Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rukentuts]

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

It's best to just ignore the master of goalpost relocation that demands "proof" but hasn't linked a study to back up his claims all thread.

[Mayhem]

what can i say, i´m bored

[Dethh]

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.

The Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 prohibited Jews from “acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons,” and ordered them to turn in all guns and ammunition to local police. As historian William Sheridan Allen noted, the Nazis also began house to house gun confiscations targeting “subversives” shortly after they came to power.

In addition, historians like Israel Guttman have outlined how the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis was hampered by the fact that imprisoned Jews did not have access to adequate arsenals of firearms, although their resistance did lead Goebbels to note in his diary: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons.”

Similarly, as J.E. Simkin and Aaron Zelman document in their book “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny, in October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the Communist government) ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and sabres, having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier. Just like the Nazis, Communist Party members were exempt from the ban.

A 1920 decree then imposed a minimum six month prison sentence for any non-Communist possessing a weapon. After the civil war, possession became punishable with three months hard labor plus fines. After Stalin came to power, he made possession of unlawful firearms a crime punishable by death.

[Ghostpanther]

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

- - - Updated - - -

Hitler made several stupid mistakes. Allowing the French general populace to possess firearms would be one of them. And when they rounded up the Jews to be murdered, his henchmen certainly did not allow them to be armed.

- - - Updated - - -

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

It has a lot to do with gun control. If the info is correct and you or no one else can offer evidence it is not, then it is a good example of how banding ownership of handguns is not a deterrent to violent crime rates and the unarmed citizen can be more subject to crime against them.

[Tinykong]

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

In other words, no. A post number is useless, I'm not going to click through countless pages trying to find it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's best to just ignore the master of goalpost relocation that demands "proof" but hasn't linked a study to back up his claims all thread.

Because science, right?

[Dethh]

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

You could own a gun as long as you were part of the Nazi party. If you opposed then you were disarmed.

[Ghostpanther]

The Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 prohibited Jews from “acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons,” and ordered them to turn in all guns and ammunition to local police. As historian William Sheridan Allen noted, the Nazis also began house to house gun confiscations targeting “subversives” shortly after they came to power.

In addition, historians like Israel Guttman have outlined how the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis was hampered by the fact that imprisoned Jews did not have access to adequate arsenals of firearms, although their resistance did lead Goebbels to note in his diary: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons.”

Similarly, as J.E. Simkin and Aaron Zelman document in their book “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny, in October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the Communist government) ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and sabres, having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier. Just like the Nazis, Communist Party members were exempt from the ban.

A 1920 decree then imposed a minimum six month prison sentence for any non-Communist possessing a weapon. After the civil war, possession became punishable with three months hard labor plus fines. After Stalin came to power, he made possession of unlawful firearms a crime punishable by death.

Some great info! And certainly does send a message the governments can have concerns about armed citizens who do not share their way of thinking or support their agendas. Thanks for sharing.

[Deleted]

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.

You mean the thread where you are unable to understand the difference between a homicide and murder, and have been continually ripped to shit by people who DO understand this for four pages?

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...al-Murder-rate

[Dethh]

Some great info! And certainly does send a message the governments can have concerns about armed citizens who do not share their way of thinking or support their agendas. Thanks for sharing.

One part that stuck out to me was "having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier."

[TZucchini]

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.

Bullshit.

All things being equal, defenders are, by definition, more prone to defending than attackers.

Pulling the trigger is a defensive act, not an offensive one. To believe that they're less likely to do so, just because, is an untenable, unconfirmed, and unfounded statement.

During a victimization, the defender is much more likely to feel as if their life is in imminent danger, compared to the attacker. Someone that feels their life is in danger is much more likely to pull the trigger than someone who doesn't. That's the reality of the situation.

A defender is far less likely to chase down an attacker and finish him off rather than letting him get away than vice versa.

That rarely happens, by the way. Criminals don't go around en masse committing homicide to protect their lesser crimes. So using this rare example as support for your position is laughable.

And yet somehow you think that any ambiguity favors your belief.

False. I believe all DGU numbers are unreliable. NCVS included.

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.

The information isn't complete, and it certainly isn't reliable. Here is what Kleck and Gertz really found:

"In an unrepresentative, unrandomized sample of 5,000 people, 1.33 % believe that their use of a firearm, whether legal or illegal, scared away an undesirable individual. When extrapolated to the entire adult population, this equals 2.5 million."

Incomplete. Unreliable.

[Ghostpanther]

You mean the thread where you are unable to understand the difference between a homicide and murder, and have been continually ripped to shit by people who DO understand this for four pages?

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...al-Murder-rate

Murder and homicide would both qualify for violent crime. What difference does it make?

[Tinykong]

Criminals don't go around en masse committing homicide to protect their lesser crimes. So using this rare example as support for your position is laughable.

I feel like we already heard the criticism of this assertion already...

Oh, we did.

is an untenable, unconfirmed, and unfounded statement.

[TZucchini]

I feel like we already heard the criticism of this assertion already...

Oh, we did.

That's not an assertion, it's a fact.

[Tinykong]

That's not an assertion, it's a fact.

No, it's not. It's a statement you've made.

[TZucchini]

No, it's not. It's a statement you've made.

Criminal incidents involving victim / # non-premeditated murder = Extremely rare.

It's a fact.

[Tinykong]

Criminal incidents involving victim / # non-premeditated murder = Extremely rare.

It's a fact.

Just saying something is a fact doesn't make it a fact, Dwight Schrute. Let's see the statistics.

[Ghostpanther]

One part that stuck out to me was "having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier."

I can understand that. This is a danger with a government trying to control the populace. But as I have said before, mandating all guns in the US to be registered is doomed to failure. Most would ignore such a order. Americans take their rights and liberties pretty serous and would fear such a move by the government as a means to take away what they have.
Registration in itself however is not a bad idea if it is done in a reasonable and enforceable way, such as requiring all new guns sold to be registered. Taking steps to keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good thing. And I am referring to those with a history of mental health issues and criminal records dealing with violent crimes.

[TZucchini]

Just saying something is a fact doesn't make it a fact, Dwight Schrute. Let's see the statistics.

1,214,462 million violent crimes in 2012.

12,765 murder victims in 2012.

Being as generous as possible, using all murder victims (lol), and dealing only with violent crime (lol)....that's 1% of criminals executing witnesses to hide their lesser crimes.

In reality, its way way way less than 1%. Extremely rare. Fact.

[Tinykong]

that's 1% of criminals executing witnesses to hide their lesser crimes.

So, you don't have the figures? You're just using raw data to draw a conclusion that isn't reported by the statistics.

Boy, sure is good you don't criticize others for doing this...

[TZucchini]

So, you don't have the figures? You're just using raw data to draw a conclusion that isn't reported by the statistics.

'El Oh El'. Raw data is bad when attempting to determine causation. I'm determining if an event is rare. Not why it's rare.

Do you understand the difference?

I've just provided you with incontrovertible proof that it is rare. If you'd like to ignore that proof, that's your prerogative. Doesn't help with the 'science denier' shirt you seem to wear so proudly.