Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Battlemaster]

wait wait wait

your argument is that criminals feel more safe and therefor will just cut you up because you don´t have a gun

reverse that

criminals feel less safe because they know everyone could own a gun and therefor will shoot you right away

great

uhm i´ll take option number one

Even though the actual rate of the crimes happening is higher, and being stabbed and/or bludgeoned is MUCH more violent... you still choose that over having the right to carry and defend yourself?

You sir, are what is wrong with... everything

[Wildtree]

If ANY seller sells to someone who states that they will not pass the test they are committing a crime already....What part of that don't you understand?

I believe I explicitly stated that I am aware of it...
"while technically the seller is now in knowledge"..... means he knows he's breaking the law now, if he proceeds....

A prime source? Quite a difference? Where are all of these private sales between non criminals taking place that are contributing to violent crime? Oh its criminal to criminal? Ok because they are going to go and get a background check before transferring amirite? Geez...

How Criminals get Guns

[Mayhem]

lol thanks tinykong, the article you linked comes to the conclusion that the ban had nothing to do with the rising crime rate

it even mentiones an peer reviewed study that shows gun regulation reduces homicide and suicide rates

good find

[Ghostpanther]

so wait, the homicide rate in the US during that time rose everywhere, and it fell even while the ban was still active, like everywhere in the US and you somehow think it happened only in DC?

even from your link, it started dropping in 1994... and while the ban was still active was lower than prior to the ban bein implemented

Let us assume the ban on handguns did in fact lower the homicide rate. Such a ban is not going to make it thru the judgment of the US Supreme Court. Because most of them understand what the Second Amendment stands for. Because the same logic could apply to the total ban on private use of cars for transportation. Would it lower the death rate from crashes? Absolutely. By the tens of thousands each year. A silly question then would be," are we going to totally ban the private citizen the use of his own private transportation devices?

[Daelak]

Almost as funny as putting the word 'scientific' in front of everything you want to be absolutely 100% true without any possibility of scrutiny or question.

'It was a scientific study. It's 100% true and you cannot question it!'

Margin of errors mean dick when your poll relies on extrapolating from 0.00000859% of the population. Doesn't matter what the majority of 2700 people think about gun control, you still have 314 million other people's opinions to consider.

Polls based on samples of populations are subject to sampling error which reflects the effects of chance and uncertainty in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey. One example is the percent of people who prefer product A versus product B. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%. Others suggest that a poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population.

A 3% margin of error means that if the same procedure is used a large number of times, 95% of the time the true population average will be within the 95% confidence interval of the sample estimate plus or minus 3%. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people.[6] In practice, pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500–1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get complete responses it may be necessary to include thousands of additional participators.)[7]

Another way to reduce the margin of error is to rely on poll averages. This makes the assumption that the procedure is similar enough between many different polls and uses the sample size of each poll to create a polling average.[8] An example of a polling average can be found here: 2008 Presidential Election polling average. Another source of error stems from faulty demographic models by pollsters who weigh their samples by particular variables such as party identification in an election. For example, if you assume that the breakdown of the US population by party identification has not changed since the previous presidential election, you may underestimate a victory or a defeat of a particular party candidate that saw a surge or decline in its party registration relative to the previous presidential election cycle.

Over time, a number of theories and mechanisms have been offered to explain erroneous polling results. Some of these reflect errors on the part of the pollsters; many of them are statistical in nature. Others blame the respondents for not giving candid answers (e.g., the Bradley effect, the Shy Tory Factor); these can be more controversial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion...for_inaccuracy

[Mayhem]

Even though the actual rate of the crimes happening is higher, and being stabbed and/or bludgeoned is MUCH more violent... you still choose that over having the right to carry and defend yourself?

You sir, are what is wrong with... everything

do i chose to survive rather than being gunned down on the spot because i could be armed? yep

i´m more likely do defend myself against a knife than a gun, so i´ll take my chances with the knifewhilding guy, also outrunning a knife is that much easier

- - - Updated - - -

Let us assume the ban on handguns did in fact lower the homicide rate. Such a ban is not going to make it thru the judgment of the US Supreme Court. Because most of them understand what the Second Amendment stands for. Because the same logic could apply to the total ban on private use of cars for transportation. Would it lower the death rate from crashes? Absolutely. By the tens of thousands each year. A silly question then would be," are we going to totally ban the private citizen the use of his own private transportation devices?

no i´m aware of that, and i´m not promoting it, really i´m just for registration and UBC for every sale, at one point in time in a future where we don´t need weapons anymore because crime is thing of the past i don´t see a need for weapons other than for sporting, but that´s a different story

[Tinykong]

I will show a graph but politifact stating ups and downs while true is doing just a slight bit of cherry picking.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Mind you the rest of the article is antiquated but the graph does display the time frame between the ban and the end of it so that is still relevant.

There are a lot of other factors. The crack cocaine explosion during the 80's comes to mind.

- - - Updated - - -

so wait, the homicide rate in the US during that time rose everywhere, and it fell even while the ban was still active, like everywhere in the US and you somehow think it happened only in DC?

even from your link, it started dropping in 1994... and while the ban was still active was lower than prior to the ban bein implemented

The ban wasn't effective, which was my point. I never claimed it caused a rise in crime, in fact, I pointed out it did not.

[Mayhem]

The ban wasn't effective, which was my point. I never claimed it caused a rise in crime, in fact, I pointed out it did not.

whoops, my bad, i must have missed the part when we were talking about banning again

so you´re saying it wasn´t effective because it didn´t lead to a drop in crime?

[Wildtree]

not as much longer as you would think, in places where firearms are banned, there are significantly higher rates of stabbing, bludgeoning, and even theft.

The reason for this is that the criminals also feel safe because they know they can pull a knife on you and they know you don't have a gun.

I feel a lot safer with a criminal confronting me with a knife or a stick or something..... The possible force to be used matches the counterpart a lot better, and my chance of disarming/disabling an attacker with a knife is a lot better, than if he had a gun.

And..... Let's look at some stats.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
the original source for this data is here:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/d..._and_rate.xlsx

A few examples.... Murder rates total / per 100k:
Sweden 91 / 1.0
Switzerland 52 / 0.7
France 682 / 1.1
UK 722 / 1.2
Italy 529 / 0.9
Germany 690 / 0.8
USA 14,173 / 4.9

These are just random examples, and the amount of countries listed is overwhelmingly showing how gun control factually works.

[Tinykong]

whoops, my bad, i must have missed the part when we were talking about banning again.

You did. This whole discussion started when someone said:

If you support this then by all means, please move to another 'promised land' where firearms are banned and the only people carrying any kind of weapon is the police and criminals. Let's see how long it takes for you to become a statistic.

And I responded with a joke about DC during the firearm ban, which someone asked for details on, and I provided them.

so you´re saying it wasn´t effective because it didn´t lead to a drop in crime?

The ban was ineffective because it had no effect. It didn't reduce crime, and even after the ban was lifted, crime continued to fall because of the myriad of other factors that impact crime.

[Battlemaster]

do i chose to survive rather than being gunned down on the spot because i could be armed? yep

i´m more likely do defend myself against a knife than a gun, so i´ll take my chances with the knifewhilding guy, also outrunning a knife is that much easier

Hypothetical situation for you Mayhem:

You and your wife go out to a late movie on a Friday night, the movie gets out around 11:30pm and you have to walk 3-4 blocks to get to your vehicle. About 1/2 way there, a man steps out of a shadowed alley and grabs your wife and holds a knife to her throat. How do you defend her, yourself being totally unarmed? If you rush him, he kills her. If you run away, he probably kidnaps her and demands ransom. If you pay him off with the remaining $20 in your wallet, he could just kill her anyway after laughing at you.

[Wildtree]

The numbers for death by firearms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

[Battlemaster]

I feel a lot safer with a criminal confronting me with a knife or a stick or something..... The possible force to be used matches the counterpart a lot better, and my chance of disarming/disabling an attacker with a knife is a lot better, than if he had a gun.

And..... Let's look at some stats.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
the original source for this data is here:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/d..._and_rate.xlsx

A few examples.... Murder rates total / per 100k:
Sweden 91 / 1.0
Switzerland 52 / 0.7
France 682 / 1.1
UK 722 / 1.2
Italy 529 / 0.9
Germany 690 / 0.8
USA 14,173 / 4.9

These are just random examples, and the amount of countries listed is overwhelmingly showing how gun control factually works.

You know that in Switzerland, every citizen is trained with, and owns, a FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle (machine gun) right? Thanks for proving my point that an armed and informed public creates a safer environment.

[Wildtree]

crime continued to fall because of the myriad of other factors that impact crime.

We most certainly must increase the social living quality in this country, to further lower the crime rates totals. That's without a question, I would like to think.

[Zoranon]

I feel a lot safer with a criminal confronting me with a knife or a stick or something..... The possible force to be used matches the counterpart a lot better, and my chance of disarming/disabling an attacker with a knife is a lot better, than if he had a gun.

And..... Let's look at some stats.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
the original source for this data is here:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/d..._and_rate.xlsx

A few examples.... Murder rates total / per 100k:
Sweden 91 / 1.0
Switzerland 52 / 0.7
France 682 / 1.1
UK 722 / 1.2
Italy 529 / 0.9
Germany 690 / 0.8
USA 14,173 / 4.9

These are just random examples, and the amount of countries listed is overwhelmingly showing how gun control factually works.

If gun control works so well, why is the almost gun free UK at 1,2 while the relatively gun lax Switzerland is at 0,8? Why do you post nonsense posts?

[Wildtree]

You know that in Switzerland, every citizen is trained with, and owns, a FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle (machine gun) right? Thanks for proving my point that an armed and informed public creates a safer environment.

Switzerland I listed on purpose... Yes they have arms... But the legislature in Switzerland is exactly right there, where the pro gun lobby in the US goes up the barricades to avoid it.
Switzerland, much like the UK and Germany are all countries that do in fact have guns within the population, yet highly regulated with meaningful legislature.
Latest reports indicated that Germany has the highest amount of guns in private possession in Western Europe.

- - - Updated - - -

If gun control works so well, why is the almost gun free UK at 1,2 while the relatively gun lax Switzerland is at 0,8? Why do you post nonsense posts?

There is nothing nonsensical about it at all.
UK has a set amount of problems, that can influence their crime rates. Switzerland is in comparison a small peaceful country embedded within the mountains, and due to it's neutrality and lack of certain economic allure doesn't have to deal with such problems at all.
It's long established how social aspects influence crime rates.

[Battlemaster]

Switzerland's gun laws are not that strict.
One of the only major laws they have that we don't is this:

Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit. Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement.

Keep in mind that I am fully in support of some sort of legislation that prevents criminals from obtaining firearms through private sales. The problem is that our government is trying to fix every problem BUT that. Criminals aren't buying their guns at shows, or from legitimate (licensed) dealers for that matter.

[Mayhem]

Hypothetical situation for you Mayhem:

You and your wife go out to a late movie on a Friday night, the movie gets out around 11:30pm and you have to walk 3-4 blocks to get to your vehicle. About 1/2 way there, a man steps out of a shadowed alley and grabs your wife and holds a knife to her throat. How do you defend her, yourself being totally unarmed? If you rush him, he kills her. If you run away, he probably kidnaps her and demands ransom. If you pay him off with the remaining $20 in your wallet, he could just kill her anyway after laughing at you.

of course i wouldn´t run away, i´ll give him whatever i have left and hope for the best

now in your hypothetical situation

what would me having a gun would accomplish? he still would have her with the knife to the throat, he would probably demand me giving him my gun or else he´ll kill my wife

yep, much better

- - - Updated - - -

You did. This whole discussion started when someone said:



And I responded with a joke about DC during the firearm ban, which someone asked for details on, and I provided them.



The ban was ineffective because it had no effect. It didn't reduce crime, and even after the ban was lifted, crime continued to fall because of the myriad of other factors that impact crime.

aha, alright, thought it was a serious response to someone ^^

[Zoranon]

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing nonsensical about it at all.
UK has a set amount of problems, that can influence their crime rates. Switzerland is in comparison a small peaceful country embedded within the mountains, and due to it's neutrality and lack of certain economic allure doesn't have to deal with such problems at all.
It's long established how social aspects influence crime rates.

You made a bold claim that gun control works, for that to work there has to be a correlation between gun control and murder rate, one quick glance at UK utterly disproves that theory. Fact is the country with most gun control in Europe is also the country with one of the highest murder rates in Europe. And country that has the laxest gun laws in Europe (Czech republic - hell you get an automatic concealed carry with a simple to get gun licence) has one of the lowest murder rates in Europe. Case closed.

[Battlemaster]

of course i wouldn´t run away, i´ll give him whatever i have left and hope for the best

now in your hypothetical situation

what would me having a gun would accomplish? he still would have her with the knife to the throat, he would probably demand me giving him my gun or else he´ll kill my wife

yep, much better

...or you could shoot him...
merely the act of pulling your gun and aiming it at them is often enough to get them to back off, because he knows that if he were to try to kill your wife, then his life is also forfeit.