Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

1) Crime rates not correlated with gun rates. Therefore, removing/restricting guns isn't going to change crime rates, just crime rate distribution.
2) Not all gun-related deaths are caused by crimes (murder).
3) Illegalizing guns doesn't prevent gun use in crimes.

1)not really what this is about. This is about homicide rates. Less guns less gun homicides hence less homicide rates.
2)true. Many are. Proper regulations would solve many of these issues
3)no, neither is that possible in the USA now. Anyway, again, as proven by that study, guns homicides are strictly linked to the number of guns per capita. Lowering one will lower the other. This will lower general homicide rates.

[Zoranon]

The Uk does have a much lower murder rate than the USA. And pretty much in line with the rest of Europe.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...velopment-data

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-...istics2013.xls
Last one is about homicides.

- - - Updated - - -



I have no problem responding to your post, after you reply to mine.

Nice try, but the only reason the map was designed was to make US look bad. UK has double the murder rate of fun totting Switzerland how do you explain that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate - go to by country.

[Tinykong]

1)not really what this is about. This is about homicide rates. Less guns less gun homicides hence less homicide rates.

3)no, neither is that possible in the USA now. Anyway, again, as proven by that study, guns homicides are strictly linked to the number of guns per capita. Lowering one will lower the other. This will lower general homicide rates.

There is absolutely no proof of these statements, and evidence exists to suggest the contrary.

[Tasttey]

So I know it's been a few pages of people "discussing" back and forth, but I wanted to come back to this infographic that caused the uproar between TK and Djalil:



I did some digging and it's misleading at best, downright biased at worst.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...ths/69354/(The original article.)

Found the original map and the notes associated with it:http://kff.org/other/state-indicator...-100000/#notes

Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include ICD-10 Codes W32-W34, Accidental discharge of firearm; Codes X72-X74, Intentional self-harm by firearm; X93-X95, Assault by firearm; Y22-Y24, Firearm discharge, undetermined intent; and Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge. Deaths from injury by firearms exclude deaths due to explosives and other causes indirectly related to firearms.

Which I think might be the point of contention between some, it is all inclusive and not specifically referencing the violent use of a firearm to cause death. Then there was some back and forth (which even rereading is a bit disjointed and hard to follow) about definitions, legal and literary, and the intent of the original poster of the graphic and his use of the term "gun violence" (thanks for that Ruk.)

I'd also like the point out the overlay of "States with at least 1 Firearm Law to Designed Protect Children." What a loaded and arbitrary classification of laws, what the overlay actually shows according to the original article is:

The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.

Trigger locks and safe storage requirements, maybe, but explain how assault weapons' bans are laws "designed to protect children." It seems the intent of the map was to point out that the majority of states that have have a law that is "think about the children" have a lower overall death by firearm rate, even if these laws don't really have anything to do with the children.

Speaking of children, federal statute states:

It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver - (1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

So in reality every state already has a law, at the federal level, designed to protect children.

Overall the original article had some decent points, even if according to their correlation voting for McCain was the highest contributor to death by firearm.

[Deleted]

You seem to think you're in control of the discussion here. I'm under no obligation to respond to anything you've posted. If you don't want to continue to engage in a discussion with me, stop posting/quoting/replying to me? It's not hard.

I am having a discussion with two people. I am in control of the discussion I AM HAVING.
If you want to talk to me, reply to the post as I've asked you.
If you don't want to, you can keep talking to me, I will just remind you to go back and give me a satisfactory answer that isn't "paragraphs and grammar".

[PhaelixWW]

Then why does every military unit in the world use them?

A pistol grip can enhance the stability of a firearm in multi-round shots (burst or automatic modes). This does not apply to civilian use in homicides.

A pistol grip is also more ergonomic and easier to hold while keeping the firearm at-the-ready for hours on end. This does not apply to civilian use in homicides.

An adjustable stock and pistol grip combo allows the user to tuck the firearm in closer to the body, providing a lower profile for return fire and less chance for enemy combatant CQC. These do not apply to civilian use in homicides, especially considering that the same or better applies to handguns.

A barrel shroud is honestly the same thing as a forestock on any other rifle. There's no reason to ban this feature, unless they think lots of people are going to fire from the hip and hold onto the fore-end of the rifle by the top instead of the bottom.

But hell, Tony Montana didn't even do that in Scarface:



- - - Updated - - -

One gun allowed per person for self defense, one for hunting

One firearm for all types of hunting? I don't even know where to start...

[Tinykong]

I am having a discussion with two people. I am in control of the discussion I AM HAVING.
If you want to talk to me, reply to the post as I've asked you.

I will continue to respond to your posts as I see fit. If you don't like that, you're welcomed to put me on ignore.

[rhandric]

1)not really what this is about. This is about homicide rates. Less guns less gun homicides hence less homicide rates.
2)true. Many are. Proper regulations would solve many of these issues
3)no, neither is that possible in the USA now. Anyway, again, as proven by that study, guns homicides are strictly linked to the number of guns per capita. Lowering one will lower the other. This will lower general homicide rates.

1) Fallacy. You make 2 assumptions here. The first, that lowering general gun ownership will reduce gun homicides. The second, that those who want to kill someone are dependent on guns to make it happen.
2) You can't regulate proper handling (or rather, you can, but you can't enforce it except after something goes wrong), which wouldn't solve anything.
3) The problem with this is that the study looks at a single year, across multiple countries. So while the global trend might hold true, you can't assume that it applies in isolation over time.

[Deleted]

Nice try, but the only reason the map was designed was to make US look bad. UK has double the murder rate of fun totting Switzerland how do you explain that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate - go to by country.

Perhaps because murder rates are affected by many factors?
Do you really want me to explain to you why the uk have more murders rate than Switzerland?

The map was designed to make you look bad? What do you mean? Have you or not double the amount of guns per capita (88?) compared to the second developed country (Switzerland 45 which is third, Yemen is second with 52)?
Have you or have you not a murder rate that is way higher than the rest of the developed world? How is stating a fact making you look bad?

- - - Updated - - -

I will continue to respond to your posts as I see fit. If you don't like that, you're welcomed to put me on ignore.

And I will continue to kindly point you to the post in question, without bothering to answer you, as I see fit. Thank you.

[Zoranon]

Perhaps because murder rates are affected by many factors?
Do you really want me to explain to you why the uk have more murders rate than Switzerland?

The map was designed to make you look bad? What do you mean? Have you or not double the amount of guns per capita (88?) compared to the second developed country (Switzerland 45 which is third, Yemen is second with 52)?
Have you or have you not a murder rate that is way higher than the rest of the developed world? How is stating a fact making you look bad?

You are constantly claiming that gun regulation have a direct impact on murder rate. I have refuted that fact and now you are trying to hand wave that fact away. Bad luck, it is not going to work.

[Tinykong]

The map was designed to make you look bad? What do you mean? Have you or not double the amount of guns per capita (88?) compared to the second developed country (Switzerland 45 which is third, Yemen is second with 52)?
Have you or have you not a murder rate that is way higher than the rest of the developed world? How is stating a fact making you look bad?

Might want to brush up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

[PhaelixWW]

GUYS stop being arrogant. He might have his OWN FUCKING REASONS that he does not want to discuss with any of you guys.

Uh, not when the rest of the country has a spotlight put on their reasons for ownership. Not after he's repeatedly insulted people for ownership. Not after he's completely dismissed defensive purposes as a viable reason for ownership.

Didn't you just say that people should only be able to own one for the purpose of hunting and defense? Does Rukentuts hunt, then?

Why the double-standard?

[Deleted]

1) Fallacy. You make 2 assumptions here. The first, that lowering general gun ownership will reduce gun homicides. The second, that those who want to kill someone are dependent on guns to make it happen.
2) You can't regulate proper handling (or rather, you can, but you can't enforce it except after something goes wrong), which wouldn't solve anything.
3) The problem with this is that the study looks at a single year, across multiple countries. So while the global trend might hold true, you can't assume that it applies in isolation over time.

Sorry mate but 1) is the reason why I linked that study. Which says:

The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country

.
So you can't call that a fallacy anymore. I thought you weren't surprised by the result of that study. Color me shocked you said
2)no but it can be made sure idiots that handle guns improperly aren't given any to juggle around. Of course you can't predict the unpredictable event.
3)I guess time will tell?

- - - Updated - - -

A pistol grip can enhance the stability of a firearm in multi-round shots (burst or automatic modes). This does not apply to civilian use in homicides.

A pistol grip is also more ergonomic and easier to hold while keeping the firearm at-the-ready for hours on end. This does not apply to civilian use in homicides.

An adjustable stock and pistol grip combo allows the user to tuck the firearm in closer to the body, providing a lower profile for return fire and less chance for enemy combatant CQC. These do not apply to civilian use in homicides, especially considering that the same or better applies to handguns.

A barrel shroud is honestly the same thing as a forestock on any other rifle. There's no reason to ban this feature, unless they think lots of people are going to fire from the hip and hold onto the fore-end of the rifle by the top instead of the bottom.

But hell, Tony Montana didn't even do that in Scarface:



- - - Updated - - -


One firearm for all types of hunting? I don't even know where to start...

Your ancestors were using bow and arrows. You got spoiled

[rhandric]

Sorry mate but 1) is the reason why I linked that study. Which says:
.
So you can't call that a fallacy anymore. I thought you weren't surprised by the result of that study. Color me shocked you said
2)no but it can be made sure idiots that handle guns improperly aren't given any to juggle around. Of course you can't predict the unpredictable event.
3)I guess time will tell?

- - - Updated - - -



Your ancestors were using bow and arrows. You got spoiled

1 is directly affected by 3

[Deleted]

You are constantly claiming that gun regulation have a direct impact on murder rate. I have refuted that fact and now you are trying to hand wave that fact away. Bad luck, it is not going to work.

Did you read the study that said:

The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country

Which means regulating and reducing possibly the amount of guns per capita will affect gun related deaths, which will in turn lower murder rates.
How did you refute that again?
Unless of course you went through the study and found fallacies. You're welcome to have a look.

- - - Updated - - -

1 is directly affected by 3

In both ways?

[Tinykong]

Did you read the study that said:

Which means regulating and reducing possibly the amount of guns per capita will affect gun related deaths, which will in turn lower murder rates.

Where does the study say: "lowering gun related deaths will in turn lower murder rates," exactly?

[Deleted]

So I know it's been a few pages of people "discussing" back and forth, but I wanted to come back to this infographic that caused the uproar between TK and Djalil:



I did some digging and it's misleading at best, downright biased at worst.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...ths/69354/(The original article.)

Found the original map and the notes associated with it:http://kff.org/other/state-indicator...-100000/#notes



Which I think might be the point of contention between some, it is all inclusive and not specifically referencing the violent use of a firearm to cause death. Then there was some back and forth (which even rereading is a bit disjointed and hard to follow) about definitions, legal and literary, and the intent of the original poster of the graphic and his use of the term "gun violence" (thanks for that Ruk.)

I'd also like the point out the overlay of "States with at least 1 Firearm Law to Designed Protect Children." What a loaded and arbitrary classification of laws, what the overlay actually shows according to the original article is:



Trigger locks and safe storage requirements, maybe, but explain how assault weapons' bans are laws "designed to protect children." It seems the intent of the map was to point out that the majority of states that have have a law that is "think about the children" have a lower overall death by firearm rate, even if these laws don't really have anything to do with the children.

Speaking of children, federal statute states:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

So in reality every state already has a law, at the federal level, designed to protect children.

Overall the original article had some decent points, even if according to their correlation voting for McCain was the highest contributor to death by firearm.

My apogies I didn't mean to ignore you.
Thank you for picking it up. Tinykong couldn't.
Keep in mind that the focus of the discussion back then wasnt focused on firearm violence.
You're right in pointing all these issues out, but you see that doesn't change the fact that they are all "deaths caused by firearm injuries".
Gun related deaths.
Firearm violence was something introduced by tinykong to deviate the discussion to a field that is nearly impossible to define and discuss.

[Rukentuts]

Few more pages and still no rational gunner arguments.

[PhaelixWW]

Sorry I don't like to discuss with LIERS that refuse to answer properly written posts because they can't.
If you wan to talk to me you need to reply to post 25638 where I shown you LIED in order to prove your point.
Otherwise you can kindly shut the fuck up. Thankee

What lie are you even talking about? That's clearly not the right post #.

Did you see the "besides ad hominem"? I'm waiting.

You clearly have no idea what ad hominem means.

[Zoranon]

Did you read the study that said:

Which means regulating and reducing possibly the amount of guns per capita will affect gun related deaths, which will in turn lower murder rates.
How did you refute that again?
Unless of course you went through the study and found fallacies. You're welcome to have a look.

- - - Updated - - -



In both ways?

Make up your mind, either gun control reduces overall murder rate, in which case UK must have lower murder rate than Switzerland or it does not. But I understand your argument would completely fall apart if you did. So I am not holding my breath.