Wanted: fact based arguments for gun control.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by k995

And asemble it as a thief enters your house? You either allow it usefullness or you ban it completly.

Making it too hard to use it with legislation will leave the worst of both arguments for and against.

To buy a gun as a protection against burglars is, for the vast majority of people, about as stupid as it gets. Having weapons in the house doesn't decrease the incentive to break in to your house, but increase the incentive for the criminals to arm themselves. You're more at risk to be injured, both by them and by yourself, or with your own weapon. Not to mention the risk for other people in your house (kids, wife) that don't have a weapon.

This Rambo-mentality that many people have regarding guns is pretty ridiculous, it takes a lot of practice and you need to be constantly practicing in order for a weapon to offer you any real protection.

In Hong Kong, burglars tend to lock the families into the bathrooms and tell them to stay quiet and they'll be gone as soon as they've taken everything. You're safe, your family is safe, but you lost all your stuff. What do you think happens if you try to reach for a gun? I promise you this - in most cases you won't be better off...

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

How timely.

Saw this in Today's paper and thought I'd share these excerpts from the N.Y. Times article with you ...

This is what I see.

“The bottom line is that we are not preventing damaging health behaviors,” said Samuel Preston, a demographer and sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who was on the panel. “You can blame that on public health officials, or on the health care system. No one understands where responsibility lies.”

Another article stating the CAUSE of death among teen is the problem, not the effect (accidents, drugs, and yes guns among other results).

I bet if drugs are eliminated, accident and gun violence will drop.

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by hafr

Due to military/militia keeping their weapons at home. I'm a bit curious as to how to approach this though, should you look at the total number of weapons in private homes, or only at the number of weapons who are not assigned? As in, should you include a police officer's service gun that he keeps at home or not? Because my guess is those who have guns because they were assigned to them aren't the people who the gun control lobby feel should be restricted...

I'm not sure you can tease out a comparison because the two systems are so different, however you could likely use it as a case for education being a deterrent in criminal firearm use.

Originally Posted by hafr

It's quite interesting how you earlier in the thread accused the authors of a study for being dishonest, and now you're just straight up lying.

That's a pretty serious accusation. If you can not back it up I'd like an apology. Maybe you misread my post.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

I'm not sure you can tease out a comparison because the two systems are so different, however you could likely use it as a case for education being a deterrent in criminal firearm use.

I don't think education is a deterrent in criminal use, on the other hand I think education is a key factor in actually respecting the weapon which decreases the risk of someone carrying it for protection (because they understand how stupid it is unless you have immense training), accidental discharges and so on. Kind of like how a good driver is less prone to be in traffic accidents, because they know better than to take stupid risks - not only because they are better at handling risky situations.

That's a pretty serious accusation. If you can not back it up I'd like an apology. Maybe you misread my post.

Incorrect. Switzerland's gun laws are not even close to lax, they just have a higher level of ownership. Canada has a higher level of ownership
Unless the average Swiss gun owner owns 1,5 guns per one gun owned by the average Canadian gun owner, it's simply not true.

But this is becoming a meta discussion, let's focus on the topic.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

You haven't looked at Mexico hard enough. Mexico is 57th on the Human Development Index, below Saudi Arabia. They are a developing nation where over half of the population live in moderate or extreme poverty with an infant mortality rate nearly triple that of the US. Their crime statistics can not be compared to the developed world with any intellectual honesty.



There are three times as many guns in the US as in Canada. Your statement was 100% factually incorrect.

You really did not attempt to comprehend what I wrote, did you?
I am NOT contradicting you!

You even said

Incorrect. Switzerland's gun laws are not even close to lax, they just have a higher level of ownership. Canada has a higher level of ownership, including the ability to purchase handguns, but you require licensing and mandatory education.

Actually, I notice you criticize posts, yet are slow to provide a source.

Let me clarify:
I CLEARLY stated my comparison between Canada and Mexico is DUBIOUS at best, but hint the lack of correlation between gun ownership vs. violence. (you used a dastardly act of not including that in your reply, egg on you).

As to "friendly", this is in context to gun accessibility (the topic of this discussion). You yourself are proof a gun is available for purchase by most Canadians after mandatory training and licensing.

Partial excerpt http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

• In Canada, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
• Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence
  Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Canada are not required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm except when the licence concerns prohibited and restricted firearms
• Minimum Age for Firearm Possession
  The minimum age for gun ownership in Canada is 18 years or 12 years, with limitations
• Gun Owner Background Checks
  An applicant for a firearm licence in Canada must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, addiction and domestic violence records

I have no idea if you are Pro-gun or Anti-gun.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

This is what I see.

Another article stating the CAUSE of death among teen is the problem, not the effect (accidents, drugs, and yes guns among other results).

I bet if drugs are eliminated, accident and gun violence will drop.

I don't undertand your point.

The cause of death in many of these cases is established as firearms.

And as for the quote you posted ...

“The bottom line is that we are not preventing damaging health behaviors,” said Samuel Preston, a demographer and sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who was on the panel. “You can blame that on public health officials, or on the health care system. No one understands where responsibility lies.”

One type of damaging health behavior is shooting someone. When he says that, "No one understands where responsibility lies," he saying that no one is responsible for failing to prevent people from shooting one one another or changing the conditions that make this as common as it is in the U.S.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by k995

Can provide sources if you want but USA has :
Highest homocide rate of western countries
Highest gun violence of western nations
Average overal violent offenses

These 3 should tell you something, overal violence is equal or lower then moest western nations, homocides and the very vast mayority is guns is several times higher.

Compare death by auto vs gun homicide world wide (a crude comparison)
There is much more factors to this simply then gun ownership.
Factors like Education, Social Support, Law enforcement, etc.






Unlike cars, in the US no formal education is needed to get a gun, and THAT is the problem IMHO.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I don't undertand your point.

The cause of death in many of these cases is established as firearms.

Death is the EFFECT, be it gun, knife, beating, strangulation, etc.
What is the CAUSE? (domestic abuse? Gang life? Stupidity?)

Remove the CAUSE, will not have effect (no gun homicide)
Removing the gun will not stop the EFFECT, death by other means.

Guns can make killing easier, but do not promote the act of killing.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

And as for the quote you posted ...

One type of damaging health behavior is shooting someone. When he says that, "No one understands where responsibility lies," he saying that no one is responsible for failing to prevent people from shooting one one another or changing the conditions that make this as common as it is in the U.S.

Again, saying we need to address the CAUSE, what leads up to the killing attack.
Your word "shooting" can be interchanged with "stabbing, strangling, driving over, downing, etc"

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

Guns can make killing easier, but do not promote the act of killing.

Again, saying we need to address the CAUSE, what leads up to the killing attack.

Your word "shooting" can be interchanged with "stabbing, strangling, driving over, downing, etc"

Okay ... okay ...

Instead of regulating guns, we'll do it your way and try to find the CAUSE behind human anger and violence.

And since that's such a good plan, let's apply it to other areas as well.

Instead of balancing government budgets, we'll let them spend all they want until scientists find the CAUSE behind spending more than one takes in.

I think you got something there.

[sim667]

Will banning guns sort out the amount of murders in the states? No.

What needs to change in the states is the mentality US society overall, thats whats killing people, not guns need to be used by someone to kill another, they dont magically do it on their own.

I still think you should have gun control in the US..... Especially when it comes to Fully auto's etc.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by sim667

I still think you should have gun control in the US..... Especially when it comes to Fully auto's etc.

Uh-oh. Now you've done it.

[robanga]

Here are two facts worthy of consideration:

1. While the data may not make this a #1 public health concern, its very visible and its very emotional. Those two things mean a lot to society. Its also relatively controllable at least from a legislation standpoint.

2. Constraints here would be a yet another loss for the right/conservative side of political spectrum. That is an indisputable fact. When you combine this with the factors in #1, its even more interesting.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Uh-oh. Now you've done it.

I can't summon up the energy to respond.

[sim667]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Uh-oh. Now you've done it.

You can take our 9mm's but you'll never take our M4's!

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by sim667

Will banning guns sort out the amount of murders in the states? No.

What needs to change in the states is the mentality US society overall, thats whats killing people, not guns need to be used by someone to kill another, they dont magically do it on their own.

I still think you should have gun control in the US..... Especially when it comes to Fully auto's etc.

If this thread goes any thing like the others of the past, those words will come back to bite you big time.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

Again, saying we need to address the CAUSE, what leads up to the killing attack.
Your word "shooting" can be interchanged with "stabbing, strangling, driving over, downing, etc"

Why not address both?

[sim667]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

If this thread goes any thing like the others of the past, those words will come back to bite you big time.

There are levels of gun control......

Pistols, yeah - I'd have one if I could tbf.
Shotties - well we have double barrelleds in the UK, its quite common for farmers and poshos to have them and its not that difficult to get a license.
Fully auto's - Why would anyone need those unless they're in the armed forces? Its madness.

The words may come back to bite if I cared particularly about people not liking my view on things, but I dont really care. I dont live somewhere that is effected by mass shootings of children particularly regularly (I can only think of the dunblane massacre which was 18 years ago, and Americans clearly dismiss anyone who isnt an american's view because all they want to do is protect their constitution, an out of date bill of rights that was authored in a time just after civil war (I think thats right, i literally know nothing of american history, except bits and pieces).

Its not like our legal system in the UK is any better, its based on the ten commandments, the crux of an ancient book dictated by folklore of desert tribes thousands upon thousands of years ago

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by sim667

There are levels of gun control......

Pistols, yeah - I'd have one if I could tbf.
Shotties - well we have double barrelleds in the UK, its quite common for farmers and poshos to have them and its not that difficult to get a license.
Fully auto's - Why would anyone need those unless they're in the armed forces? Its madness.

The words may come back to bite if I cared particularly about people not liking my view on things, but I dont really care. I dont live somewhere that is effected by mass shootings of children particularly regularly (I can only think of the dunblane massacre which was 18 years ago, and Americans clearly dismiss anyone who isnt an american's view because all they want to do is protect their constitution, an out of date bill of rights that was authored in a time just after civil war (I think thats right, i literally know nothing of american history, except bits and pieces).

Its not like our legal system in the UK is any better, its based on the ten commandments, the crux of an ancient book dictated by folklore of desert tribes thousands upon thousands of years ago

Alright... a quick bit of info.

Full auto weapons have been tightly regulated by BATF since 1934.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by sim667

There are levels of gun control......

Pistols, yeah - I'd have one if I could tbf.
Shotties - well we have double barrelleds in the UK, its quite common for farmers and poshos to have them and its not that difficult to get a license.
Fully auto's - Why would anyone need those unless they're in the armed forces? Its madness.

The words may come back to bite if I cared particularly about people not liking my view on things, but I dont really care. I dont live somewhere that is effected by mass shootings of children particularly regularly (I can only think of the dunblane massacre which was 18 years ago, and Americans clearly dismiss anyone who isnt an american's view because all they want to do is protect their constitution, an out of date bill of rights that was authored in a time just after civil war (I think thats right, i literally know nothing of american history, except bits and pieces).

Its not like our legal system in the UK is any better, its based on the ten commandments, the crux of an ancient book dictated by folklore of desert tribes thousands upon thousands of years ago

You mistake me, it's not that I'm for or against guns in the US. It's the fact that you mentioned the word AUTOMATIC

If this goes true to form, many gun owners will point out that automatic firearms are already Tightly regulated.

See you already got one answer.

[sim667]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

You mistake me, it's not that I'm for or against guns in the US. It's the fact that you mentioned the word AUTOMATIC

If this goes true to form, many gun owners will point out that automatic firearms are already Tightly regulated.

See you already got one answer.

I thought it was dependent on state? Ill accept I'm wrong on that, I thought they were available at the correct licensed dealer, with the correct personal license in a state that they're legal to own them.

TBF my gun control knowledge comes from gunsmoke and another discovery gun show.

However non regulation of firearms is always going to make a black market trade in fully autos easier. Plus the US being attached with South America containing countries where full auto's are reasonably common place.

I think most fully auto's in the UK are probably imported from Russia and the middle east, but we've got a lot of countries and a bit of sea with lots of customs acting as buffers.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Why not address both?

Sure.

But do CAUSE, then EFFECT, becuase then it will be much easier to see what does need control, and there will be much more agreement.

----------

Originally Posted by sim667

I thought it was dependent on state? Ill accept I'm wrong on that, I thought they were available at the correct licensed dealer, with the correct personal license in a state that they're legal to own them.

TBF my gun control knowledge comes from gunsmoke and another discovery gun show.

Clearly, "gunsmoke and another discovery gun show"s are not good sources.

"Fully" automatic are very tightly regulated at the Federal level, meaning all 50 states and territories.

There was a case where a badly worn semi would fire bursts like an auto. Owner received 30 months in jail. If he had it fixed (replace worn parts), no problem.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

Death is the EFFECT, be it gun, knife, beating, strangulation, etc.
What is the CAUSE? (domestic abuse? Gang life? Stupidity?)

Remove the CAUSE, will not have effect (no gun homicide)
Removing the gun will not stop the EFFECT, death by other means.

Guns can make killing easier, but do not promote the act of killing.



Again, saying we need to address the CAUSE, what leads up to the killing attack.
Your word "shooting" can be interchanged with "stabbing, strangling, driving over, downing, etc"

Hear, hear! Someone who gets it.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

But do CAUSE, then EFFECT, becuase then it will be much easier to see what does need control, and there will be much more agreement.

Yes!

Give lifetime welfare payments until we find the cause to idleness.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Why not address both?

What's the point in addressing something that might not be a solution to a problem?

It's pretty interesting though, because I've been waiting for a comment in the lines of "there might not be any facts pointing to stricter gun control being a solution to the problem, but why can't we impose stricter gun laws for a while and then assess its effects it after a few years to see whether the laws should be made permanent".

But no. Attacking, ridiculing and questioning has been the answer.

It's embarrassing to see, to be honest.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

Sure.

But do CAUSE, then EFFECT, becuase then it will be much easier to see what does need control, and there will be much more agreement.

I understand what you're saying. And this order would make sense for many things in the US, but it doesn't seem to be what happens.

For instance, instead of being for a total ban on abortion, the pro-life crowd should be pushing for research on the reasoning behind ones' choice for an abortion. And so on....