Gun Control discussion

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

I’ve always tried to be polite and understanding on this forum, whether I agree or not, but that sentiment doesn’t seem to be shared.  Maybe you guys are the extreme left, the opposite of the alt-right, because there doesn’t seem to be any willingness for compromise.

For better or worse, there isn't much room for compromise. This time around the discussion has been rather streamlined (imho, compared to last time): you had a great number of progressives attacking the individual right to bear arms (more or less trongly), and no one bothered to answer. There was an actual sub-discussion about whether you can self-defend without training, but that didn't even come close to addressing what lies at the heart of the issue.
If no conservative is willing to admit that the individual right to bear arms is a problem in itself, then there is no discussion to be had imho.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

For better or worse, there isn't much room for compromise. This time around the discussion has been rather streamlined (imho, compared to last time): you had a great number of progressives attacking the individual right to bear arms (more or less trongly), and no one bothered to answer. There was an actual sub-discussion about whether you can self-defend without training, but that didn't even come close to addressing what lies at the heart of the issue.
If no conservative is willing to admit that the individual right to bear arms is a problem in itself, then there is no discussion to be had imho.

Several years ago my wife and I discussed getting a firearm.  We ultimately decided against it because she adamantly refused to regularly train with such a weapon.  Everyone I spoke with who is familiar with firearms took the position that in such circumstances the weapon would be more dangerous than helpful because they require training and time to be useful to the person carrying them.  

These were not people opposed to the individual right to keep and bear arms.  These were people who regularly taught CWP classes and who had served in combat. As such and based upon SerHaHa's comments about his experiences I maintain that it is eminently reasonable to require fairly extensive training in conjunction with the right to keep and bear arms.  We don't let just anyone fly aircraft.  We don't put people on our highways without a drivers test.  

We have never really tried "reasonable regulations" when it comes to the personal ownership of firearms.  What is wrong with trying now?

[Yukle]

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

We have never really tried "reasonable regulations" when it comes to the personal ownership of firearms.  What is wrong with trying now?

Firstly, kudos for deciding that a weapon requires training to own responsibly.  

America did once regulate guns very well. Under Right-wing Jesus Reagan the "Trickle Down" Fool, he actually categorically made a law that banned any further purchase of automatic weapons from 1986. Ones before that require a license and a valid reason.

But then the NRA became effectively a lobby group who seditiously and cruelly ignores any gun violence and who speaks not for gun owners, but the groups that actually fund the vast bulk of their finances: gun manufacturers.

Have you noticed that they always say after a mass shooting, "Now is not the time"? Well, it's because since the Orlando massacre, America hasn't gone more than five consecutive days without a mass shooting. In short, as the NRA well knows, there is never a time.

There's plenty of public will for gun restrictions in America... but it means standing up to the NRA, who are the public face of the gun manufacturers. They have obviously co-opted a few million members (not actually that much given how many Americans own guns) but their real strength is their limitless funding from the gun manufacturers. None of them are stupid enough to argue on their own behalf but they have successfully branded the NRA is the public face of all gun owners, even though it's nowhere near true.

[Rippounet]

59 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As such and based upon SerHaHa's comments about his experiences I maintain that it is eminently reasonable to require fairly extensive training in conjunction with the right to keep and bear arms. 

Sure. Though I'd see psych evaluations as even more important -and relevant, as far as this discussion is concerned.
A shooting test and a psych evaluation to renew your -mandatory- license every year or every other year would be the minimum in my eyes. But as @Kalbear explained, bearing arms is a right. Which means any regulation you want to implement, however reasonable, can be construed as a limit on that right. A different way to put it is that if you set too many conditions to exercise a right then the right becomes meaningless. There is a regular sub-discussion in the US politics threads about voting rights and the disenfranchisement of entire categories of voters after all ; transposed to the issue of guns, this means that one could legitimately argue that too many restrictions on the 2nd amendment would mechanically rob the poorest members of society of this right, because getting a license would of course become quite expensive -among other things.
This is why I'm siding with @Dr. Pepper 's initial answer on this: there simply is no real compromise to be found. Bearing arms either is a constitutional right, and thus restrictions and regulations have to be kept to a minimum, or it isn't, and the federal government can start acting to limit the violence. Anything in-between will be inefficient at best and counter-productive at worst.

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Firstly, kudos for deciding that a weapon requires training to own responsibly.  

America did once regulate guns very well. Under Right-wing Jesus Reagan the "Trickle Down" Fool, he actually categorically made a law that banned any further purchase of automatic weapons from 1986. Ones before that require a license and a valid reason.

But then the NRA became effectively a lobby group who seditiously and cruelly ignores any gun violence and who speaks not for gun owners, but the groups that actually fund the vast bulk of their finances: gun manufacturers.

Have you noticed that they always say after a mass shooting, "Now is not the time"? Well, it's because since the Orlando massacre, America hasn't gone more than five consecutive days without a mass shooting. In short, as the NRA well knows, there is never a time.

There's plenty of public will for gun restrictions in America... but it means standing up to the NRA, who are the public face of the gun manufacturers. They have obviously co-opted a few million members (not actually that much given how many Americans own guns) but their real strength is their limitless funding from the gun manufacturers. None of them are stupid enough to argue on their own behalf but they have successfully branded the NRA is the public face of all gun owners, even though it's nowhere near true.

Actually, this is a common fallacy. What do you imagine this "vast financial behemoth" known as the gun industry is worth? Turns out, not that much, actually. All gun and ammunitiion sales in America combined generate roughly a $1.5bn dollar annual profit, based on my cursory googling. Heck, rabid anti-gun activist Michael Bloomberg alone makes more than that every year.

The financial strength of the gun industry in America is a vastly exxagerated myth. If you believe they have the clout to buy politicians with their paltry gun sale profits, then the likes of George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and many other wealthy liberal individuals and institutions can do much, much more.

The truth is the NRA's power does not come from the gun industry. It comes from the large number of individual gun owners who treat gun rights as their primary voting issue. THAT is how the gun lobby influences politicians. Not through the rather unimpressive financial clout of the gun industry.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Actually, this is a common fallacy. What do you imagine this "vast financial behemoth" known as the gun industry is worth? Turns out, not that much, actually. All gun and ammunitiion sales in America combined generate roughly a $1.5bn dollar annual profit, based on my cursory googling. Heck, rabid anti-gun activist Michael Bloomberg alone makes more than that every year.

The financial strength of the gun industry in America is a vastly exxagerated myth. If you believe they have the clout to buy politicians with their paltry gun sale profits, then the likes of George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and many other wealthy liberal individuals and institutions can do much, much more.

The fallacy here is to use the fact that anti-gun activities are economically at least as powerful as pro-gun activists -which is true.
They are, but it doesn't change the fact that pro-gun lobbies spend considerably more than anti-gun lobbies. Because liberals like Soros are not focusing their energy -and money- on the 2nd amendment, unlike the NRA.
There was linkk in one of the two current threads showing just that.
If you want to include liberal donors like Soros and Bloomberg, you'd have to include conservative ones like the Koch brothers as well.
Whichever way you look at it, the point you were trying to make just doesn't work.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The fallacy here is to use the fact that anti-gun activities are economically at least as powerful as pro-gun activists -which is true.
They are, but it doesn't change the fact that pro-gun lobbies spend considerably more than anti-gun lobbies. Because liberals like Soros are not focusing their energy -and money- on the 2nd amendment, unlike the NRA.
There was linkk in one of the two current threads showing just that.
If you want to include liberal donors like Soros and Bloomberg, you'd have to include conservative ones like the Koch brothers as well.
Whichever way you look at it, the point you were trying to make just doesn't work.

You're missing the point.

The point is that the gun industry is just not that powerful from a financial perspective to buy elections. The power to sway polticians comes from the ordinary members of the NRA, not from the financial clout of the gun industry. In fact, the NRA receives more money from private citizens than from the gun industry.

It is ordinary people powering the NRA. Because they care about this issue so greatly.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You're missing the point.

The point is that the gun industry is just not that powerful from a financial perspective to buy elections. The power to sway polticians comes from the ordinary members of the NRA, not from the financial clout of the gun industry. In fact, the NRA receives more money from private citizens than from the gun industry.

It is ordinary people powering the NRA. Because they care about this issue so greatly.

You are correct, but the two propositions are not mutually exclusive.
It is both the public opinion of a large number of citizens and the economic lobbying of the NRA and the gun industry that affect politics.
American public opinion is actually a mixed bag. Depending on how you formulate a question you might find majorities supporting (/opposing) different things.
I personally believe a majority of Americans could be convinced to support some regulations if at the same time such regulations also reaffirmed the individual right to bear arms. A kinf of trade/compromise if you will. But as far as I know, the NRA has worked very hard to oppose many regulations on principle, and even undermined legislators who were trying to find such compromises.

[Dr. Pepper]

8 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

This is 11 pages in, if you guys were fair, you’d acknowledge that Mother Cocanuts, to me at least, started this debate evenly and fairly.  It wasn’t until people insulted him/her, and called him/her a liar, that MC responded with an emotionally.

 If anyone cares to go back and read through the thread there are poster/s saying unequivocally that if a person backs the 2nd Amendment (a right given by the same guys who through great sacrifice allows us to question the 2nd Amendment) that they are essentially evil.  No one has called that to attention.  That’s  largely because most (not all) of you live in a bubble, this forum is an echo chamber.  And because so, you’ve become bullies on this forum.  I’ve always tried to be polite and understanding on this forum, whether I agree or not, but that sentiment doesn’t seem to be shared.  Maybe you guys are the extreme left, the opposite of the alt-right, because there doesn’t seem to be any willingness for compromise.  The left (progressives/liberals) are 100% right, and anyone who opposes that needs to be put down.  And no, the nazis aren’t gonna take over.

As to the topic, Mother Cocanuts is right, guns are very simple devices, and while some or even most people panic given any situation, some people do not. I don’t panic, and I’m proficient with firearms.  

You can't compare the sacrifice of people several centuries ago to the sacrifice given for 2A today.  I don't understand the difficulty in comprehending that a significant amount has changed in 250+ years.  Today's 'sacrifice' for having 2A is a classroom of dead children.  Can't imagine how supporting classrooms of dead children isn't considered some type of evil.  

However, if you think people aren't compromising on this, then you're being deliberately obtuse.  Or blind.  Most major political candidates continue to express support of 2A even if they also want extreme regulation.  By and large we those of us you say are unwilling to compromise do just that when they continue to support such candidates.  

Also, nazis and/or their supporters are in the fucking white house.  They continue to grow power because people like to pretend nazis no longer exist.  

[Mother Cocanuts]

10 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

This is 11 pages in, if you guys were fair, you’d acknowledge that Mother Cocanuts, to me at least, started this debate evenly and fairly.  It wasn’t until people insulted him/her, and called him/her a liar, that MC responded with an emotionally.

Your words are too kind, your grace. It's funny that they've come to characterize me as a "child" or "troll" and I've not once initiated an insult. Some of them have even followed me from other discussions simply because they can't take it that I disagree with them. And what's amazing is that I'm assuming that many of us here are adults, and yet these conversations have become so emotionally reactionary. It's not all that serious. If you disagree with me, ignore me or accept that we disagree and move on. (Or attempt to convince me, if you're willing to continue the debate.) Be the adults, whom you claim that I'm not. 

And let me just shout out Ser Scot A Ellison, theguyfromtheVale, Seli, TrueMetis, SerHaHa and his grace, King Ned Stark for maintaining the civility of this discussion.

Quote

 If anyone cares to go back and read through the thread there are poster/s saying unequivocally that if a person backs the 2nd Amendment (a right given by the same guys who through great sacrifice allows us to question the 2nd Amendment) that they are essentially evil.  No one has called that to attention.

That was Dr. Pepper. That's the reason I asked whether my lack of support for regulating car purchases meant that I didn't care that 1.3 million people died of car crashes each year. It's a false dilemma, and it doesn't make much sense. It's more emotional than logically sound.

10 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

That’s  largely because most (not all) of you live in a bubble, this forum is an echo chamber.  And because so, you’ve become bullies on this forum.  I’ve always tried to be polite and understanding on this forum, whether I agree or not, but that sentiment doesn’t seem to be shared.  Maybe you guys are the extreme left, the opposite of the alt-right, because there doesn’t seem to be any willingness for compromise.  The left (progressives/liberals) are 100% right, and anyone who opposes that needs to be put down.  And no, the nazis aren’t gonna take over.

That's quite intuitive. I would also add that because I'm new here, I'm a target--they're either going to try to make me conform, or they're going to attempt to defame and ostracize me. (It's the in-group out-group bias.)

Quote

As to the topic, Mother Cocanuts is right, guns are very simple devices, and while some or even most people panic given any situation, some people do not. I don’t panic, and I’m proficient with firearms.  

Exactly. None of them have met me; none of them know me, yet they're so certain to determine that I'm lying about my mental capacity as if guns are these incredibly complex devices. And that's because they believe that I must prove myself to them. I neither have to nor care to do so. All that needs to be said is what you just you said: some people just don't panic in stressful situations.

10 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

No I don't. That's the point of most of the training I'm receiving. Until you are in the situation you have no idea how you will react. So they want my training to take over and not however the fuck I might act naturally in that situation.

And I'm telling you that regardless of which situation I'm in, I know how I'll react. (You don't need training for that.) The fear of (immediate) death is nothing new to me. And whatever I don't know, which I do acknowledge, will fall into the category of acceptable risk for me.

Quote

It does, but to think that because your opponent is untrained that you can be untrained is false. Not in the least because in a self defence situation the intruder will have both the advantage of being the instigator and likely having at least some experience in the situation.

I never said that. I said that I'm confident in my knowledge of how to use my gun in that your run-of-the-mill joe shmoe invading my home will not alarm me nor create an increase in the risk I've already decided to take. Whatever advantage said intruder may or may not have, I'll live with. (Or die from.)

Quote

Okay 1) without psychology there basically is no psychiatry.

2) I don't see what psychology being a soft science has to do with anything.

It means that the evidentiary and methodological standards for soft sciences are less stringent and lack the objectivity of hard sciences. Psychology is a soft science; Psychiatry is a hard science.

Quote

I did read it. It imo supports my point. In his experience with trained people we have two outliers, people who can't manage even with training, and people who switch on and improve under stress. Then we have the average which according to him pauses and then their training takes over. So what happens to all these people when there is no training to take over? Maybe some of the people who switch on are able to switch on enough that they don't need the training. With training the majority of people appear to be able to handle the situation. But without it? All those people who paused and let their training take over are fucked. Those without the mental state regardless are fucked. And I would be money that most of those who improve under stress aren't going to improve enough to make up for the lack of training and are fucked.

So without training most people are fucked, with it most people seem to do alright. So while training isn't a guarantee you will be able to deal with the threat, no training is almost a guarantee you won't. It is far safer and more practical to assume someone won't handle stress perfectly and get them training than take the stupid risk of assuming they will handle stress perfectly and not train them. And that's true of everything dangerous not just guns.

That's not what I read. SerHaHa  wrote this:

21 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

Stress reaction under combat conditions is an extremely unpredictable science, at least in terms of how individuals will react to the common physiological body reactions - (fine motor skill loss, auditory exclusion, flattening of the eye causing the retina/etc tunnel vision effect, the elastic time effect, and so on).  I've seen people snap to and become very switched on under fire for the first time, people who under normal conditions weren't very skilled or impressive.  I've also seen people who set the world on fire on the range and in training exercises come apart when under fire.

He continues:

21 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

So, unless you've been in combat, and/or spent a decade or two studying and applying the adult learning techniques as they relate to combat of all kinds, you really don't have any idea about what people are capable of.  This is DANGEROUS, as spouting off regarding public safety, particularly that the threat is somehow "less than" because potential nuts don't have training and won't be able to accomplish x because of y, is completely false.  So what you and TrueMetis are saying can SOMETIMES be accurate, but you can't count on that.  It doesn't take much if any training at all for a random joe nutjob to become an incredibly hard to deal with threat, thanks to modern firepower and technology.  Ask anyone who has investigated many of the mass shootings in recent history, other than the Major at the military base - and he was a desk driver - few if any had any formal training, and had either self taught/trained, or had no training at al

SerHaHa also makes a conclusion in an earlier post that the solution is to ban all guns. Now, I don't agree with this, but it is consistent with his point. Unless you have two decades of experience, then according to the reasoning that training is necessary to respond to a threat,  in a manner of sorts, everyone is "unprepared." What I'm telling you is this: I know that I haven't had any formal training. And I agree with SerHaHa that in order to develop a sense for the variety of threats one can face, it is better to cultivate years of experience. But I am confident in myself, knowing myself, to know that I would remain calm--because I have years of experience knowing how I react to stress. Now this doesn't mean that I'll be successful in subduing an intruder, because anything can happen. But I'm willing to take that risk.

 

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As such and based upon SerHaHa's comments about his experiences I maintain that it is eminently reasonable to require fairly extensive training in conjunction with the right to keep and bear arms.  We don't let just anyone fly aircraft.  We don't put people on our highways without a drivers test.  

We have never really tried "reasonable regulations" when it comes to the personal ownership of firearms.  What is wrong with trying now?

Because violent offenses, I assume, are not primarily a result of a lack of extensive training. And the right to bear arms is a right, not a privilege. And therefore setting stipulations like requiring "extensive training"--who determines the extent?--would undermine it.

6 hours ago, Seli said:

There is no vote on your right to own arms. But there is a sub-discussion on why some people own arms, what they think they need it for, and why they are wrong. And you volunteered the case study this time around.

I didn't suggest there was a vote on my right to own arms. I suggested that there was a vote on my reasons to own arms. And as I said, I have no problems submitting my reasons to this forum, but what I won't do is prove myself to those whose preferences ultimately don't matter.

 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

On 10/5/2017 at 3:27 PM, baxus said:

This is the part I've never understood but I guess I'm a Eurocommie so I never will.

EDIT:

A couple of questions for pro-gun people of this thread:

• Do you personally own a gun and, if you do, what is the reason for that?
• What do you actually use that gun (or guns) for? Do you have some target practice, organized gun training, do you engage in tactical drills or whatever?

I am not pro-gun, NRA or whatever you want to call it. I don't even own a gun. I have kids, don't want them in the house. I hunt occasionally, if so, I'll borrow a friend's or family members. 

I am all for more regulations. First, and foremost I think all semi-automatic guns (Guns that are intended to kill...a human being) should be taking off the market. There is absolutely no need for them, if you are using a gun to hunt, self-defense and home protection (which really doesn't even work, but that's another post). When we was watching this go down (Las Vegas) at work, some gun nuts were talking about how you can turn a semi into and automatic gun by watching a video on YouTube. Pretty crazy. Also, I think anybody with mental health history shouldn't own, that's a huge debate too.

I've read lots of arguments on both sides of the fence and banning guns will not stop this kinda thing from happening. Debate it all you like. Banning guns will not reduce homicide rates either. I just read an article today that countries were bans have occurred have seen really no difference at all in homicide rates (England, Ireland and a couple others). That the anti-gun side adds suicide #'s and leaves out cities in the U.S. where guns are already banned (Chicago, which has a very high homicide by gun rate) when they give their statistics. It was one article and and not a conservative article neither. 

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, didn't vote for Trump. But, I would never want to see a total ban on guns. I know the argument will come that how could you defend yourself against the military, blah, blah, blah. But, it would be a hell of a lot easier to subdue a population that isn't armed. Its a right and one that this nation was founded on. I know the context is different today, but I still think citizens should still have that right, as long as we put some tighter regulations on owning. I know all the arguments and I am not interested in arguing over them. Did that before. Just think that there should never be a ban, but yet we need to have it regulated much better. And, to think that because you own or defend the right to own, that the blood of innocents is on your hands is ludicrous, and statements like that are why we don't get anywhere in making anything a smidge safer. Also, this open carry shit is a bunch of bullcrap. No one needs to walk around with a gun. As someone said earlier in the thread Las Vegas is open carry and it did nothing to stop what happened, it never will. I can't stand seeing a gun on someone's hip who isn't LE and wondering what is going on in their mind that feel the need to carry a gun. I don't understand it. 

The only way I would ever, ever, ever go for a total ban on guns would be if the Law Enforcement also have up their guns. If no one has them then I would be ok with that. But, we know that won't happen. And, wether a ban or not, if you want a gun you'll be able to get one. So, that's a huge reason I'm against a ban. It all comes down to tighter regulations to own and getting the high-powered guns off the market and quite frankly out of the owners hands who already have them. Their sole intention is to kill human beings, therefore, they should only be in the hands of military. Its simple. You don't need one to kill a deer. You don't need one to protect your home. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THEM WHATSOEVER. Unless you have bad intentions. That's what it comes down to. And please, spare me the blood is on your hands bullcrap. Its not. Just hope and pray that we can find a way to stop these killings, if there truly is a way. I'm not totally sure that there is one.

 

[James Arryn]

edit

[James Arryn]

Just now, James Arryn said:

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

39 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

 

I've read lots of arguments on both sides of the fence and banning guns will not stop this kinda thing from happening. Debate it all you like. Banning guns will not reduce homicide rates either. I just read an article today that countries were bans have occurred have seen really no difference at all in homicide rates (England, Ireland and a couple others). That the anti-gun side adds suicide #'s and leaves out cities in the U.S. where guns are already banned (Chicago, which has a very high homicide by gun rate) when they give their statistics. It was one article and and not a conservative article neither. 

 

 

Why on earth would you leave suicide deaths out of the numbers?  That's beyond bizarre.  What sort of person wouldn't want to decrease suicide deaths?  

Also, Chicago provides a very good reason why the gun issue must be dealt with at the federal level and why the gun culture issue must also be tackled (along with a number of other issues, like the failed war on drugs).  Restrictive laws on guns doesn't create borders so people can still cross city, county or state lines to buy guns.  That's how so many guns end up in Chicago.  

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Why on earth would you leave suicide deaths out of the numbers?  That's beyond bizarre.  What sort of person wouldn't want to decrease suicide deaths?

Because why does it matter if you take your own life with a gun, rope or a bottle of pills. It has nothing to do with the gun debate. Its only to inflate numbers.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Tone Deafness You Can Smell: Guns and Ammo features an AR-15 Garment Bag for all your sneaking into hotel needs...

  https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/slip-in-and-out-of-a-hotel-armed-and-undetected-guns-ammo-editor-outlines-ar-15-bag-features-in-november-issue/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=im&utm_tracker=1737131x84899

 

/Amazing timing there

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Because why does it matter if you take your own life with a gun, rope or a bottle of pills. It has nothing to do with the gun debate. Its only to inflate numbers.

Not true. 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Tone Deafness You Can Smell: Guns and Ammo features an AR-15 Garment Bag for all your sneaking into hotel needs...

  https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/slip-in-and-out-of-a-hotel-armed-and-undetected-guns-ammo-editor-outlines-ar-15-bag-features-in-november-issue/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=im&utm_tracker=1737131x84899

 

/Amazing timing there

To be fair, there are probably tons of legit innocent reasons someone would want a Covert Operations weapons bag...

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/7/2017 at 0:02 PM, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I've read lots of arguments on both sides of the fence and banning guns will not stop this kinda thing from happening. Debate it all you like. Banning guns will not reduce homicide rates either. I just read an article today that countries were bans have occurred have seen really no difference at all in homicide rates (England, Ireland and a couple others). That the anti-gun side adds suicide #'s and leaves out cities in the U.S. where guns are already banned (Chicago, which has a very high homicide by gun rate) when they give their statistics. It was one article and and not a conservative article neither. 

I get the argument that if you ban or regulate guns, people might or will substitute other implements to commit homicides, like knives, clubs, pipes or whatever. 

However, a priori, I find it a bit difficult to swallow, that the substitutability is completely perfect, once you start controlling for a variety of confounding variables. It would seem to me, that because guns make killing easier there wouldn’t be perfect substitutability .

If there are credible studies out there that do show perfect or almost perfect substitutability , after controlling for a variety of relevant variables, I’d be happy to read them, if anyone has got them.

Of course in the US, it’s likely, we have a big empirical gap here with the NRA always trying to kill gun violence research and all.
 

[Dr. Pepper]

17 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Because why does it matter if you take your own life with a gun, rope or a bottle of pills. It has nothing to do with the gun debate. Its only to inflate numbers.

Are you kidding?  "Inflate the numbers"?  Like, they are actual dead people, it's not just making it up out of thin air.  There's already a poster in the thread who has discussed how the suicide numbers may be much higher as sometimes law departments will classify a gun suicide as a gun accident. 

Suicides by gun are more likely to be successful. The same is not true with all other methods.  Suicides tend to be on impulse.  We're not talking about self-euthanasia, which is another discussion altogether. We're talking about people who are feeling desperate.  Few people can come back from a gunshot to the brain.  It has everything to do with the gun debate considering the gun debate focuses on dead people.