Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

How likely am I to be injured by this:



which is locked inside of this:

[bergmann620]

OK. So none of them were found guilty of committing illegal actions. So you're original statement of:

Yet. In those few I've listed, of which most are still pending.

...is flat out misleading. Glad we've established that finally.

You're right, of course- no cop has ever killed someone in an illegal action. Even better than that, no one that has committed a crime and then not been convicted for it. Especially when they have the weight of authority on their side. I'm sure this news will be breed contentment in minority communities across the country.

[belfpala]

~79K to alcohol poisoning/toxicity
~20K to alcohol-caused traffic accidents

vs

~50K gun deaths?

And that's even lumping in intentional (suicide) death.

Are you looking at cases of alcohol poisoning or actual deaths? Your traffic related number is clearly off, which is why I eliminated it (responsible use, as I said).

Suicide question... yes, alcohol is involved in many suicide attempts. Guns also make suicide more likely to work.

[bergmann620]

Don't indulge gunners' bullshit false equivalencies. Just call them for what they are. It's on the plane of attacking a straw-man.

Statistically, the ratio of gun crime to guns/gun owners is far too low to warrant any type of legislation, especially seeing that it likely wouldn't be enforced even if it passed. The only hope you have is the slim possibility of passing serious legislation in the emotional aftermath of a public shooting.

All the studies in the world won't change it. I know it hurts. Maybe another 1500 pages will make you feel superior enough to us old inbred rednecks to get over it.

Probably not.

[Tinykong]

Statistically, the ratio of gun crime to guns/gun owners is far too low to warrant any type of legislation, especially seeing that it likely wouldn't be enforced even if it passed. The only hope you have is the slim possibility of passing serious legislation in the emotional aftermath of a public shooting.

All the studies in the world won't change it. I know it hurts. Maybe another 1500 pages will make you feel superior enough to us old inbred rednecks to get over it.

Probably not.

Joe Biden's face from my avatar sums up the plight of the gun grabbers quite nicely, just look at those tears.

[Altrec]

I don't get why gunners can't expect the fact that noise and light has been proven to be the most effective countermeasure against theft. Maybe it's just not as "badass".

Interestingly enough firing a gun in a dark house creates a lot of light and noise while removing the threat.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Statistically, the ratio of gun crime to guns/gun owners is far too low to warrant any type of legislation, especially seeing that it likely wouldn't be enforced even if it passed. The only hope you have is the slim possibility of passing serious legislation in the emotional aftermath of a public shooting.

All the studies in the world won't change it. I know it hurts. Maybe another 1500 pages will make you feel superior enough to us old inbred rednecks to get over it.

Probably not.

Statistics are of course ALWAYS irrelevant in the face of what makes you "feel" safer.

[bergmann620]

Statistics are of course ALWAYS irrelevant in the face of what makes you "feel" safer.

It's ironic, in a sense, because I'm not a gun owner. I also think that people make flawed assumptions regarding safety and statistics... I readily acknowledge that many freedoms make us less safe- and an open gun policy definitely makes some people less safe, and others more so.

That said, there are many effective ways to lower the number of gun deaths without sacrificing our freedoms, and they mostly have other very positive benefits for society.

[TZucchini]

That said, there are many effective ways to lower the number of gun deaths without sacrificing our freedoms

How exactly would UBC's, safe storage laws, or firearm registration sacrifice your freedom?

[Tinykong]

How exactly would UBC's, safe storage laws, or firearm registration sacrifice your freedom?

They wouldn't.

All the other restrictions and bans that are being tagged onto them, would.

[bergmann620]

How exactly would UBC's, safe storage laws, or firearm registration sacrifice your freedom?

1) UBC's would add a layer of cost and bureaucracy to private party transfers, right?

2) Safe storage laws also add costs to firearms ownership, right? And potentially jeopardize your ability to defend yourself in your home?

3) Registration? I can't ever imagine that being abused. One of the cop stories I linked above was of a young man shot while in his driveway on his knees- the cops were only even there because got tagged for DWB, and the officer tailing him called in the wrong plate number, leading him to believe the car was stolen. Imagine how much worse that, or any traffic stop, or any interaction could be if cops can justifiably treat you like you're armed?

It already happens to CCW-holders:

[Cthulhu 2020]

They wouldn't.

All the other restrictions and bans that are being tagged onto them, would.

I'm all for gun grab pork being removed from common sense regulation. That's why Feinstein's bill never even came up for a vote. It was laden down with so much retarded legislation. Like attempting to leap across a canyon instead of taking it one step at a time down a trail.

[TZucchini]

1) UBC's would add a layer of cost and bureaucracy to private party transfers, right?

Do you have the freedom to purchase firearms without cost or bureaucracy?

2) Safe storage laws also add costs to firearms ownership, right? And potentially jeopardize your ability to defend yourself in your home?

I don't see a freedom being jeopardized here. You still have firearm access in your home. That's what Heller DC established as the floor.

3) Registration? I can't ever imagine that being abused.

You can imagine it all you'd like. The actual registration isn't a sacrifice of freedom. The abuse, on the other hand, would be.

[PhaelixWW]

Why else would someone carry around a dangerous item if not for fear?

Vaccines aren't dangerous. Fire extinguishers aren't dangerous. Seat belts aren't dangerous. Firearms are dangerous.

Multiple studies have shown that firearms are more likely to be used against the individuals that own said firearm (Source1, Source2, Source3).

Why are people willingly subjecting themselves to danger and dangerous items, if not for fear?

Regardless of the multiple times we've shown that those studies are flawed, you keep posting them in support of your position. Remarkable.

Source 1: Only correlates a higher degree of external threat. Which is probably a large part of the reason those home owners had a gun in the first place, right? It doesn't specify the gun being turned around and used on its owner, like you claim.

Source 2: The same errors as the first, plus they only compare them to defensive shootings, which completely ignores the vast, vast majority of defensive gun use which results in the intruder retreating without any shots fired.

Source 3: Same problem as the first two. These studies show a correlative link, but fail to control for the most likely common cause for both: the relative crime in the areas around the homes.

Furthermore, the first two sources use data from the height of the crime wave in the early '90s.

If you want a scientific, detailed rebuttal to a similar study offered by the author of the second source, check this out.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I've checked, and I failed to find a clause in the second amendment that says you have unrestricted and cost-free access to any weapon you desire.

Such a clause exists for VOTING, but Republicans like to conveniently ignore it, especially in states where their majority is being threatened by legal immigration.

[PhaelixWW]

Really? Firearms aren't dangerous? What are the first 4 rules of handling a firearm?

Always keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction. Treat every firearm as if it's loaded. Never put your finger on the trigger unless you're prepared to fire. Always be sure of your target and what's behind it.

Why the fuck do I have to treat every single firearm like that if it's not dangerous?

Why do you strap on a car if it's so dangerous? After all, before you're ever allowed to drive you're taught to keep your eyes on the road, hands on the wheel, check your blind spots, signal clearly before making turns or lane changes, etc.

No, you're taught to respect the safety of yourself and others. That's prudence. But then you get in your car and go out in a dangerous weapon. Or you holster your sidearm and go out with a dangerous weapon. You justify car use for its convenience. You justify a concealed firearm for self-defense. Either way, you accept the potential risk for the possible gain.

And you're far, far, far more likely to be injured or killed due to negligent handling of your car than your firearm.

- - - Updated - - -

Facts don't lie, but gunners just don't want to hear it.

What you think are facts aren't really facts, but hoplophobes just don't want to hear it.

[gioco]

I'll entertain this faulty comparison: Dogs and cars are registered and licensed with the state. No one's crying about "my freedoms." The fact is many items that are much less dangerous than firearms are regulated to a much greater extent. ?

In my state you do not have to register cars or dogs. You can have a car and do what ever you want with on your personal property, you do not even have to have a title to unless you wish to transfer ownership of it. Now if you wish to drive it on public streets then you need to register it, and make sure it meets safety requirements. the same with guns. if they are in my home they are nobodies business, but if I want to carry one in public I have to register myself (not the gun) with the state and get training before i can carry in public.

[TZucchini]

Regardless of the multiple times we've shown that those studies are flawed, you keep posting them in support of your position. Remarkable.

The studies aren't flawed, they're conducted in the proper scientific settings, with bivariable analysis, control groups, confidence intervals, weighted data, statistically significant values etc. I'm not really interested in listening to armchair analysts point out certain aspects that they think invalidate the entire study and the findings.

It's not just a single study by a single author. There are multiple that all come to the same conclusion. Much more than I've linked.

[Cthulhu 2020]

And you're far, far, far more likely to be injured or killed due to negligent handling of your car than your firearm.

There are tons of vehicle regulations in the US. So many in fact, that it's kind of funny to go to other countries and see car/truck models that you don't see in the US because they don't have a certain feature. A lot of these regulations aren't even strictly enforced, and yet things like seat belts are because we know they WORK. The statistics show us they work. Are you going to explain why the statistics showing the seatbelts work are wrong? No? Because you have no vested interest in denying seat belts functioning?

[PhaelixWW]

The number of people making woefully ignorant claims about guns when linked facts to prove otherwise is astounding. It's deliberate ignorance like that which is causing the USA to fall into the shitter.

The number of people who misrepresent a case study conclusion as "facts" and "proof" is astounding. It's a lack of critical thinking like that which is causing the USA to fall into the shitter.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention the fact that many studies have found firearms to actually be a detriment in the home.

And now you're falsely paraphrasing the conclusions of the studies, as your statement implies a causal link the studies purposefully avoid.

I seriously wonder that more people don't understand this concept.