Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Because criminals follow laws.Jub wrote:I'd also argue that making guns harder to come by and disarming large swathes of the populace would reduce the need for a gun in the first place.
Pony up some stats.Jub wrote: Do you just tune out the weekly mass shootings
By that logic, there should be no difference in the amount of gun crime between Britain and the United States. Yet gun crime is very rare in Britain, I guess the criminals there must just be too sporting to use a gun. If you want an example of a non-island nation how about China, they're struggling with keeping weapons out but their gun crime is mostly connected to gangs and smugglers and doesn't hurt the average citizen.Highlord Laan wrote:Because criminals follow laws.
How about 296 mass shootings in 2015 alone. That's just under one mass shooting a day. Now please show me the hard facts on the number of crimes prevented by civilian gun ownership.Jub wrote:Pony up some stats.
Yeah, because of a luck of a draw. You couldn't even be bothered to lock the damn door.Jub wrote:
They were so shitty that I was never once assaulted, robbed by an outside source or made to feel unsafe in any way; but I'm sure I'd have been even safer if Canada had looser weapons laws.
Do you just tune out the weekly mass shootings and focus on the time where a single person was killed due to the lack of a gun?
It's not uncommon in Canada. It's actually a stereotypically Canadian thing to leave doors unlocked, more commonly when one is at home, but also when people are out and about.Lonestar wrote:Yeah, because of a luck of a draw. You couldn't even be bothered to lock the damn door.
Mass shootings are a symptom of too many guns, not a sign that people aren't armed enough. The danger of mass shootings drops when guns are harder to come by, it drops even more so when concealable guns are very difficult to come by.Weren't you the guy who just said, like two or three posts up, "that you don't need guns", and then continue stating how dangerous it is? And it wasn't a "single time", it's just the first one I pulled out.
But okay, I'll play the game. Let's talk about the "weekly mass shootings" claim.
The "weekly mass shooting" tidbit repeated by the WaPo, Jon Stewart, etc. comes from a page maintained a anti-gun forum that was created because the creator was butthurt after posting a airgun on another forum and was made fun of(the forum he created is /r/gunsarecool). The page itself uses a different metric than the FBI in order to pump the numbers, and will report whatever the first news reports are and make no effort to go back and modify it. Considering that last Thursday afternoon the initial reports were that the UCCC shooter was Muslim and had killed 15 people, it's disingenuous and misleading as all hell to post initial reports and then leave them there as proof that there are weekly mass shootings. IOW, the FBI doesn't agree with the criteria and even with the new criteria it's not just possible, but probable, that it's incorrect. The numbers aren't right.
Mass shootings are a symptom of widespread poverty(nearly all of the mass shootings on the tracker are gang fights), not widespread gunownership. Places with absurdly lax gun laws like Northern New England are persistently in "bottom 10" of per capita homicide, which is counterintuive when all three allow carry without permits, no universal background checks, no weapons/magazine capacity bans.Jub wrote:
Mass shootings are a symptom of too many guns, not a sign that people aren't armed enough. The danger of mass shootings drops when guns are harder to come by, it drops even more so when concealable guns are very difficult to come by.
If you don't like my numbers feel free to provide your own, but do try to show how being armed reduces these events.
You've still yet to show that increased civilian gun ownership does anything to make people safer to a statistically relevant degree.Lonestar wrote:Mass shootings are a symptom of widespread poverty(nearly all of the mass shootings on the tracker are gang fights), not widespread gunownership. Places with absurdly lax gun laws like Northern New England are persistently in "bottom 10" of per capita homicide, which is counterintuive when all three allow carry without permits, no universal background checks, no weapons/magazine capacity bans.
Ray-ray rolling up and firing at a gathering, emptying a mag, and running off isn't something that north of 95% of the country has to deal with. You might as well say that there's a rape epidemic in Canada because it's quadruple the national average on First Nations property compared to white towns. It's horribly misleading and ignores that only a very narrow part of the Canadian populace are suffering an exceptionally shitty situation. So too with the mass shootings in the US, as long as the gun control people come down hard on the side of guns being the cause(antagonizing most gun owners in the States), no serious work on harm reduction programs will be done.
Why End the drug war, institute programs like this in problem spots nationwide, actually spend money on rehabilitation programs for offenders, remove barriers to reintegration and fix our mental health system when you can demonize Bubba who conceals carry and has 3 AR-15s?
Actually, quite a few of us don't feel that need. The numbers I've seen after a quick google is that 30-35% of US households own guns, which means 65-70% or nearly 3/4 of American don't own guns. You're talking about 1/4 of the citizens owning guns, and even among them most of them aren't carrying every day.Jub wrote:Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place?
A lot of them don't carry the gun on a daily basis - which might not be a pistol at all but a long gun of some sort not conductive to hip-wearing or concealed carry. That's like asking what a chainsaw owner does with his saw on a daily basis.Jub wrote:Why would it be so bad to see people disarmed? Sure the financial side of things would obviously be rough, but aside from that what does the average gun carrying American do with their pistol(s) on a daily basis?TimothyC wrote:The reason that gun registration is NOT a slippery slope fallacy is because of what has happened in New York City. The city government passed laws saying that all long guns needed to be registered, and then, years later, used the registration lists to confiscate the weapons from people, without adequate compensation. It has happened before, and people that support gun rights never want to see it happen again.
Man, I can tell who doesn't actually read my posts.Jub wrote: You've still yet to show that increased civilian gun ownership does anything to make people safer to a statistically relevant degree.
Why? What percentage of concealed permit holders commit crimes compared to the general public?You'll also do well to note that I'm for ending the war on drugs, support a rehabilitation based prison system, think that all nations should have a health care system as good as what say France or Sweden has, and wants to implement a living wage. In addition, I'd like to see laws against having loaded weapons when not at the range or hunting,
You do realize that you expressing a desire for a new confiscation scheme, and targeting people who use those weapons for self defense(including this poster) you're basically why the pro-gun side will not negotiate with the gun control side, right? We all know what the end goal is, but it's always a pleasure for someone to once again articulate it.a ban on the sale of new handguns and a program to remove handguns from circulation, harsher penalties for violent crime committed with a gun, and repealing laws such as the bans on flash suppressors, silencers, bayonet lugs, etc.
Well considering we aren't drones that sacrifice our individuality from the greater whole, of course one will focus on self first. Thats basic human nature. One wants to protect themselves and theirs first and foremost, one wants to know how things will impact them first.Jub wrote:One thing I've noticed in this debate is that our American posters are very focused on the self and the impact to the individual if guns were to be taken from them. It's always how would I defend myself, how would my rights be impacted, would I be given a rebate if my guns were taken. Do you not think that it's worth a few random deaths that might have been prevented by owning a gun if the nation as a whole winds up safer?
None of that is proof that guns have anything to do with increased safety. At best it shows that in certain areas guns don't cause safety concerns, a fact that was never disputed. I know that nations like Norway have high ownership rates a low crime, if the US ever got to that stage I'd be all for relaxing gun control.Lonestar wrote:Man, I can tell who doesn't actually read my posts.
I said that places like Northern New England(Maine, VT, NH) all have extremely lax gun laws even by the standards of the rest of the US and all three are near the bottom in per capita homicide, specifically gun homicide.
Now, if you don't want to take away from that that ease of access to guns doesn't make people statistically safer, fine, then you also have to admit that stringent gun laws aren't making people a whole heck of a lot safer either. The difference is when I mention Chicago or DC having stringent gun laws and not working people circlejerk about jumping the border to another state(while ignoring a similar situation with PR, an island). Gun laws do not materially affect crime on a state by state basis. Poverty does. Lack of social programs do. The Drug War that places local power in gangs does. Police tactics that make the citizen the enemy and unwilling to trust the police do.
Hell, on the national level nearly every state in the country has switch from no-issue/may-issue to shall-issue regarding concealed carry over the past 25 years, even as gun violence has continued to plummet. Again, you might say "oh well it doesn't count because there was a global trend as well". Well, maybe. But if so, you can't wave off that there are literally millions of more guns legally "on the streets" in the form of concealed carry holders and the very worst you can say is that they appear to have not really made things worse or better.
Doesn't matter. The goal is to give police a reason to check any gun they see if it's loaded, or the owner has the means to load it on their person, the owner no longer owns that weapon and faces a fine. Long term this will effectively mean that there's no reason to carry a weapon on your person unless you're heading into or out of a range or in an area where you intend to hunt. It should at least force criminals to be more careful with how they hide/carry weapons, combined with harsher sentences for crimes where guns were used it should have an effect on gun crime.Why? What percentage of concealed permit holders commit crimes compared to the general public?
This isn't a trick question, there's at least one study out there with an answer for you.
You can keep your rifles, shotguns and such without issue. Purchasing a handgun wouldn't be possible until numbers started to drop and the handgun reduction program would be targeted at weapons that are easily concealed, owners with mental health or criminal issues, and those that answered self-defense when asked their reason for purchasing a handgun. If you just want a handgun for the range that's fine, but it's going to be tougher until gun crime rates start to drop.You do realize that you expressing a desire for a new confiscation scheme, and targeting people who use those weapons for self defense(including this poster) you're basically why the pro-gun side will not negotiate with the gun control side, right? We all know what the end goal is, but it's always a pleasure for someone to once again articulate it.
It seems an odd sort of desire and one that the citizens of many other nations, almost all of which are objectively better places to live than the US, don't share. It seems that people in the US want guns because guns are everywhere and don't seem to notice the massive cause and effect loop.Broomstick wrote:Actually, quite a few of us don't feel that need. The numbers I've seen after a quick google is that 30-35% of US households own guns, which means 65-70% or nearly 3/4 of American don't own guns. You're talking about 1/4 of the citizens owning guns, and even among them most of them aren't carrying every day.
What a lot of us like is the option to own a weapon, should we feel a need or desire to do so.
You'll notice that I'm not calling for a blanket weapons ban. Handguns are the biggest issue when it comes to crime and should be removed. Other weapons are far less of an issue crime wise and, with better control over who buys them, should be just fine so long as they're used for hunting or target practice.Jub wrote:A lot of them don't carry the gun on a daily basis - which might not be a pistol at all but a long gun of some sort not conductive to hip-wearing or concealed carry. That's like asking what a chainsaw owner does with his saw on a daily basis.
There are also issues of the government simply coming in and taking your stuff. That's a very bad precedent to set.
That's a very American view.Joun_Lord wrote:Well considering we aren't drones that sacrifice our individuality from the greater whole, of course one will focus on self first. Thats basic human nature. One wants to protect themselves and theirs first and foremost, one wants to know how things will impact them first.
Much like why anti-gunners are so intractable too, a few random deaths AREN'T worth it when one of those deaths are liable to be yourself or someone you love. Very few people want to sacrifice themselves. Anyone who's ever had to use a gun to defend themselves or their families will feel you are saying they should have been allowed to be seriously injured or killed to make other people maybe safer.
It hasn't hurt places like the UK.And has others have pointed out, taking away legal guns doesn't make people safer. Maybe if it did more people would be down with giving up their guns but it doesn't.
Because guns aren't the problem.
Guns don't cost society as a whole though. Well I guess military guns do if you want to get technical because literally all of society is paying for them literally. And its not a uniquely American't thing to want to protect themselves, its just unlike other countries we have the means to do so either with guns or pointy knives. Also flamethrowers.Jub wrote:That's a very American view.
Clinging to something that's somewhat useful to you even if it costs society as a whole. It explains a lot about your infrastructure funding, healthcare, social programs, etc. It's a very fuck you I've got mine attitude.
And I'm sure having universal health care and a somewhat reliable public assistance system totally didn't help. Not a bit. Nope, they banned guns and magically everything turned honky dora the explora.It hasn't hurt places like the UK.
You are still missing the point here which is that it's not actually an argument from consequences, it's an argument from rights. From the point of view of the opponents of gun control in the US, the argument you just made sounds very similar to "Why do you feel the need for freedom of speech in the first place? What could go wrong? Aren't there nations that lack freedom of speech whose economies are growing rapidly under efficient governments?"Jub wrote:Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Are not other less well-armed nations more prosperous, freer, and more equal? Would your lack of guns somehow prevent you from voting, protesting, or doing other things that would have an effect on politics?
Canadians, Brits, Germans, the Dutch, etc. all get by just fine without clutching for a handgun on our hips. I get that social safety nets, population density, and other factors are larger parts of not needing a weapon for protection, but if you Americans are to be believed a few thugs armed with handguns could clean out an entire town because no upstanding citizen with a concealed carry permit was there to stop them. Are our criminals just more polite and sporting by choosing not to conduct mass shootings, or is the lack of cheap and easy to acquire weaponry actually an effective tool when it comes to suppressing crime?
You are entirely missing the point of your opponents' views.Why would it be so bad to see people disarmed? Sure the financial side of things would obviously be rough, but aside from that what does the average gun carrying American do with their pistol(s) on a daily basis?TimothyC wrote:The reason that gun registration is NOT a slippery slope fallacy is because of what has happened in New York City. The city government passed laws saying that all long guns needed to be registered, and then, years later, used the registration lists to confiscate the weapons from people, without adequate compensation. It has happened before, and people that support gun rights never want to see it happen again.
If someone constructs a glib enough case for why the nation would be better off if we had automatic monitoring software to stop anyone from saying anything nasty on the Internet, does that mean we should abandon individual freedom of speech?Jub wrote:One thing I've noticed in this debate is that our American posters are very focused on the self and the impact to the individual if guns were to be taken from them. It's always how would I defend myself, how would my rights be impacted, would I be given a rebate if my guns were taken. Do you not think that it's worth a few random deaths that might have been prevented by owning a gun if the nation as a whole winds up safer?
And yet the difference between the US at large (with unsafe high gun ownership) and a place like New Hampshire is not the number of guns. Taking away the guns isn't going to change the issue nearly as much as spending the same amount of social and political capital in other ways.Jub wrote:None of that is proof that guns have anything to do with increased safety. At best it shows that in certain areas guns don't cause safety concerns, a fact that was never disputed. I know that nations like Norway have high ownership rates a low crime, if the US ever got to that stage I'd be all for relaxing gun control.
So... in other words, it doesn't matter that this law needlessly penalizes law-abiding citizens, because the goal is to create an indirect risk for criminals.Doesn't matter. The goal is to give police a reason to check any gun they see if it's loaded, or the owner has the means to load it on their person, the owner no longer owns that weapon and faces a fine. Long term this will effectively mean that there's no reason to carry a weapon on your person unless you're heading into or out of a range or in an area where you intend to hunt. It should at least force criminals to be more careful with how they hide/carry weapons, combined with harsher sentences for crimes where guns were used it should have an effect on gun crime.Why? What percentage of concealed permit holders commit crimes compared to the general public?
This isn't a trick question, there's at least one study out there with an answer for you.
Where's the limit, though?I don't care about the perceived safety of any given member of society. I care about solving the problem of gun crime and increasing safety for the populace as a whole. If gun bans mean that any given person dies or is wounded I'm fine with that if the upside is fewer people overall killed or wounded.
You really think that willingness to accept the death of oneself or a loved one as "the price we have to pay" for some abstract social initiative is unusual?That's a very American view.Joun_Lord wrote:Well considering we aren't drones that sacrifice our individuality from the greater whole, of course one will focus on self first. Thats basic human nature. One wants to protect themselves and theirs first and foremost, one wants to know how things will impact them first.
Much like why anti-gunners are so intractable too, a few random deaths AREN'T worth it when one of those deaths are liable to be yourself or someone you love. Very few people want to sacrifice themselves. Anyone who's ever had to use a gun to defend themselves or their families will feel you are saying they should have been allowed to be seriously injured or killed to make other people maybe safer.
Clinging to something that's somewhat useful to you even if it costs society as a whole. It explains a lot about your infrastructure funding, healthcare, social programs, etc. It's a very fuck you I've got mine attitude.
Its my way of mocking American (and I assume British) conservatives who think the UK from shore to shore has become some Sharia ruled hellhole where entire sections of the country are no go zones for proud white Christians. Its the same reason I can Iran "Iranistan", because the same conservatives think all ME countries are uniform evil brown shitholes.Gandalf wrote:Britainistan?
Nothing. Mostly because the goal should not be to decrease gun crime but to decrease crime in general. Unfortunately or fortunately or fortune 500ely just banning guns will not decrease crime. And while banning guns might decrease mass shootings it still doesn't fix the underlying causes of why some people feel compelling to go blast people en masse and doing the banning only punishes people who did nothing wrong beyond being guilty by association.Alkaloid wrote:To the anti gun control crowd, a general, not specific to increased gun control guns question. What would you be willing to change (or to give up) in order to decrease gun crime and in particular random mass shootings?
Actually, the US used to have a MUCH higher rate of gun ownership and use and a much lower incidence of gun crime. In the frontier days guns were pretty essential. Gun ownership has fallen since the founding of the nation.Jub wrote:None of that is proof that guns have anything to do with increased safety. At best it shows that in certain areas guns don't cause safety concerns, a fact that was never disputed. I know that nations like Norway have high ownership rates a low crime, if the US ever got to that stage I'd be all for relaxing gun control.
So... you just purchased a gun and you're walking out of the store the police can confiscate it because you're not on the way to the range or to hunt? You can't bring your gun in to a professional if you're having a problem with it, meaning you can never have it repaired? You can't legally sell your gun to licensed dealer should you no longer desire to own it? You can't have an accessory like a new scope mounted or a damaged stock repaired? (The average person does not have the tools or skills for that sort of thing)Long term this will effectively mean that there's no reason to carry a weapon on your person unless you're heading into or out of a range or in an area where you intend to hunt.
Really? Are you fucking serious?It should at least force criminals to be more careful with how they hide/carry weapons, combined with harsher sentences for crimes where guns were used it should have an effect on gun crime.
So... why the hate for a legitimate request for self-defense? What if it's some guy in a wheelchair able to safely handle a gun but unable to run or otherwise defend himself who lives in a bad neighborhood? Just sucks to be him, I guess. What if it's some petite woman who's stalker-ex has tried to kill her twice, she should just wave a court order piece of paper in his face the next time he shows up?You can keep your rifles, shotguns and such without issue. Purchasing a handgun wouldn't be possible until numbers started to drop and the handgun reduction program would be targeted at weapons that are easily concealed, owners with mental health or criminal issues, and those that answered self-defense when asked their reason for purchasing a handgun. If you just want a handgun for the range that's fine, but it's going to be tougher until gun crime rates start to drop.
I doubt you would feel that way if it were you on the wrong end of the barrel. Do you volunteer to be the first shot?I don't care about the perceived safety of any given member of society. I care about solving the problem of gun crime and increasing safety for the populace as a whole. If gun bans mean that any given person dies or is wounded I'm fine with that if the upside is fewer people overall killed or wounded.
The reality is that the guns are here. Even if they were banned and overnight a confiscation program set up it would be YEARS, if not decades, before they were all accounted for, if ever.It seems an odd sort of desire and one that the citizens of many other nations, almost all of which are objectively better places to live than the US, don't share. It seems that people in the US want guns because guns are everywhere and don't seem to notice the massive cause and effect loop.Broomstick wrote:What a lot of us like is the option to own a weapon, should we feel a need or desire to do so.
Sorry, as someone who has had someone attempt to break into my home in the last year or so I want a self-defense option. We didn't run out and immediately buy a shotgun, but it was one option we looked at. Of course, I couldn't possibly carry a concealed shotgun (there's no way I could hide it on my small person) and we wouldn't be taking it anywhere, but it is a very effective home defense tool. We have opted to keep the crossbow, the garden shovel we used to fight off the would-be burglar last time, and fully charged cell phones for calling 911, but the local cops have told us that we have a right to defend ourselves while in our own homes and while they'll get there as fast as they can they can't be there instantly.Jub wrote:You'll notice that I'm not calling for a blanket weapons ban. Handguns are the biggest issue when it comes to crime and should be removed. Other weapons are far less of an issue crime wise and, with better control over who buys them, should be just fine so long as they're used for hunting or target practice.
Yes, it is. What else do you expect from Americans?Joun_Lord wrote:That's a very American view.
Clinging to something that's somewhat useful to you even if it costs society as a whole. It explains a lot about your infrastructure funding, healthcare, social programs, etc. It's a very fuck you I've got mine attitude.
This isn't really an argument. By this same logic, we might as well not have laws prohibiting things like theft or murder because criminals don't follow them, either.Highlord Laan wrote:Because criminals follow laws.
The problem is that everyone is looking for (for lack of a better term) a magic bullet. Do this one thing, and all gun violence will go away forever. The pro-gun control side can get a bit of tunnel vision and focus too much on guns to the exclusion of all other contributing factors, but the anti-control side (especially the NRA and its backers) has a tendency to go "doing that won't fix the problem by itself, so instead we should do nothing."Joun_Lord wrote:Nothing. Mostly because the goal should not be to decrease gun crime but to decrease crime in general. Unfortunately or fortunately or fortune 500ely just banning guns will not decrease crime. And while banning guns might decrease mass shootings it still doesn't fix the underlying causes of why some people feel compelling to go blast people en masse and doing the banning only punishes people who did nothing wrong beyond being guilty by association.
Guns are only a tool, they are not the impetus behind shootings or violence. Removing them still leaves the motivation that created the shootings and violence intact.
If you wish to end gun violence, go after the causes.
It is a slippery slope fallacy as presented.TimothyC wrote:The reason that gun registration is NOT a slippery slope fallacy is because of what has happened in New York City. The city government passed laws saying that all long guns needed to be registered, and then, years later, used the registration lists to confiscate the weapons from people, without adequate compensation. It has happened before, and people that support gun rights never want to see it happen again.
I do think the "do nothing" pro-gun approach is foolish. But I do agree with the NRA and their ilk when they say gun control proposed especially in the heated aftermath of tragedies won't fix the problem, because its a feel good solution based more on emotion then on any logic or facts. The "magic bullet" approach put forward by antis to be equally foolish because it too can't fix the problem.Civil War Man wrote:The problem is that everyone is looking for (for lack of a better term) a magic bullet. Do this one thing, and all gun violence will go away forever. The pro-gun control side can get a bit of tunnel vision and focus too much on guns to the exclusion of all other contributing factors, but the anti-control side (especially the NRA and its backers) has a tendency to go "doing that won't fix the problem by itself, so instead we should do nothing."
Of course some gun control is part of the solution, that there needs to be measures in place to make it more difficult for bad guys or gals or transgendered people to get guns. But I'd argue thats already been done, thats already happenin'. We already have pretty good gun control measures in place.We should go after the causes, but we need to go after all of the causes. And going after all the causes does include some forms of gun control, because part of the problem is that the people who are motivated to commit these shootings are able to easily, and often legally, acquire the tools they need.
We can't just go after the guns, because as you said doing so does not address the motivation to commit violence. Addressing inequality, strengthening the social safety net, and demystifying guns and violence will do more to prevent shootings from occurring, but there will always be outliers, and we should at least have some measures in place to at least make it more difficult for them to get what they need to kill people.
Loaded question, because there's not a whole lot I, as a law abiding purchaser of firearms need to "give up" to decrease gun crime. U.S. Gun laws are already fairly comprehensive. People just like to act like any 8-year-old can walk into a store and buy a rocket lawnchair.Alkaloid wrote:To the anti gun control crowd, a general, not specific to increased gun control guns question. What would you be willing to change (or to give up) in order to decrease gun crime and in particular random mass shootings?
Which is why expanding social safety nets does more to fight crime than any amount of gun confiscation. Not having a gun does not remove the need to eat, pay rent, get another fix, or kill someone who you have determined needs killing.Channel72 wrote:I think mentally unstable shooters, or outright nihilistic asshole attention seekers who shoot up schools or whatever, are a different sort of problem than the general problem of gun violence in the US. At least, these are two problems with very different causes.
Because they don't effect straw-buys when there's shady dealers willing to sell you......r mother, buddy, boyfriend, etc a gun, even though they damn well know you're going to be the one using it. And yes, guns do get stolen, sometimes from private citizens. By why bet on the house you're robbing having a gun when you know the FFL down the street has hundreds?Gun violence in the US is mostly criminals in inner-cities shooting each other, and sometimes innocent bystanders. This is a side-effect of the wide-availability of guns throughout the nation. There are just so many guns in circulation, many of them purchased legally, that flow into these inner-city regions and exacerbate the situation greatly. Government buy-back programs and other measures to reduce illegally circulating firearms seem to have mixed success.
I'm hurting for more current information, but dems the breaks.According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."
The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.
People keep saying that except, as was pointed out in this thread, more Americans are in favor of gun control than against. Gun owners as well: we want guns, we've shown we don't use them to commit crimes, but felons, wife beaters, and the mentally unstable don't need them.But my point, at least, is that the American attitude that firearms are this sacred right, equivalent to free speech or something, is certainly not helping any of this. It only makes it more difficult to actually implement measures to address issues like the above.
Well it is right beside the right to free speech, so yeah while some might not consider it sacred they do consider it a right equal to free speech.Channel72 wrote:But my point, at least, is that the American attitude that firearms are this sacred right, equivalent to free speech or something, is certainly not helping any of this. It only makes it more difficult to actually implement measures to address issues like the above.
Guns do cost society as a whole. Every time a person with a table leg or a cap gun gets shot because police fear a gun it costs society. Every time a kid gets a hold of a gun and causes harm with that's a cost. Every suicide that might have been put off if a gun wasn't handy is a cost. Every time a stolen gun is used in a crime that's a cost. None of these costs taken alone are very large, but together they add up.Joun_Lord wrote:Guns don't cost society as a whole though. Well I guess military guns do if you want to get technical because literally all of society is paying for them literally. And its not a uniquely American't thing to want to protect themselves, its just unlike other countries we have the means to do so either with guns or pointy knives. Also flamethrowers.
When did I say a firearms ban was the only reason for change? It plays a part, as do other policies.And I'm sure having universal health care and a somewhat reliable public assistance system totally didn't help. Not a bit. Nope, they banned guns and magically everything turned honky dora the explora.
The UK is a good comparable to the US in terms of wealth equality, population density, job creation, etc. so it makes for a good comparable. Yes, for a nation its size it is a crime ridden and violent place, but without guns it lacks the mass shootings and gives victims a chance to fight back or flee more reliably than if criminals were armed with gun. Banning guns won't end crime and I've never stated that it would, what it does is mean that violent crime needs to happen at arms length and with less effective weapons. That in itself is a small victory.r not. Britainistan even with those things still have pretty high crimes rates even if their firearm crimes are low. Despite being a tiny little puny island with a far smaller population base crime in the UK is only about 16% lower then Murica. They have 3 times more crimes per thousand people. Their executions are nearly the same level as America despite having a smaller population and American having a ridiculous 26 times more prisoners. They have apparently 18% more murders according the WHO and 25% more total crime victims. If this link is to be believed then banning guns certainly didn't help a place like the UK.
Banning guns didn't solve the UK problems. It merely put on band-aid on a symptom of their problems while letting their problems still fester like stinky cheese.
The right to bear arms isn't a right that is accepted across the western world. Thus it's not comparable to freedom of speech which is generally accepted. Other nations don't feel the need to label weapons ownership as a right, why does the United States feel that this is so essential?Simon_Jester wrote:You are still missing the point here which is that it's not actually an argument from consequences, it's an argument from rights. From the point of view of the opponents of gun control in the US, the argument you just made sounds very similar to "Why do you feel the need for freedom of speech in the first place? What could go wrong? Aren't there nations that lack freedom of speech whose economies are growing rapidly under efficient governments?"
They're being selfish. Unless they can show a net positive that comes from the right to bear arms they don't have a leg to stand on. People that believe they need to be armed are unreasonable and don't fit in with a modern western society. This can be evidenced by looking at nearly any other western nation, none of them feel so strongly about guns as the US and most are objectively better places to live.See, the point here is that there are large numbers of American gun owners who simply are not going to concede that the government should confiscate all the guns, because they view bearing arms as a basic right of full citizenship and they're not going to sign it away any more than they're going to sign away their right to free speech.
Yes! If something produces positive outcomes for a population it is entirely acceptable to restrict the rights of the individual. We've seen this with anti-catcall laws, hate speech laws, laws against inciting panic, preaching violence, and bullying others in person or online. All of these laws restrict free speech to some degree and very few would argue that they should be stricken from the books.If someone constructs a glib enough case for why the nation would be better off if we had automatic monitoring software to stop anyone from saying anything nasty on the Internet, does that mean we should abandon individual freedom of speech?
I don't value reelection and thus don't value political capital. I think politicians should aim for one effective term where they follow through on campaign promises and push their vision as hard as they can. If that means not getting re-elected so be it.And yet the difference between the US at large (with unsafe high gun ownership) and a place like New Hampshire is not the number of guns. Taking away the guns isn't going to change the issue nearly as much as spending the same amount of social and political capital in other ways.
It's not ideal but how else can you see decreasing the number of handguns floating around the US?So... in other words, it doesn't matter that this law needlessly penalizes law-abiding citizens, because the goal is to create an indirect risk for criminals.
Carrying a loaded weapon or the easy means to load a weapon would be grounds for a fine and confiscation of your weapon. That should create and incentive for law-abiding citizens not to load or even carry a weapon unless they intend to use it. If they intend to use their weapon it had best be for target shooting or hunting or they're going to be up shit creek.Or, more realistically, to give everyone an incentive to leave guns loaded all the time, which will greatly increase the rate of accidental shootings.
That's too steep a cost, but I seriously doubt that being armed could ever skew the numbers that far.Where's the limit, though?
I mean, as a pure thought experiment, would you be okay with dragging ninety people on a list out of their homes and shooting them, personally, with the goal of hopefully averting 100 deaths later on?
Please point to a case where increasing the number of armed civilians in a modern society has ever increased safety overall. Being armed has some merit in a frontier or in the wilderness where animal attacks are an issue, but I'm going to have to ask you for hard numbers that show an uptick in actual safety due to a proliferation of weapons.Because in that case I have to ask... what if your calculations are wrong? What if you're underestimating the effectiveness of your strategy? What if your finely calculated strategy for avoiding deaths doesn't work? Now you've got a lot of blood on your hands.
Other nations have made this choice, so I'd say that it is. If the American view was universal no nation would go without a right to be armed. You need to ask if this isn't just more American pearl clutching over statistically rare events.You really think that willingness to accept the death of oneself or a loved one as "the price we have to pay" for some abstract social initiative is unusual?
Obviously the main factor related to the increase in gun crime, and crime in general, is population density. Not being in proximity to others is going to reduce your ability to commit crimes against them. Add in the fact that you're going to know a vastly higher percentage of those near you and thus have a greater chance of getting caught, and probably hung, for a violent crime is also a factor. Population density isn't going anywhere though so we have to look at reducing other factors.Broomstick wrote:Actually, the US used to have a MUCH higher rate of gun ownership and use and a much lower incidence of gun crime. In the frontier days guns were pretty essential. Gun ownership has fallen since the founding of the nation.
So... you have to ask, why is the amount of gun crime going up while the percentage of people owning guns is going down over the long view?
You must have missed the bits where I advocated for better social systems as well. Just taking guns away will only have so much impact.Gun crime is a symptom. Guns in and of themselves don't cause murders and crime, they are tools that can be used to commit crimes just as knives and baseball bats can be so used. Shouldn't we be asking (in addition to "can we better manage guns?") why these sorts of crimes occur? What drives crime?
Where did I ever state that I was giving a complete, ready to be passed into law, statement about weapons control? I'm spitballing shit on a message board without anybody to bounce ideas off of.So... you just purchased a gun and you're walking out of the store the police can confiscate it because you're not on the way to the range or to hunt? You can't bring your gun in to a professional if you're having a problem with it, meaning you can never have it repaired? You can't legally sell your gun to licensed dealer should you no longer desire to own it? You can't have an accessory like a new scope mounted or a damaged stock repaired? (The average person does not have the tools or skills for that sort of thing)
See, that's the sort of kneejerk rule making that pisses people off. Your rule has zero provisions for such mundane concerns as repair. You're not thinking this through. You're putting people in a position where they may not be able to safely maintain their guns. Gee, thanks.
Keep in mind, too, that traveling to and from a hunting area might entail cross-country travel - that's why US airlines have clearly delineated rules for transport of firearms on airplanes for the safety of both crew and passengers (locked cases in checked baggage, basically)
Counterpoint, if gun control has no effect why don't larger percentages of Canadian, British, German, Japanese, etc. criminals carry guns?It's not like crooks run down the street waving handguns in the air and firing them off like Yosemite Sam. What makes you think criminals - who are by definition lawbreakers? - are going to give a fuck about your new law? Has mandatory sentencing and harsher laws had jackshit effect on any other aspect of crime in the US?
Why aren't these things large enough issues in other nations to cause people to ask for the right to bear arms? You're looking at this from a very closed off view where you can only see the worst case situation. The fact is that these situations aren't as common as you make them out to be and other nations get along fine without guns.So... why the hate for a legitimate request for self-defense? What if it's some guy in a wheelchair able to safely handle a gun but unable to run or otherwise defend himself who lives in a bad neighborhood? Just sucks to be him, I guess. What if it's some petite woman who's stalker-ex has tried to kill her twice, she should just wave a court order piece of paper in his face the next time he shows up?
Sure. If my death would mean something the world can have my life, or my mom's life, or my brothers. It would be a tragedy for those close to me and/or myself, but if the end result is a better world who am I to selfishly stop it.I doubt you would feel that way if it were you on the wrong end of the barrel. Do you volunteer to be the first shot?
Hence why I stated this in an earlier post which you failed to read.The reality is that the guns are here. Even if they were banned and overnight a confiscation program set up it would be YEARS, if not decades, before they were all accounted for, if ever.
Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to up the font size and make it bold as well.Jub wrote:You'll also do well to note that I'm for ending the war on drugs, support a rehabilitation based prison system, think that all nations should have a health care system as good as what say France or Sweden has, and wants to implement a living wage. In addition, I'd like to see laws against having loaded weapons when not at the range or hunting, a ban on the sale of new handguns and a program to remove handguns from circulation, harsher penalties for violent crime committed with a gun, and repealing laws such as the bans on flash suppressors, silencers, bayonet lugs, etc.
None of these things are likely to happen, but I think that if you set a goal to improve overall public safety and stick to it over a generation or two the US would be much better for it.
It sure wouldn't hurt to stop adding more mines to the existing fields so you can start clearing things up.Would you go to a country that has a lot of fields seeded with active land mines and propose banning landmines as a solution to the problem of people being accidentally blown up? Would you say banning the sale of new landmines would solve the problem?
Yeah, my solution is to just *snap* ban all guns overnight. Hence why there are still provisions for how one can carry and use existing guns with the law geared towards stopping the sale and transfer of weapons and removing weapons from those found breaking the law. It won't clean things up over night, it might even have negative effect short term, but how do you start fixing the issue with guns in America if reducing the number of guns isn't on the table?The analogy isn't 100% (no one carries concealed, active landmines on their person, for example) but consider that Americans live in an environment with a fuckton more guns than, say, the average European does. Unless you're Q and snap your fingers and make them all magically disappear it's pretty damn arrogant to say "just ban them, all fixed!"
You're an anecdote, a blip on the radar when it comes to the harm caused by removing guns. I wouldn't wish anybody harm, but my choice wouldn't hinge on the outcomes for any given individual. If some are lost in the transition, and some nearly always are, they should be remembered but progress shouldn't stop because some will be harmed by it.Jub wrote:Sorry, as someone who has had someone attempt to break into my home in the last year or so I want a self-defense option. We didn't run out and immediately buy a shotgun, but it was one option we looked at. Of course, I couldn't possibly carry a concealed shotgun (there's no way I could hide it on my small person) and we wouldn't be taking it anywhere, but it is a very effective home defense tool. We have opted to keep the crossbow, the garden shovel we used to fight off the would-be burglar last time, and fully charged cell phones for calling 911, but the local cops have told us that we have a right to defend ourselves while in our own homes and while they'll get there as fast as they can they can't be there instantly.
Oh, about the crossbow - last used on a human being when a would-be truck thief threatened the life of my spouse with a knife that, based on length, could be described as a short sword. Which just goes to show that even with guns so readily available there's plenty of crime that occurs without them, some of it quite hazardous. Get rid of guns you'll still have violent crime, which is a legitimate concern. My spouse is disabled, he can not run away from a situation, he is not as strong as he used to be and less able to physically defend himself. What is he supposed to do? Maybe YOU don't care if he's injured, more disabled, maimed or killed but I sure as hell do! Likewise, I don't particularly want to suffer any of that myself.
Maybe something resembling rational thought and a sense of community-mindedness instead of behaving like children and making the rest of the world wish the Brits had properly kicked your ass when you were still a colony.Yes, it is. What else do you expect from Americans?
So nothing can change because that change might hurt poor old Broomstick. Fuck you and your selfishness. You are part of the problem with America because you'd rather eek out a miserable existence than allow for the chance that you end up worse off.I agree, it accounts for a lot of fucked up stuff. The problem from my viewpoint (as one of those liberals that would prefer better infrastructure, universal health care, a real society safety net, and so forth) is that is the environment in which I currently live. I might greatly prefer something else, but my reality is I live in a "I got mine, fuck you" society and I have to find a way to survive in it.
