The general gun control thread

[Spirit of Hope]

[

How many murders happen because of minor traffic accidents each year? Not many.

Really. Out of all the points you could have taken from that post, you stopped at the first clause.

Well lets see you are arguing that people being murdered for minor traffic issues is a big enough issue for more gun control. There is no evidence of this. The rest is rhetoric.

Your entire argument is that only those who can control their emotions and act rationally should be allowed to own guns. Who are people supposed to prove this? Psychological evaluation? Arbitrary decision? You are saying a lot of things like this:

Let us all make vitaphone the universe arbiter of those lucky few that are allowed to carry tools to defend themselves,

I think that would be a great idea.

But I'm wondering what your actual position is.

[Grinning Dragon]

Ah, because that happens all the time in this crazy post apocalyptic anarchy that is the united states. Just step outside and somebody will murder you for wearing the wrong color shirt, and get a slap on the wrist for it.

Funnily enough, it actually does. Well, at least the murder for wearing the wrong color shirt part. Ever been to LA?

Well shit, it all makes sense now. To keep bangers from killing each other over turf and colors the heavily restrictiveness of the availability of firearms will put an end to such senseless murders.

[Vitaphone Racing]

.

I don't live in North Korea, why would I worry about such a preposterous and ludicrous scenario?

Because you're proposing an omnipotent government that hand picks the elite minority of persons "rational" enough to be deserving of the great privelege of self-defense. The government rulers would be intrinsically corrupt, unfair, and cronyist in their choice of this elite majority; "oh, to get be able to own a gun you have to have an IQ over 110." Oh, now you have to prove that you are a good citizen, you have to have a job and have voted in the past three elections." "Oh, now you have to be registered in the New Nazi party to own a gun."

You make me sick.

The only thing that's sickening is your repeated attempts to argue to extremes because you've never responded to this kind of argument before, never seen anybody else respond to this argument and are way out of your depth trying to handle yourself in unknown territory.

GG.

[Patridam]

Funnily enough, it actually does. Well, at least the murder for wearing the wrong color shirt part. Ever been to LA?

Well shit, it all makes sense now. To keep bangers from killing each other over turf and colors the heavily restrictiveness of the availability of firearms will put an end to such senseless murders.

What we really need to do is ban colors, and while we're at it, races, names, body types, gender, and anything else people ever get angry about.

[Patridam]

Because you're proposing an omnipotent government that hand picks the elite minority of persons "rational" enough to be deserving of the great privelege of self-defense. The government rulers would be intrinsically corrupt, unfair, and cronyist in their choice of this elite majority; "oh, to get be able to own a gun you have to have an IQ over 110." Oh, now you have to prove that you are a good citizen, you have to have a job and have voted in the past three elections." "Oh, now you have to be registered in the New Nazi party to own a gun."

You make me sick.

The only thing that's sickening is your repeated attempts to argue to extremes because you've never responded to this kind of argument before, never seen anybody else respond to this argument and are way out of your depth trying to handle yourself in unknown territory.

GG.

It is admittedly quite difficult to try to reply against an argument with its foundation based upon insane troll logic.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Really. Out of all the points you could have taken from that post, you stopped at the first clause.

Well lets see you are arguing that people being murdered for minor traffic issues is a big enough issue for more gun control. There is no evidence of this. The rest is rhetoric.

Samoz provided you evidence of this; 3000 people were murdered over escalating arguments with firearms in 2011. If you want to take the intellectually dishonest approach of responding word by word instead of sentence by sentence, that's cool, but I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you while taking you seriously at the same time.

Your entire argument is that only those who can control their emotions and act rationally should be allowed to own guns. Who are people supposed to prove this? Psychological evaluation? Arbitrary decision? You are saying a lot of things like this:

I think that would be a great idea.

But I'm wondering what your actual position is.

Psychological evaluation and a police check. Exactly the same as what I had to undergo. Is there any other way to determine the mental capacity and temperament of somebody?

[Patridam]

But I'm wondering what your actual position is.

Psychological evaluation and a police check. Exactly the same as what I had to undergo. Is there any other way to determine the mental capacity and temperament of somebody?

And you think that it is only a small minority that are capable of passing a background check and a psychological evaluation? Even in America the vast majority of people are neither criminals nor crazy.

[Diopolis]

Funnily enough, it actually does. Well, at least the murder for wearing the wrong color shirt part. Ever been to LA?

Well shit, it all makes sense now. To keep bangers from killing each other over turf and colors the heavily restrictiveness of the availability of firearms will put an end to such senseless murders.

The sort of people who would kill over the wrong color shirt can't be the sort of people who would kill even without guns, oh no.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not enough to prevent three thousand homicides in the US in 2011 where people were shot over the escalation of some kind of argument.

And in how many of those cases did one person know the other? How many of those can we say wouldn't have become murders of some other kind?

IIRC, it's about three quarters of all (gun?) homicide victims (let alone those arising from argument) who know their assailant. I think it's gun homicide specifically.

Explains how the arguments usually arise.
Most forms of interpersonal violence arise between people who know one another.
"Self-defence" arguments, which you may not I was once vocally in favour of and have waned in my support of, rely on being attacked by a stranger. Which is substantially less likely than being attacked at all.

[Grinning Dragon]

Well lets see you are arguing that people being murdered for minor traffic issues is a big enough issue for more gun control. There is no evidence of this. The rest is rhetoric.

Samoz provided you evidence of this; 3000 people were murdered over escalating arguments with firearms in 2011. If you want to take the intellectually dishonest approach of responding word by word instead of sentence by sentence, that's cool, but I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you while taking you seriously at the same time.

Your entire argument is that only those who can control their emotions and act rationally should be allowed to own guns. Who are people supposed to prove this? Psychological evaluation? Arbitrary decision? You are saying a lot of things like this:



But I'm wondering what your actual position is.

Psychological evaluation and a police check. Exactly the same as what I had to undergo. Is there any other way to determine the mental capacity and temperament of somebody?

Oh so now we have come down to the subjectiveness of psych evals? And govt hired and evaled people of the gun have never had a break of reality and gunned down a person or people?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Psychological evaluation and a police check. Exactly the same as what I had to undergo. Is there any other way to determine the mental capacity and temperament of somebody?

And you think that it is only a small minority that are capable of passing a background check and a psychological evaluation? Even in America the vast majority of people are neither criminals nor crazy.

I'm not sure if I ever said "small minority" but I'll humor you. Yes, I only think a small minority of people are capable of passing a background check because I have exceedingly low expectations of humanity, driven in equal part by NSG and dumbass co-workers. Before you ask, yes I am a complete asshole and I truly do think I'm better than everybody else.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Samoz provided you evidence of this; 3000 people were murdered over escalating arguments with firearms in 2011. If you want to take the intellectually dishonest approach of responding word by word instead of sentence by sentence, that's cool, but I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you while taking you seriously at the same time.


Psychological evaluation and a police check. Exactly the same as what I had to undergo. Is there any other way to determine the mental capacity and temperament of somebody?

Oh so now we have come down to the subjectiveness of psych evals? And govt hired and evaled people of the gun have never had a break of reality and gunned down a person or people?

Seatbelts don't guarantee you won't die in a car crash but I bet you still wear yours.

[Grinning Dragon]

Oh so now we have come down to the subjectiveness of psych evals? And govt hired and evaled people of the gun have never had a break of reality and gunned down a person or people?

Seatbelts don't guarantee you won't die in a car crash but I bet you still wear yours.

I cannot confirm nor deny the use of seatbelts.

[Imperializt Russia]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... a-table-11
For the record I wasn't quite correct - it's about 2300 homicides as the result of some form of argument ("non-felony type"). With a further 900 "unspecific" circumstance, and 3600 unknown causes.

Two thirds of all firearm homicides are the result of an argument, or an unknown cause.

[Spirit of Hope]

Well lets see you are arguing that people being murdered for minor traffic issues is a big enough issue for more gun control. There is no evidence of this. The rest is rhetoric.

Samoz provided you evidence of this; 3000 people were murdered over escalating arguments with firearms in 2011. If you want to take the intellectually dishonest approach of responding word by word instead of sentence by sentence, that's cool, but I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you while taking you seriously at the same time.

Accept those were all arguments, not just arguments over minor traffic incidents. Which you implied to be a major issue. Arguments over money and property, the closest quantified argument to traffic accident, accounted for only 155.

Additionally of the "other argument" category only 1,800 of the 3,100 homicides were carried out with a firearm. So Samoz's number of 3,000 would not be the appropriate number for the situation you postulated.

The numbers however are all vary vague in relationship to reality because 4,000 of the 12,000 homicides in the US the FBi statistics do not give a reason for.

But I'm wondering what your actual position is.

Psychological evaluation and a police check. Exactly the same as what I had to undergo. Is there any other way to determine the mental capacity and temperament of somebody?[/quote]
Police check is a back ground check, what is already required for purchasing a gun from an FFL. I would support requiring a NCIS check for all firearms transactions, including private sales. With that I would like if the NCIS system was made public so that checks could be more easily made.

Psychological evaluations I don't support. I don't think they would actually eliminate that many people, and would only place an added expense and impediment on the lawful citizen. If you have a study that shows psychological evaluations reducing the murder rate I would love to see it.

Easy steps such as background checks and age restrictions will do far more without the burden. After all 67% of murders already have a criminal record, and a 30% are under the age of 21.

And in how many of those cases did one person know the other? How many of those can we say wouldn't have become murders of some other kind?

IIRC, it's about three quarters of all (gun?) homicide victims (let alone those arising from argument) who know their assailant. I think it's gun homicide specifically.

Explains how the arguments usually arise.
Most forms of interpersonal violence arise between people who know one another.
"Self-defence" arguments, which you may not I was once vocally in favour of and have waned in my support of, rely on being attacked by a stranger. Which is substantially less likely than being attacked at all.

The thing is the BJS shows about 300,000 defensive gun uses a year in the United States. While all of these defensive gun uses may not be in response to homicide attempts they are a legitimate use of a gun in my mind. Certainly the idea that you are likely to use your gun against a home invader is unlikely, but guns certainly are used much more for defense than for killing.

I have seen you view point change on these threads, and we have argued in the past.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
For the record I wasn't quite correct - it's about 2300 homicides as the result of some form of argument ("non-felony type"). With a further 900 "unspecific" circumstance, and 3600 unknown causes.

Two thirds of all firearm homicides are the result of an argument, or an unknown cause.

Non-felony type isn't all arguments, it simply means they weren't committed during a felony. The categories of gangland killing, juvenile gangland killing, other not specified, babysitter killing are most likely not arguments as we would generally understand them.

The brawl category and love triangle category are a little more traditional in this way but still not the best reflector of a strait argument.

The only categories we can say with certainty are an argument is argument over money, and other argument.

To me the question still remains, how many of those would have been eliminated had guns not been in the situation? I haven't seen any studies that suggest removing guns has a dramatic effect on general homicide, and while guns do have a connection to increased suicide rates it is not the best understood and is not a strait trade off.

[Llamalandia]

1. Which is irrelevant, as driving is a rather separate matter from voting or firearms ownership.

your right being able to drive is for more vital skill in the US.

2. Actually, yes you do. It is perfectly possible for one to have the funds to purchase a $140 pistol, but not posses the funds to pay for your fees, classes, and permitting schemes alongside of it.

how? they are less than $140 even by his numbers.
if you afford one you can afford the other.

It's also rather directly ignoring the obvious disincentive it places to poorer individuals owning firearms,

so you believe the poor are disincentive from owning cars?
everything you do has a cost/benefit aspect, that's just how the world works.

which is the more relevant matter here on the broad level than those specifically denied due to the costs associated with the process you describe. Because people have other uses for money and time, your plan deliberately erects barriers both financial and temporal when it shouldn't.

minor almost non-existant barrier, in fact lower barriers than currently exist in many places.

3. Traveling to one location for fifteen minutes or so is quite different from traveling to two or more (FFLs don't always have ranges, and virtually none are going to have a setup for CLASSROOM activity teaching people or administering written tests.

actually if they have a shooting range they already can do both, and of course FFL would not be the only places offering them, the same places that offer hunting permits would also be a good place.

This is only compounded when one considers areas of the US where FFLs are less common. In which case the purchase of a firearm becomes a multi-day, multi-trip, affair.

which they were already dealing with. I used to like in a place where it was a 2 hour trip to buy groceries, and that was the price I paid to live there, less convenience.

4. This is, literally,about the only upside from the perspective of its impact on people's purchase of firearms. If one can even call it an 'upside' in such instance when paired with the above problems.

so keeping criminals and the mentally ill from buying firearms not an upside?

5. Conjectural, but also problematic in and of itself.

not really the diffrence in homicide rate betwwen the US and switzerland is less than the diffrence in firearms death rate, meaning is entirely possible the higher homicide rate in the US is entirely due to the higher gun homicide rate, which a universal background check system will reduce.

Stop and frisk can be pointed out to have 'saved lives' as well,

no it actually can't

such doesn't make the policy one that should have been undertaken, nor does it eliminate the ingrained problems it had in targeting certain segments of society.

yes criminals and the mentally ill.

Such as would be occurring here because the scurry poor people can't be trusted with firearms.

have you actually read my proposal?

Voter fraud DOES actually happen, nobody denies that.

4 times in eight years.

The rub, so to speak, comes in with how uncommon it is. Which is generally agreed to be quite insignificant in comparison to vote totals.
Much like firearm homicides in comparison to legal uses.

but not insignificant compared to homicides

Open the NICS system to public use for interpersonal firearm transfers/sales.

who pays the cost of vastly expanding usage of this system?
if the buyer how does it also not disincentivize the poor, if not where is the money coming from.

I envision a simple 'go-nogo' app/website of some kind,

they already have a website for the NICS, it is faster, provided the place has internet serviced.

with perhaps a third 'await further contact/clarification' for those cases such as currently exist wherein the system itself requests a waiting delay due to someone's information overlapping with others and whatnot. At that point one could go one of two ways that'd both be nonobjectionable to me for the most part. Either mandate the usage of said system during firearm transfers, or simply attach immunity to any form of prosecution to its usage.

which would be similar to what is being done in mine just less streamlined, i'd be fine if you wanted to swap that portion of the proposal, but your going to find more resistance.

If one doesn't use the system, they can be punished according to existing law for selling knowingly/without due diligence (as two separate possibilities) to any unauthorized individual, if one does use the system it exempts them from scrutiny since they were decidedly NOT selling knowingly to a criminal when the system told them it was OK.

how do you demonstrate this, is the NICS also keeping available records of each check now as well?

I'd include some rejiggering of ammunition classification and its authority, 922(r) requirements, and new manufactured full-auto bans in the same overhaul (along with, of course, the needed funding for the NICS system) but those are somewhat more ancillary...

good your thinking, unfortunately it does little to curb the flow of firearms into the black market, which is why I included a record keeping portion.and not knowing how to pay for it is pretty big hole. who are you planning to disincentivize?

Well dude does have a point about #5 after all we can be certain how many if even any lives would necessarily be save, I tend to agree at least that it would be in the hundreds and certainly it is possible that it could be more. At the same time just implementing your permit scheme doesn't suddenly make the usa into Switzerland . There are likely other factors beyond just gun laws and permit programs that feed into gun violence rates.

[Imperializt Russia]

I only included the options up to "other arguments" (which, if you add them up, is about 2300). I merely stated they were in the "non-felony type" category for ease of others finding them.

[Spirit of Hope]

I only included the options up to "other arguments" (which, if you add them up, is about 2300). I merely stated they were in the "non-felony type" category for ease of others finding them.

Explains why the numbers didn't look right. 2,139 gun homicides (Romantic Triangle, Brawl Alcohol, Brawl Narcotics, Argument Money, Other Argument)
But the point still stands, Romantic Triangle, and both Brawls may or may not actually be the results of an argument.

What still gets me is the sniper attack carried out with a handgun.

[Llamalandia]

I don't have the exact figure on me but the number is minis how relative to the total population I'm sure. I mean even if we assume there were say 1 million such in incidents last year that still means less than 1% of the population would be effected. Plus largely what you speak of, tends to happen more in the criminal subculture anyway.

So in other words, you're saying that tragic circumstances where people are murdered over road rage or an extra-martial affair are no big deal because only 3 million people might be affected by it each year.

That's pretty fucked up. How do you sleep at night?

As any progun person will tell you, you never ever point a loaded weapon at something you aren't ready and willing to shoot.

Lol. I've met wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many "pro-gun" people who were complete dickheads around firearms to take that seriously. If every "pro-gun" person took this advice seriously, there wouldn't be half as many accidental shootings in the US.

Well hey occupy went with the 99% screwing over the 1% mentality so I figured I'd borrow from their playbook. Jk. Seriously though, I'm not with out concern or empathy and hell we have laws already to deal with this kind of thing and ideally make victims whole again. But that said, we oug not inconvenience the vast overwhelming majority of gun owners because of the actions of an incredibly tiny minority who use them in appropriately.

[Llamalandia]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, people are allowed to carry weapons, AHHH. Do your hands get chapped with all of that incessant hand-wringing?

Yes. Knowing that half of NSG is likely to be carrying firearms makes me feel like I never want to go out in public again. If anybody wanted a reason for background checks, they could look at internet debates about firearms for some great evidence in favor.

It's greatly unfortunate that my position as a responsible gun owner is being threatened by people who should not be allowed the same privilege. Making gun ownership a right was a huge mistake; it's a right that few a worthy of.

For the record while I know gun owners and supports their rights, I don't actually own a gun myself, so I guess I'm one NSG for you to worry about IRL

[Imperializt Russia]

I only included the options up to "other arguments" (which, if you add them up, is about 2300). I merely stated they were in the "non-felony type" category for ease of others finding them.

Explains why the numbers didn't look right. 2,139 gun homicides (Romantic Triangle, Brawl Alcohol, Brawl Narcotics, Argument Money, Other Argument)
But the point still stands, Romantic Triangle, and both Brawls may or may not actually be the results of an argument.

What still gets me is the sniper attack carried out with a handgun.

A romantic triangle and a brawl is inherently an argument.
An argument that was escalated to gun violence.

[Occupied Deutschland]

And you think that it is only a small minority that are capable of passing a background check and a psychological evaluation? Even in America the vast majority of people are neither criminals nor crazy.

I'm not sure if I ever said "small minority" but I'll humor you. Yes, I only think a small minority of people are capable of passing a background check...

Then you're wrong.

[Spirit of Hope]

Explains why the numbers didn't look right. 2,139 gun homicides (Romantic Triangle, Brawl Alcohol, Brawl Narcotics, Argument Money, Other Argument)
But the point still stands, Romantic Triangle, and both Brawls may or may not actually be the results of an argument.

What still gets me is the sniper attack carried out with a handgun.

A romantic triangle and a brawl is inherently an argument.
An argument that was escalated to gun violence.

A romantic triangle is not inherently an argument. If you shoot me on the street because I am sleeping with your girlfriend that is a murder related to a love triangle, but not an argument. If you tell me to stop sleeping with your girlfriend, I say no, and then you shoot me that is a love triangle and an argument.

Without any indication of how the brawl started, was it an argument, two people ho had other reasons to fight, etc, we can not say for certainty if every instance was the result of an escalating argument.

[Llamalandia]

Explains why the numbers didn't look right. 2,139 gun homicides (Romantic Triangle, Brawl Alcohol, Brawl Narcotics, Argument Money, Other Argument)
But the point still stands, Romantic Triangle, and both Brawls may or may not actually be the results of an argument.

What still gets me is the sniper attack carried out with a handgun.

A romantic triangle and a brawl is inherently an argument.
An argument that was escalated to gun violence.

True, but I think the original point was that they were arguments over entirely trivial things. I doubt a love triangle or cheating spouse is considered by many as trivial. Not saying it merits blowing heads, but it is far above the seriousness of a minor traffic accident for instance.

[Patridam]

And you think that it is only a small minority that are capable of passing a background check and a psychological evaluation? Even in America the vast majority of people are neither criminals nor crazy.

I'm not sure if I ever said "small minority" but I'll humor you. Yes, I only think a small minority of people are capable of passing a background check because I have exceedingly low expectations of humanity, driven in equal part by NSG and dumbass co-workers.

Except the US already has a background check system that the vast, vast, majority of people pass with flying colors. Most of us have never had anything worse than a traffic ticket.

Before you ask, yes I am a complete asshole and I truly do think I'm better than everybody else.

I had no need to ask about either of those things, both are abundantly obvious.