[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[The Confederal Republic]

Obviously nutjobs shouldn't own any firearms, but I like being able to sleep at night knowing I can defend myself.

Oh, and friendly reminder that EVIL DEADLY ASSAULT MACHINEGUNS WITH 1000 ROUND CLIPAZINES AND TACTICAL 999X-SCOPES AND SCARY THINGS THAT GO UP have killed less than a tenth of the number of people handguns have killed over the past year. Rifles are no menace.

[Migas999]

I never said not to take precautions

Leaving your loaded rifle in the yard is refusing to take precautions.

Just as owning a machinegun is incredibly dangerous and should be regulated so that it´s harder for any maniac to get one

It already is, and that's why legally owned-full autos only account or two homicides over the course of the last seventy years or so, and illegally-owned use of full-autos is practically unheard of.

Alright can´t argue with statistics,plus i gotta go, but i still believe in gun control(not to an extreme)

[Gun Manufacturers]

I understand, although I have to defintly agree with option 2, citizens should be able to own firearms as well.

Going to pitch in here, I say option 2 is a bit to much in my opinion, I mean what need does an average citizen have for a machinegun?

Maybe they want an investment that, given the finite quantity available for civilian transfer, will continue to remain valuable/increase in value. Or maybe they want something they can use at the range (full auto shoots look like a lot of fun).

[The Conez Imperium]

They should allow civilians to have the ability to shoot down drones. It's only fair because conventional firearms don't win against drones.

[Sociobiology]

You want to give a good example of gun responsibility use the Swiss not the US, how many shootings have there been in the US? Granted their not with a machine gun but still reinforces the point that gun controls are needed

You understand that there are over 300 MILLION firearms in the united state don't you?

you understand that even if 1 million of those firearms were used in crime that's less than 1%

I'm not a math teacher but that's REALLY fucking LOW.

actually that's really fucking high, considering our homicide rate is 0.0047% and the violent crime rate 0.36%

the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide, that's a LOT.

That's also really good evidence we need comprehensive gun control.

[Sociobiology]

Never underestimate people

I have no doubt that it could be done, but I'm picturing something more akin to a Hollywod heist movie than a simple burglary.

its happened before
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/thieves_break_into_springfield.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Hei2tJpAk

Time isn't as big a factor in thefts as people think it is.

as someone said, if two people carried it in...

[Big Jim P]

Going to pitch in here, I say option 2 is a bit to much in my opinion, I mean what need does an average citizen have for a machinegun?

Maybe they want an investment that, given the finite quantity available for civilian transfer, will continue to remain valuable/increase in value. Or maybe they want something they can use at the range (full auto shoots look like a lot of fun).

Full auto is fun for a few seconds, but for the most part, an incredible waste of ammo.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It already is, and that's why legally owned-full autos only account or two homicides over the course of the last seventy years or so, and illegally-owned use of full-autos is practically unheard of.

That more so has to do with how unpractical it would be use to a full auto. The weapons themselves aren't overly hard to get, we never had that hard of a time with it but we never them used for anything more than wasting lots of ammo when we went out to go shooting. Actually using an illegal full-auto weapon in a crime is just asking for all sorts of feds, plus using a handgun would be a lot easier for a number of reasons.

its happened before
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/thieves_break_into_springfield.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Hei2tJpAk

Time isn't as big a factor in thefts as people think it is.

as someone said, if two people carried it in...

Well I'll be damned, I was kinda kidding but wow. How do you walk off with a safe with nobody noticing?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Where I live, things are largely fine as they are. Granted, I think the authorities are being a bit too tight on the types of guns allowed for civilian ownership (everything above 9 mm being restricted, and certain types of smaller-bore guns, such as Tokarev pistols and .22 caliber pistols being restricted as well).

Getting to legally own and carry a piece here is just too much paperwork for my taste. Besides, I've figured that owning a firearm for protection is absolutely pointless unless you intend to carry it with you 24/7 and are properly trained in it's use, and I don't mean plinking stationary targets in the range by that. With our ludicrously-tight self-defense laws, you are effectively more likely to go to prison for defending yourself than your assailant for attacking you, so any such incident involving a firearm will most likely be the last time you will legally discharge a gun. Ever. Not to mention that you can effectively forget about drinking, certainly if you tend to get in trouble while drunk - simply being drunk when arrested for any reason is sufficient grounds to revoke your gun license. And there are frequent surprise visits from the authorities, who will inspect if you keep your piece by the book in a certified safe. They will also talk to your neighbors and ask if you are into any bad habits, i.e., drinking and becoming belligerent, etc.

In short, legally owning a piece in Latvia is far more trouble than it's worth, and there ain't that much incidents involving illegal firearms to need making legal ownership easier. Things were very different in the early 90's, when it was basically the Wild West out here, streets in some places effectively turning into warzones after dusk. Corrupt officers in the disorganized Russian Army garrisons here saw to you being able to buy just about anything if you had the means - a crate of Riga Black could get you an AK with a set of mags and enough ammo to slaughter a village, while a hundred or so dollars could buy you an RPG launcher with a few RPGs thrown in as a bonus. Hell, you could even buy an APC if you had enough dough. There was just such an abundance in military-grade arms left over from Soviet military stockpiles that pretty much anyone who wanted a piece could get one, no questions asked. Things are indeed very different now.

[Paddy O Fernature]

You understand that there are over 300 MILLION firearms in the united state don't you?

you understand that even if 1 million of those firearms were used in crime that's less than 1%

I'm not a math teacher but that's REALLY fucking LOW.

actually that's really fucking high, considering our homicide rate is 0.0047% and the violent crime rate 0.36%

the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide, that's a LOT.

That's also really good evidence we need comprehensive gun control.

Let's look at it another way... If those above statistics are true, then it shows that firearms were not used in 32 percent of murders, 59 percent of robbery offenses and 79 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

Quick Google search shows me that in 2012 (best info I could find at the moment) that 14,827 murders occurred inside the US with a population of around 313.87 Million (wiki) the same year. For the sake of argument, lets say that a different firearm was used in each and every murder that occurred that year. That would mean that out of the estimated 300 million firearms in the US, that less then 0.00494233333% of firearms will be used in such a manner.

That less then a single percent.

[Jamzmania]

actually that's really fucking high, considering our homicide rate is 0.0047% and the violent crime rate 0.36%

the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide, that's a LOT.

That's also really good evidence we need comprehensive gun control.

Let's look at it another way... If those above statistics are true, then it shows that firearms were not used in 32 percent of murders, 59 percent of robbery offenses and 79 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

Quick Google search shows me that in 2012 (best info I could find at the moment) that 14,827 murders occurred inside the US with a population of around 313.87 Million (wiki) the same year. For the sake of argument, lets say that a different firearm was used in each and every murder that occurred that year. That would mean that out of the estimated 300 million firearms in the US, that less then 0.00494233333% of firearms will be used in such a manner.

That less then a single percent.

That's less than half a percent.

[Jamzmania]

Where I live, things are largely fine as they are. Granted, I think the authorities are being a bit too tight on the types of guns allowed for civilian ownership (everything above 9 mm being restricted, and certain types of smaller-bore guns, such as Tokarev pistols and .22 caliber pistols being restricted as well).

Getting to legally own and carry a piece here is just too much paperwork for my taste. Besides, I've figured that owning a firearm for protection is absolutely pointless unless you intend to carry it with you 24/7 and are properly trained in it's use, and I don't mean plinking stationary targets in the range by that. With our ludicrously-tight self-defense laws, you are effectively more likely to go to prison for defending yourself than your assailant for attacking you, so any such incident involving a firearm will most likely be the last time you will legally discharge a gun. Ever. Not to mention that you can effectively forget about drinking, certainly if you tend to get in trouble while drunk - simply being drunk when arrested for any reason is sufficient grounds to revoke your gun license. And there are frequent surprise visits from the authorities, who will inspect if you keep your piece by the book in a certified safe. They will also talk to your neighbors and ask if you are into any bad habits, i.e., drinking and becoming belligerent, etc.

In short, legally owning a piece in Latvia is far more trouble than it's worth, and there ain't that much incidents involving illegal firearms to need making legal ownership easier. Things were very different in the early 90's, when it was basically the Wild West out here, streets in some places effectively turning into warzones after dusk. Corrupt officers in the disorganized Russian Army garrisons here saw to you being able to buy just about anything if you had the means - a crate of Riga Black could get you an AK with a set of mags and enough ammo to slaughter a village, while a hundred or so dollars could buy you an RPG launcher with a few RPGs thrown in as a bonus. Hell, you could even buy an APC if you had enough dough. There was just such an abundance in military-grade arms left over from Soviet military stockpiles that pretty much anyone who wanted a piece could get one, no questions asked. Things are indeed very different now.

Sounds like Orwell's nightmare.

[Llamalandia]

Let's look at it another way... If those above statistics are true, then it shows that firearms were not used in 32 percent of murders, 59 percent of robbery offenses and 79 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

Quick Google search shows me that in 2012 (best info I could find at the moment) that 14,827 murders occurred inside the US with a population of around 313.87 Million (wiki) the same year. For the sake of argument, lets say that a different firearm was used in each and every murder that occurred that year. That would mean that out of the estimated 300 million firearms in the US, that less then 0.00494233333% of firearms will be used in such a manner.

That less then a single percent.

That's less than half a percent.

In fact it is less than 1/2 of 1% of 1%, notice the .0049xxxx with the percent sign tacked on the end. Less than 1 percent of 1 percent of guns used in murder annually I'd say that is fairly low. Wonder how it compares with other countries. Of course there is one small problem given that 300 million is he cumulative total of all guns owned which we are comparing to the an Ann Hal murder rate for one year. Kinda a bit apples and oranges, not saying it isn't a relevant stat but it might be better to look at guns purchased per year vs homicide rate. I'm guessing it's still a fairly small percent of the total annual murder rate.

[Llamalandia]

You understand that there are over 300 MILLION firearms in the united state don't you?

you understand that even if 1 million of those firearms were used in crime that's less than 1%

I'm not a math teacher but that's REALLY fucking LOW.

actually that's really fucking high, considering our homicide rate is 0.0047% and the violent crime rate 0.36%

the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide, that's a LOT.

That's also really good evidence we need comprehensive gun control.

There's an element of truth there. Though keep in mind substitutionary goods. If guns become too expensive, killers will switch to knives. I don't deny that strong gun control might bring the overall murder rate, but even if all guns could automatically be eliminated overnight the murder rate wouldn't fall proportionally. Some people will switch to poison knives, bare hands etc. after all look at prison, there are basically zero guns behind bars (zip guns can occasionally be made but that's pretty rare) yet people find all kinds of others ways to nurder each other behind bars.

[Big Jim P]

That's less than half a percent.

In fact it is less than 1/2 of 1% of 1%, notice the .0049xxxx with the percent sign tacked on the end. Less than 1 percent of 1 percent of guns used in murder annually I'd say that is fairly low. Wonder how it compares with other countries. Of course there is one small problem given that 300 million is he cumulative total of all guns owned which we are comparing to the an Ann Hal murder rate for one year. Kinda a bit apples and oranges, not saying it isn't a relevant stat but it might be better to look at guns purchased per year vs homicide rate. I'm guessing it's still a fairly small percent of the total annual murder rate.

14 million guns purchased in 2014 if I remember correctly.

[Sevvania]

Of course there is one small problem given that 300 million is he cumulative total of all guns owned which we are comparing to the an Ann Hal murder rate for one year. Kinda a bit apples and oranges, not saying it isn't a relevant stat but it might be better to look at guns purchased per year vs homicide rate.

I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure if "guns purchased annually vs annual homicide rate" would be a good comparison because a gun someone purchased in a previous year could still be used to commit a homicide this year.

[Big Jim P]

Assuming any given gun was only used once, for one homicide, and not accounting for new purchases, it would take 15,000 YEARS at the current homicide rate for half the currently owned guns to be so used. Far longer once you deduct each positive use of each gun.

Edit: Note, I am using half the current gun population for this count.

[Luziyca]

Ctrl+alt+delete, one may assume. Or ctrl+Z.

Seriously, restrict them to hunters, soldiers and the police, ideally.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Ctrl+alt+delete, one may assume. Or ctrl+Z.

Seriously, restrict them to hunters, soldiers and the police, ideally.

Why?

[Sociobiology]

actually that's really fucking high, considering our homicide rate is 0.0047% and the violent crime rate 0.36%

the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide, that's a LOT.

That's also really good evidence we need comprehensive gun control.

There's an element of truth there. Though keep in mind substitutionary goods. If guns become too expensive, killers will switch to knives.

no real evidence of this, other countries will considerably lower gun crime have considerably lower homicide, its as if guns makes it far easier to commit homicide, thus vastly increasing the success rate.

Its actually really hard to kill someone with a knife.

I don't deny that strong gun control might bring the overall murder rate, but even if all guns could automatically be eliminated overnight the murder rate wouldn't fall proportionally.

why do you assume that is what gun control means?

Some people will switch to poison knives, bare hands etc. after all look at prison, there are basically zero guns behind bars (zip guns can occasionally be made but that's pretty rare) yet people find all kinds of others ways to nurder each other behind bars.

The homicide rate in prison is the same as the homicide rate rate for the general population (5% vs 4.7% per 100,000 in 2011), Now think about that if you concentrate all the most violent people in society in enclosed spaces in some of the worst prisons in the first world, and if you take away firearms it keeps the homicide rate the same.
Wow, you may have just stumbled on the only decent argument for actual bans I have ever heard...

[Sociobiology]

actually that's really fucking high, considering our homicide rate is 0.0047% and the violent crime rate 0.36%

the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide, that's a LOT.

That's also really good evidence we need comprehensive gun control.

Let's look at it another way... If those above statistics are true, then it shows that firearms were not used in 32 percent of murders, 59 percent of robbery offenses and 79 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

Quick Google search shows me that in 2012 (best info I could find at the moment) that 14,827 murders occurred inside the US with a population of around 313.87 Million (wiki) the same year. For the sake of argument, lets say that a different firearm was used in each and every murder that occurred that year. That would mean that out of the estimated 300 million firearms in the US, that less then 0.00494233333% of firearms will be used in such a manner.

That less then a single percent.

it also means that it is possible 10,082 of those murdered people could have been saved with proper gun control.

which would change our homicide rate to some thing if not good, at least normal for a first world country.

[Jamzmania]

Let's look at it another way... If those above statistics are true, then it shows that firearms were not used in 32 percent of murders, 59 percent of robbery offenses and 79 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

Quick Google search shows me that in 2012 (best info I could find at the moment) that 14,827 murders occurred inside the US with a population of around 313.87 Million (wiki) the same year. For the sake of argument, lets say that a different firearm was used in each and every murder that occurred that year. That would mean that out of the estimated 300 million firearms in the US, that less then 0.00494233333% of firearms will be used in such a manner.

That less then a single percent.

it also means that it is possible 10,082 of those murdered people could have been saved with proper gun control.

which would change our homicide rate to some thing if not good, at least normal for a first world country.

It is definitely not certain that they would have not been murdered. It seems more likely that they would have been killed in some other way. Also, the US is not a "normal" first world country.

[Llamalandia]

There's an element of truth there. Though keep in mind substitutionary goods. If guns become too expensive, killers will switch to knives.

no real evidence of this, other countries will considerably lower gun crime have considerably lower homicide, its as if guns makes it far easier to commit homicide, thus vastly increasing the success rate.

Its actually really hard to kill someone with a knife.

I don't deny that strong gun control might bring the overall murder rate, but even if all guns could automatically be eliminated overnight the murder rate wouldn't fall proportionally.

why do you assume that is what gun control means?

Some people will switch to poison knives, bare hands etc. after all look at prison, there are basically zero guns behind bars (zip guns can occasionally be made but that's pretty rare) yet people find all kinds of others ways to nurder each other behind bars.

The homicide rate in prison is the same as the homicide rate rate for the general population (5% vs 4.7% per 100,000 in 2011), Now think about that if you concentrate all the most violent people in society in enclosed spaces in some of the worst prisons in the first world, and if you take away firearms it keeps the homicide rate the same.
Wow, you may have just stumbled on the only decent argument for actual bans I have ever heard...

Im just applying basic economic theory. Given the culture and nature of homicide in the US I would argue there would likely be some increase in killing by other means. In other countries with tighter gun restrictions there are other cultural issues at play which likely amplify the effects of gun control. Eg. The inherently low crime rate in Japan. Likewise I'm not saying it would a total replacement of guns with knives or even other killing implements and yes it is generally harder to kill with a knife. That said, when someone needs to be whacked, well they need to be whacked. That is kinda how organized crime works. If they want someone dead they will find a way to make it happen.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that all gun control == getting rid of all guns. I was merely saying even if such an extreme could be effected, it wouldn't just automatically reduce the total # of murders by the number of gun murders. Some murders that had been committed by gun would be instead be committed by other means.

I'm not so sure the prison example is actually such a great example. I mean, yes you're right it is a concentrated community of very violent offenders but keep in mind they are also the most restricted and closely guarded people as well. I mean there is basically zero privacy, even using the toilet, there may be someone else in the same room with you and even if there isn't you still have zero privacy. Not too mention the lack of material to work with in terms of weapons. Despite all this, using fairly ingenius if somewhat crude weapons, they are able to accomplish murder at the same rate as the free population. At best it's a wash, sure no guns means no gun homicide (again excluding the extremely rare zip gun murder) at the same time they still able to kill at nearly same rate. Plus keep in mind, they generally segregate and further guard the very worst offenders (23/7 lockdown at supermax sounds unpleasant) yet despite that prisoners still find a way to kill. The point is if they do it, it stands to reason the general public, at least those who are career criminals will find ways to keep on a murderin' even without boom-boom sticks.

[Llamalandia]

Of course there is one small problem given that 300 million is he cumulative total of all guns owned which we are comparing to the an Ann Hal murder rate for one year. Kinda a bit apples and oranges, not saying it isn't a relevant stat but it might be better to look at guns purchased per year vs homicide rate.

I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure if "guns purchased annually vs annual homicide rate" would be a good comparison because a gun someone purchased in a previous year could still be used to commit a homicide this year.

True, i suppose perhaps to further improve on the metric, it would make sense to average the murders and purchases over a longer period like ten to twenty years, of course at some point it becomes difficult to find reliable numbers on some of this stuff anyway. Idk if there are years where gun buying significantly deviates from gun homicide though so we're probably safe.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Its actually really hard to kill someone with a knife.

Not if you have the slightest idea what you're doing. All you really need is a basic knowledge of human anatomy.