Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grizzly Willy]

I'm not sure how one can have participated in this discussion for so long and still not understand the problem with pointing at a location with localized gun laws as proof that federal gun laws wouldn't work.

Anti gun people will argue for any law that prohibits guns.
They are all for gun safe zones and localized gun laws.

Is this another "everybody that is for gun laws thinks exactly the same" argument?

[lockedout]

I'm not sure how one can have participated in this discussion for so long and still not understand the problem with pointing at a location with localized gun laws as proof that federal gun laws wouldn't work.

Apparently this was gang related, last I checked gangs didn't care if the law was local or federal.

[Grizzly Willy]

Apparently this was gang related, last I checked gangs didn't care if the law was local or federal.

Murderers don't care for the law, either. Let's legalize murder.

Gonna have to buy a barn to put all these dead horses in.

[TZucchini]

Anti gun people will argue for any law that prohibits guns.
They are all for gun safe zones and localized gun laws.

Sure. Some people will support anything that restricts gun ownership, and some people will support anything that increases gun ownership (guns for the blind?).

However, most "anti gun people" in this thread seem to understand that localized gun laws simply don't work.

[vaeevictiss]

Not new. I've followed this thread from the beginning. I haven't seen anyone arguing in favor of localized gun laws. Most people understand that they simply don't work. I have seen people argue for federal gun laws.

so turn the entire nation into Chicago...got it.

[GreatOak]

Murderers don't care for the law, either. Let's legalize murder.

Gonna have to buy a barn to put all these dead horses in.

Murder law punishes people after they commit the crime it doesn't preemptively stop a murderer

Different type of law

[Eroginous]

Christ, 13 people shot, and a 3 year old in critical condition. Just perfect.

Just an FYI, for everyone shouting "mass shootings are really rare!" There have been 255 cases this year of single incident shootings where 4 or more people have been shot and injured.

255. There's only been 262 days so far this year.

You do realize that this is a big country with lots of people, right?

Quoting numbers doesn't really mean anything without context.

0.0035% of the population dying every year to gun violence isn't a very big number at all. Gun related deaths don't even rank in the top 15 in the 2010 CDC numbers.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

I realize ANY amount of people dying to gun violence is 'too many,' but with 314 million people in this country, we're going to lose some to gun violence.

That's just how the world works.

Murderers don't care for the law, either. Let's legalize murder.

The law isn't there to stop murderers. It's there to give us the ability to punish them appropriately when they DO murder. We very well do need laws against murder, but expecting them to stop crime is pretty absurd.

[Grizzly Willy]

Murder law punishes people after they commit the crime it doesn't preemptively stop a murderer

Different type of law

Hm, would drug laws be a better analogy?

[GreatOak]

And Cornell Park is a shitty place. This shit always happens on the south or far west side in the shitty neighborhoods. I've never heard of this type of crap in the north side or downtown. Those thugs on the south side just don't care for human life. Gun control won't stop them. Jobs and education will stop them.



- - - Updated - - -

Hm, would drug laws be a better analogy?

Yes but those laws have been enormous failures as drug use hasn't declined and they've been the cause of lots of violence as well as the destruction of millions of families.

[Grizzly Willy]

Yes but those laws have been enormous failures as drug use hasn't declined and they've been the cause of lots of violence as well as the destruction of millions of families.

True. I see your point.

[Wells]

Apparently this was gang related, last I checked gangs didn't care if the law was local or federal.

Man I hope you miss the point less when you're shooting your gun.

[GreatOak]

There seems to be a lot of confusion out there about the number of mass shootings. Lets fix that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXezJWmSOo


With data

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=

[TZucchini]

You do realize that this is a big country with lots of people, right?

Quoting numbers doesn't really mean anything without context.

So in your opinion, how many mass shootings would be acceptable? 1 a day? 2 a day? 5 a day? What's your cutoff point where you say, "OK, it's time to do something."

0.0035% of the population dying every year to gun violence isn't a very big number at all. Gun related deaths don't even rank in the top 15 in the 2010 CDC numbers.

So when it get's into the top 15, then can we do something about it? Should we just sit back and wait till then?

- - - Updated - - -

There seems to be a lot of confusion out there about the number of mass shootings. Lets fix that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXezJWmSOo


With data

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=

I apologize for not having the time to go through that report.

Can you give me a TLDR? What's the confusion?

[GreatOak]

So in your opinion, how many mass shootings would be acceptable? 1 a day? 2 a day? 5 a day? What's your cutoff point where you say, "OK, it's time to do something."




So when it get's into the top 15, then can we do something about it? Should we just sit back and wait till then?

- - - Updated - - -



I apologize for not having the time to go through that report.

Can you give me a TLDR? What's the confusion?

There's no increase in mass murders (an already statistically miniscule problem) because the trend hasn't changed over a long period of time. It just varied by the year within certain constraints.

[TZucchini]

There's no increase in mass murders (an already statistically miniscule problem) because the trend hasn't changed over a long period of time. It just varied by the year within certain constraints.

I thought you were talking about mass shootings?

[Eroginous]

For those of you curious about suppressors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGk9ZVQkz2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2GchQ3orB0

- - - Updated - - -

So in your opinion, how many mass shootings would be acceptable? 1 a day? 2 a day? 5 a day? What's your cutoff point where you say, "OK, it's time to do something."

'None' are acceptable. But 'some' are going to happen anyway.

Wishing them away doesn't stop them, even in a country with heavy gun control.

So when it get's into the top 15, then can we do something about it? Should we just sit back and wait till then?

There are a lot of things we could do about them. It just so happens the things people are proposing (UBCs, close gunshow 'loophole,' AWB, ect) don't really do much to address the problem: a guy with a gun can walk into most public places unhindered and open fire, taking out a number of people before the cops can even get there.

This tells me three things:

1. Police response time is inherently slow.
2. Police are not in a good enough position to effectively respond to a shooting event in order to stop it more quickly or even prevent casualty.
3. We need people who are trained to react in these events, armed and in place to react when these events happen, so as to limit the scope of casualty before the police get there.

[Kellhound]

Is the shooting in Chicago a gun issue, a gang issue, or a Chicago issue?
I vote a Chicago issue.

[Svifnymr]

Murderers don't care for the law, either. Let's legalize murder.

Gonna have to buy a barn to put all these dead horses in.

That "legalize murder" retort really is just out of place for most of the discussion. Saying gangs run drugs/guns from other locales into their main breeding/selling grounds does not equate to "no use in having crimes". What they are doing is already illegal though, so the question is "why make more laws that won't help".

So the actual statement would be more like trying to pass a law that makes mass murder an additional charge on top of regular murder, so you can get double penalty! It doesn't matter if you're not already prosecuting them.

Yes, Chicago has strict gun laws, so guns come from elsewhere (we'll ignore that all guns go through many hands before arriving at the end-user). The thing is, it's illegal to buy a gun elsewhere and transport it back. A guy living in chicago cannot legally drive to nearby Freegun City and buy a gun. He is not a resident there. He can falsify documents, he can straw purchase, both are illegal. Let's say he does such and returns to Chicago, using said gun in a crime. Gun's recovered, guns traced, they see what happened and then they do nothing to the straw purchaser.

So you enact lets say, full gun registration. Now they're flummoxed. How do they get the gun now that there is a national system? Well, they could use false documentation, or straw purchase it...

So yeah, no one is saying "they won't follow the laws, so we don't need any laws". It's "they aren't following current laws, so why draft more laws that they won't be bound by either".

- - - Updated - - -

Is the shooting in Chicago a gun issue, a gang issue, or a Chicago issue?
I vote a Chicago issue.

High crime areas obviously have issues, but no one suggests just bringing in the national guard for a house-to-house search for illegal guns or drugs. That would be a HUGE violation of all sorts of rights, obviously.

[Wells]

You guys do know laws do more than make things illegal right? This whole more laws won't stop crime thing is just flat nonsensical.

[Kellhound]

That "legalize murder" retort really is just out of place for most of the discussion. Saying gangs run drugs/guns from other locales into their main breeding/selling grounds does not equate to "no use in having crimes". What they are doing is already illegal though, so the question is "why make more laws that won't help".

So the actual statement would be more like trying to pass a law that makes mass murder an additional charge on top of regular murder, so you can get double penalty! It doesn't matter if you're not already prosecuting them.

Yes, Chicago has strict gun laws, so guns come from elsewhere (we'll ignore that all guns go through many hands before arriving at the end-user). The thing is, it's illegal to buy a gun elsewhere and transport it back. A guy living in chicago cannot legally drive to nearby Freegun City and buy a gun. He is not a resident there. He can falsify documents, he can straw purchase, both are illegal. Let's say he does such and returns to Chicago, using said gun in a crime. Gun's recovered, guns traced, they see what happened and then they do nothing to the straw purchaser.

So you enact lets say, full gun registration. Now they're flummoxed. How do they get the gun now that there is a national system? Well, they could use false documentation, or straw purchase it...

So yeah, no one is saying "they won't follow the laws, so we don't need any laws". It's "they aren't following current laws, so why draft more laws that they won't be bound by either".

- - - Updated - - -



High crime areas obviously have issues, but no one suggests just bringing in the national guard for a house-to-house search for illegal guns or drugs. That would be a HUGE violation of all sorts of rights, obviously.

I was thinking more along the lines of giving all of Cook County to Canada.

- - - Updated - - -

You guys do know laws do more than make things illegal right? This whole more laws won't stop crime thing is just flat nonsensical.

Most laws tell say what you cannot do or what the Government can do to you, few say what you can do (unless it is to let it be know that it was easier to say what you can do than what you cannot because it is a much shorter list...).