Gun Control discussion

[baxus]

3 hours ago, crlovel said:

France was attacked by extremists wielding AK-47s. Apparently, they'd not heard France has laws against owning AK-47s, or surely they'd have turned them in and begged forgiveness. 

Would you please go and find all the instances of mass shootings in France and compare the list with the one of mass shootings in US within the same time period? Go on, we'll wait for you to come back with your findings.  

And keep in mind that cases of mass shootings in France are (almost) always connected to terrorist organizations while in USA you had cases of high school kids shooting up their school because they had no friends.

3 hours ago, crlovel said:

You people are amazing. On one hand, you whine and cry and moan and beat your breast over police violence and white oppression. Then you whine and cry and moan and beat your breast and say only the police and government - you know, the evil oppressors - should have guns. Which is it, kids? 

Did it ever occur to you that police have so itchy trigger fingers because of guns being so widely spread and easily available to general public? I mean, if guns were not as commonly found in suspect's possession and rather often used against police officers, maybe "shoot him/her" would not be their first reaction to someone holding anything in their hand.

[TrueMetis]

Who here's saying only the police should have guns? I'd venture that a lot of the people on this board would say police shouldn't have guns either.

[lessthanluke]

11 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Who here's saying only the police should have guns? I'd venture that a lot of the people on this board would say police shouldn't have guns either.

Bingo.

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, crlovel said:

France was attacked by extremists wielding AK-47s. Apparently, they'd not heard France has laws against owning AK-47s, or surely they'd have turned them in and begged forgiveness.

Your argument would work if every time there was a terrorist attack in France the lunatics had been able to get their hands on guns.
Considering the number of attacks we've seen in the past years, I'm immensely grateful that guns are so hard to find in France. It's obvious we'd have seen much higher casualties otherwise.
Again, two terrorist attacks the same week, one in France with a knife, one in the US with tons of guns: 2 deaths in France, 58 in the US. Yeah, I can cherry-pick my facts too, y'know?

So instead, let's compare the death rates by firearms for both countries and then tell me that laws don't prevent criminals from getting guns.
In a 2016 study on numbers from 2010, the death rate was 0,2/100,000 for France and 3,6/100,000 for the US. That's only 18 times higher.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
And no, the terrorist attacks don't change that much:

Quote

In a nation where the right to bear arms is cherished by much of the population, gun homicides are a significant public health concern. For men 15 to 29, they are the third-leading cause of death, after accidents and suicides. In other high-income countries, gun homicides are unusual events. The Paris attacks in November 2015 killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

Have you read that correctly? We could have AK-47-wielding terrorists in Paris every month, and our annual death rate would still be lower than yours. Let that sink in a bit, perhaps?

In fact, the number that is usually found to compare the US death rate by firearms to other developed countries is 25 times higher. That's the one that is mentioned in the CBS article above from the study published in the American Journal of Medicine.
Maybe that number is too high. Maybe it's actually closer to 20 times higher or 15 times higher. It would still be enough to show that the problem is, in fact, guns.

Quote

US homicide rates were 7.0 times higher than in other high-income countries, driven by a gun homicide rate that was 25.2 times higher. For 15- to 24-year-olds, the gun homicide rate in the United States was 49.0 times higher. Firearm-related suicide rates were 8.0 times higher in the United States, but the overall suicide rates were average. Unintentional firearm deaths were 6.2 times higher in the United States. The overall firearm death rate in the United States from all causes was 10.0 times higher. Ninety percent of women, 91% of children aged 0 to 14 years, 92% of youth aged 15 to 24 years, and 82% of all people killed by firearms were from the United States.
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext

The numbers and facts are pretty straightforward. People who defend their right to bear arms tend to be very bad with numbers. Not that it's their fault. The human brain is bad with numbers. One generally starts using them when they confirm their world view. When they don't, they use logical fallacies and cherry-picked facts.

6 hours ago, crlovel said:

In the meantime, my non-violent self is sitting over here, armed to the teeth

This would be so funny if you weren't serious.
Newsflash buddy: truly non-violent people aren't armed to the teeth. Yeah, I know that must be hard to process, but most humans are nauseated by the very idea of shooting other humans.

6 hours ago, crlovel said:

Most murders committed with firearms are committed by people who aren't allowed firearms to begin with.

Well sure, since there are something like 300 million guns in the US and wildly different gun laws from state to state, it's obviously easy for anyone to get a gun in the US.
But even that's beside the point.
The problem, which you happened to raise (indirectly), is how many casualties can be caused by a single gun owner. You could have 99% of gun owners be law-abiding and guns could still be a problem if that 1% were to cause a huge number of casualties every year.
That's how actual discussions about social problems are supposed to go. First you look at facts and numbers and you try to figure out if there is a problem and if there is one, what the problem is.
It's painfully obvious that the US has a problem.

6 hours ago, crlovel said:

We are NOT the problem. 

As far as I'm concerned, your entire stance is negated by the fact that by your own admission I might get shot if I entered your property and you somehow felt "threatened."
 

[Kalbear]

11 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

No, it might have a place, but one that is exaggerated to fit the gun ban side. Of the three suicides I dealt with (knew them to an extent to call the acquaintances) all had access to guns...all three. So, just because it's easier and quicker means absolutely nothing. When one wants to take their life, they'll do it in the manner of their choosing. Guns changes nothing about people committing suicides, even if they are used in suicides.

Again, all data indicates significantly that this is wrong. 

11 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

 I stated it because it was my opinion on the subject and stated that I have already debated the same people who are debating me now, and quite frankly didn't care to do it again. So, what are you interested in changing my mind about? There shouldn't be tighter regulation? Those with a history of mental illness shouldn't own guns? That all semi automatic weapons should be taking off the market and also out of the hands of owners who have them now? Because these are all things that I am for. Oh, or are you trying to change my mind for me to have guns in my home to protect my family? Please, tell me what your interested in changing my mind about? Please. Because, otherwise it's just another chance for you to jump down my throat about something. 

It should be clear that the reason I jumped down your throat is the reason everyone else did - because you said something that was wrong. If you don't want to have your opinion challenged, I'd recommend not stating it.

If you read my post literally before the one I answered you I brought up all of this. I'm interested in changing your mind about suicide and links to gun regulation, because there is a causal link between successful suicide and gun ownership/availability. 

As to the US, I still believe that the only workable solution is to teach everyone in the US how to use a gun safely and store it responsibly. Mock people who can't shoot well, who have their gun stored or held in the wrong way, who don't have gun safes or trigger locks. Make gun safety fashionable, and make people who treat guns badly as ostracized as those who treat their pets badly. Have gun safety and use taught in school as a mandatory class. And require gun training and licensing for certain classes of guns. 

11 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Yet, you and others jump on the suicide numbers...because you just have to find something wrong with the post. And statistics are bullshit. Yes, you just as well off pulling them out of your ass. Because, they're skewed to fit the agenda of whoever is compiling those statistics. If this wasn't the case there would be one set of statistics, not multiple ones. 

I jump on the suicide numbers because those are staggeringly large numbers. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US, and half of those deaths are from firearms. Furthermore, when people try to kill themselves with guns they succeed; if all 1 million suicide attempts used guns instead of the 30k or so that are done, we would have a massive crisis on our hands. That would be precisely one set of statistics used, which in this case are usually called 'data'. 20,000 people annually in the US die via suicide done by a gun. That is simply a fact.

If that doesn't concern you - as it apparently does not - own it. 

It concerns me. It concerns me far more than the Las Vegas shooter.

11 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

And just because I still am for the right to bear arms, in a safer way that exists now, doesn't mean that the blood of children or anyone else is on my hands. I won't buy into that bullshit. I didn't shoot anyone. If guns were banned, guns would still be involved in murders and mass shootings. Then is it on the hands of the ones who begged and pleaded for the ban? That's just a guilt trip I ain't buying. Sorry.

I'm sorry that you think you deserve an apology. 

If you're for the right to bear arms then yes, a lot of those suicides and accidental deaths are partially about your decisions and your values. Why not own it? Why not bear responsibility for the freedoms that you choose to go for? That doesn't make it bad, but it does mean that your decisions matter. What you choose to support does, actually, make a difference. Part of the side effect of having fairly lax restrictions on guns and a prevalence of guns is that you get more successful suicides. If you support the one, you implicitly are stating that you accept the other as a consequence. This doesn't mean you want this, but it does mean that it's a part of that consequence and you're willing to accept it for the greater good of owning guns. 

[The guy from the Vale]

@Kalbear Incidentally, the idea that owning a murder instrument could possibly be considered a greater good than saving human lives is absolutely staggering to this Eurocommie.

[Kalbear]

Just now, theguyfromtheVale said:

@Kalbear Incidentally, the idea that owning a murder instrument could possibly be considered a greater good than saving human lives is absolutely staggering to this Eurocommie.

Yeah, and that's a tough one to go through, because for a lot of non-US citizens the notion that owning a gun at all being good is pretty alien. It'd be like saying 'yes, I want to own a small land mine because it's so AWESOME'. 

But honestly, guns are often quite fun to use - in sporting, in hunting, in collection, in target practice. And they do have actual value, though I would argue that the culture in the US makes this problematic. Guns in the US are less about practical use and a lot more about cool/fetish factors. And gun owners often are some of the sloppiest people with guns. 

I still think that if people were serious about the 2nd amendment guaranteeing their right to keep arms for the purpose of resisting tyranny (foreign and domestic) they'd treat it more like Switzerland - with local armories, trained militia, regular drills and regular upkeep of weapons. That is a reasonable thing Switzerland (and to a certain extent Israel) both do to ensure they have a large part of the populace who is minimally trained to fight invaders and whatnot, and that is also a good use of guns. Ultimately a lot of gun culture comes from a specific part of US culture - which is that US citizens expect at some point to have to overthrow their government somehow. 

 

[The guy from the Vale]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, and that's a tough one to go through, because for a lot of non-US citizens the notion that owning a gun at all being good is pretty alien. It'd be like saying 'yes, I want to own a small land mine because it's so AWESOME'. 

But honestly, guns are often quite fun to use - in sporting, in hunting, in collection, in target practice. And they do have actual value, though I would argue that the culture in the US makes this problematic. Guns in the US are less about practical use and a lot more about cool/fetish factors. And gun owners often are some of the sloppiest people with guns. 

I still think that if people were serious about the 2nd amendment guaranteeing their right to keep arms for the purpose of resisting tyranny (foreign and domestic) they'd treat it more like Switzerland - with local armories, trained militia, regular drills and regular upkeep of weapons. That is a reasonable thing Switzerland (and to a certain extent Israel) both do to ensure they have a large part of the populace who is minimally trained to fight invaders and whatnot, and that is also a good use of guns. Ultimately a lot of gun culture comes from a specific part of US culture - which is that US citizens expect at some point to have to overthrow their government somehow. 

 

"I want a small land mine because it's AWESOME" might be a good way to relay to US gun owners how the rest of the world sees them indeed.

I know guns are fun to use, and I'd never claim they don't have their use or value. I just can't comprehend how that value is put as higher than actual human health or lives. So while guns may be fun and useful, they require responsible ownership and a culture around them that makes clear they are for those purposes only.

I'm intimately familiar with Swiss gun culture, having lived in Switzerland for over 20 years. While yes, guns are very widespread compared to other European countries, there's no expectation that they'll ever be used against our own government, or for that matter, other people unless the country gets invaded, which hasn't happened in 200 years. This idea of owning a gun to kill burglars is an insanely disproportionate proposition, and it needs to be considered as such in the US if you guys ever want to reduce the problem.

[Darth Richard II]

6 hours ago, maarsen said:

Gun owners are also shown to be those most often shot with their own guns.

You know I had a ..let's say discussion with some people about gun rights and such last night and it was just kind of mind blowing how stubborn they are. I brought up the quoted fact and linked to some statistics and studies and such and they just flat out REFUSED to believe it. Apparently that info is just "wring" because they know it "in their gut". It's like trying to have a physics argument but the other side refuses to acknowledge other systems of measurement.

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

You know I had a ..let's say discussion with some people about gun rights and such last night and it was just kind of mind blowing how stubborn they are. I brought up the quoted fact and linked to some statistics and studies and such and they just flat out REFUSED to believe it. Apparently that info is just "wring" because they know it "in their gut". It's like trying to have a physics argument but the other side refuses to acknowledge other systems of measurement.

I got my stats from the latest issue of Scientific American. I have to say, in their last few issues they seem to be going out of their way to take pokes at Trump and the Republican party. The issue before this was devoted to women and the political, social, and pseudo scientific restraints put onto them by our society. This month had a full length article on gun violence. You could get a copy and let it hang around to be seen, perchance to be read.

[Darth Richard II]

Oh it was an online discussion, but the people I was arguing with would just say it's anti NRA propaganda or something. it's just...the level of denial of SOME of these people is staggering.

[Darth Richard II]

1 minute ago, Lew Theobald said:

 We just had a bunch of people agree that, not only can the ordinary citizen not be trusted with guns, but police officers can't be trusted with guns either.

Which makes we wonder ... who exactly is it who can be trusted with guns?  The New Order after the Revolution comes?

Personally, I would not trust myself with a gun.  That may sound like virtue signalling, on a forum as progressive as this one.  But really it is not.  Because obviously, some people ought to have guns.  And if no good people have guns, only bad people will have them.   And that situation will quickly become untenable.

So who should I trust with a gun?

Should it only be government officials who carry guns?  Only cops?  Only soldiers?  Only citizens who the government decides should have guns?  Sorry, but that sounds wrong to anyone with any democratic sensibilities.  I'm not as anti-cop as many progressive types, but that does not mean I trust cops more than I trust mom, dad and the next door neighbor.  I'm not as anti-military as some progressive types, but that does not mean I trust your random soldier more than I trust mom, dad, and the next door neighbor.

Yes, I know there are situations where Mom and Dad will accidentally shoot Junior.  But nonetheless, it seems to me that some people ought to have guns?  I know there are situations where cops end up shooting Junior (accidentally or perhaps not-so accidentally).  Perhaps the cops are more likely to shoot Junior than Mom or Dad are?  But nonetheless it seems to me that some people ought to have guns.

So who should have guns?

Bolded statement is why no one takes you seriously.

[Darth Richard II]

[Yukle]

On 10/7/2017 at 11:59 PM, 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.

Profit and revenue aren't the same thing.

The industry is $13.5 billion annually. What they spend on lobbying is not part of their profit margins, since they spend this money.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/americas-gun-business-by-the-numbers.html

The NRA receives a huge chunk of money from gun companies, including some who give them a cut of all sales - not a big one, but it does add up.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1?r=US&IR=T

Their effectiveness as lobbyists is also due to how much is done for them for free. The reason that gun manufacturers use the NRA as a front is because its most hard-core members will petition governments for free, in their own time. The NRA has spent decades making this grassroots movement, and whatever costs they do incur from media advertising are easy to cover.

It's not that anti-gun or gun-control activists are lazy, it's that they don't have the reliable funding nor the decades of grassroots campaigning to help them.

[Altherion]

5 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

You know I had a ..let's say discussion with some people about gun rights and such last night and it was just kind of mind blowing how stubborn they are. I brought up the quoted fact and linked to some statistics and studies and such and they just flat out REFUSED to believe it. Apparently that info is just "wring" because they know it "in their gut". It's like trying to have a physics argument but the other side refuses to acknowledge other systems of measurement.

This is the price of decades of academia, the media and government making quantitative statements that range from unprovable to plainly wrong. At this point, it is more rational than not to regard statements, links and studies about political topics as propaganda.

[KingintheNorth4]

I think one way to decrease gun violence in the US is to apply the same process of getting a driver's license to owning a gun. I assume we've all been through this process. If we want a driver's license, we're required to take a course on how to safely operate a vehicle. Then when we take the driving test, we have to show that we can drive responsibly. The same should be true if someone wants to own a gun. 

[DanteGabriel]

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Ultimately a lot of gun culture comes from a specific part of US culture - which is that US citizens expect at some point to have to overthrow their government somehow. 

 

Another part of American gun culture comes from, frankly, a legacy of racial terror. When slaves had to be terrorized to be kept in line, and hunted down if they tried to escape. The techniques did not die out with the institution.

[TerraPrime]

2 hours ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

I think one way to decrease gun violence in the US is to apply the same process of getting a driver's license to owning a gun. I assume we've all been through this process. If we want a driver's license, we're required to take a course on how to safely operate a vehicle. Then when we take the driving test, we have to show that we can drive responsibly. The same should be true if someone wants to own a gun. 

That is a non-starter, as an argument. There are no Constitutional rights to operate vehicles. 

 

A better line of argument might be to link regulations that are being proposed on voter identification to the regulations that we could impose on gun ownership. Both are protected by the Constitution, after all. We can see if turning the xenophobic fear back on themselves would work, i.e., we need to keep ID of all gun owners because we don't want the bad hombre murderers to have guns to kill them white women. 

 

I still think the better approach to force gun regulation is for someone to raise money to systematically target black people and Muslims and offer them free guns (with appropriate safety training, of course). Let's see if white America will let their racism triumph over their perennial love affair with firearms. 

 

[Darth Richard II]

Ha, a friend of mine said something similar. How if all the Blacks bought guns they'd be banned within a day.

[TerraPrime]

1 minute ago, Darth Richard II said:

Ha, a friend of mine said something similar. How if all the Blacks bought guns they'd be banned within a day.

There's a reason that a whole lot of white people insist that BLM and Black Panthers are terrorists.