pretty meaningless because even in the harshest states you can still get a firearm with minimal effort.

Do you disagree with this?

the availablity is still high enough that if a criminal wants a gun

If you have a record, you're probably not going to get a gun legally. If they don't have a record, then they aren't a criminal until they actually commit an illegal act.

[Jub]

If you have a record, you're probably not going to get a gun legally. If they don't have a record, then they aren't a criminal until they actually commit an illegal act.

That's fine, it doesn't change the act that even for a criminal getting a gun tends to be pretty easy and that doesn't change even in a state with fewer weapons overall. The fact is, that guns so deeply permiate the United States that even the places with less guns still have enough guns to make commiting a crime with on trivial. I doubt even a total repossesion of all legal weapons would change this immediately, but eventually it would drive up the prices and make it harder and harder for petty criminals to get a weapon.

I could be wrong of course, and social change is likely a better, if sadly underfunded solution to the problem.

[Simon_Jester]

Zod, let's not pick nits, the point is sound.

If a person wants a gun to commit a crime, and they need the gun, they can probably get one. If they have no prior criminal record, they can get it legally. If they can't get it legally, they can spend time and effort to get it illegally, which is still possible.

Makes sense to me.



Now, the idea of banning and taking all legal weapons as a way to eliminate this- I wouldn't bet on it working well. The logistics in a gun-heavy country would be a nightmare, it would take decades and anger a lot of people who are being deprived of valuable, sentimental property. And it would take so long to work- because you still have people smuggling guns around the country, and you have a huge stockpile that can't be collected at once because they're often poorly documented.

[General Zod]

If you have a record, you're probably not going to get a gun legally. If they don't have a record, then they aren't a criminal until they actually commit an illegal act.

That's fine, it doesn't change the act that even for a criminal getting a gun tends to be pretty easy and that doesn't change even in a state with fewer weapons overall. The fact is, that guns so deeply permiate the United States that even the places with less guns still have enough guns to make commiting a crime with on trivial. I doubt even a total repossesion of all legal weapons would change this immediately, but eventually it would drive up the prices and make it harder and harder for petty criminals to get a weapon.

I could be wrong of course, and social change is likely a better, if sadly underfunded solution to the problem.

I'm pretty sure the source of weapons is largely moot if you don't bother addressing the reasons why they commit crimes in the first place.

[Simon_Jester]

So would you agree then, that "social change is likely a better, if sadly underfunded solution to the problem?"

[General Zod]

So would you agree then, that "social change is likely a better, if sadly underfunded solution to the problem?"

Is this a rhetorical question? Because I've been arguing that banning guns is an empty gesture at best for practically every single gun thread recently.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not entirely a rhetorical question, I'm hardly surprised that the answer is "yes," it was just the tone that interested me.

Thank you.

[Jub]

If you have a record, you're probably not going to get a gun legally. If they don't have a record, then they aren't a criminal until they actually commit an illegal act.

That's fine, it doesn't change the act that even for a criminal getting a gun tends to be pretty easy and that doesn't change even in a state with fewer weapons overall. The fact is, that guns so deeply permiate the United States that even the places with less guns still have enough guns to make commiting a crime with on trivial. I doubt even a total repossesion of all legal weapons would change this immediately, but eventually it would drive up the prices and make it harder and harder for petty criminals to get a weapon.

I could be wrong of course, and social change is likely a better, if sadly underfunded solution to the problem.

I'm pretty sure the source of weapons is largely moot if you don't bother addressing the reasons why they commit crimes in the first place.

Not the point I'm trying to make, I'll try to be clearer.

OK. Just did the math. Notice, I was unable to get murder rate per capita per state prior to 2005, so I moved my data range up from 2005 to 2010

Statistical significance is as follows:
Index of state gun laws: .662, no effect distinct from zero

Mental Illness (measured as per capita rates of serious mental illness): P<.000, Has an effect. Said effect is positive in the sense that yes, mental illness increases the murder rate.

Neither Drug Use (measures as non-pot drug use via self report in the last 30 days) or Bing Drinking in the last 30 days has a non-zero effect on murder rates: (P of .364 and .613 respectively)

Poverty Rate: Highly significant, P<.000. The effect is positive.

Percent of Population Living in Metropolitan Statistical Areas: Highly Significant, P=.004, Effect is positive.

So there we go. Gun laws do Nothing. Lax or Restrictive gun laws, it is all the same. Murder is driven by things like mental illness, poverty, and urbanization. Have a nice day.

I've done some thinking on how gun density doesn't have much effect on gun crime, at least from the stats AD [Alyrium Denryle] has posted, and I think I know why. Even in a state with relatively few guns and stricter than average gun laws, the availablity is still high enough that if a criminal wants a gun they can get one with little effort, mass shooters also tend to be in the same situation. So the study might be flawed due to that.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that I'm not.

My post was in response to this post by AD, and what I was getting at is that I think his results might be invaldi because even in the states where it's the hardest to get a gun, it's still easy enough that anybody who wants a gun can have one. Does posting it alongside his quote make what I was going for more clear?

[General Zod]

My post was in response to this post by AD, and what I was getting at is that I think his results might be invaldi because even in the states where it's the hardest to get a gun, it's still easy enough that anybody who wants a gun can have one. Does posting it alongside his quote make what I was going for more clear?

As usual you're missing the point. Alyrium's whole point is that the ease of access is irrelevant.

[Jub]

My post was in response to this post by AD, and what I was getting at is that I think his results might be invaldi because even in the states where it's the hardest to get a gun, it's still easy enough that anybody who wants a gun can have one. Does posting it alongside his quote make what I was going for more clear?

As usual you're missing the point. Alyrium's whole point is that the ease of access is irrelevant.

That's flatly wrong. How, pray tell, does one get a gun if they are impossible to access?

More relevantly, at what level of accessibility do people start to decide that getting a gun isn't worth the effort? My hypothesis is that it does matter, it's simply that the current state of things in the US hasn't set the bar high enough for it to be overly relevant.

[Mr Bean]

That's flatly wrong. How, pray tell, does one get a gun if they are impossible to access?

Define impossible to access, as has been pointed out in a previous thread, if you have ten thousand dollars you can buy the materials and tools to make your own gun so how exactly except via magic are you going to make a gun impossible to access in America.

If one started a nationwide seize program backed up by the will of a fascist police state you might get at best half of all American guns inside a decade. What about guns for example found in storage lockers when Uncle Earnie died and you found five rifles and three pistols Uncle Earnie put in storage when he had kids. What about guns smuggled back from WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam/Iraq 1&2 by soldiers which end up in the craziest of places. What about Canadian non-declared transfers when Steve from Toronto goes south to sell his guns at a gun show and takes back roads to avoid having to pay taxes on the sale. What about simple over the counter sales from American gun makers like sales of Colt pistols in Indiana where no records are deliberately kept because the company is psycho second amendment and keeps records only as long as the law requires with the least amount of information and has been doing so for sixty years now.

I'll try and find it but there was a Brady statistic floating around somewhere that less than ten percent to twenty percent of all guns in the US were legally registered.

[Jub]

Define impossible to access, as has been pointed out in a previous thread, if you have ten thousand dollars you can buy the materials and tools to make your own gun so how exactly except via magic are you going to make a gun impossible to access in America.

If one started a nationwide seize program backed up by the will of a fascist police state you might get at best half of all American guns inside a decade. What about guns for example found in storage lockers when Uncle Earnie died and you found five rifles and three pistols Uncle Earnie put in storage when he had kids. What about guns smuggled back from WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam/Iraq 1&2 by soldiers which end up in the craziest of places. What about Canadian non-declared transfers when Steve from Toronto goes south to sell his guns at a gun show and takes back roads to avoid having to pay taxes on the sale. What about simple over the counter sales from American gun makers like sales of Colt pistols in Indiana where no records are deliberately kept because the company is psycho second amendment and keeps records only as long as the law requires with the least amount of information and has been doing so for sixty years now.

I'll try and find it but there was a Brady statistic floating around somewhere that less than ten percent to twenty percent of all guns in the US were legally registered.

I mean impossible to access, period. I wasn't saying it was realistic, but if you're going to say that something doesn't matter then you should be sure that what you're saying is actually true.

Also, if you made the ability to produce weapons the barrier to entry you're going to drive the costs up and make them harder to acquire. Not to mention that if an amendment can be made it can be stricken, so, theoretically, the second amendment shouldn't be a barrier to getting rid of weapons. Of course much of the US worships a stagnant document with blind devotion so that has no real chance of happening.

[His Divine Shadow]

Now, the idea of banning and taking all legal weapons as a way to eliminate this- I wouldn't bet on it working well. The logistics in a gun-heavy country would be a nightmare, it would take decades and anger a lot of people who are being deprived of valuable, sentimental property. And it would take so long to work- because you still have people smuggling guns around the country, and you have a huge stockpile that can't be collected at once because they're often poorly documented.

I know when you say gun heavy country you mean the US but even in less gun heavy countries in europe we still have large piles of illegal guns. Germany for instance.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmi ... -02-EN.pdf

The most comprehensive estimates come from police spokespersons and firearms specialists. Speaking immediately after the incident in Emsdetten (see above), Rainer Wendt, an official of the Germany police union (Gewerkschaft der Polizei, or GdP), said that the country has about 45 million civilian guns: about 10 million registered firearms; 20 million that should be registered, but apparently are not; and 15 million firearms—such as antiques, starter pistols, air guns, and black-powder weapons like those used at Emsdetten—that do not have to be registered (DDP, 2006; ZDF, 2006). Usually—but misleadingly— simplified to 30 million, this estimate has been repeated by police spokespersons since 1996 (Becker, 2001, p. 4; Hickisch, 2000).

[Crazedwraith]

I'm pretty sure the source of weapons is largely moot if you don't bother addressing the reasons why they commit crimes in the first place.

Yes. I guess if we simply solve all the causes of crime then everything will be better!

People say gun control is impossible in america and this is the solution that is proposed?

Don't get me wrong yes, the causes of crime should be addressed but there's no reason that this should replace gun control measures and there's no reason that having gun control would stop you from doing that.

To my mind; addressing the reasons of crime is a long term project, its not something you can do over night. So while you're doing that why can't you also restrict people's access to killer weapons to try and bring down their level of use in the short term.


And I think the idea that if you stop people from buying guns legally, they'll just make their own with 3d printing is frankly preposterous. yes maybe its technically possible to do it. But are the skills and resources needed avalible on a large enough scale?

[Broomstick]

And I think the idea that if you stop people from buying guns legally, they'll just make their own with 3d printing is frankly preposterous. yes maybe its technically possible to do it. But are the skills and resources needed avalible on a large enough scale?

Yes, actually they are. Not so much 3D printing but the tools needed to do it the old fashioned way? Sure. Maybe not so much for petty criminals but major gangs/organized crime sure as hell have the resources, and it can trickle down from there.

[Spoonist]

Gun Control is a complex topic, so trying to prove/disprove it by looking at a single statistical point is too simpified. Even though each such point is valid and should be discussed please don't think that just because you have covered one statistic you have covered the whole issue. Instead a lot of firearms legislation has been passed to address a specific issue and should therefore be compared vs that issue and not vs the whole.
For instance, just looking at murder/manslaughter then people usually confuse the completely different issues of career criminals/gangs and domestic/family violence. A legislation directed at one of those isn't necessarily effective versus the other one and vice versa.
Then people mix the purpose of ownership, there is a big difference in how regulation can look like if you want to use a firearm for hunting, self-defence vs crime, or simple entertainment. (Or rebellion vs brittish tyrants)...
Etc.
So while interesting, comparing single statistics globally or state-wise, like murders/manslaughter vs guns-per-capita, doesn't really tell you much and proves even less.

[Simon_Jester]

I mean impossible to access, period. I wasn't saying it was realistic, but if you're going to say that something doesn't matter then you should be sure that what you're saying is actually true.

Jub, at a certain point it doesn't pay to try and nail down the details farther in a conversation.

When "I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about real life" becomes a valid reason to not understand what you're saying, you've taken nitpicking too far.

Also, if you made the ability to produce weapons the barrier to entry you're going to drive the costs up and make them harder to acquire. Not to mention that if an amendment can be made it can be stricken, so, theoretically, the second amendment shouldn't be a barrier to getting rid of weapons. Of course much of the US worships a stagnant document with blind devotion so that has no real chance of happening.

Jub, you remind me of Tritio in the other thread- you sound bitter that there's simply no real interest in changing gun policy in the US.

What I can't understand looking at that is why you think this is so important that it makes sense to actively resent all those people who aren't doing what you want. I can't see a reason why a gun ban is desirable, except for some kind of obscure, abstract idea of tidiness. Not in general- I see why it might make sense in some place at some time, but that can't be extended to all places and all times.

So 'blaming' American gun culture on blind devotion to an amendment you think ought to be changed... why do you care that it be changed? Why want it to be changed? What's the point, if we can't find any logical proof that it would really make things better? All that pushing the issue does is make you look obsessive anyway.

I know when you say gun heavy country you mean the US but even in less gun heavy countries in europe we still have large piles of illegal guns. Germany for instance.

Other countries in Europe were more on my mind- but this illustrates the issue. The registration requirements simply aren't being met, because it's not like the German police can kick down every door and exhaustively search every building in Germany for illegal firearms.

You'd need an organization with powers and resources more like the Stasi to get the job done. It would cause more problems than it solved.

To my mind; addressing the reasons of crime is a long term project, its not something you can do over night. So while you're doing that why can't you also restrict people's access to killer weapons to try and bring down their level of use in the short term.

The weapons that are easy to ban (machine guns and bazookas) have nothing to do with the crime rate. The weapons that are hard to ban (America's hundred million or more pistols and shotguns) are completely freaking impossible to collect and store. You'd never be able to do it.

And trying so hard to do it, as if it really matters, has only bad effects. Because to everyone who wants to keep their firearms, it makes you look like a crazy tryhard who wants to get rid of their property for weird, disturbing reasons of your own.

In America- Duchess made this point and it's true, I think- this is directly tied to why we can't fix the social problems that cause all the crime. Gun bans are so unpopular in rural and semi-rural America that they do a lot to guarantee those states for a party that is both pro-gun and anti-reform on all kinds of other issues. The number of gun collectors voting pro-gun because they don't want their 5000$ collection taken away to ease your case of the vapors... I'd bet money that it's great enough to swing a good-sized bloc of the legislature.

Is it worth the price?

[General Zod]

I'm pretty sure the source of weapons is largely moot if you don't bother addressing the reasons why they commit crimes in the first place.

Yes. I guess if we simply solve all the causes of crime then everything will be better!

People say gun control is impossible in america and this is the solution that is proposed?

Don't get me wrong yes, the causes of crime should be addressed but there's no reason that this should replace gun control measures and there's no reason that having gun control would stop you from doing that.

To my mind; addressing the reasons of crime is a long term project, its not something you can do over night. So while you're doing that why can't you also restrict people's access to killer weapons to try and bring down their level of use in the short term.


And I think the idea that if you stop people from buying guns legally, they'll just make their own with 3d printing is frankly preposterous. yes maybe its technically possible to do it. But are the skills and resources needed avalible on a large enough scale?

Don't be retarded. I'm not saying we should have no gun control, I'm saying that "banning all weapons" is lazy and stupid.