America - Gun Control

[magpiecol]

Listen to Abraham. He knows what he is talking about.

 

[Abraham]

You are using one "madman" to disagree with those arguments, the discussion is about gun control, not one isolated incident.

So if the proposals don't stop this madman, then what is the point? Passing gun laws so people feel good about themselves, or passing gun laws that actually reduce numbers of people dying?

Bearing in mind we are dealing with the USA, where it is a legal right for a person to own a weapon. So saying 'lets ban guns' is not a realistic proposal.

And also bearing in mind the statistics show that there is no strict correlation between tougher gun control and gun/violent crime, then what specific proposals would work?

I am not some gun nut who thinks people should walk down the streets with bazookas strapped to their shoulders, i am genuinely interested in what people think would work, because i haven't heard what the so-called magic bullet is to solve this issue.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

More guns is the answer.

If you have more guns, then there's a bigger pool for criminals to steal weapons from and making them readily available and cheap to other criminals on the black market, that should reduce the overall number of fatal… Oh hang on a minute.

 

[Yossarian]

2\. Generic gun control does nothing to reduce gun crime. Criminals don't care about laws… that's why they are criminals. They will still access their illegal guns and they will still commit their crimes. If you cannot restrict the flow of illegal weapons into a geographical area, which is almost impossible even for a country as isolated as Australia (let alone the USA), then "Gun Control" is just a buzz word which means nothing where it counts.

Which sounds wonderful until we notice that 60% of guns used in crimes in Chicago in 2013 were purchased legally outside Cook county. Criminals dont have to get illegal weapons. They can buy them legally because the NRA makes sure any attempt at increased background checks gets stopped dead.

Washington DC banned guns outright in the mid-70's, literally only the police had legal access to guns. However the murder rate doubled every few years while this total gun ban was in place (overturned in Heller case).

Yet as legal gun ownership has increased nation-wide, the rate of gun violence actually decreased (Center for Disease Control statistics between 1993-2013).

Stats can tell you a million things or nothing at all, but it is worth taking these sorts of findings into consideration before declaring that Gun Control will somehow be the magic pill that everybody is seeking.

All that tells you is action needs to be national. DC is sandwiched between 3 states and an easy drive to several more. Gun reform is meaningless in isolation like that.

 

[Munk]

Yet as legal gun ownership has increased nation-wide, the rate of gun violence actually decreased (Center for Disease Control statistics between 1993-2013).

Nice cherry pick given all violent crime involving any sort of weapon dropped during the same period.

This is the problem with this debate, emotion is being trumped by facts which are then being slammed by more emotion.
Anyone catch Jimmy Kimmel's sob filled rant? Classic example.

 

[Oggyz]

A handgun to protect the fam or a shotgun to bag a duck is understandable. An AR-15 with a 100 round mag makes zero sense. Get rid of those bloody things at least.

 

[MG1962]

Its intellectually lazy to just cry "cherry pick" instead of attempting to figure out the relationship between crime and legal gun ownership. The fact that all violent crime decreased does absolutely nothing to invalidate the statistics.

Since you are not disputing the figures, then what exactly are you arguing against?

I am arguing it is wrong to take a fact in isolation and then use that fact to prove a wider point. For example arguing gun control does not work by point out how people suffer from gun attacks in a given time period.

You have to look at the wider picture. Did any contributing factors change during the period in question.

Yes - resolution of gun related homicides have crashed from nearly 70 percent to under 20 percent during the same period.

Yes - Access to firearms outside the control area remain unchanged.

See what I did there - I used facts to understand why gun control in an area are failing, rather than just deciding the law is flawed.

 

[Munk]

Its intellectually lazy to just cry "cherry pick" instead of attempting to figure out the relationship between crime and legal gun ownership. The fact that all violent crime decreased does absolutely nothing to invalidate the statistics.

Since you are not disputing the figures, then what exactly are you arguing against?

I am arguing it is wrong to take a fact in isolation and then use that fact to prove a wider point. For example arguing gun control does not work by point out how people suffer from gun attacks in a given time period.

You have to look at the wider picture. Did any contributing factors change during the period in question.

Yes - resolution of gun related homicides have crashed from nearly 70 percent to under 20 percent during the same period.

Yes - Access to firearms outside the control area remain unchanged.

See what I did there - I used facts to understand why gun control in an area are failing, rather than just deciding the law is flawed.

So even though you admit the facts indicate a drop in gun related homicide since gun ownership has increased, you still claim the law is flawed? If there were other contributing factors as you have posed, then surely these areas should be concentrated upon as they are working?

 

[MG1962]

So even though you admit the facts indicate a drop in gun related homicide since gun ownership has increased, you still claim the law is flawed? If there were other contributing factors as you have posed, then surely these areas should be concentrated upon as they are working?

I am really sorry but have no idea what you just asked me.

 

[Munk]

Haha ok.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

They need AR-15's in case their tyrannical government gets out of control.

Because an AR-15 is going to do a whole lot against Nintendo pilots.

 

[Geo]

They need AR-15's in case their tyrannical government gets out of control.

Because an AR-15 is going to do a whole lot against Nintendo pilots.

Or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y70vcs3oV14

 

[tsjonathan]

Look up operation northwoods if you have time. This was from president Kennedy's time

What point are you trying to make here?

Are you being sarcastic are you seriously asking me? You seriously need me to explain it to you? I really don't need to do that, unless English isn't your first language?

Calm down. It's a genuine question. Maybe clarify that before you start with the insults.

i wasn't trying to insult you mate. Sorry if i came across as that.

 

[tsjonathan]

They need AR-15's in case their tyrannical government gets out of control.

Because an AR-15 is going to do a whole lot against Nintendo pilots.

Or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y70vcs3oV14

Needless to say I was shocked when my cousin opened up his wardrobe and he had an M15; shot gun and a hand gun. I'll never understand America.

 

[Yossarian]

What point are you trying to make here?

Are you being sarcastic are you seriously asking me? You seriously need me to explain it to you? I really don't need to do that, unless English isn't your first language?

Calm down. It's a genuine question. Maybe clarify that before you start with the insults.

i wasn't trying to insult you mate. Sorry if i came across as that.

No worries. I'm vaguley familiar with the plan - I just didn't know what point you had in mind. I'm assuming the false flag part of it was what you had in mind? As far as I'm aware it never happened?

 

[Abraham]

All that tells you is action needs to be national. DC is sandwiched between 3 states and an easy drive to several more. Gun reform is meaningless in isolation like that.

And 4 States border Mexico, another dozen or so border Canada, Florida is a dinghy ride away from Cuba…

What do you do about these instances? Enforce an international gun control program?

I am not trying to throw up road blocks just for the sake of it. I'm trying to illustrate that this is something beyond the ability of most governments to handle by passing domestic legislation.

And then what do you make of the statistics that show a decrease in gun crime while gun ownership went up in that same time period?

 

[Abraham]

Its intellectually lazy to just cry "cherry pick" instead of attempting to figure out the relationship between crime and legal gun ownership. The fact that all violent crime decreased does absolutely nothing to invalidate the statistics.

Since you are not disputing the figures, then what exactly are you arguing against?

I am arguing it is wrong to take a fact in isolation and then use that fact to prove a wider point. For example arguing gun control does not work by point out how people suffer from gun attacks in a given time period.

You have to look at the wider picture. Did any contributing factors change during the period in question.

Yes - resolution of gun related homicides have crashed from nearly 70 percent to under 20 percent during the same period.

Yes - Access to firearms outside the control area remain unchanged.

See what I did there - I used facts to understand why gun control in an area are failing, rather than just deciding the law is flawed.

No i didn't see what you did there at all?

You said the data was cherry picked, and then confirmed that violent crime decreased while gun ownership increased.

Kinda looks to me like you validated the entire point of the study.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It seems completely rational that we raise the quantity of available weapons to the public so that they may be stolen and sold on the cheap to gangbangers and psychopaths.

 

[Abraham]

It seems completely rational that we raise the quantity of available weapons to the public so that they may be stolen and sold on the cheap to gangbangers and psychopaths.

Theft of legal guns is a source of weapons for criminals, no doubt.

But that itself is not a reason to ban them. How about better storage measures or improved law enforcement as a first step, rather than banning something because someone might steal it.

 

[Yossarian]

All that tells you is action needs to be national. DC is sandwiched between 3 states and an easy drive to several more. Gun reform is meaningless in isolation like that.

And 4 States border Mexico, another dozen or so border Canada, Florida is a dinghy ride away from Cuba…

What do you do about these instances? Enforce an international gun control program?

I am not trying to throw up road blocks just for the sake of it. I'm trying to illustrate that this is something beyond the ability of most governments to handle by passing domestic legislation.

And then what do you make of the statistics that show a decrease in gun crime while gun ownership went up in that same time period?

Come on now… International borders are a completely different proposition to state borders.

You mean overall or in DC? Any number of reasons, not least the incredibly high incarceration rates, more effective policing, the incredibly high starting point for homicide rates. I don't see how a direct correlation between increased gun ownership can be made.

Even in 2015 though the US rate was 4.88 per 100,000\. In Austria it was 0.51, Australia 0.98, Ireland 0.64... Rates may have dropped but by Western standards it's appalling.