The general gun control thread

[San Llera]

Proof of why we shouldn't have guns: More guns = less violence???

No but it can stop crime the only people who would not have guns are law abiding citizens criminal will find a way and the only way it wold work is if we had a totalitarian government.

Like the totalitarian government of Australia?

[Spirit of Hope]

No but it can stop crime the only people who would not have guns are law abiding citizens criminal will find a way and the only way it wold work is if we had a totalitarian government.

Like the totalitarian government of Australia?

The firearm homicide rate has dropped at the same rate as the firearms homicide rate (59%). The rate was also dropping before the gun by back. Combined this tells us that the decrease in firearms homicides is likely part of a general downward trend in homicides in Australia.

Important to this is the fact that the gun by back, and Australian gun laws in general, were targeted at long arms (rifles and shotguns) which statistically aren't that commonly used in homicides. Handguns are the farm more commonly used for homicide. (Currently representing around 50% of gun homicides in Australia)

Other studies have said “[t]here is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.”

"[u]sing a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that [the NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides"

[Patridam]

The firearm homicide rate has dropped at the same rate as the firearms homicide rate

Uhh.....

[BK117B2]

The firearm homicide rate has dropped at the same rate as the firearms homicide rate

Uhh.....

Hey, it has!

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The firearm homicide rate has dropped at the same rate as the firearms homicide rate

Uhh.....

He's not wrong.

[San Llera]

The firearm homicide rate has dropped at the same rate as the firearms homicide rate (59%)

I retract my entire argument. I am anti-gun control now.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Except all this means fuck all because nobody is held accountable for any gun. Making the trafficking of guns illegal doesn't mean shit when you have no way of detecting an illegal trade until after another crime is committed. The whole point of registering a gun is to ensure gun X is with person X and that person X hasn't sent it on to person Y. You cannot crack down on the improper sale of firearms without registering them first, otherwise you have no way of determining if a sale has even taken place.

Option #1 and #3 would all effectively register a gun with a person, record of the Form 4473 has to be kept for 20 years. So you take the guns ID # and trace it to the FFL who sold it, there records give you a name. You call up that person, they then either tell you where the record for there private sale is (potentially already with the ATF) down the line until you find the person who last legally owned it. Then you can investigate them for how they lost possession of the gun.

Yes this only detects an illegal transfer of a gun after the cops find the gun, probably after it has been used in a crime.

Then it's useless. I thought the goal was to prevent crimes and not make them easier to investigate.

But registration isn't going to do any better unless you are going to stop by peoples houses to see if they actually have the gun. All registration does is shorten the police work by a couple of phone calls.

Or, make gun owners take their firearms to a police station so you can be verified as still owning them. I've been doing this since 2009 now.

Additionally even if a gun is registered to you it can still get stolen,

Which is why Any Real Pro-Gun Person^TM will store their firearms in a safe, secure location when they are not being used or carried and will not leave them lying where they can be easily accessed during a home and car break-in.

or be lent out to someone who uses it illegally.

So don't lend them out. Who does that?

So, 70-30% of people then. I'll take that.

So between 210-1,400 homicides. If they don't substitute another method.

Don't you want to save 210 lives?

It is. PTSD, Depression, Anxiety, Paranoid Schizophrenia, et. al. are all easily diagnosed.

Accept none of those are generally linked with violence, the best you have is depression linking with self harm. Most mental illnesses aren't violent. Also most mental illnesses don't just suddenly appear.

You think a paranoid schizophrenic should be allowed to own firearms....

Jesus....

I'm unfamiliar of people using hammers to commit massacres.

I can point you to people committing massacres with knives if you would like.

You mean the knife massacres which virtually all of the victims survive?

Also how many massacres happen in the United States because of guns? Once again you point to the worst case scenario, even though they are very uncommon.

How many massacres are you willing to allow before you think it's a big enough problem?

Stiff shit. Some hobbies are expensive, some hobbies are not. If you think shooting is expensive, feel for the poor buggers who enjoy go-karting or gliding.

Shooting isn't necessarily expensive. But adding on costs just because you would like to maybe prevent less between 2-10% of homicides doesn't track for me.

Paying extra to stop 200 people from dying is something I'd gladly do. I'm disappointed that other people have such a little regard for human life that they do not think the same way.

I'd like to see more information behind this estimate.

Here, here, here, and here. The lowest you find is about $700, the highest is around $2,800. Average appears somewhere around $1,750.

How did you pick these exams out? How do you know they are the minimum required? I sure didn't pay that much for mine.

General Practitioners are more than adequate for determining the basic state of one's mental health. Why do you think they need to see a mental healthcare professional? Is this answered in the information about your estimate?

A general practitioner does not do mental health issues. If you asked one for a psychological evaluation they would immediately refer you to a specialist. Just like if they think you have a heart issue they send you to the cardiac specialist.

Which is where you're wrong. GPs are trained medical professionals and are more than capable of detecting the majority of mental health cases. In fact, GPs are your first recommended port of call when you think you may need assistance dealing with mental health issues, or cardiac issues for that matter. Please be more respective of the great work that our GPs do.

Like the totalitarian government of Australia?

The firearm homicide rate has dropped at the same rate as the firearms homicide rate (59%). The rate was also dropping before the gun by back. Combined this tells us that the decrease in firearms homicides is likely part of a general downward trend in homicides in Australia.

Important to this is the fact that the gun by back, and Australian gun laws in general, were targeted at long arms (rifles and shotguns) which statistically aren't that commonly used in homicides. Handguns are the farm more commonly used for homicide. (Currently representing around 50% of gun homicides in Australia)

Other studies have said “[t]here is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.”

"[u]sing a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that [the NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides"

All this is irrelevant, because Australia and the US have two completely different ideas when it comes to firearm ownership. Australians have simply never had the same fetish for self-defence firearms like the US does and that is why our homicide rate has always been around a quarter of yours. Not even Switzerland treats firearms the same way as the US. We simply do not have gun owners who treat firearms as the only thing between them and death in the neighborhood in which they live. We don't live by the gun, so we don't die by it either.

[Lordareon]

The firearm homicide rate has dropped at the same rate as the firearms homicide rate (59%)

I retract my entire argument. I am anti-gun control now.

hallelujah!!

[Imperializt Russia]

"Shall not be infringed" Couldn't be any clearer.

So long as the right to bear arms exists, it is not infringed.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what arms may be brought to bear and given some people's attitudes, thank fucking Chirst.

A right existing doesn't magically mean that it isn't being infringed. Being murdered is certainly an infringement on rights, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Banning the carry of firearms doesn't magically make the right disappear, but it is certainly an infringement.

The 2nd makes no mention of allowing people to do anything. It is simply a limit placed on government. It only dictates something that government cannot do[/quote]
Whether it's being infringed depends on the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" and what arms may be brought to bear. That interpretation falls upon the Supreme Court.

"Shall not be infringed" is, in fact, frankly meaningless because it's a feedback loop.

Gun control has nothing to do with either of those, and I say that as someone who is very pro-gun.

To be fair a GCA did make a proposal that violates both in the Mass Shooting thread (steps three and four):

Step one: Pass tougher gun control laws including an assault weapons ban.
Step two: Pass laws that require are firearms in the household to be securely stored. Allow police to randomly inspect firearm owners homes to ensure the owners are following said law.
Step three: Pass a law to abolish socially destructive organizations and use that law to abolish the NRA.
Step four: Hand out tougher sentences to people who violate firearm laws.

Almost by definition, a "socially destructive organisation" cannot "peaceably assemble" so it wouldn't be affected by the 1st Amendment anyway.
Whether this poster is right in equating the NRA as being such an organisation is another matter.

Proof of why we shouldn't have guns: More guns = less violence???

No but it can stop crime the only people who would not have guns are law abiding citizens criminal will find a way and the only way it wold work is if we had a totalitarian government.

There's a happy medium between a handful of citizens being shot in the process of crimes with a lack of access to firearms (such as what happens in the UK) and literally thousands of people a year being shot in the process of interpersonal arguments with acquaintances, which happens in the US.

[Big Jim P]

Option #1 and #3 would all effectively register a gun with a person, record of the Form 4473 has to be kept for 20 years. So you take the guns ID # and trace it to the FFL who sold it, there records give you a name. You call up that person, they then either tell you where the record for there private sale is (potentially already with the ATF) down the line until you find the person who last legally owned it. Then you can investigate them for how they lost possession of the gun.

Yes this only detects an illegal transfer of a gun after the cops find the gun, probably after it has been used in a crime.

Then it's useless. I thought the goal was to prevent crimes and not make them easier to investigate.

But registration isn't going to do any better unless you are going to stop by peoples houses to see if they actually have the gun. All registration does is shorten the police work by a couple of phone calls.

Or, make gun owners take their firearms to a police station so you can be verified as still owning them. I've been doing this since 2009 now.

Additionally even if a gun is registered to you it can still get stolen,

Which is why Any Real Pro-Gun Person^TM will store their firearms in a safe, secure location when they are not being used or carried and will not leave them lying where they can be easily accessed during a home and car break-in.

or be lent out to someone who uses it illegally.

So don't lend them out. Who does that?

So between 210-1,400 homicides. If they don't substitute another method.

Don't you want to save 210 lives?

Accept none of those are generally linked with violence, the best you have is depression linking with self harm. Most mental illnesses aren't violent. Also most mental illnesses don't just suddenly appear.

You think a paranoid schizophrenic should be allowed to own firearms....

Jesus....

I can point you to people committing massacres with knives if you would like.

You mean the knife massacres which virtually all of the victims survive?

Also how many massacres happen in the United States because of guns? Once again you point to the worst case scenario, even though they are very uncommon.

How many massacres are you willing to allow before you think it's a big enough problem?

Shooting isn't necessarily expensive. But adding on costs just because you would like to maybe prevent less between 2-10% of homicides doesn't track for me.

Paying extra to stop 200 people from dying is something I'd gladly do. I'm disappointed that other people have such a little regard for human life that they do not think the same way.

Here, here, here, and here. The lowest you find is about $700, the highest is around $2,800. Average appears somewhere around $1,750.

How did you pick these exams out? How do you know they are the minimum required? I sure didn't pay that much for mine.

A general practitioner does not do mental health issues. If you asked one for a psychological evaluation they would immediately refer you to a specialist. Just like if they think you have a heart issue they send you to the cardiac specialist.

Which is where you're wrong. GPs are trained medical professionals and are more than capable of detecting the majority of mental health cases. In fact, GPs are your first recommended port of call when you think you may need assistance dealing with mental health issues, or cardiac issues for that matter. Please be more respective of the great work that our GPs do.

The firearm homicide rate has dropped at the same rate as the firearms homicide rate (59%). The rate was also dropping before the gun by back. Combined this tells us that the decrease in firearms homicides is likely part of a general downward trend in homicides in Australia.

Important to this is the fact that the gun by back, and Australian gun laws in general, were targeted at long arms (rifles and shotguns) which statistically aren't that commonly used in homicides. Handguns are the farm more commonly used for homicide. (Currently representing around 50% of gun homicides in Australia)

Other studies have said “[t]here is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.”

"[u]sing a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that [the NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides"

All this is irrelevant, because Australia and the US have two completely different ideas when it comes to firearm ownership. Australians have simply never had the same fetish for self-defence firearms like the US does and that is why our homicide rate has always been around a quarter of yours. Not even Switzerland treats firearms the same way as the US. We simply do not have gun owners who treat firearms as the only thing between them and death in the neighborhood in which they live. We don't live by the gun, so we don't die by it either.

Another example of that good old double standard: it is OK to cite Australian gun laws to support the gun control position, but Australian gun laws are irrelevant when used to support the pro-gun position.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Then it's useless. I thought the goal was to prevent crimes and not make them easier to investigate.


Or, make gun owners take their firearms to a police station so you can be verified as still owning them. I've been doing this since 2009 now.


Which is why Any Real Pro-Gun Person^TM will store their firearms in a safe, secure location when they are not being used or carried and will not leave them lying where they can be easily accessed during a home and car break-in.


So don't lend them out. Who does that?


Don't you want to save 210 lives?



You think a paranoid schizophrenic should be allowed to own firearms....

Jesus....


You mean the knife massacres which virtually all of the victims survive?

How many massacres are you willing to allow before you think it's a big enough problem?


Paying extra to stop 200 people from dying is something I'd gladly do. I'm disappointed that other people have such a little regard for human life that they do not think the same way.


How did you pick these exams out? How do you know they are the minimum required? I sure didn't pay that much for mine.


Which is where you're wrong. GPs are trained medical professionals and are more than capable of detecting the majority of mental health cases. In fact, GPs are your first recommended port of call when you think you may need assistance dealing with mental health issues, or cardiac issues for that matter. Please be more respective of the great work that our GPs do.


All this is irrelevant, because Australia and the US have two completely different ideas when it comes to firearm ownership. Australians have simply never had the same fetish for self-defence firearms like the US does and that is why our homicide rate has always been around a quarter of yours. Not even Switzerland treats firearms the same way as the US. We simply do not have gun owners who treat firearms as the only thing between them and death in the neighborhood in which they live. We don't live by the gun, so we don't die by it either.

Another example of that good old double standard: it is OK to cite Australian gun laws to support the gun control position, but Australian gun laws are irrelevant when used to support the pro-gun position.

A little bit of rational thought goes a long way. The existence of Australia was cited to prove that a country does not always descend into a lawless wasteland without guns, which is an entirely valid example. Using Australia to demonstrate the effectiveness of gun control is not valid because Australia is not America and fortunately never will be.

In the same mindset, it is fallacious and borderline retarded to compare calls to ban guns with faux calls to ban cars seeing as society cannot function without cars and the deaths cars cause are overwhelmingly not malicious. It is entirely relevant to point out that registering cars is proof that registering other objects requiring a competent handler is possible, practical and effective.

You may think you're being witty and funny with these remarks, but the only people who find this to be so are the teenagers who'll mindlessly follow anybody pushing an anti-gun control narrative due to their obsession with guns. Unfortunately, this has also made you and others somewhat of a target of humor for everybody else.

[Spirit of Hope]

Option #1 and #3 would all effectively register a gun with a person, record of the Form 4473 has to be kept for 20 years. So you take the guns ID # and trace it to the FFL who sold it, there records give you a name. You call up that person, they then either tell you where the record for there private sale is (potentially already with the ATF) down the line until you find the person who last legally owned it. Then you can investigate them for how they lost possession of the gun.

Yes this only detects an illegal transfer of a gun after the cops find the gun, probably after it has been used in a crime.

Then it's useless. I thought the goal was to prevent crimes and not make them easier to investigate.

But by allowing the trail of guns to be better traced you can shut down gun smugglers, which is where 20-30% of guns used in homicides come from. Additionally it may restrict the flow of guns to those gun smuggler in the first place, 58% of gun smugglers either used private purchases or straw purchases from a retail outlet, representing 67% of guns illegally acquired by gun smugglers.

Combine that with an age hick to buy guns, to the age of 21, because 1/4 f murders are committed by someone 21 or younger, and the universal background check, since 60% of murderers have a record. And you are likely seeing an impact on gun homicide.

But registration isn't going to do any better unless you are going to stop by peoples houses to see if they actually have the gun. All registration does is shorten the police work by a couple of phone calls.

Or, make gun owners take their firearms to a police station so you can be verified as still owning them. I've been doing this since 2009 now.

That isn't unreasonable, and is something I will consider it further.

Additionally even if a gun is registered to you it can still get stolen,

Which is why Any Real Pro-Gun Person^TM will store their firearms in a safe, secure location when they are not being used or carried and will not leave them lying where they can be easily accessed during a home and car break-in.

Safe storage laws don't bother me that much, and I keep firearms in a safe. But it is how 13% of gun smugglers acquire there guns, and 7-12% of murderers acquire there gun.

or be lent out to someone who uses it illegally.

So don't lend them out. Who does that?

10-20% of the friends and families of murderers.

So between 210-1,400 homicides. If they don't substitute another method.

Don't you want to save 210 lives?

I do, and I have repeatedly presented measures that may save more than that many lives. I think you methods have to high a cost.

Accept none of those are generally linked with violence, the best you have is depression linking with self harm. Most mental illnesses aren't violent. Also most mental illnesses don't just suddenly appear.

You think a paranoid schizophrenic should be allowed to own firearms....

Jesus....

Unless a medical professional rules them as a danger to themselves or others I don't think their right to own firearms should be restricted. Since I am not the professional I shouldn't be handing out restrictions based on mental health issues.

Shooting isn't necessarily expensive. But adding on costs just because you would like to maybe prevent less between 2-10% of homicides doesn't track for me.

Paying extra to stop 200 people from dying is something I'd gladly do. I'm disappointed that other people have such a little regard for human life that they do not think the same way.

You are asking 100,000,000 people to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to save less than 2,000 lives. Why don't we try and find a better way of dealing with the issue? Like say using that money instead to improve mental healthcare so those who are a danger get spotted and treated. This would also likely help others, like the 20,000 gun suicides, or any number of people with un-diagnosed mental illnesses.

Here is my problem you are pulling the "1 life is to many argument," implying that because I don't support your proposals and methods I support gun homicide. I don't support gun homicide I just don't support your methods.

Cars kill as many people as guns, and injure 20 times as many people, yet you don't see society asking for dramatic increases in car control.

Excessive alcohol kills 88,000 people in the United States, almost three times as many as guns, why aren't we increasing restrictions on alcohol?

Smoking kills 480,000 people in the United States, including 40,000 from second hand smoke, in the United States. Once again more than guns. Why aren't we doing more about this?

The police could obviously do there jobs better if they didn't need search warrants. How many crimes could have been prevented if we simply let police search as they will?

You have to reach a balance and I think your proposal goes way over the line. You can imply that I am a monster all you want, but what I see is a society that treats other things that are more deadly as common place, and only treats the gun as worse because they don't understand the numbers.

Here, here, here, and here. The lowest you find is about $700, the highest is around $2,800. Average appears somewhere around $1,750.

How did you pick these exams out? How do you know they are the minimum required? I sure didn't pay that much for mine.

I chose them because they were the online quotes I could find. I am not a mental healthcare professional so I can't say what the minimum should be, or how much it would cost. If you want to provide your own numbers feel free to.
[/quote]

[Big Jim P]

Another example of that good old double standard: it is OK to cite Australian gun laws to support the gun control position, but Australian gun laws are irrelevant when used to support the pro-gun position.

A little bit of rational thought goes a long way. The existence of Australia was cited to prove that a country does not always descend into a lawless wasteland without guns, which is an entirely valid example. Using Australia to demonstrate the effectiveness of gun control is not valid because Australia is not America and fortunately never will be.

In the same mindset, it is fallacious and borderline retarded to compare calls to ban guns with faux calls to ban cars seeing as society cannot function without cars and the deaths cars cause are overwhelmingly not malicious. It is entirely relevant to point out that registering cars is proof that registering other objects requiring a competent handler is possible, practical and effective.

You may think you're being witty and funny with these remarks, but the only people who find this to be so are the teenagers who'll mindlessly follow anybody pushing an anti-gun control narrative due to their obsession with guns. Unfortunately, this has also made you and others somewhat of a target of humor for everybody else.

Kill the hypocrisy and maybe the GCAs will get more respect. I doubt it, but anything is possible.

[Vitaphone Racing]

A little bit of rational thought goes a long way. The existence of Australia was cited to prove that a country does not always descend into a lawless wasteland without guns, which is an entirely valid example. Using Australia to demonstrate the effectiveness of gun control is not valid because Australia is not America and fortunately never will be.

In the same mindset, it is fallacious and borderline retarded to compare calls to ban guns with faux calls to ban cars seeing as society cannot function without cars and the deaths cars cause are overwhelmingly not malicious. It is entirely relevant to point out that registering cars is proof that registering other objects requiring a competent handler is possible, practical and effective.

You may think you're being witty and funny with these remarks, but the only people who find this to be so are the teenagers who'll mindlessly follow anybody pushing an anti-gun control narrative due to their obsession with guns. Unfortunately, this has also made you and others somewhat of a target of humor for everybody else.

Kill the hypocrisy and maybe the GCAs will get more respect. I doubt it, but anything is possible.

Two broad pieces of evidence separately being declared relevant and not relevant is not hypocrisy.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Then it's useless. I thought the goal was to prevent crimes and not make them easier to investigate.

But by allowing the trail of guns to be better traced you can shut down gun smugglers, which is where 20-30% of guns used in homicides come from. Additionally it may restrict the flow of guns to those gun smuggler in the first place, 58% of gun smugglers either used private purchases or straw purchases from a retail outlet, representing 67% of guns illegally acquired by gun smugglers.

Combine that with an age hick to buy guns, to the age of 21, because 1/4 f murders are committed by someone 21 or younger, and the universal background check, since 60% of murderers have a record. And you are likely seeing an impact on gun homicide.

Except the trail isn't being better traced unless the guns are registered to somebody and you can prove that the somebody still has them.

Don't you want to save 210 lives?

I do, and I have repeatedly presented measures that may save more than that many lives. I think you methods have to high a cost.

I don't, because I pay that cost so long as I own firearms and it is not prohibitive in anyway.

You think a paranoid schizophrenic should be allowed to own firearms....

Jesus....

Unless a medical professional rules them as a danger to themselves or others I don't think their right to own firearms should be restricted. Since I am not the professional I shouldn't be handing out restrictions based on mental health issues.

I think paranoid schizophrenia or PTSD with previous violent outbursts would be a safe bet to be crossed off the list.

Paying extra to stop 200 people from dying is something I'd gladly do. I'm disappointed that other people have such a little regard for human life that they do not think the same way.

You are asking 100,000,000 people to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to save less than 2,000 lives. Why don't we try and find a better way of dealing with the issue? Like say using that money instead to improve mental healthcare so those who are a danger get spotted and treated. This would also likely help others, like the 20,000 gun suicides, or any number of people with un-diagnosed mental illnesses.

Because that way doesn't stop those with mental illnesses from getting firearms so it isn't a solution in itself.

Cars kill as many people as guns, and injure 20 times as many people, yet you don't see society asking for dramatic increases in car control.

Car control is already pretty tight. Each car is registered, each driver passes a licence test and unsafe cars are kept off the road. Car makers don't fit airbags because they sell better, you know.

Excessive alcohol kills 88,000 people in the United States, almost three times as many as guns, why aren't we increasing restrictions on alcohol?

We are. Young people aren't allowed to buy alcohol, you can't serve alcohol to people who are already well-intoxicated and the amount of alcohol contained in a bottle has to be displayed as well. You also can't have open containers of alcohol in public.

Smoking kills 480,000 people in the United States, including 40,000 from second hand smoke, in the United States. Once again more than guns. Why aren't we doing more about this?

Because I can't murder you with a cigarette. That and there are thousands of regulations regarding second hand smoke. If you're a smoker, you'd know about the pain in the ass they face.

The police could obviously do there jobs better if they didn't need search warrants. How many crimes could have been prevented if we simply let police search as they will?

This is getting out of hand, I'm not sure what this example is about.

You have to reach a balance and I think your proposal goes way over the line. You can imply that I am a monster all you want, but what I see is a society that treats other things that are more deadly as common place, and only treats the gun as worse because they don't understand the numbers.

The funny thing is, in all of your examples (except the last because idk what that is), there's a lot of regulation and "control" being applied. So if we can control smoking, drinking and driving, why not guns?

How did you pick these exams out? How do you know they are the minimum required? I sure didn't pay that much for mine.

I chose them because they were the online quotes I could find. I am not a mental healthcare professional so I can't say what the minimum should be, or how much it would cost. If you want to provide your own numbers feel free to.

What's a half hour visit to your local doctor worth?

[Imperializt Russia]

I chose them because they were the online quotes I could find. I am not a mental healthcare professional so I can't say what the minimum should be, or how much it would cost. If you want to provide your own numbers feel free to.

What's a half hour visit to your local doctor worth?

In America?
Lots.

[Patridam]

What's a half hour visit to your local doctor worth?

In America?
Lots.

As someone who has only recently obtained insurance: 92 dollars.

[Imperializt Russia]

In America?
Lots.

As someone who has only recently obtained insurance: 92 dollars.

92 dollars way too much for a consultation.

[Spirit of Hope]

But by allowing the trail of guns to be better traced you can shut down gun smugglers, which is where 20-30% of guns used in homicides come from. Additionally it may restrict the flow of guns to those gun smuggler in the first place, 58% of gun smugglers either used private purchases or straw purchases from a retail outlet, representing 67% of guns illegally acquired by gun smugglers.

Combine that with an age hick to buy guns, to the age of 21, because 1/4 f murders are committed by someone 21 or younger, and the universal background check, since 60% of murderers have a record. And you are likely seeing an impact on gun homicide.

Except the trail isn't being better traced unless the guns are registered to somebody and you can prove that the somebody still has them.

It does increase the ability of the gun to be traced because there is a paper trail. You look at the gun's serial number, that tells you what store it was sent to. The Owner of the store has to keep the records of his sale, and thus points you to who he sold it to. You then go to that person, and ask him what happened to the gun. Under two of my proposals he has a record, or can reference the police to a record, that states to whom the gun was sold. So on down the line until the police come to the last person, who then has to have a nice conversation about how there is no record of them not having the gun, and how did it wind up in police possession. For the most part this is going to consist of calls, and looking at either records kept with the police or with the ATF.

Definitely better tracing then the current problem of running into a private seller who says: "I don't know, I sold the gun to some trustworthy guy 6 years back."

I do, and I have repeatedly presented measures that may save more than that many lives. I think you methods have to high a cost.

I don't, because I pay that cost so long as I own firearms and it is not prohibitive in anyway.

So here at least we have reached an impasse.

You are asking 100,000,000 people to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to save less than 2,000 lives. Why don't we try and find a better way of dealing with the issue? Like say using that money instead to improve mental healthcare so those who are a danger get spotted and treated. This would also likely help others, like the 20,000 gun suicides, or any number of people with un-diagnosed mental illnesses.

Because that way doesn't stop those with mental illnesses from getting firearms so it isn't a solution in itself.

Accept as a natural byproduct of better mental healthcare is more diagnosis of those who may be dangerous, which in tern leads to them having their right to own guns removed. Combined with better access to NICS means the only way the person with a dangerous mental disorder can get a gun is if someone else commits a crime in selling/giving them one.

Cars kill as many people as guns, and injure 20 times as many people, yet you don't see society asking for dramatic increases in car control.

Car control is already pretty tight. Each car is registered, each driver passes a licence test and unsafe cars are kept off the road. Car makers don't fit airbags because they sell better, you know.

Excessive alcohol kills 88,000 people in the United States, almost three times as many as guns, why aren't we increasing restrictions on alcohol?

We are. Young people aren't allowed to buy alcohol, you can't serve alcohol to people who are already well-intoxicated and the amount of alcohol contained in a bottle has to be displayed as well. You also can't have open containers of alcohol in public.

Smoking kills 480,000 people in the United States, including 40,000 from second hand smoke, in the United States. Once again more than guns. Why aren't we doing more about this?

Because I can't murder you with a cigarette. That and there are thousands of regulations regarding second hand smoke. If you're a smoker, you'd know about the pain in the ass they face.

The police could obviously do there jobs better if they didn't need search warrants. How many crimes could have been prevented if we simply let police search as they will?

This is getting out of hand, I'm not sure what this example is about.

Here is what the example is about, all of the examples. Society faces trade offs. Do we restrict peoples rights, and get better security, or do we get less security and more rights?

Guns kill ~30,000 people a year in the United States, and injure another ~80,000. Your argument is that this number is to high, and that steps should be taken, through registration, psychiatric checks, etc. to limit the damage committed by a guns.

My response is that cars kill ~30,000 people and injure 2,200,000. So if the damage done by guns to society is to high, then the damage done by cars to society is to high, after all cars injure 27 times as many people. So if we are adding more restrictions onto guns then we should be adding more restrictions onto cars and driving.

Same goes for alcohol, 88,000 deaths. Alcohol kills more people than guns, so obviously the limits that are in place are not enough. Because 30,000 deaths means actions must be taken, then I think it is obvious that 88,000 deaths requires action to be taken.

Obviously the restrictions on smokers aren't enough if they are killing 40,000 people a year with second hand smoke. This is not to mention the fact that smoking kills 440,000 smokers a year, and helps create 16 million sick people in the United States. If 30,000 dead and 80,000 injures is enough for action, shouldn't 480,000 deaths and 16 million sick be enough for more action?

Lets just talk money. Smoking costs society an estimated $300 Billion, Alcohol $223 Billion, Cars cost $1 Trillion, Guns $170 Billion. So what costs society the most? Cars. What costs society the least of these examples? Guns.

Thus my logic is this, if guns are a big enough danger to society to require more regulation then everything that damages society more should also be receiving more regulation.

You have to reach a balance and I think your proposal goes way over the line. You can imply that I am a monster all you want, but what I see is a society that treats other things that are more deadly as common place, and only treats the gun as worse because they don't understand the numbers.

The funny thing is, in all of your examples (except the last because idk what that is), there's a lot of regulation and "control" being applied. So if we can control smoking, drinking and driving, why not guns?

Guns are regulated. To sell guns as a job you have to be finger printed and background checked. You must have secure storage for your wares. You must keep a record of your sales for 20 years.

To buy a firearm from one of those above mentioned sellers requires a background check, through a federal database.

Those who have committed crimes punishable with more than one year in prison are not legally allowed to own guns. Those who have been involuntarily committed can not own guns.

There are age restrictions on buying guns. There are waiting periods after the purchase before you can get a gun. If you sell a gun, even in a private sale, across state lines it must go through a FFL.

There are restrictions on what can be bought or owned depending on the state, and certain items have extra taxes.

No new automatic rifles may be produced for civilian purchase, and the transfer of those that remain must be approved by the local police.

Guns can not legally be carried in schools, or certain other gun free zones.

There are literally hundreds of gun control laws in the United States. On top of all of this I am ok with furthering gun control and regulation, requiring background checks with all private sales and potentially requiring private sales to fill out and keep, or give to a third party who will keep, the form for 20 years. I have advocated for psychiatrists who feel a patient is a threat to themselves or others to have that patients gun rights removed.

[Unified Gibbons]

I support the right to militia and the right to arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment, however, I do support restrictions on mentally ill and those with criminal records getting a gun, as the dangerous shouldn't be able to easily get firearms in my opinion, if we are to have a safe country.

[Wallenburg]

I support the right to militia and the right to arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment, however, I do support restrictions on mentally ill and those with criminal records getting a gun, as the dangerous shouldn't be able to easily get firearms in my opinion, if we are to have a safe country.

Sounds good, as long as responsible owners are allowed to practice their responsibility.

[Northern Caldeira and Slavania]

This decision is pathetic in my opinion. If you think about it, if guns are banned, do you think criminals will follow the law and turn in their guns. The only guns you would be taking away are the guns from the law biding citizens who use guns to protect themselves and their families. I believe that the banning of guns would be a move that would do more harm than good.

[Sociobiology]

Guns kill ~30,000 people a year in the United States, and injure another ~80,000. Your argument is that this number is to high, and that steps should be taken, through registration, psychiatric checks, etc. to limit the damage committed by a guns.

My response is that cars kill ~30,000 people and injure 2,200,000. So if the damage done by guns to society is to high, then the damage done by cars to society is to high, after all cars injure 27 times as many people. So if we are adding more restrictions onto guns then we should be adding more restrictions onto cars and driving.

Same goes for alcohol, 88,000 deaths. Alcohol kills more people than guns, so obviously the limits that are in place are not enough. Because 30,000 deaths means actions must be taken, then I think it is obvious that 88,000 deaths requires action to be taken.

except only one of those numbers is primarily composed of homicides.
I'm fine with people killing themselves, its killing other people that is a problem.

Guns are regulated. To sell guns as a job you have to be finger printed and background checked. You must have secure storage for your wares. You must keep a record of your sales for 20 years.

no you don't, to sell guns for a living you need all that, you don't need a damn thing to sell a gun

To buy a firearm from one of those above mentioned sellers requires a background check, through a federal database.

and to buy from anyone else? see its the huge gaping loophole that is the problem.

Those who have committed crimes punishable with more than one year in prison are not legally allowed to own guns.

but since private sellers don't have to check they can just take the criminals word on not being a criminal.

Those who have been involuntarily committed can not own guns.

again the problem with checking.

There are waiting periods after the purchase before you can get a gun.

no that's a state by state thing.

If you sell a gun, even in a private sale, across state lines it must go through a FFL.

and what about inside a state?

[Spirit of Hope]

Guns kill ~30,000 people a year in the United States, and injure another ~80,000. Your argument is that this number is to high, and that steps should be taken, through registration, psychiatric checks, etc. to limit the damage committed by a guns.

My response is that cars kill ~30,000 people and injure 2,200,000. So if the damage done by guns to society is to high, then the damage done by cars to society is to high, after all cars injure 27 times as many people. So if we are adding more restrictions onto guns then we should be adding more restrictions onto cars and driving.

Same goes for alcohol, 88,000 deaths. Alcohol kills more people than guns, so obviously the limits that are in place are not enough. Because 30,000 deaths means actions must be taken, then I think it is obvious that 88,000 deaths requires action to be taken.

except only one of those numbers is primarily composed of homicides.
I'm fine with people killing themselves, its killing other people that is a problem.

of the 30,000 gun deaths, 20,000 are suicides. That is the majority of gun deaths are people killing themselves.

Guns are regulated. To sell guns as a job you have to be finger printed and background checked. You must have secure storage for your wares. You must keep a record of your sales for 20 years.

no you don't, to sell guns for a living you need all that, you don't need a damn thing to sell a gun

As I said, to sell guns as a job requires all of that.

To buy a firearm from one of those above mentioned sellers requires a background check, through a federal database.

and to buy from anyone else? see its the huge gaping loophole that is the problem.

I have multiple times, including in the post you are quoting, said that I think the NICS should be made public and all gun sales should require a background check.

Those who have committed crimes punishable with more than one year in prison are not legally allowed to own guns.

but since private sellers don't have to check they can just take the criminals word on not being a criminal.

And how many criminals get there guns through private sales? A slight majority of black market sources, i.e. gun smugglers, get them from private sales. The "end user" criminal is not getting his guns from private sales.

Also see above in the post I am currently writing, and bellow in the post you are quoting. I am for the opening of NICS and requiring background checks for all gun sales.

Those who have been involuntarily committed can not own guns.

again the problem with checking.

And again with, how big an issue is this? and I am for the opening of NICS and requiring background checks for all gun sales.

There are waiting periods after the purchase before you can get a gun.

no that's a state by state thing.

Yes. That is however regulation in't it?

If you sell a gun, even in a private sale, across state lines it must go through a FFL.

and what about inside a state?

No need for an FFL, though the depends on the firearm in question, some do require FFL's and/or police involvement.

Plus: I am for the opening of NICS and requiring background checks for all gun sales.

[Sociobiology]

except only one of those numbers is primarily composed of homicides.
I'm fine with people killing themselves, its killing other people that is a problem.

of the 30,000 gun deaths, 20,000 are suicides. That is the majority of gun deaths are people killing themselves.

source because at least 11,000 are homicides, and that does not leave any for anything else. and we know accidental deaths do exist.
and how many automobile deaths are homicides, how many alcohol deaths are homicides.
again one is overwhelmingly composed of homicides compared to the others.

And how many criminals get there guns through private sales? A slight majority of black market sources, i.e. gun smugglers, get them from private sales. The "end user" criminal is not getting his guns from private sales.

wrong, see page 8
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Also see above in the post I am currently writing, and bellow in the post you are quoting. I am for the opening of NICS and requiring background checks for all gun sales.

And that should give you a pass for being misleading?

Yes. That is however regulation in't it?

[/quote]

depends on the state, in the state without it it is by definition not regulation.