Wanted: fact based arguments for gun control.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by hafr

I have. In the very first post of this thread even...

Happybunny, you were correct. This is right out of the Argument Service.

Hafr,

Those "sources" were already picked apart. I won't bother to dissect again, because, hundreds of messages later, we would end up in exactly the same place.

To attempt to take this in a different direction, a couple of comments/observations:

1) Why does the firearms industry have a seat at the table? I'm happy to sit down with outdoorspeople (hunters and fishermen) to discuss their rifles and fishing knives. Colt and Glock and whoever are there to provide products; they don't deserve a "voice", like real people do.

2) Everyone knows that hardened criminals and criminal gangs are responsible for the bulk of homicides in the U.S. and the statistics bear this out. Yet, those in favor of some level of gun control and those opposed view this in entirely opposite ways. Is there a common viewpoint here somewhere?

[hafr]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Thank you.

But that is for states.

In your post you mentioned other countries.

There is more than one link in the first post.

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Happybunny, you were correct. This is right out of the Argument Service.

Hafr,

Those "sources" were already picked apart. I won't bother to dissect again, because, hundreds of messages later, we would end up in exactly the same place.

To attempt to take this in a different direction, a couple of comments/observations:

1) Why does the firearms industry have a seat at the table? I'm happy to sit down with outdoorspeople (hunters and fishermen) to discuss their rifles and fishing knives. Colt and Glock and whoever are there to provide products; they don't deserve a "voice", like real people do.

2) Everyone knows that hardened criminals and criminal gangs are responsible for the bulk of homicides in the U.S. and the statistics bear this out. Yet, those in favor of some level of gun control and those opposed view this in entirely opposite ways. Is there a common viewpoint here somewhere?

We have a very different take on what "picked apart" means. What has been "picked apart" (of what I've seen) is a handful (if that) comparisons made by the authors in the very beginning of the article, not the actual numbers. Which I must say I think is the most important here if you're claiming it's not a valid source...

If you have indeed picked apart the actual data showing the lack of negative correlation between gun control and homicide/crime rates, either by providing any kind of study, paper, article etc. that shows there is in fact a correlation between strict gun control and low homicide rates, or by showing that the data they're using is wrong or incomplete, I must have missed that/those posts. Would you care to tell me exactly which one(s) you're referring to?

If you haven't, please don't try to make it out like I'm not "listening to reason" since I think I made it very clear in the original post that I'm not interested in intuitive arguments based on emotion, but actual data.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

I afraid that you are starting to sound like the Monty Python Argument Room.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

In your title you state that you want an argument based discussion, but you never bring any ideas or counter proposals to the table.

Your whole thread is just based on saying to everybody else that they are wrong.

You are like Sheldon from BBT.

The only thing I'm after is fact based arguments for imposing stricter gun in order to make society safer. Instead of insulting and mocking me, how about producing them?

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by hafr

The only thing I'm after is fact based arguments for imposing stricter gun in order to make society safer. Instead of insulting and mocking me, how about producing them?

People have- you must have either missed or ignored them.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It sounds as if it worked pretty well in Australia.

Why do you consider it to be "off-the-mark"?

(Please note: this doesn't mean I consider those laws to be on-the-mark. I am not making that claim. You on the other hand consider it to be off-the-mark and I curious as to the reasoning behind that opinion.)

The homicide rate in Australia started decreasing about 20 years before the stricter gun control was instated in 1996 and it didn't decrease faster after 1996...

But hey, I mean, a lower number of accidental deaths is reason enough to impose stricter gun control in my book. People who can't handle guns shouldn't handle them, simple as that.

Buuuuut, the argument is that gun control would make society safer (less crime), and that's what I'm wondering where the proof for is.

----------

Originally Posted by leekohler

People have- you must have either missed or ignored them.

I thought I had read every single post in the thread. Would you like to link the specific posts you're thinking of, please?

----------

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I don't think that was really the point.

The point that I was trying to make is that we shouldn't wait until we understand the basis to human anger and violence before we find ways to lessen the impact of it.

Yet that seems to be what PracticalMac (and you perhaps) seem to expect ... that first we have to understand the motivations behind violence before enacting measures to reduce it.

I believe we can do both.

We can study the human psyche and try to tease out the explanation as to why exactly we behave the way we do AND AT THE SAME TIME we can reduce the risk of lethality posed by firearms.

We can do both.

Can't we?

If it's been tried before and found not to be effective, why focus on the same solution again?

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by hafr

I thought I had read every single post in the thread. Would you like to link the specific posts you're thinking of, please?[COLOR="#808080"]

That's not my responsibility. That's yours. If you've read every post, then you should know by now. I could point to a whole bunch of posts and you'd simply ignore or deny them.

My own opinion is more aligned with Iscariot, quite honestly. However, plenty of people have shown you that restrictions on guns do reduce gun crime in many countries. They have also explained to you why state laws don't work here- something else you ignored. The only way to make any effective gun control legislation would be at the federal level.

Now, that's all you get. Either use the information in this thread, or don't. I have no more time for games.

[CalWizrd]

People have- you must have either missed or ignored them.

Originally Posted by leekohler

That's not my responsibility. That's yours. If you've read every post, then you should know by now.

And here I thought that forum rules said you must be prepared to back up that which you state as fact.

Oh well, I guess I just misunderstood that rule.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

And here I thought that forum rules said you must be prepared to back up that which you state as fact.

Oh well, I guess I just misunderstood that rule.

Cite please.

Where in the forum rules does it say that a member must link to something that was already posted?

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by mcrain

Cite please.

Where in the forum rules does it say that a member must link to something that was already posted?

You're really a funny guy.

I just said I thought that was the rule. Then I said I must have misunderstood.

So calm yourself.

Just funny!

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

You're really a funny guy.

I just said I thought that was the rule. Then I said I must have misunderstood.

So calm yourself.

Just funny!

I'm calm. Are you trying to insult me and insinuate that I am not?

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by mcrain

I'm calm. Are you trying to insult me and insinuate that I am not?

Do you get insulted if someone insinuates that you're not calm?

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Do you get insulted if someone insinuates that you're not calm?

Do you get insulted when someone insinuates that you're being insulting?

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by mcrain

Do you get insulted when someone insinuates that you're being insulting?

No, but I never insinuated that I did.

Matter of fact... it's pretty hard to insult me (or even insinuate that you are). I've been called fat, stupid, arrogant, obnoxious, conceited, repulsive, ... the list could go on ad infinitum. Feel free to agree with any/all of those adjectives.

Won't bother me in the least.

[mcrain]

Nevermind. Apparently, pointing out the silliness of the pro-gun positions is "not calm." Lol

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

I am neither. I believe that there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun fatalities that is hard to deny, but I don't believe that translates into any kind of legislation so much as I believe that translates into education. I consider suggestions that America model it's gun laws on Australia to be just as off-the-mark.

This is why the Car analogy is a very good IMHO.
In less educated places like India, China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia, it is frightening. There is no discipline, little regard for the rules of the road, practically anarchy. A couple of decades ago in Saudi, the attitude was "God's will", meaning drive any way they want, and if they have fatal crash , it was meant to be.

In the US, there is no system wide gun education.
Anyone who never fired a gun, let alone owned a gun, can walk into Wal-Mart and buy one.
THAT is a huge problem.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

Probably more effective to address what facilitates the effect. When somebody is drunk, angry, delusional, abusive......or whatever particular cause you want to choose......reaching for a handy gun is a far easier and quicker route to killing somebody than all of the usual red herrings....."you can kill somebody with......a wet macaroni noodle!!!!"

Well sure you can, but nowhere as quickly or easily as with a gun.

To varying degrees by state, it is either against to law to carry a gun into a place that serves alcohol, or at least to drink while you posses a gun.

But I know what you mean, it is possible to kill more people in a shorter period of time with a gun then a knives.

(unless you count terrorists with box cutters).

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by hafr

The only thing I'm after is fact based arguments for imposing stricter gun in order to make society safer. Instead of insulting and mocking me, how about producing them?

No you are not, if you were really serious about this you would be looking your self. It sounds more like you want other people to do your study work for you, like you are some kind of department head.

The fact still remains that you have not added one jot to this whole argument all you do is sit on the side lines and say thats not right.

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

This is why the Car analogy is a very good IMHO.
In less educated places like India, China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia, it is frightening. There is no discipline, little regard for the rules of the road, practically anarchy. A couple of decades ago in Saudi, the attitude was "God's will", meaning drive any way they want, and if they have fatal crash , it was meant to be.

In the US, there is no system wide gun education.
Anyone who never fired a gun, let alone owned a gun, can walk into Wal-Mart and buy one.
THAT is a huge problem.

What you're describing is essentially the Canadian system. If I wanted to buy another gun (I don't currently own an active firearm, I took mine to the police department and had it deactivated as per the Canadian Firearms Program guidelines) I'd need to acquire a Possession and Acquisition License which includes a mandatory safety course with examination. If I wanted a handgun or AR-15, I'd then have to pass the Restricted PAL course and receive a RPAL, although I'm not certain what kind of hunting restrictions there are with an RPAL; some weapons like the AR-15 are only allowed to be used on designated ranges.

[StruckANerve]

http://www.gunfacts.info/

Here is a very large e-book that has compiled a broad range of stats related to guns. I've only looked at a small bit of it so far, but it seems, after reading all the data and posts in this thread there is still no strong evidence on guns and their legality having an effect on whether or not someone will be a victim of a crime.

I don't understand why gun deaths are so specifically argued. Of course there are more gun deaths in America. The sheer number of firearms in this country is staggering and when you think about the fact that our homicides and rate of violence aren't the highest it would seem that America is actually fairly safe. Being that violence is so heavily concentrated in large cities in very specific areas of those cities, it would seem poverty and poor education are the defining factor. Gun ownership has climbed steadily and gun deaths and crime as a whole has gone down. That one simple fact almost nullifies the entire argument of gun control advocates. If more guns do not equal more crime than how can you argue less guns means less crime?

I don't think a small number people getting killed is enough for me to lose my right to protect myself and my family. I have no problem if people want to talk about background checks and certain other things to combat violence. I have a problem with the Govt disarming law abiding people because of extremely rare cases of madmen killing people. The "assault weapon" argument is the most ridiculous part of the whole thing. Taken from the above link;

Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.”359
Fact: In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%.360
Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. The rate is less than 0.1% In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) as well as some some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.).361
Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides.362
Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
For California:
• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes...assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.”363
For the rest of the nation:
• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.”364
• Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.”365
Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban.366
Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons.367
Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.”368
Fact: Even the government agrees. “The weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”369

It's very clear that the 94 AWB did absolutely nothing yet that is what is being proposed. I am fairly confident that no such ban will ever pass congress again.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

What you're describing is essentially the Canadian system. If I wanted to buy another gun (I don't currently own an active firearm, I took mine to the police department and had it deactivated as per the Canadian Firearms Program guidelines) I'd need to acquire a Possession and Acquisition License which includes a mandatory safety course with examination. If I wanted a handgun or AR-15, I'd then have to pass the Restricted PAL course and receive a RPAL, although I'm not certain what kind of hunting restrictions there are with an RPAL; some weapons like the AR-15 are only allowed to be used on designated ranges.

This Possession and Acquisition License, is it per weapon? (or per type?)

I would agree to a mandatory class before getting a firearm, and have on regular refresher course (certification). And of course routine mental evaluations too.
I think it may be possible to tremendously increase accountability and safety without requiring a licensing system, and most importantly more agreeable to those who feel constitutionally threatened.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

This Possession and Acquisition License, is it per weapon? (or per type?)

I would agree to a mandatory class before getting a firearm, and have on regular refresher course (certification). And of course routine mental evaluations too.
I think it may be possible to tremendously increase accountability and safety without requiring a licensing system, and most importantly more agreeable to those who feel constitutionally threatened.

I think criminals would laugh at your proposals. As for routine mental evaluations by some federal quake, you and yours can be first in line.

No thanks.

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

This Possession and Acquisition License, is it per weapon? (or per type?)

Per type. PAL lets you buy rifles/shotguns, and an RPAL lets you buy handguns and some other firearms like M-16s and AR-15s. I'm not sure what the restrictions are on how many you can buy and the like because I've only owned a bolt-action rifle. Since I don't go shooting very often I just use the unlicensed option at the range, or go to a range when I'm in the States.

[k995]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

I think criminals would laugh at your proposals.

So you also are against drivers licenses?

As people who drive without laugh with those as well.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by k995

So you also are against drivers licenses?

As people who drive without laugh with those as well.

Strawman argument, however driving is a privilege, not a right protected by the constitution so trying to correlate the two is pointless.

[k995]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Strawman argument, however driving is a privilege, not a right protected by the constitution so trying to correlate the two is pointless.

Its not, the arguments used are the same. The consitution allowed certain regulations/restriction to be put on weapon possesion as well.

This is just building on those, and its using the excact same argument as for cars.

Once unlicensed wich resulted in issues with inexperienced or simply crazy drivers hence regulation.