Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

I'll try to clarify.

There's two types of people that go to amusement parks.

Type One- The motherfucker that's down to ride any ride regardless of height and other factors that make it "scary"
Type Two- The ones that claim they are type one but seriously reconsider when they are in line, get closer to the ride, or are next to board said ride.

It's one thing to take all the necessary steps to ride said ride. You go to the amusement park, pay fares, wait in line and the whole shebangabang. Yet, a person who personifies type 2 is going to have the hardest time actually stepping into the ride and sitting down; arguably the easiest required task to ride the ride.

Now lets bring this analogy to guns and break down type one and two in a suicide scenario.

Type one's mind is made up. Regardless of suicide, he's down and will complete every required task to get it done regardless of whatever or not it is done "with ease"


A type two person with a gun in his hand, analogous to himself stepping on a scary ass ride, is going to have a very hard time completing the last simple task required to complete his suicide. Due to anyone who isn't a dummy knowing that stepping into the ride/pulling the trigger is the last thing to do (and it's simple and decisive nature), second thoughts/reconsiderations are more inclined to flood the mind of the individual during that physically simple moment.

Hence, guns are actually more difficult then other means of suicide since they require more of a mental commitment to pull off a physically simple task. In other tasks that are more difficult physically, Someone who passes said difficulties likely have their mind is made up prior to completing the tasks.

Why is the type two person going to have an easier time hanging himself? Or jumping off a bridge? I still don't understand completely.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm not. If you don't own the gun, you have to plan when you're going to have access to it. What about planning translates to impulse, exactly?

Stumbling upon an unsecured firearm doesn't constitute "planning," and is by definition, impulse.

So yes. You do not need to be a firearm owners to kill yourself with a firearm on impulse.

Because every firearm owner is a depressed person who has family members living with them, right?

They don't fit into the context you are using them in, never have and never will.

They fit perfectly into the context, of which I've just said. You had to conjure up some bullshit "every firearm owner is a depressed..." statement that no one said to try to refute it.

[Thegreatone]

Japan has a significant variable with their view towards suicide. The american people have a much more similar view of suicide to the rest of the 1st world countries than Japan.

Seriously why don't you just google this shit? There is a reason why Japan has such a high suicide rate. Do yourself a favor and learn something today instead of rabbling on about things you know nothing of.

- - - Updated - - -



Better enforcement costs money, making better laws is free, pick your poison.

Higher taxes or gun control laws that limit the amount of guns that criminals can steal.

1. Making 'better laws' is not free. It requires congressional sessions and bureaucracy that cost over a trillion dollars annually. It costs 3-4 times as much as enforcement.

2. The majority of stolen guns were made before 1980. Meaning that laws imposed now would still take over a hundred years to be effectual

[Deleted]

1. Making 'better laws' is not free. It requires congressional sessions and bureaucracy that cost over a trillion dollars annually. It costs 3-4 times as much as enforcement.

2. The majority of stolen guns were made before 1980. Meaning that laws imposed now would still take over a hundred years to be effectual

1. Where are you getting these numbers from?
2. You have to start somewhere.

[Tinykong]

Stumbling upon an unsecured firearm doesn't constitute "planning," and is by definition, impulse.

So yes. You do not need to be a firearm owners to kill yourself with a firearm on impulse.

You just need to have access to an unsecured, loaded firearm while you are unsupervised...

They fit perfectly into the context, of which I've just said. You had to conjure up some bullshit "every firearm owner is a depressed..." statement that no one said to try to refute it.

No, they don't. You have been parroting this bullshit along with Rukentuts for eons, it seems.

"A firearm makes you less safe!*"

*provided you fit these characteristics, and are subject to these circumstances, etc., etc., etc.

It's taking very specific circumstances and painting broad strokes with them. It's bullshit.

[TZucchini]

You just need to have access to an unsecured, loaded firearm while you are unsupervised...

Just to clarify, you're admitting that you can kill yourself on impulse by firearm, even if you're not an owner?

No, they don't. You have been parroting this bullshit along with Rukentuts for eons, it seems.

"A firearm makes you less safe!*"

*provided you fit these characteristics, and are subject to these circumstances, etc., etc., etc.

It's taking very specific circumstances and painting broad strokes with them. It's bullshit.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that firearms do not make you more safe, in fact, the opposite appears to be true. That's a fact.

[Eroginous]

Beause if you do both, then the "big shoot off" won't have as nearly as many people and guns as it could have, because people will get part of the experince with their crappy handguns, and be less inclined to do both, and the full potentiel of the "big shoot off" won't be met.

1. The Big Shoot off is typically packed full of people. They aren't 'missing potential' because people choose to own their own firearms.

2. Many of the guns at the shoot off are personally owned by the people shooting them.

3. The Shoot Off is what's called an 'NFA shooting range' where items outside of the typical scope of gun ownership are fired. You know, machine guns, land mines, grenades, artillery, ect. All things that the anti gun crowd doesn't want anyone to own.

I mean, congratulations on a level of ignorance that continues to surprise me. Shooting ranges in the US keep their own rental guns for people to come and shoot when they either don't have their own guns or want to try something different. Citizens just happen to be able to own their own guns too.

A single study has NEVER been proven on MMO-C.

Fixed.

Stop using the words 'study' and 'scientific' to assert your argument as true. I don't care how many studies you link, you refuse to acknowledge their flawed methodology and you also refuse to acknowledge any bit of data that doesn't get massaged through a study so that the intended conclusion can be reached regardless of the counter evidence. Nothing you've done in this thread is actually scientific, you're the equivalent of all those creationists who insist there is scientific evidence of the creation story.

Those guys publish studies too, does that make anything they say more true or correct? It's being peer reviewed that gives a study credibility, not being published. It's highly unlikely that any actual scientists are going to give two shits about a study published on a government website that was never peer reviewed.

This is a genuine question that I've yet to see anyone answer...perhaps its in the 1600+pages but i can't read through em all so here it goes...

Can anyone tell me WHY is it important to have a firearm in your household WITHOUT saying it's in the constitution.

Why does there need to be an important reason? Why can't I just own a gun because I want to?

a) why are you living in places where you are in constant fear of someone assulting you/robbing you/killing you.

Why do you gun control proponents keep insisting people who own guns for defense are 'living in constant fear?' You do realize that it's a good idea to be prepared for an event, no matter how unlikely it is to actually happen, right? I mean, do you not have an emergency kit in your home with enough food/water/supplies to last for a week or so, just in case something happens where you are cut off from sources of food/water/supplies?

Why do you have that emergency kit? Is it because you live in constant fear of an emergency?

b) if personal safety is really a big issue and you really feel like you need a device to protect yourself...wouldn't it make more sense to lobby for increased police services and public protection so that EVERYONE is safer in the community vs making your house a personal bunker

It's already been stated numerous times that the police are not obligated to protect you. Even in situations where your life is in danger, they are not required to do anything about it. Why is there always this assumption that people aren't supposed to do anything to protect themselves? Why is it always up to the police/military to do that for you?

c) just looking at gun violence statistics guns hurt more people who have them (and their families) than protected them from intruders/bad guys. I mean just looking at stats from 2000-2010 over 330,000 people died from gun violence. Sad part is that there have been more accidental deaths, suicides than there have been instances where you needed it for protection.

Why does the number of people who have died to gun violence matter in regards to whether or not someone has the right to defend themselves? Explain to me how my right to life hinges on your right to life in such a way that I am not allowed to protect myself with a gun in the event that my life is in danger because you've decided to assault me. Why does it make sense to you that I should just be assaulted and not have the ability to stop it?

I mean over 50% of female homicides in 2010 were as a direct result of gun violence by someone they knew. It even stems to children. in 2010 2694 kids/teens died from guns and that homicide rate for teens and young adults in the US ages 15-24 were 43% higher than other high-income countries around the world...combined

Just because our country is high income doesn't mean there aren't parts of the country living in poverty. Have you ever heard of Detroit? The top 1% of earners in the US own 40% of the countries wealth...

Also I don't understand why when it comes to purchases of firearms there aren't any psych evaluations on top of very rigid background checks. I mean why isn't state laws requires that the weapons purchased, be in the hands of responsible, of sound mind, careful, adults that are not in situation of domestic violence, PTSD, or situations where others would be put in harms way....seems like a no-brainer to me. Maybe i'm missing something but a logical approach to situation seems 180degrees from what is actually being done.

We've already discussed this. Who pays for the psych evaluations? We live in a country where mental health care is so expensive the vast majority of people who need it don't even have access to it. In a country where money is already hard to come by and insurance does not offer many mental heath services, it's not hard to understand why mandatory psych evaluations aren't going to be feasible. Even in situations where someone has had a psych evaluation done and been diagnosed with mental illness, only those who have actually committed a crime are ever barred from firearm ownership. Everyone else has sealed medical records that are not accessible through a background check (working as intended).

Thanks for proving yet again you don't have an ounce of knowledge on the scientific method and why controlling variables is necessary to make an assertion about one.

Sorry, but you have no fucking clue what a control variable actually is. It's a variable outside of the study or experiment that confirms the method of the study or experiment. Example: let's say I wanted to study the effects of a pesticide on plants. I'd have two different groups of plants, one which receives the pesticide and one that doesn't. The group of plants that does not receive the pesticide would be the control group. If the effects I was studying for was present in both the plants that received pesticide and the ones that didn't, I would then be able to scientifically conclude that the pesticide is not responsible for those effects.

That's how the scientific method works. The studies you keep linking are not the results of an experiment where data is generated. They do not have the quality of being scientific. Instead, some liberal group takes a bunch of data, deliberately ignores the variables that contradict their predetermined goals of the study, and then calls it 'science.'

Here's the problem with that. If I have a piece of data such as '30k people are shot in the US each year,' that data is already in it's final useable form. You can't parse that data further to yield a result more 'scientific' than it already is. Calling it 'raw data' does not discount the fact that it's the actual number of people affected by gun shot wounds each year. I'm sorry, but you don't get to sit here and post studies conducted with flawed methodology and claim 'science!' as if we're a bunch of retards who have no clue what science is.

If an 'armchair scientist' can show you how your studies are flawed, they aren't very scientific in the first place, and you should probably stop parading them around as 'scientific fact.' You know, if you're the least bit concerned about your credibility.

[THE Bigzoman]

Why is the type two person going to have an easier time hanging himself? Or jumping off a bridge? I still don't understand completely.

- - - Updated - - -



Stumbling upon an unsecured firearm doesn't constitute "planning," and is by definition, impulse.

So yes. You do not need to be a firearm owners to kill yourself with a firearm on impulse.




They fit perfectly into the context, of which I've just said. You had to conjure up some bullshit "every firearm owner is a depressed..." statement that no one said to try to refute it.

The situation of jumping off a bridge is similar to the gun and ride situation in several respects. That's a given.


Everyone sensible knows that once you squeeze that finger pulling the trigger, there is no going back. Type two is going to seriously reconsider at that given moment.

Assuming the person is already a gun owner, the task of jumping off a bridge and hanging themselves requires more strenuous of a process. Completing the required tasks likely reflect a commitment to go through with it all when it comes down to the niddy griddy.

[Tinykong]

Just to clarify, you're admitting that you can kill yourself on impulse by firearm, even if you're not an owner?

No, you can't. Having to plan how you are going to get a gun is the exact opposite of impulse.

This is the point where you say that it's plausible to just stumble upon a loaded firearm and say "You know, I think I'll kill myself now."

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that firearms do not make you more safe, in fact, the opposite appears to be true. That's a fact.

There you go again making those broad strokes and hasty generalizations that have become your trademark.

[Thegreatone]

1. Where are you getting these numbers from?
2. You have to start somewhere.

Here's a great resource for you - policeissues dot com / Sources dot pdf

If I really need to cite the United States legislative budget circa FY2014 I'll be happy to link you that as well as FY2010-2014 so you can see how NOT free making laws is.

"Have to start somewhere" not by making the problem worse, that's for sure.

[TZucchini]

No, you can't. Having to plan how you are going to get a gun is the exact opposite of impulse.

If you know a firearm at home is always unsecured, and always loaded, that's not a plan. Not anymore than owning a firearm and knowing where you keep it. You get home from school, had a terrible day, want to kill yourself, and know your dads firearm is in the nightstand. That's impulsive.

There you go again making those broad strokes and hasty generalizations that have become your trademark.

I made a completely accurate statement.

[Tinykong]

If you know a firearm at home is always unsecured, and always loaded, that's not a plan. Not anymore than owning a firearm and knowing where you keep it. You get home from school, had a terrible day, want to kill yourself, and know your dads firearm is in the nightstand. That's impulsive.

No, it's not. If you have to make a plan or question your actions, it's not impulsive. Are my parents home? Will they be home soon? Is the gun unsecured? Etc., etc., etc.

All this just because you have to prove your point that an off the cuff statement isn't true because some outlier exception exists.

I made a completely accurate statement.

You took a statement that is ambiguous and applied it unilaterally as fact. That's your thing.

[Ghostpanther]

You took a statement that is ambiguous and applied it unilaterally as fact. That's your thing.

Yes. If you take all cases of dumb things some people do with guns and lump them into those who are responsible with them, you can show a collation between gun accidents versus those who do not have one. This is what he has done. Assuming anyone who has a gun is subjected to the same % chance of something going wrong. Any responsible gun owner will take precautions to avoid accidents. Therefor not having the same % chance which some chart may indicate.

- - - Updated - - -

To those that replied it seems it's a toss up between Defense and Fun (i.e going to range, hunting, target practice etc). The fun part while does not appeal to me I can a least attributed it to a cultural thing. The defense part really confuses me as a valid statement for few reasons.

a) why are you living in places where you are in constant fear of someone assulting you/robbing you/killing you.
b) if personal safety is really a big issue and you really feel like you need a device to protect yourself...wouldn't it make more sense to lobby for increased police services and public protection so that EVERYONE is safer in the community vs making your house a personal bunker
c) just looking at gun violence statistics guns hurt more people who have them (and their families) than protected them from intruders/bad guys. I mean just looking at stats from 2000-2010 over 330,000 people died from gun violence. Sad part is that there have been more accidental deaths, suicides than there have been instances where you needed it for protection.

I mean over 50% of female homicides in 2010 were as a direct result of gun violence by someone they knew. It even stems to children. in 2010 2694 kids/teens died from guns and that homicide rate for teens and young adults in the US ages 15-24 were 43% higher than other high-income countries around the world...combined

from a 3rd part observer it just seems like those who want guns want them for fun more than anything because for all that cry i need it for protection...it seems that others (especially women and children) need more protection from those people than potential intruders.

Also I don't understand why when it comes to purchases of firearms there aren't any psych evaluations on top of very rigid background checks. I mean why isn't state laws requires that the weapons purchased, be in the hands of responsible, of sound mind, careful, adults that are not in situation of domestic violence, PTSD, or situations where others would be put in harms way....seems like a no-brainer to me. Maybe i'm missing something but a logical approach to situation seems 180degrees from what is actually being done.

All it would take is something to happen to you while at home and you had a gun to protect yourself to change your opinion on how important it is to have one in some cases. So yeah, you are missing something. A life and death situation. A neighbor less than a mile from me ( I live in the country ) was subjected to a home invasion from a intruder whom he shot and happily no one was killed as the shot criminal escaped out of the home was later arrested. With a gun shot wound.

I am for good gun control with some sound and reasonable background checks. But no system is going to catch all those who should not have a gun and the US right now has a serous drug issue. The intruder was more than likely a drug addict looking for a quick buck. But many of those have little regards for others. Their main goal is to get another fix. And if you happen to be in the way, they will not hesitate to take you out.

[Spectral]

No, they don't. You have been parroting this bullshit along with Rukentuts for eons, it seems.

"A firearm makes you less safe!*"

*provided you fit these characteristics, and are subject to these circumstances, etc., etc., etc.

It's taking very specific circumstances and painting broad strokes with them. It's bullshit.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here. There's almost no circumstance where you're more safe when a firearm is present. It seems like you're engaging in exactly what you're accusing your opponents of here? One has to really cherrypick to find groups of people that aren't at more risk of abbreviated life by owning a firearm.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. If you take all cases of dumb things some people do with guns and lump them into those who are responsible with them, you can show a collation between gun accidents versus those who do not have one. This is what he has done. Assuming anyone who has a gun is subjected to the same % chance of something going wrong. Any responsible gun owner will take precautions to avoid accidents. Therefor not having the same % chance which some chart may indicate.

The problem is the number of people that would have looked like "responsible gun owners" right until they fucked up once. Mistakes happen, bad impulses happen, that's life. There's not some binary group of good people and bad people, and if only you're one of the good people, owning a gun is a great idea. It's pretty much always an objectively poor idea if your goal is minimizing threat to yourself and your loved ones. Don't get me wrong, I support your right to do so, I'd just like people to not claim that it's about home defense, as this explanation is nonsensical.

[lockedout]

Japan has a significant variable with their view towards suicide. The american people have a much more similar view of suicide to the rest of the 1st world countries than Japan.

Seriously why don't you just google this shit? There is a reason why Japan has such a high suicide rate. Do yourself a favor and learn something today instead of rabbling on about things you know nothing of.

Try to understand I am not talking about why they kill themselves that is irrelevant. How they kill themselves is relevant. They don't use guns and have a higher success rate of suicide. Arguing that less guns will reduce suicide rates is nonsense, people will find other ways to kill themselves for whatever reason they have and if guns aren't available like in Japan they will find other ways. Less guns will not reduce suicides it will only reduce suicides with a gun, other means will rise.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's not. If you have to make a plan or question your actions, it's not impulsive. Are my parents home? Will they be home soon? Is the gun unsecured? Etc., etc., etc.

All this just because you have to prove your point that an off the cuff statement isn't true because some outlier exception exists.



You took a statement that is ambiguous and applied it unilaterally as fact. That's your thing.

A firearm makes you less safe IF you are black or hispanic live in a shitty neighborhood full of drug dealers and carry around large amounts of cash and or jewelery.

- - - Updated - - -

If you know a firearm at home is always unsecured, and always loaded, that's not a plan. Not anymore than owning a firearm and knowing where you keep it. You get home from school, had a terrible day, want to kill yourself, and know your dads firearm is in the nightstand. That's impulsive.



I made a completely accurate statement.

If you had a bad day and come home from school wanting to shoot yourself then you have a mental illness or at the very least need some psychiatric treatment.

- - - Updated - - -

To those that replied it seems it's a toss up between Defense and Fun (i.e going to range, hunting, target practice etc). The fun part while does not appeal to me I can a least attributed it to a cultural thing. The defense part really confuses me as a valid statement for few reasons.

a) why are you living in places where you are in constant fear of someone assulting you/robbing you/killing you.
b) if personal safety is really a big issue and you really feel like you need a device to protect yourself...wouldn't it make more sense to lobby for increased police services and public protection so that EVERYONE is safer in the community vs making your house a personal bunker
c) just looking at gun violence statistics guns hurt more people who have them (and their families) than protected them from intruders/bad guys. I mean just looking at stats from 2000-2010 over 330,000 people died from gun violence. Sad part is that there have been more accidental deaths, suicides than there have been instances where you needed it for protection.

I mean over 50% of female homicides in 2010 were as a direct result of gun violence by someone they knew. It even stems to children. in 2010 2694 kids/teens died from guns and that homicide rate for teens and young adults in the US ages 15-24 were 43% higher than other high-income countries around the world...combined

from a 3rd part observer it just seems like those who want guns want them for fun more than anything because for all that cry i need it for protection...it seems that others (especially women and children) need more protection from those people than potential intruders.

Also I don't understand why when it comes to purchases of firearms there aren't any psych evaluations on top of very rigid background checks. I mean why isn't state laws requires that the weapons purchased, be in the hands of responsible, of sound mind, careful, adults that are not in situation of domestic violence, PTSD, or situations where others would be put in harms way....seems like a no-brainer to me. Maybe i'm missing something but a logical approach to situation seems 180degrees from what is actually being done.

a.) What places is this not a possibility?
b.) No I do not want to live in a police state, I am able to take care of myself. Police are there to clean up the mess AFTER it happens.
c.) I am going to need a citation or some type of proof other then taking your word for it. How do you know how many times a gun protected someone without the gun being fired. Just brandishing a gun will defuse most situatuions.

I nor anyone else needs to justify why people carry guns presuming they are not criminals and are carrying legally. It's none of your business and if you don't want a gun don't own one it's that simple. If police are the answer to everything to you then continue to call them when you need help. Oh and I do not nor have I ever owned a gun.

[THE Bigzoman]

How would it not?... Thiefs usually steal more than once.

So now previous thefts provide enough insight on where and when they are going to strike again?

What criminal is going to strike the same person/place twice?

[lockedout]

We've linked over 10 that all come to the same conclusion. There's dozens more.

The same conclusion that the studies are as scientific as bill nye is a scientist.

[Tinykong]

I'm not sure what you're driving at here. There's almost no circumstance where you're more safe when a firearm is present. It seems like you're engaging in exactly what you're accusing your opponents of here? One has to really cherrypick to find groups of people that aren't at more risk of abbreviated life by owning a firearm.

I've never said you are "more safe" when a firearm is present.

[lockedout]

I've never said you are "more safe" when a firearm is present.

You will agree that a firearm is more lethaler then a knife is right?

[Tinykong]

You will agree that a firearm is more lethaler then a knife is right?

Guns are more lethaler than a knife unless you have a tactical assault knife with a pistol grip because that makes it the lethalist weapon. Or if it has a sight rail of lethaloscity.

[GreatOak]

I just wanted to come in and say anyone who open carries long guns in public is a douchebag of the highest order. I saw some OC assholes bothering people at Chilis and it pissed me off. I hope they realize that they will be responsible for getting OC banned. They hurt our rights more than Bloomberg does.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here. There's almost no circumstance where you're more safe when a firearm is present. It seems like you're engaging in exactly what you're accusing your opponents of here? One has to really cherrypick to find groups of people that aren't at more risk of abbreviated life by owning a firearm.

.

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies