Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Blasted Craigs]

Although I am liberal in many of my views, on this issue I am on the side of the conservatives to a point. I am strongly against gun control with respect to outlawing the ownership of guns. Guns may contribute to more gun violence, but violent crime overall is reduced when citizens are allowed to own guns. The reason for so much gun violence in America is lax gun laws in some states, and strict gun control laws in others. So the unstable and violent can get guns in a location that it is easy to acquire a gun, and use it in an area that law abiding citizens are sure to be unarmed. The argument guns increase violence is negated when one considers two countries, England and Switzerland. In England it is a federal offense to have a firearm, but the rate of violence is very high.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
The argument that disarming the population reducing crime simply does not hold water in reality.
Now, Switzerland has a very robust gun ownership among it's population, and although there have been violent crimes (to include mass shootings) the overall crime rate is low.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Switzerland/Crime
(I'd use the same site for both countries, but the site does not list the stats for England)

Now, I think guns should be regulated and access controlled, just like motor vehicles. But when people ask about gun control, they normally mean the outlawing of guns like the situation in England.

So, the short answer is depends on what the OP meant. Regulation of guns, to include background checks? Yes, I am all for that. Getting rid of guns and outlawing things like concealed weapons permits and overall limiting civilian gun ownership? No.

[Tule]

You do realize pre 1980's machine guns are fully legal? And that since 1934 there have been only 2 legally owned fully automatic weapons used legally? Even illegally owned fully automatic weapons only account for a tiny, tiny percentage of gun crimes. The vast majority of crimes are committed with the cheapest weapon the criminal can get there hands on, i.e. small pistols and handguns almost exclusively.

Great, so why make them more widely available? Imagine the next school shooter who gets his hands on his father's improperly stored fully automatic weapon.

It would be no worse than if he used a shotgun.

The British investigated the effectiveness of various small arms in close quarters during the Malayan Emergency and discovered that shotguns are twice as likely to hit their target than assault rifles and 50% more likely than sub-machine guns at distances of less than 30 yards:

British examination of
its Malaya experience determined that, to a range of thirty yards
(27.4 meters), the probability of hitting a man-sized target with
a shotgun was superior to that of all other weapons.

Shotguns are also among the most lethal types of small arms:

If one were to analyze the factors most strongly influencing patient fatality following gunshot wounds in the civilian population, it would become immediately apparent that the type of weapon used is key, and that shotguns are responsible for a greater percentage of deaths than are any other type of firearm.

[Tel]

Jim, if you read this, he wasn't here today, couldn't ask him.

Fiddlesticks. I'm sure it's somewhere, I'm just ignorant on where I'd find records.

[Viinborg]

Since 1968 onwards, more Americans have died from gunfire on home soil than in all the wars in United States history. That is to say, over one million Americans have died in wars, whilst over one million non-combatant Americans have been killed by firearms since 1968. A quarter of those deaths were homicides.

[Spreewerke]

Since 1968 onwards, more Americans have died from gunfire on home soil than in all the wars in United States history. That is to say, over one million Americans have died in wars, whilst over one million non-combatant Americans have been killed by firearms since 1968. A quarter of those deaths were homicides.

Interesting since that is after some of the largest gun control laws in US history passed. Gun Control Act of 1968.

[Spoder]

Since 1968 onwards, more Americans have died from gunfire on home soil than in all the wars in United States history. That is to say, over one million Americans have died in wars, whilst over one million non-combatant Americans have been killed by firearms since 1968. A quarter of those deaths were homicides.

Alright then.

Let's do maths.

The US has an average 2,468,435 deaths per year, and an average 32,000 gun-related deaths per year.

Appx. 1.3% of yearly deaths in the US are gun related.

5 leading causes of death:

1. Heart Disease
2. Cancer
3. Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases
4. Stroke
5. Accidents

Guns are not on the top 10 list either.

[Big Jim P]

Since 1968 onwards, more Americans have died from gunfire on home soil than in all the wars in United States history. That is to say, over one million Americans have died in wars, whilst over one million non-combatant Americans have been killed by firearms since 1968. A quarter of those deaths were homicides.

Interesting since that is after some of the largest gun control laws in US history passed. Gun Control Act of 1968.

I wonder how many of those deaths were legitimate shoots by law enforcement and citizens defending themselves.

[Tule]

Since 1968 onwards, more Americans have died from gunfire on home soil than in all the wars in United States history. That is to say, over one million Americans have died in wars, whilst over one million non-combatant Americans have been killed by firearms since 1968. A quarter of those deaths were homicides.

Interesting since that is after some of the largest gun control laws in US history passed. Gun Control Act of 1968.

It was ineffective because it was unenforceable. The NICS wasn't implemented until 1994, meaning that gun stores simply had to trust that their customers weren't lying when they said they weren't prohibited from owning guns.
And even today there is still no oversight over private purchases, so the GCA68 and the NICS system are absolutely ineffective because of how easy they are to circumvent.

It's like building half a dam and then saying that hydro power doesn't work.

I suggest we change the wording of the GCA 68 from:

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person

to

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person who:

You should be 100% certain that the person you are selling a gun to isn't a prohibited person, If you unknowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person you are being pretty damn reckless.
And yes, of course that means you should have access to the NICS, free of charge at a police station for instance.

Since 1968 onwards, more Americans have died from gunfire on home soil than in all the wars in United States history. That is to say, over one million Americans have died in wars, whilst over one million non-combatant Americans have been killed by firearms since 1968. A quarter of those deaths were homicides.

I wouldn't really include suicide statistics. Yes, access to guns increases the overall risk of suicide, but we are not seriously going to ban people from owning something because they might hurt themselves with it are we?

If we are then I would suggest restricting trans fats and high-fructose corn syrup along with guns.

[Viinborg]

Interesting since that is after some of the largest gun control laws in US history passed. Gun Control Act of 1968.

I wonder how many of those deaths were legitimate shoots by law enforcement and citizens defending themselves.

What a shame those people need guns to counter the guns of other people. Quite an interesting loop: solving a problem with a perpetuation of the problem; instead of trying to make it go away.

Relaxed gun legislation does not increase human well-being. That is to say, there are not fewer firearm-related fatal incidents because there are more guns in society.

What do you think about this?

[Llamalandia]

I wonder how many of those deaths were legitimate shoots by law enforcement and citizens defending themselves.

What a shame those people need guns to counter the guns of other people. Quite an interesting loop: solving a problem with a perpetuation of the problem; instead of trying to make it go away.

Relaxed gun legislation does not increase human well-being. That is to say, there are not fewer firearm-related fatal incidents because there are more guns in society.

What do you think about this?

Well guns aren't just used counter other guns. They're also used against unarmed but physically strongly aggressors.

[Viinborg]

What a shame those people need guns to counter the guns of other people. Quite an interesting loop: solving a problem with a perpetuation of the problem; instead of trying to make it go away.

Well guns aren't just used counter other guns. They're also used against unarmed but physically strongly aggressors.

I am sure they are, but are they really the only solution? Again, don't just try to solve problems by creating new ones, or perpetuating them for that matter.

Relaxed gun legislation does not increase human well-being. That is to say, there are not fewer firearm-related fatal incidents because there are more guns in society.

I feel that your reply doesn't really answer this issue.

[Spreewerke]

Well guns aren't just used counter other guns. They're also used against unarmed but physically strongly aggressors.

I am sure they are, but are they really the only solution? Again, don't just try to solve problems by creating new ones, or perpetuating them for that matter.

I am 5'11", 135lbs. and I don't even lift. One of our butchers is 6'0", 280lbs., all muscle.

What would I do if someone his size confronted me on the street with a knife, or, heck, even unarmed? What would I do? Physically overtake him? Since he's easily capable of knocking someone out cold in one hit, and has done so during organized fighting events, I doubt it. Stab him? Maybe, but if he manages to get a hold of me, I'm done. Call the police? Doubt he'll just stand there and wait as I relay our location: rather, ending my call prematurely and taking what he wants is probably his better course of action. What would be my best method of self-defense?

[Llamalandia]

Well guns aren't just used counter other guns. They're also used against unarmed but physically strongly aggressors.

I am sure they are, but are they really the only solution? Again, don't just try to solve problems by creating new ones, or perpetuating them for that matter.

Relaxed gun legislation does not increase human well-being. That is to say, there are not fewer firearm-related fatal incidents because there are more guns in society.

I feel that your reply doesn't really answer this issue.

Not necessarily. I mean sure less lethal solution work as well in some situations, legs say your forced to fight an oppressive govt I'd much rather have a firearm to fight for my liberation than say a stun gun. Plus less lethal solution don't always work. Perhaps a stun gun conventional firearm combo would be the most ideal sure, but between a my life and the life of an unjustified aggressor ill choose my life every time.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I am sure they are, but are they really the only solution? Again, don't just try to solve problems by creating new ones, or perpetuating them for that matter.


I feel that your reply doesn't really answer this issue.

Not necessarily. I mean sure less lethal solution work as well in some situations, legs say your forced to fight an oppressive govt I'd much rather have a firearm to fight for my liberation than say a stun gun. Plus less lethal solution don't always work. Perhaps a stun gun conventional firearm combo would be the most ideal sure, but between a my life and the life of an unjustified aggressor ill choose my life every time.

You really think that's going to happen in the United States?

[Llamalandia]

Not necessarily. I mean sure less lethal solution work as well in some situations, legs say your forced to fight an oppressive govt I'd much rather have a firearm to fight for my liberation than say a stun gun. Plus less lethal solution don't always work. Perhaps a stun gun conventional firearm combo would be the most ideal sure, but between a my life and the life of an unjustified aggressor ill choose my life every time.

You really think that's going to happen in the United States?

Not anytime soon, like not likely in the next decade or two but hey by 2050 who knows. I'm sure no one foresaw the rise of Nazi Germany either. Of course an armed populous is a deferent in and of itself. But no I concede that it's unlikely the USA will go down the path of such outright tyranny, but its by no means impossible.

[Llamalandia]

Well guns aren't just used counter other guns. They're also used against unarmed but physically strongly aggressors.

I am sure they are, but are they really the only solution? Again, don't just try to solve problems by creating new ones, or perpetuating them for that matter.

Relaxed gun legislation does not increase human well-being. That is to say, there are not fewer firearm-related fatal incidents because there are more guns in society.

I feel that your reply doesn't really answer this issue.

Awe, well that's where i would disagree, relaxing gun legislation increases personal liberty which is surely a laudable goal even for non-libertarians. I mean that's why I e been proposing loosening some restriction which won't increase gun violence while in exchange implementing new ones (universal background checks) which will have at least a modest impact on the ease of availability of guns to the those who are dangerously mentally ill or have prior criminal records which would preclude them from gun ownership. I don't think the gun control debate has to be an either or situation, we can relax some ineffective and largely pointless regulation whole implementing new and at least modestly effective controls at the same time.

[Lalaki]

I'm a moderate in the debate. While I would never own a firearm personally, I think people have the right to own them. However, there should be basic restrictions:

1) Background Checks
2) Waiting Periods
3) Training
4) Mental Health Checks

I don't think that in any way goes against the principle of the right to bear arms. In fact, it enhances gun ownership.

[Llamalandia]

Not necessarily. I mean sure less lethal solution work as well in some situations, legs say your forced to fight an oppressive govt I'd much rather have a firearm to fight for my liberation than say a stun gun. Plus less lethal solution don't always work. Perhaps a stun gun conventional firearm combo would be the most ideal sure, but between a my life and the life of an unjustified aggressor ill choose my life every time.

You really think that's going to happen in the United States?

In fairness read up on unitary executive theory. I mean the pres of both parties (ie bag and obama) have been concentrating more and more power in the executive and away from the legislature. If gone unchecked, I can see a scenario 30 or 40 years from now where the president says I've that he "not only has a phone and pen" but that he also "can ignore the constitution when it gets in way of what needs to be done". Again, I'm not saying this is an negotiability by any means, but the trajectory does give me at least slight pause.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You really think that's going to happen in the United States?

Not anytime soon, like not likely in the next decade or two but hey by 2050 who knows. I'm sure no one foresaw the rise of Nazi Germany either. Of course an armed populous is a deferent in and of itself. But no I concede that it's unlikely the USA will go down the path of such outright tyranny, but its by no means impossible.

There's a serious argument against that, however it's a bit long to reproduce here, and therefore difficult to discuss in this environment. If you're interested, this writer has done a good job with assembling the facts in a well-reasoned article that doesn't smack of the hysteria that you'll often find in these debates.

EDIT

You really think that's going to happen in the United States?

In fairness read up on unitary executive theory. I mean the pres of both parties (ie bag and obama) have been concentrating more and more power in the executive and away from the legislature. If gone unchecked, I can see a scenario 30 or 40 years from now where the president says I've that he "not only has a phone and pen" but that he also "can ignore the constitution when it gets in way of what needs to be done". Again, I'm not saying this is an negotiability by any means, but the trajectory does give me at least slight pause.

See above.

[Llamalandia]

I'm a moderate in the debate. While I would never own a firearm personally, I think people have the right to own them. However, there should be basic restrictions:

1) Background Checks
2) Waiting Periods
3) Training
4) Mental Health Checks

I don't think that in any way goes against the principle of the right to bear arms. In fact, it enhances gun ownership.

I largely concur though I still fair the slippery slope or perhaps the mouse who, once given a cookie will demand a glass of milk as well. My fear is that once we enact these reasonable changes, the gun control crowd won't simply go home happy so to speak but rather will once the next mass shooting happens demand further "common sense" reforms like mag size limits, banning assault weapons (or other real or factious categories of weapons) etc etc. I mean, I want to negotiate in as much good faith as possible, but its not like the other side doesn't have a clear agenda if ultimately wanting a complete or very near complete prohibition of firearms in civilian hands.

[Llamalandia]

Not anytime soon, like not likely in the next decade or two but hey by 2050 who knows. I'm sure no one foresaw the rise of Nazi Germany either. Of course an armed populous is a deferent in and of itself. But no I concede that it's unlikely the USA will go down the path of such outright tyranny, but its by no means impossible.

There's a serious argument against that, however it's a bit long to reproduce here, and therefore difficult to discuss in this environment. If you're interested, this writer has done a good job with assembling the facts in a well-reasoned article that doesn't smack of the hysteria that you'll often find in these debates.

EDIT

In fairness read up on unitary executive theory. I mean the pres of both parties (ie bag and obama) have been concentrating more and more power in the executive and away from the legislature. If gone unchecked, I can see a scenario 30 or 40 years from now where the president says I've that he "not only has a phone and pen" but that he also "can ignore the constitution when it gets in way of what needs to be done". Again, I'm not saying this is an negotiability by any means, but the trajectory does give me at least slight pause.

See above.

On my phone at the moment so I only had a chance to briefly skim that link. Yeah, I should say that I agree that a well armed population in no way gurantees against such tyranny, it only provides a better "fighting chance" against than does being unarmed. In fact even unarmed revolt is possible. That said this nation is clearly and unequivocally founded on strong even borderline paranoid distrust of govt. I mean some of the founders themselves want to include a line in the second amendment about "a standing in time of peace being dangerous to freedom" or something along those ki ew don't have the exact quotes in front of me at the moment.

[Spirit of Hope]

I'm a moderate in the debate. While I would never own a firearm personally, I think people have the right to own them. However, there should be basic restrictions:

1) Background Checks

As in expand them? I can agree with that, covering private transactions as well as public ones and trying to get them to cover more problem areas.

2) Waiting Periods

Make no sense. If I'm willing to wait the time to drive to the gun store, get a gun and drive back what is making me wait a couple of hours/days really going to accomplish? Are there any studies that show waiting periods decreasing homicides or suicides? There just a burden that makes getting guns harder for everyone, when a massive majority of gun owners are responsible.

3) Training

How much? If we are talking more than a day of class room and range time then I'm against. That is all you need to ram home safety.

4) Mental Health Checks

As in requiring me to get one before I purchase a gun? How expensive are they? How long will they take? More than say an hour and $50 and I am definitely against. It would just serve as another check to make getting a gun by an average person expensive and time consuming.

[Lalaki]

I'm a moderate in the debate. While I would never own a firearm personally, I think people have the right to own them. However, there should be basic restrictions:

1) Background Checks

As in expand them? I can agree with that, covering private transactions as well as public ones and trying to get them to cover more problem areas.

2) Waiting Periods

Make no sense. If I'm willing to wait the time to drive to the gun store, get a gun and drive back what is making me wait a couple of hours/days really going to accomplish? Are there any studies that show waiting periods decreasing homicides or suicides? There just a burden that makes getting guns harder for everyone, when a massive majority of gun owners are responsible.

3) Training

How much? If we are talking more than a day of class room and range time then I'm against. That is all you need to ram home safety.

4) Mental Health Checks

As in requiring me to get one before I purchase a gun? How expensive are they? How long will they take? More than say an hour and $50 and I am definitely against. It would just serve as another check to make getting a gun by an average person expensive and time consuming.

1) Agreed
2) One week can allow a person to calm down and contemplate his actions. Even if this isn't proven, there is no reason to not have waiting periods. Nothing to lose. It won't lead to the government calling for stricted gun control.
3) I think a few classes on gun safety are in order, maybe completed in a week. Again, nothing to lose.
4) That is worth the cost to make sure everyone who owns a firearm is able to use it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There's a serious argument against that, however it's a bit long to reproduce here, and therefore difficult to discuss in this environment. If you're interested, this writer has done a good job with assembling the facts in a well-reasoned article that doesn't smack of the hysteria that you'll often find in these debates.

EDIT



See above.

On my phone at the moment so I only had a chance to briefly skim that link. Yeah, I should say that I agree that a well armed population in no way gurantees against such tyranny, it only provides a better "fighting chance" against than does being unarmed. In fact even unarmed revolt is possible. That said this nation is clearly and unequivocally founded on strong even borderline paranoid distrust of govt. I mean some of the founders themselves want to include a line in the second amendment about "a standing in time of peace being dangerous to freedom" or something along those ki ew don't have the exact quotes in front of me at the moment.

And yet we ended up having a standing army. Oh, and people of the time who used their arms to protect against what they saw as the overreach of a federal government were immediately crushed by that government. Considering the fact that the very officials who were in charge of crushing these armed uprisings also called for the Constitutional convention, I think that it's safe to say that they never had protection against the government as a reason for the right to bear arms.

[Spirit of Hope]

As in expand them? I can agree with that, covering private transactions as well as public ones and trying to get them to cover more problem areas.
Make no sense. If I'm willing to wait the time to drive to the gun store, get a gun and drive back what is making me wait a couple of hours/days really going to accomplish? Are there any studies that show waiting periods decreasing homicides or suicides? There just a burden that makes getting guns harder for everyone, when a massive majority of gun owners are responsible.

How much? If we are talking more than a day of class room and range time then I'm against. That is all you need to ram home safety.

As in requiring me to get one before I purchase a gun? How expensive are they? How long will they take? More than say an hour and $50 and I am definitely against. It would just serve as another check to make getting a gun by an average person expensive and time consuming.

1) Agreed
2) One week can allow a person to calm down and contemplate his actions. Even if this isn't proven, there is no reason to not have waiting periods. Nothing to lose. It won't lead to the government calling for stricted gun control.
3) I think a few classes on gun safety are in order, maybe completed in a week. Again, nothing to lose.
4) That is worth the cost to make sure everyone who owns a firearm is able to use it.

2) Except why burden an individual with having to wait a week if it does nothing? I could equally argue that buying a car should have a waiting period to make sure people understand the environmental damage they are doing, or must wait before buying products from over outside of the country to make sure they contemplate the jobs they are out sourcing. After all it "doesn't hurt".
You shouldn't carry out legislation because you have "Nothing to lose." But instead because it has been proven to work or might in some way logically work.
Waiting periods have not been proven to work, and fail at logically working, it takes time to go and buy a gun and if you haven't calmed down in that time you are unlikely to calm down over a week, plus I bet if you try and buy a gun while visibly angry the guy will turn you down.
3) Except again a vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Every gun owner I know made sure they knew how to safely use a gun before buying one.
4) Where do you draw the line at making sure gun owners are safe to let them own it? How about a polygraph, background check, interview with friends and relatives, etc. In almost every single case where someone was mentally unfit to have a gun and still got there hands on one they did it illegally, because the system had worked. In the few case where they had it was because someone had not reported their mental inability like they should have.