American Gun Laws

[Washington Resistance Army]

Kennesaw, Georgia is pretty commonly pointed to. Gun ownership became mandatory by law and the crime rate dropped a lot.

But look at Georgia as a whole.

It's kinda hard to look at it as a whole, rural backwoods towns places aren't really comparable to downtown Atlanta. There's a lot of varying factors at play.

Kennesaw, Georgia is pretty commonly pointed to. Gun ownership became mandatory by law and the crime rate dropped a lot.

But is one county in one state really a representative sample?

Not quite, I wouldn't be opposed to making it a law in other places and seeing the results though.

[Big Jim P]

Where was causation mentioned? The post I was responding too mentioned correlation, not causation.

And don't tell me what to repeat or not.

Right, sorry about that.

It's just that you're just sharing your opinion, which is good and all, but you don't really add an objective argument that validates your opinion.

If you look back a few pages you will see sources concerning the current record-setting gun sales and the falling crime rate. Now I know that correlation =/= causation, but the gun-grabbers try to use a more guns = more crime correlation to justify their support for gun control, when that correlation does not exist.

As for my support for open or Constitutional carry, open carry is legal in many states, and Constitutional carry in a few, including a couple that only recently instituted Constitutional carry. Now with the media anti-gun bias, and the gun-grabbers penchant for distorting facts, if there was a negative impact (the "blood in the streets" argument that the gun grabbers bring out every time carry restrictions are eased), then it would be all over the news. It is not, so I conclude there is little or no negative impact.

My belief is further strengthened by the fact that the "blood in the streets" warning has not once come to pass since Florida went to shall issue in 1987, and the gun-grabbers started using the argument.

[Imperializt Russia]

In the UK where we have four million privately owned firearms, strict licensing with severe penalties, and do not see "self-defence" as legitimate reason to own a firearm (except NI) - we've somehow managed to keep firearm crime, firearm deaths absurdly low and mass shootings nonexistent by comparison to the US.

And I believe this is far more due to culture than the measures of gun control we actually have.
American gun culture stinks.

Tougher penalties for crimes with firearms would make sense and is something I'd support, as that puts the focus on the criminals and not on a law abiding firearms owner.

The point of gun control measures and restrictions is designed to stop people becoming firearm criminals.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Let's face it: Nobody who goes out to buy an assault rifle is going to bring it wherever they go for self-defence. Maybe it'll be stashed in their car or something but they won't have it on them at all times. It is very likely, however, that someone who wants to go on a killing spree will buy an assault rifle and also stack up on bulletproof vests and the whole getup before going out.

Then there is the mental aspect. If there are gunshots in the building and you're armed to the teeth you may go to find out what it is or you may try to help in some way, which is good, but how will you decide between shooter and victim? If there are multiple armed people in the area how will you know who is friend and who is foe? You will just end up panicking and shooting everything most likely. Remember, you are not trained for this nor do you have the will to kill people. Then the police arrive and what do they do? There is anarchy going on with everyone armed and dangerous.

If it was just one disgruntled madman with a weapon then the police would be able to handle it easier but adding armed civilians who think they are helping is not a good idea.

Assault rifles are not just stashed in the car. Those things cost $10,000 plus. When not on the range thee are kept in a safe (unless the owner is a total idiot).

If I had one, I'd probably keep it in a velvet lined case, inside the safe. That way, I wouldn't have to worry about scratches.

[Fanosolia]

When the government becomes corrupt and begins to take away the freedoms of the people, it is the people's RESPONSIBILITY to rise up against the government. How can one rise up against a corrupt government without the means to do so? Also, when you take the guns away only the law abiding citizens are going to obey the law. Why would a CRIMINAL turn in their guns just because the law says to.

That's true, but it should be pointed out that not all criminals are the type that know al capones connects. Just something to consider.

[Vassenor]

Why is it that the more I read this thread the more I feel like people are trying to turn "gun control advocate" in to a modern day McCarthyist buzzword?

[Texas and the Southwest]

Perhaps some shootings could be avoided, but not all. Crime from gangs would still occur, terrorists wouldn't be affected, people could still make homemade bombs, the only shootings that would be stopped would be the teens/20 something year olds that hate their life. Planned out organized crime would not be affected. California would have still happened. I also seem to remember a shooting in Paris, what if the citizens there had guns to defend themselves?

[Big Jim P]

Then I wonder why you bothered bringing it up.

Might've been better to find a study that interprets similar data and draws possible conclusions from it. The people doing those studies tend to be less biased than NSG'ers.

The only data that supports gun-lovers in terms of "guns lower crime" are all done by right-wing polls or extremely vague data collectors.

And the only reports that more guns equals more crimes come from the leftists and anti-gun biased media. Even in the face of a current strong negative correlation.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Perhaps some shootings could be avoided, but not all. Crime from gangs would still occur, terrorists wouldn't be affected, people could still make homemade bombs, the only shootings that would be stopped would be the teens/20 something year olds that hate their life. Planned out organized crime would not be affected. California would have still happened. I also seem to remember a shooting in Paris, what if the citizens there had guns to defend themselves?

They still would have been slaughtered because the Daeshbags had military grade gear.

[Lavochkin]

But look at Georgia as a whole.

It's kinda hard to look at it as a whole, rural backwoods towns places aren't really comparable to downtown Atlanta. There's a lot of varying factors at play.

But is one county in one state really a representative sample?

Not quite, I wouldn't be opposed to making it a law in other places and seeing the results though.

Exactly. Gun-Lovers just tend to use one portion of the data, or just a small city or town. You never hear them compare states or countries.

[Vassenor]

Perhaps some shootings could be avoided, but not all. Crime from gangs would still occur, terrorists wouldn't be affected, people could still make homemade bombs, the only shootings that would be stopped would be the teens/20 something year olds that hate their life. Planned out organized crime would not be affected. California would have still happened. I also seem to remember a shooting in Paris, what if the citizens there had guns to defend themselves?

Because John Q Public is totally going to be able to hold composure for long enough to deal with that.

Paper targets don't prepare you for an active shooter.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Why is it that the more I read this thread the more I feel like people are trying to turn "gun control advocate" in to a modern day McCarthyist buzzword?

The term is already rather tainted by the politicians who use it and support unabashed fucktardery such as assault weapons legislation, honestly.
They should get shut up by the sane folks who have moderate ideas of 'gun control', because they're honestly doing more harm than good for the cause.

[Lavochkin]

The only data that supports gun-lovers in terms of "guns lower crime" are all done by right-wing polls or extremely vague data collectors.

And the only reports that more guns equals more crimes come from the leftists and anti-gun biased media. Even in the face of a current strong negative correlation.

Just cause something is anti-gun doesn't mean they're left. Bernie Sanders is probably the biggest face of American liberalism today and yet his gun control idea's can rival and beat conservatives in terms of conservatism.

[Big Jim P]

Why is it that the more I read this thread the more I feel like people are trying to turn "gun control advocate" in to a modern day McCarthyist buzzword?

The gun-control advocates would be more like McCarthy himself: attempting to restrict peoples right for no good reason. Gun owners are demonized by anti-gunners just like McCarthy demonized communists.

[Neu California]

The only data that supports gun-lovers in terms of "guns lower crime" are all done by right-wing polls or extremely vague data collectors.

And the only reports that more guns equals more crimes come from the leftists and anti-gun biased media. Even in the face of a current strong negative correlation.

Let's set a start date for these record setting gun sales (I'm asking you to since you brought them up) and see when, in relation to them, crime started falling throughout the US (Which, for reference, was in 1992) and maybe we can see how accurate this is.

[Lavochkin]

Why is it that the more I read this thread the more I feel like people are trying to turn "gun control advocate" in to a modern day McCarthyist buzzword?

The gun-control advocates would be more like McCarthy himself: attempting to restrict peoples right for no good reason. Gun owners are demonized by anti-gunners just like McCarthy demonized communists.

Because the right to die by a 9mm bullet is oh-so important.

[Big Jim P]

And the only reports that more guns equals more crimes come from the leftists and anti-gun biased media. Even in the face of a current strong negative correlation.

Just cause something is anti-gun doesn't mean they're left. Bernie Sanders is probably the biggest face of American liberalism today and yet his gun control idea's can rival and beat conservatives in terms of conservatism.

Maybe once, but of late bernie has tried to out liberal hillary on the gun issue.

[Vassenor]

Why is it that the more I read this thread the more I feel like people are trying to turn "gun control advocate" in to a modern day McCarthyist buzzword?

The gun-control advocates would be more like McCarthy himself: attempting to restrict peoples right for no good reason. Gun owners are demonized by anti-gunners just like McCarthy demonized communists.

Says the person going out of their way to demonize GC advocates.

[Big Jim P]

The gun-control advocates would be more like McCarthy himself: attempting to restrict peoples right for no good reason. Gun owners are demonized by anti-gunners just like McCarthy demonized communists.

Because the right to die by a 9mm bullet is oh-so important.

The right is to defend yourself with the 9mm.

[Big Jim P]

The gun-control advocates would be more like McCarthy himself: attempting to restrict peoples right for no good reason. Gun owners are demonized by anti-gunners just like McCarthy demonized communists.

Says the person going out of their way to demonize GC advocates.

How am I demonizing them? By pointing out their common behavior?

[Lavochkin]

Just cause something is anti-gun doesn't mean they're left. Bernie Sanders is probably the biggest face of American liberalism today and yet his gun control idea's can rival and beat conservatives in terms of conservatism.

Maybe once, but of late bernie has tried to out liberal hillary on the gun issue.

Hahaha. Donald Trump impersonates as a conservative better than Clinton tries to as a liberal

[Esternial]

Right, sorry about that.

It's just that you're just sharing your opinion, which is good and all, but you don't really add an objective argument that validates your opinion.

If you look back a few pages you will see sources concerning the current record-setting gun sales and the falling crime rate. Now I know that correlation =/= causation, but the gun-grabbers try to use a more guns = more crime correlation to justify their support for gun control, when that correlation does not exist.

Aye, I know that, but that doesn't really condone using their same tactics. In my eyes both sides are lowered in my esteem every time they do, and I don't really feel like supporting either side.

As for my support for open or Constitutional carry, open carry is legal in many states, and Constitutional carry in a few, including a couple that only recently instituted Constitutional carry. Now with the media anti-gun bias, and the gun-grabbers penchant for distorting facts, if there was a negative impact (the "blood in the streets" argument that the gun grabbers bring out every time carry restrictions are eased), then it would be all over the news. It is not, so I conclude there is little or no negative impact.

I'm not really sure that's your conclusion to make. What I'm thinking of are more subtle impacts. A heavier presence of guns on the street might have psychological effects on the population. Granted, that's conjecture and I haven't taken the time to look up source material on that, so you're not really obligated to accept that as a legitimate concern.

My belief is further strengthened by the fact that the "blood in the streets" warning has not once come to pass since Florida went to shall issue in 1987, and the gun-grabbers started using the argument.

I think I've said this before in another thread, but I think those heavy gun control advocates are hindering their own goals by being so irrationally hardcore. I think combining the findings of studies on different gun control measures with some realistic/prospective thinking would really go a long way.

[Lavochkin]

Because the right to die by a 9mm bullet is oh-so important.

The right is to defend yourself with the 9mm.

This makes me think of this famous quote I once heard:

"Gun-lovers are kind like this, if a kid throws a rock at another kid, a liberal would probably take that rock away. Like a normal teacher would right? Well a gun-lover would give everyone a rock and teach them how to throw it at each other."

[Texas and the Southwest]

Perhaps some shootings could be avoided, but not all. Crime from gangs would still occur, terrorists wouldn't be affected, people could still make homemade bombs, the only shootings that would be stopped would be the teens/20 something year olds that hate their life. Planned out organized crime would not be affected. California would have still happened. I also seem to remember a shooting in Paris, what if the citizens there had guns to defend themselves?

Because John Q Public is totally going to be able to hold composure for long enough to deal with that.

Paper targets don't prepare you for an active shooter.

There have been incidents in the U.S. where there was a public shooting and an armed citizen has protected and saved other civilians by killing/wounding the shooter.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because John Q Public is totally going to be able to hold composure for long enough to deal with that.

Paper targets don't prepare you for an active shooter.

There have been incidents in the U.S. where there was a public shooting and an armed citizen has protected and saved other civilians by killing/wounding the shooter.

This does not invalidate the statement.