Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Themius]

Guns are heavily regulated in Mexico, much more than they are in the US. Private citizens are typically not allowed to carry them in public unless issued a special license to do so (I bet most people are denied that license). The process to even legally purchase a gun in Mexico is so ridiculous I'm surprised anyone legally has a gun at all. Civilians in Mexico are only allowed to own specific calibers and types of guns, and only if they meet the strict requirements of the Mexican ATF.

Evidence that more regulation does not equate to less gun violence.

If anything it's evidence that having a neighbor right to the north who has more guns than people makes gun control hard to enforce.

[Tinykong]

And that somehow puts your soul at rest doesn't it tinykong.
Can't prove it so there is no problem huh? It's perfectly normal.

You're right, I don't subscribe to irrational fears and hysteria. You're welcomed to do whatever you like.

[Deleted]

If anything it's evidence that having a neighbor right to the north who has more guns than people makes gun control hard to enforce.

It's as if people magically forget there currently is a civil-war like scenario developing in Mexico.

[Tinykong]

Read post 25121.
I've never said borders influence gun homicide rates, as I said before. It was but a single point in a list a made of possible socioeconomic features that, judging by what you and some others said, make this situations somehow not alarming in the US.
Afterall it's not me that came up with this "socioeconomic" issues. What about you tell me exactly what are these issues that would influence the number of gun murder rates, that aren't way worse in turkey or chile?

A 0.009% risk really isn't alarming.

Again, I don't know why or how these factors influence the rates, just that they do. If you want to use the comparison as a rationale for gun control, by all means, establish the correlation and prove the relationship. Until then, you're just spouting talking points.

[Deleted]

You're right, I don't subscribe to irrational fears and hysteria. You're welcomed to do whatever you like.

Irrational as in, not well founded?
So situation in the USA in terms of gun related homcides is acceptable?

[Tinykong]

Irrational as in, not well founded?
So situation in the USA in terms of gun related homcides is acceptable?

It's irrational to be afraid of guns and gun violence. That has nothing to do with the per capita rates being acceptable or not, it's simply irrational to be afraid of something that kills ~0.009% of the population.

[Rooflesstoofless]

While firearms may be legal there is only one legal gun store.

Yup. one gun store. Extreme degree of gun control...and still has some nasty statistics for firearm homicide and gun violence.

If the US could magically turn in to France or Germany or the Netherlands tomorrow I would turn in any firearms I own today and advocate ever gun owner I know do the same. Simple fact is that it wont. Everything I see points to us going the way of Mexico and not Europe with more gun control.

[Deleted]

A 0.009% risk really isn't alarming.

at this stage you're just being childish and you know it.

Again, I don't know why or how these factors influence the rates, just that they do.

you keep dodging the question. what factors? can you make a list or something?

If you want to use the comparison as a rationale for gun control, by all means, establish the correlation and prove the relationship. Until then, you're just spouting talking points.

How about a number of guns per capita nearly double the nearest developed country?
USA 88
Yemen 54
Switzerland 45

This, together with other issues, as in lack of services for poorer areas of society so poor education, high criminality guess what it equals to?

- - - Updated - - -

It's irrational to be afraid of guns and gun violence. That has nothing to do with the per capita rates being acceptable or not, it's simply irrational to be afraid of something that kills ~0.009% of the population.

Are we talking about society or at an individual level? Please decide the level you want this discussion we're having to go so we can stick to it. Switching randomly doesn't help the fluidity.

[Tinykong]

at this stage you're just being childish and you know it. you keep dodging the question. what factors? can you make a list or something?

I'm not being childish, you just can't counter the argument that I've outlined so you're resorting to personal attacks. Fearing something with a 0.009% chance of happening is irrational.

No, there isn't a "list." You are the one who is creating the argument using the correlation, I'm not going to build it for you.

How about a number of guns per capita nearly double the nearest developed country?
USA 88
Yemen 54
Switzerland 45

This, together with other issues, as in lack of services for poorer areas of society so poor education, high criminality guess what it equals to?

And how does higher firearms per capita correlate to violence? It doesn't. See Vermont.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we talking about society or at an individual level? Please decide the level you want this discussion we're having to go so we can stick to it. Switching randomly doesn't help the fluidity.

There is no switching. At a personal level or societal level, the risk is the same, and the fear of said risk is irrational.

[Deleted]

I'm not being childish, you just can't counter the argument that I've outlined so you're resorting to personal attacks. Fearing something with a 0.009% chance of happening is irrational.

You are switching the discussion from "society" to "individual". A child does that as he doesn't understand the faulty process behind it. A child usually is forgiven. You aren't.
Will expand this below.

No, there isn't a "list." You are the one who is creating the argument using the correlation, I'm not going to build it for you.

but... It's YOURSELF that came up with these "socioeconomical" factors... So are you telling us your theory is not valid? There aren't other socioeconomical factors that affect gun homicide ratio?
You sure that is what you are telling us?

And how does higher firearms per capita correlate to violence? It doesn't. See Vermont.

Ah, this must be something on the lines of correlation doesn't mean causation.
The country that has more gun per capita, has also more gun homicide. Nevermind though. It's a coincidence.

- - - Updated - - -
There is no switching. At a personal level or societal level, the risk is the same, and the fear of said risk is irrational.

Aaaand here you just topped it up my friend.
From an individual point of view, it's your choice to be scared of not. From a societal point of view IT'S YOUR DUTY to be alarmed when in a situation as surreal as the one we're discussing now.
Your numbers don't match. You shouldn't be up there, you should be like Canada, Australia. You aren't. You're up there past algeria and egypt. And this is NOT normal.
Fear in this case is ABSOLUTELY rational and not only that, it's also the responsible reaction to be had.

[Eroginous]

If anything it's evidence that having a neighbor right to the north who has more guns than people makes gun control hard to enforce.

This assumes that America is a major source of guns in Mexico. You forget that Mexico is linked to another continent (South America) full of countries with extreme levels of violence, poverty, and drugs (much of which carries into Mexico). It makes more sense to think Mexico's gun violence carries over to America (which it frequently does, as evidenced by cartel related killings along the border), where more regulation in America would just lead to more illegal guns coming in from Mexico/Canada/wherever else guns come from.

I think the mistake in your logic is thinking that guns can only come from America.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Except, none of the firearms in that picture are legal to own by civilians in Mexico.

I know. That was the whole point. The guns that are being regularly confiscated aren't even firearms or weapons that your average US citizen would be able to get their hands on. They are coming from the Mexican Army (and deserters thereof).

Even the US ATF had to eat crow after publishing statements that 90% of the guns confiscated in Mexico were from US 'gunwalking' when an overwhelming majority turned out to be military weapons that were never in the hands of US citizens to begin with. They were US manufactured under contract with US government --> given/sold to Mexican military --> into the hands of cartels/criminals after legally crossing the boarder. I'm sure we'll see pigs fly before Mexico and their government actually take responsibility for their problems instead of blaming it on others (mainly the U.S.); especially when their government likes to fudge numbers and make false claims against the citizens of the US.

[Deleted]

This assumes that America is a major source of guns in Mexico. You forget that Mexico is linked to another continent (South America) full of countries with extreme levels of violence, poverty, and drugs (much of which carries into Mexico). It makes more sense to think Mexico's gun violence carries over to America (which it frequently does, as evidenced by cartel related killings along the border), where more regulation in America would just lead to more illegal guns coming in from Mexico/Canada/wherever else guns come from.

I think the mistake in your logic is thinking that guns can only come from America.

This is a perfect example of how failing to read other posts can at times turn into embarassing moments.

[Tmoney511]

If you're going to ban Assault Weapons you might as well ban Pistols. Both are semi automatic, burst fire, or fully automatic. I know people more deadly with a hand gun vs a assault rifle. This ban would be pointless. To argue the "You don't hunt with assault rifles so I don't see the point of people having them." You don't hunt with hand guns so I don't see the point in having a hand gun. Many people hunt with all ranges of weapons but obviously a rifle is used more. Don't forget people go to 1 gun, 2 gun, and 3 gun competitions. People do use guns for more than hunting. I am against the ban as it will not solve anything. All this ban supports is more government control over the people. People will still die from people shooting them. Also, handguns are used more each year to kill vs assault rifles. Again, this ban would do nothing.

[lockedout]

So situation in the USA in terms of gun related homcides is acceptable?

Acceptable is subjective.
No one wants people to die but acceptable compared to what, another country?

[Mayhem]

And how does higher firearms per capita correlate to violence? It doesn't. See Vermont.

• Compared to high-income Asian countries (Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan), the
firearm mortality rate in the U.S. is over 70 times higher (14.24 per 100,000 in the U.S.
compared to 0.1925 per 100,000 in Asia). 12

• Brazil has one of the world’s highest homicide rates, with twice the rate of firearm-related
homicides as the U.S. (21.7/100,000 vs. 10/7/100,000 in 2002)14 A national initiative, which
included comprehensive gun laws, strengthened local and national capacity for enforcement,
and civic engagement was implemented in 2003 - 2004. Following implementation, a
historical trend of increasing firearm-related violence was reversed, with the number of
firearm deaths between 2003 and 2005 decreased by 8.8%.15

• The correlation between firearm availability and rates of homicide is consistent across highincome
industrialized nations: in general, where there are more firearms, there are higher
rates of homicide overall.16 The U.S. has among the highest rates of both firearm homicide
and private firearm ownership. In 2001 an estimated 35% of U.S. households had a firearm.17

• Due to a military requirement, Switzerland has a high rate of household gun ownership. In a
2000 census, 35% of Swiss households had a gun.18 While Switzerland’s age adjusted
firearm homicide rate is low (.06/100,000 in 2007), its suicide rate (15.1/100,000 in 2007) is
higher than the rate for the European Union (9.8) and for the U.S. (11.3), though lower than
the rate for Finland (17.6).12,19,20

• Overall when the proportion of households owning firearms in industrialized countries
decreased, the proportion of firearm suicides decreased, and in most countries, the level of
suicides decreased as well.19

• Rates of youth violence and death are high worldwide.21 In the U.S., the youth firearm death
rate is high relative to other countries. The death rate for all causes of firearm mortality
(homicide, suicide, and unintentional) is higher for people under age 25 in the U.S. than the
rate for youth in other high-income nations.12

• In 1995, the overall firearm-related death rate among American children younger than 15
years was nearly 12 times higher than for children in 25 other industrialized countries
combined.22

• Excluding firearm suicides, the rate of child suicide in the U.S. would be similar to that of
other countries.23

• Among all industrialized countries, more men are killed by firearms than women. However,
women in the U.S. die from firearm injuries in a higher proportion than in most other highincome
countries.12

source: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/reso.../monograph.pdf

[Eroginous]

This is a perfect example of how failing to read other posts can at times turn into embarassing moments.

And this is a perfect example of trying to make someone's post seem illegitimate by using hyperbole or bullshit. Why don't you respond with a fact based argument supported by evidence instead of saying 'you should be embarrassed?'

[Tinykong]

You are switching the discussion from "society" to "individual". A child does that as he doesn't understand the faulty process behind it. A child usually is forgiven. You aren't.
Will expand this below.
but... It's YOURSELF that came up with these "socioeconomical" factors... So are you telling us your theory is not valid? There aren't other socioeconomical factors that affect gun homicide ratio?
You sure that is what you are telling us?

Ah, this must be something on the lines of correlation doesn't mean causation.
The country that has more gun per capita, has also more gun homicide. Nevermind though. It's a coincidence.

Aaaand here you just topped it up my friend.
From an individual point of view, it's your choice to be scared of not. From a societal point of view IT'S YOUR DUTY to be alarmed when in a situation as surreal as the one we're discussing now.
Your numbers don't match. You shouldn't be up there, you should be like Canada, Australia. You aren't. You're up there past algeria and egypt. And this is NOT normal.
Fear in this case is ABSOLUTELY rational and not only that, it's also the responsible reaction to be had.

You have created this "society" versus "individual" red herring. The risk is the same. Fearing something that has a 0.009% risk is irrational. You are more likely to die falling down the stairs, or in an automobile accident. Do you have fears of those things, as well?

I pointed out that there are many factors other than "gun control" that are responsible for overall firearm related violence and homicides. Comparing two countries per capita rates and saying "Gun control works!" is intellectually dishonest. You have to account for all the other possible causes if you want to establish a casual relationship. I'm not going to do it for you, if you want to make those claims, you create the basis for the argument. I pointed out a couple just to illustrate that such things exist, and that they contribute to higher rates.

- - - Updated - - -

source: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/reso.../monograph.pdf

What exactly does quoting these bullet points seek to prove?

Higher firearm ownership does not correlate to higher levels of violence. Remember, a firearm homicide is not always firearm violence.

[Deleted]

And this is a perfect example of trying to make someone's post seem illegitimate by using hyperbole or bullshit. Why don't you respond with a fact based argument supported by evidence instead of saying 'you should be embarrassed?'

Five posts or so behind h8papa came up with a detailed post on why weapons in Mexico are mainly from the USA.

[badzerath]

As soon as the American society realizes guns are as harmless as a knife, pencil, bat, sword, hammer, screwdriver while not in the hands of a moron.......this ridiculous topic will continue to be discussed based on fictitious, hyperbole arguments like calling something an "assault rifle" based solely on how it looks and not the functionality.