Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Eroginous]

i think they are doing this because they have very little leeway for anything regarding firearm legislation, also they probably are doing it to appeal to voters

What do you mean by 'very little leeway?' If you meant what I think you meant by it, they're just throwing random laws out there to see what sticks, and aren't really trying to pass laws 'because they are needed.'

i think every accessory should be looked at, and allowed or banned case by case, not banning the firearm itself but certain parts

I'm glad that you're not in agreement about classifying a firearm as an 'assault weapon' based on accessories. Now can we agree that the argument for doing so is based on how they make the gun look, and not how they make it function?

i think a universal right for everyone to carry guns is not a great idea, people should have to prove that they are fit to be allowed/trusted with firearms around other people

If you have to prove yourself before you can do something, then it isn't a right.

what you do at your home, is up to you, but as soon as you want to carry open/concealed doesn´t matter, you have to get a license, you have to register your weapon and you have to pass a test and you can never be free of consequences for your actions

I don't see a difference between having a gun at home and carrying one in public. Both are rights protected by the constitution.

[Ghostpanther]

If you have to prove yourself before you can do something, then it isn't a right.

Very well put. That is one thing some in other countries do not understand or disagree with. But for American's we can simply stand on the principal it is a right under our Constitution and no other explanation is necessary. Of course the courts have already established there are limitations to our rights, such as there are on the exercise of free speech. But it is still a right which we can stand on within the limits of the law. It is really the same principle a citizen is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

[/B]

[Tinykong]

#36185

nope, of course not, no sir

That post doesn't link to anything.

[PhaelixWW]

Because we haven't proven earlier in this thread, how being armed makes one more paranoid, or anything like that...

I think this thread has definitely proved that a certain poster is paranoid about people knowing that he's armed. Does that count?

Nope. But at least hey won't kill with a firearm. That is the point I'm making.

What does it matter what tool is used in the murder as long as the murder is still committed? Does it make a difference to the victim?

Which is why it's probably just as likely that, all things being equal, a victim is just as likely to pull the trigger than the attackers. Especially when someone is of the believe that their life is in imminent danger.

Bullshit.

All things being equal, attackers are, by definition, more prone to attacking than defenders. And if all things are equal, and life is in imminent danger, then life is in imminent danger for the attacker, too. You're trying to make things not equal. You're trying to say that a defender who fears for his life is more likely to shoot than an attacker who does not fear for his life. That's not a valid comparison, which you keep trying to avoid acknowledging.

Your stubborn defense of this untenable position is bordering on farcical.

Moreover, if there was an imbalance, which is possible; if an attacker was more likely to pull the trigger than a victim, I would be willing to wager it would be somewhere between 2-3 times more likely. But 36 times more likely? I don't see that as realistic in the least.

"Pulling the trigger" is not the same as committing homicide. A defender is far less likely to chase down an attacker and finish him off rather than letting him get away than vice versa. The attacker also, being the aggressor, has more of a chance to be allowed to retreat before violence ensues than a defender.

And, of course, this hasn't even begun to address the several limitations placed on the DGU numbers that I've already outlined. From a scientific standpoint, the numbers are just no where near reliable.

And yet somehow you think that any ambiguity favors your belief. Your points all just indicate that the information isn't complete, not that any such additional information would favor your stated position instead of the opposite.

Yet it doesn't take a scientific study to know that attackers are more prone to attacking than defenders. Attackers also have the benefit of choosing the confrontation, and are far less likely to do so if they have reason to believe that their intended victim is armed with a firearm.

Your argument basically boils down to "let's eschew common sense and go with the obviously biased statistic because there are a few unknowns in the more logical statistical comparison."

[Mayhem]

That post doesn't link to anything.

i know, i wondered if you´d manage to find it without my help, guess not

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean by 'very little leeway?' If you meant what I think you meant by it, they're just throwing random laws out there to see what sticks, and aren't really trying to pass laws 'because they are needed.'

if that´s true than hell that´s very poor legislation

I'm glad that you're not in agreement about classifying a firearm as an 'assault weapon' based on accessories. Now can we agree that the argument for doing so is based on how they make the gun look, and not how they make it function?

some might just change the look others don´t, hence why i said case by case, so no we can´t agree on that

If you have to prove yourself before you can do something, then it isn't a right.

that´s why i wrote the first part

I don't see a difference between having a gun at home and carrying one in public. Both are rights protected by the constitution.

you might not see a difference but others do, and since you´re not alone in the world, your actions have effects on others/strangers that could lead to them taking action and so on

it´s this whole society thingy we´re living in, you know, where most people try to go on about their lives not upsetting anyone for no reason

- - - Updated - - -

Attackers [...] are far less likely to do so if they have reason to believe that their intended victim is armed with a firearm.

is this a guess or not? because if not then that would be a very good point for gun ownership and even open carry

[arandomuser]

liberal progressive here, One thing i see is that all gun control legislation is targeted towards heavy weapons, automatic and semi automatic weapons, and you will achieve essentially nothing unless you also target handguns of which 99% of gun related murders are perpetrated with, sure mass shootings are a tragedy we should not have to deal with, however banning assault weapons would have NO effect whatsoever on our crime rate or in curving violence.

And another point i want to make which is a typical right wing argument based on a fallacy
Hitler and stalin DID NOT take away their peoples weapons, in fact they both encouraged their people to arm themselves and form militias when the opposing force would attack their city's to defend themselves. Guns were usually restricted from persecuted minorities, but gun control was not necessary at all to maintain their regimes as propaganda was much more efficient.

[PhaelixWW]

is this a guess or not? because if not then that would be a very good point for gun ownership and even open carry

Does anyone really doubt that criminals would typically rather avoid facing a person with a gun? And since a majority of victims know their attacker, it's not too much of a stretch to guess that many attackers also have at least a decent chance to know if their victim is likely to be armed with a firearm.

Sometimes, just letting it be known (incidentally to the people most likely to be your potential future attacker) that you are armed and are capable of defending yourself with a firearm is an effective form of DGU, even without having to brandish or threaten.

[Mayhem]

Does anyone really doubt that criminals would typically rather avoid facing a person with a gun? And since a majority of victims know their attacker, it's not too much of a stretch to guess that many attackers also have at least a decent chance to know if their victim is likely to be armed with a firearm.

Sometimes, just letting it be known (incidentally to the people most likely to be your potential future attacker) that you are armed and are capable of defending yourself with a firearm is an effective form of DGU, even without having to brandish or threaten.

depends on the crime, there should be statistics around about this

[PhaelixWW]

depends on the crime, there should be statistics around about this

About whether or not people tend to avoid having to face guns? Not sure there is, but that should be common sense (though I hate using that term).

About whether or not victims know their attackers? There are some statistics, sure.

Using statistics from 2008, the BJS reported that strangers were responsible for about one-third (36%) of all violent crimes measured by the NCVS in that year.

Which leaves 64% of violent crimes in which the victim and offender knew one another.

[Mayhem]

that the knowledge about the victim being armed is enough to deter an attack

the relation offender to victim isn´t something new to me, you have to wonder how much firearms factor in there though

[Oktoberfest]

liberal progressive here, One thing i see is that all gun control legislation is targeted towards heavy weapons, automatic and semi automatic weapons, and you will achieve essentially nothing unless you also target handguns of which 99% of gun related murders are perpetrated with, sure mass shootings are a tragedy we should not have to deal with, however banning assault weapons would have NO effect whatsoever on our crime rate or in curving violence.

And another point i want to make which is a typical right wing argument based on a fallacy
Hitler and stalin DID NOT take away their peoples weapons, in fact they both encouraged their people to arm themselves and form militias when the opposing force would attack their city's to defend themselves. Guns were usually restricted from persecuted minorities, but gun control was not necessary at all to maintain their regimes as propaganda was much more efficient.

You are not a Liberal. You are a Progressive. HUGE DIFFERENCE



PS

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...tist/id14.html



"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

- - - Updated - - -

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/uk-violent-crime-rate-eight-times-higher-than-the-us/

UK Violent Crime Rate Eight Times Higher Than The US
Posted on September 11, 2013 by stevengoddard

According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011. FBI — Violent Crime

According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf

There are almost exactly five times as many people in the US as in the UK – 314 million vs. 63 million. The violent crime rate in the UK is 3,100 per 100,000, and in the US it is 380 per 100,000 population.

Brits are eight times more likely to be victims of violent crime than Americans. For some reason, Piers Morgan doesn’t talk about this.

[PhaelixWW]

that the knowledge about the victim being armed is enough to deter an attack

Is enough to deter some attacks. I'm not claiming an absolute.

- - - Updated - - -

Brits are eight times more likely to be victims of violent crime than Americans. For some reason, Piers Morgan doesn’t talk about this.

Comparing violent crime rates straight across between the US and UK isn't terribly meaningful because the UK's definition of violent crime is more inclusive.

[Mayhem]

snip

yep, hitler didn´t allow occupied citizens to own guns = hitler didn´t allow anyone to own guns ... right

- - - Updated - - -

Is enough to deter some attacks. I'm not claiming an absolute.

then we have to make comparisons about the pros of owning firearms and the cons, the cons being obviously victims

without some numbers all we´re left with is guessing, and the occasional "but it´s a right" response ^^

[Oktoberfest]

Is enough to deter some attacks. I'm not claiming an absolute.

- - - Updated - - -


Comparing violent crime rates straight across between the US and UK isn't terribly meaningful because the UK's definition of violent crime is more inclusive.

Read the article.

[Mayhem]

Read the article.

so you think the fbi changed their definition of violent crime or that the uk government changed theirs?

[Oktoberfest]

so you think the fbi changed their definition of violent crime or that the uk government changed theirs?

Theres a thread about how England changes its murder rate that I created because its a completely different topic than gun control. You should read it.

[Mayhem]

Theres a thread about how England changes its murder rate that I created because its a completely different topic than gun control. You should read it.

so violent crime or murder rate and what has this to do with gun control?

[Tinykong]

i know, i wondered if you´d manage to find it without my help, guess not

So you can't back up your claim?

[Rukentuts]

Yet it doesn't take a scientific study to know that attackers are more prone to attacking than defenders.

It does, actually. Your claims are bullshit without proof. And by proof I mean studies, not raw data. Because these "defenders" are more paranoid and more likely to escalate situations, studies which we have linked and proven that claim.

[Mayhem]

So you can't back up your claim?

it´s the number of the post in this very thread