Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Eroginous]

You really are trying hard to not be credible, eh?

Ironically, he doesn't really have to try that hard.

[Mayhem]

Actually that assumption is wrong, declaring guns as something else than weapons/arms would remove the constitutional protection from them and much greater regulation would be possible.

it would? that´s brilliant! well then it´s over, because thanks to eroginous and others here, guns aren´t weapons

lol

[Zoranon]

it would? that´s brilliant! well then it´s over, because thanks to eroginous and others here, guns aren´t weapons

lol

Ah that would be an amusing argument at a court "Your honour, the second does not apply any more because a guy on mmochampion said that guns are not arms". Heh

[TZucchini]

A new meta-analysis of gun research, released today, has revealed what many have been saying all along:

Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

[Naxere]

A new meta-analysis of gun research, released today, has revealed what many have been saying all along:

Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

If that's true, what's the big deal then? Let all the gun owners kill themselves and get murdered and there'll be less gun owners!

[lockedout]

A new meta-analysis of gun research, released today, has revealed what many have been saying all along:

Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

There were no restrictions on age, sex, or country.

[TZucchini]

There were no restrictions on age, sex, or country.

I'm confused. Is that supposed to support an argument you have?

If you just want to single out the US, the study does that:

Reported proportions of U.S. households and persons with access to firearms are the highest in the world (3–4), whereas rates of firearm-related deaths are among the highest among high-income countries (4).

[Mayhem]

A new meta-analysis of gun research, released today, has revealed what many have been saying all along:

Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

Firearms cause an estimated 31 000 deaths annually in the United States (1). Data from the 16-state National Violent Death Reporting System indicate that 51.8% of deaths from suicide in 2009 (n = 9949) were firearm-related; among homicide victims (n = 4057), 66.5% were firearm-related. Most suicides (76.4%) occurred in the victims’ homes. Homicides also frequently occurred in the home, with 45.5% of male victims and 74.0% of female victims killed at home (2).

Firearm ownership is more prevalent in the United States than in any other country; approximately 35% to 39% of households have firearms (3–4), and 22% of persons report owning firearms. The annual rate of suicide by firearms (6.3 suicides per 100 000 residents) is higher in the United States than in any other country with reported data, and the annual rate of firearm-related homicide in the United States (7.1 homicides per 100 000 residents) is the highest among high-income countries (4). Results from ecological studies suggest that state restrictions on firearm ownership are associated with decreases in firearm-related suicides and homicides (5).

Specific characteristics about storage and types of firearms seem to increase suicide risk. Firearms that are stored loaded or unlocked are more likely to be used than those that are unloaded or locked (6–7), and adolescent suicide victims often use an unlocked firearm in the home (8). The apparent increased risk for suicide associated with firearms in the home is not unique to persons with a history of mental illness (7) and may be more of an indicator of the ease of impulsive suicide.

Impulsiveness may be a catalyst in using a firearm to commit suicide and may also play a role in firearm-related homicide. Researchers have estimated higher odds of homicide victimization among women than men (9–10). Because most homicide victims know their perpetrators (9), this finding may indicate an impulsive reaction to domestic disputes.

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the association between firearm accessibility and suicide or homicide victimization.

that´s from the link...

[lockedout]

I'm confused. Is that supposed to support an argument you have?

If you just want to single out the US, the study does that:

Types of Participants:
Participants were not restricted by age, sex, or country of residence.
So in this study people from war torn countries were used?

[Ghostpanther]

Actually that assumption is wrong, declaring guns as something else than weapons/arms would remove the constitutional protection from them and much greater regulation would be possible.

Hard-liner pro-gun nut? You really are trying hard to not be credible, eh?

The constitution refers to "arms". Which can cover several different types of arms which can be used as weapons for self protection. A person with a pitchfork or kitchen knife can be considered to be "armed". People seem to think it only applies to guns. Why the Supreme Court does not rule against the states which ban switch blades is a good sign of how messed up they are in understanding the constitution.

[Lightwysh]

That's like saying people who own sports cars are more likely to die in sports car related deaths.

It's common sense that people who own guns are more likely to die by gun related accidents/homicide vs people who don't have guns.

Nothing to see here. I'm sure there are reports that people with pools are more likely to die by drowning or have someone drown I their pool vs someone who doesn't have a pool.

Gun control needs 2 things, universal background checks and mandatory locking safe storage. We could also argue for mental health physicals prior to a gun purchase as well, but I'm sure somebody will cry how their medical condition is of no concern to the government.

[Wildtree]

A new meta-analysis of gun research, released today, has revealed what many have been saying all along:

Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

Of course it's said all along and for a long time.
The correlation of corresponding international data speaks loud and clear enough..

In summary, we're dealing with a rather unique situation here..
1. The country is extremely young, still...
2. Ever since it's exploration, and throughout it's evolutionary process as a country, guns have always played a big role in the USA..
There was a need for them for a long long time.. And that is way beyond the Revolutionary war, and the Civil war..
Let's look at some things here...
The Wild West period, that stretches up to about 1890... That's not sooo far back in the past..
Up until today, there are still remains from that kind of culture. There are still cowboys out there, herding cattle on horses, they really need to have guns..
Another important historic date is 1886... Again, not sooo far in the past... It's the year, when the last great chief finally surrendered, Geronimo..
Now last but not least, there was another brief period in the country's timeline where guns took the center stage... The times around the prohibition.
1920s - 1940s if you will... The days of the famous gangs and iconic criminals like Al Capone and the likes.
All in all... Ever since, Americans evolved as a society, it has always heavily relied on the use of firearms. And that lead to what we're referring to as "gun culture".
It is not an easy task to get the population up to par with the rest of the civilized world on that part.
There's a lot of foolishness coming with this..
If you are against guns, and how they are handled in the US, you are a fool if you neglect the history surrounding the situation, and the circumstances how it came to it. You are even more of a fool when you expect or even demand radical change. That's stupidity running rampant. It's not gonna happen, because I cannot happen. Not radical, not from one day to the next...
Now to the pro-gun supporters... You are just as foolish if you believe that any situation and law that supports your stance for the current situation is a sacred.
Laws change all the time, constitutions change all the time. And the odds for this laws and the constitution to be changed are getting ever higher. You are even more foolish if you try to defend the Status Quo with exaggerations like "They wanna take our guns away"... You'd be a lot better off, if you would not follow the bullshit propaganda from extremists or lobbyists. No one's gonna take your guns away.. Why? Read above. It cannot happen, especially not over night.

Regulations on the matter involve a lot of time. A decade is a more realistic approach. Because there's a lot more to it than just a simple change of law, or even the constitution. It's a problem anchored so deep in the society, that other aspects need to be tackled as well. And that, as said, takes time...

[Tinykong]

The funny part is that he's saying this side is trying to define guns as a weapon, when it always starts with a hard-liner pro-gun nut screaming guns aren't weapon as a nice little red herring diversion, that conversation starting in about how cars can be used as a weapon but ignoring the primary design purpose of a car vs a gun. Because if a gun isn't a weapon, we don't need to control it, and thus anyone should be able to acquire one.

The "gun isn't a weapon" has been distilled down from the original "not all guns are designed to kill people" argument as a strawman.

[TZucchini]

So in this study people from war torn countries were used?

Nope. Anything else?

[Rukentuts]

Ironically, he doesn't really have to try that hard.

The best part is that you posted this, after your dictionary bit. Would you like the definition of irony?

[lockedout]

Nope. Anything else?

Does it list the countries used?

[Wildtree]

you guys and your dictionary joke.. lol

I have to burst a little bubble... Just a little one though...
If one wants to neglect common sense, and resorts to splicing hair.. Eroginous needs to be given some credit..
There's - unfortunately? - no English dictionary that's considered or acknowledged as prescriptive....
Doesn't mean they are useless or not a guideline...

But dictionaries are either of the two: prescriptive or descriptive, with the former being basically undisputed guidelines.

Yet again... Only if we neglect common sense entirely he'd have a case..

- - - Updated - - -

Does it list the countries used?

Why don't you study the research instead of asking?

[lockedout]

you guys and your dictionary joke.. lol

I have to burst a little bubble... Just a little one though...
If one wants to neglect common sense, and resorts to splicing hair.. Eroginous needs to be given some credit..
There's - unfortunately? - no English dictionary that's considered or acknowledged as prescriptive....
Doesn't mean they are useless or not a guideline...

But dictionaries are either of the two: prescriptive or descriptive, with the former being basically undisputed guidelines.

Yet again... Only if we neglect common sense entirely he'd have a case..

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't you study the research instead of asking?

I did it says this but I didn't see a list.
Types of Participants
Participants were not restricted by age, sex, or country of residence.
Furthermore I wasn't talking to you and the person I was talking to asked if I had any more questions.
Thanks for you concern.

[TZucchini]

Does it list the countries used?

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

All the information is there. It has 97 separate references. If you want to criticize the study, point to something specific, rather than asking aimless questions.

[Wildtree]

I did it says this but I didn't see a list.
Types of Participants
Participants were not restricted by age, sex, or country of residence.

Well, if that's a thorough study, it's likely that the paper that comes with it, is the size of a book, with hundreds of pages.. What we have though is a link to a condensed version of results.