Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[hakujinbakasama]

We do background checks though you can easily get a gun from a gun show without one... which allows criminals to easily obtain one... we don't track when the guns are used nor do we track ammo, actually once you buy the thing it's not tracked unless it's used in a shooting. So plenty of people resell them.

Evidence? I've never seen any hard evidence on this. Private sales of firearms are not always "well regulated." There are many states in which a private party sale is only between the two people. Then there are other states like Illinois which require you to go through an FFL or to utilize a phone background check as well as keep documentation for 10 years!

In the end, it all depends on the state. There isn't a "general" case or rule. Which is why people claiming this because of bullshit "expose" reports as 100% fact all the time, is extremely annoying.

[Eroginous]

You've completely misunderstood the study.

It doesn't come to the conclusion that "firearms are a major factor in firearm related deaths."

It comes to the conclusion that firearm ownership rates are a significant predictor of firearm homicides rates. As in, the more firearms a country/state has, the more firearm related deaths it's likely to have.

No misunderstanding. If people are allowed to own guns, some people will be the victim of gun homicide. No matter what country you live in, no matter where in the world. Yes, that's quite obvious and I'm surprised it takes a study for you to understand that.

The point is, that's a tautology. Guns are required for gun related homicide (by definition).

The part YOU don't understand, is that gun ownership is significantly higher than gun homicide. Gun homicide is 10.3/100,000 people. Or 0.00103 per 100 people. Gun ownership is 80 per 100 people. If correlation equaled causation, you would have a much higher gun homicide rate correlating to the high ownership rate. Because you do not, gun homicide happens independently of gun ownership.

Here, let me rephrase it for you: gun ownership is a factor to gun homicide like car ownership is a factor to vehicular homicide.

Derp.

Which is in stark contrast with the whole "firearms make us safe" slogan that I hear so often.

I don't think I've ever said that, and I wouldn't necessarily agree. Firearms can help you protect yourself or others, but that requires proficiency and responsible use.

In the abstract, however, the ability for one to own a firearm as a right, DOES make us safer as a nation. It's much more difficult for a nation full of gun toting citizens to be invaded (however unlikely that scenario is).

[obdigore]

No misunderstanding. If people are allowed to own guns, some people will be the victim of gun homicide. No matter what country you live in, no matter where in the world. Yes, that's quite obvious and I'm surprised it takes a study for you to understand that.

The point is, that's a tautology. Guns are required for gun related homicide (by definition).

The part YOU don't understand, is that gun ownership is significantly higher than gun homicide. Gun homicide is 10.3/100,000 people. Or 0.00103 per 100 people. Gun ownership is 80 per 100 people. If correlation equaled causation, you would have a much higher gun homicide rate correlating to the high ownership rate. Because you do not, gun homicide happens independently of gun ownership.

Here, let me rephrase it for you: gun ownership is a factor to gun homicide like car ownership is a factor to vehicular homicide.

Derp.

Your gun ownership numbers are wrong. 80/100 people don't own firearms. In fact the number of people owning firearms, per 100k, has been decreasing in the US. The people who do own firearms just own more.

[Eroginous]

Your gun ownership numbers are wrong. 80/100 people don't own firearms. In fact the number of people owning firearms, per 100k, has been decreasing in the US. The people who do own firearms just own more.

Probably, I'm not sure about current numbers. 2007 data indicated it was 89/100. I misremembered what I read, putting down the wrong amount. Even still, gun ownership rate is still orders of magnitude higher than the firearm homicide rate.

[obdigore]

Probably, I'm not sure about current numbers. 2007 data indicated it was 89/100. I misremembered what I read, putting down the wrong amount. Even still, gun ownership rate is still orders of magnitude higher than the firearm homicide rate.

And? That isn't a point in favor of guns, but rather suggesting that not everyone who owns firearms is going to kill another person with them. I mean maybe it has been and I didn't see it, but I don't think anyone has suggested that every single person who owns firearms is going to kill another person.

[Eroginous]

And? That isn't a point in favor of guns, but rather suggesting that not everyone who owns firearms is going to kill another person with them. I mean maybe it has been and I didn't see it, but I don't think anyone has suggested that every single person who owns firearms is going to kill another person.

I'm in complete agreement. The point Pre 9-11 is trying to argue, is that a study proves that there's a casual link between owning a gun and firearm homicide. If that were true, there would be a much higher firearm homicide rate, one much more comparable to the firearm ownership rate.

[obdigore]

I'm in complete agreement. The point Pre 9-11 is trying to argue, is that a study proves that there's a casual link between owning a gun and firearm homicide. If that were true, there would be a much higher firearm homicide rate, one much more comparable to the firearm ownership rate.

Well yes, there absolutely is a link between having a firearm and killing someone with a firearm. In a Country like the US, the less firearms you have in the country, the less firearm homicides you are going to have.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol! So true. You would think with that phobia style thinking, they would never get in a car, because over 24,000+ are killed each year on the roads in the US alone. A ton higher chance than getting killed by a gun.

Utterly incorrect.

34k deaths by vehicles in 2009.
60k deaths by firearm in 2009.

And to compare firearm homicides vs other high income countries:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

[PhaelixWW]

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.

It's not surreal. Gun crime is way down. Homicide rates are at the lowest point in 100 years.

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).

I'd be more impressed with this stat if the rate they quoted for the US wasn't "Based on single year available data between 1990 and 1995", which juuuuust happens to coincide with the absolute peak of gun crime in the US. And if it didn't include suicide deaths.

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%.

And the number of firearm deaths in the US dropped 21% between 1997 and 1999. It dropped 9.2% between 2007 and 2009. It dropped another 6.7% between 2009 and 2011. See, we can do this, too!

Besides, that stat about Brazil doesn't match up with the numbers reported here. It looks like firearm homicides held steady for years.

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.

Gangs. We got 'em. They suck.

Utterly incorrect.

34k deaths by vehicles in 2009.
60k deaths by firearm in 2009.

/facepalm

Reread your source. Your 60k firearm deaths... was for 2009 and 2010 combined (and included suicides, but whatever).

[obdigore]

/facepalm

Reread your source. Your 60k firearm deaths... was for 2009 and 2010 combined (and included suicides, but whatever).

You are right, it did. Here is the broken out 2009 only stats.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

11,078 plus 19,392 equals 30470 deaths by firearms in 2009 in the US. Slightly less than deaths by vehicles, yet our entire society is build around vehicles and we institute laws to try to lower deaths by vehicles (like seat belts and speed limits). However, we can't seem to institute any laws that lower deaths by firearms. Why is that?

[Nostop it]

http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-legaliz...001339749.html

[PhaelixWW]

11,078 plus 19,392 equals 30470 deaths by firearms in 2009 in the US. Slightly less than deaths by vehicles, yet our entire society is build around vehicles and we institute laws to try to lower deaths by vehicles (like seat belts and speed limits). However, we can't seem to institute any laws that lower deaths by firearms. Why is that?

Because 97% of the firearm deaths per year are intentional. Vehicle public use laws are there to try and make people drive more safely to avoid accidental injury.

And, frankly, the vehicle death rate isn't going down because of the laws. It's going down because cars are made to be more safe than they were decades ago.

[obdigore]

Because 97% of the firearm deaths per year are intentional. Vehicle public use laws are there to try and make people drive more safely to avoid accidental injury.

So we should give people weapons to kill other people because that is what they are trying to do?

And, frankly, the vehicle death rate isn't going down because of the laws. It's going down because cars are made to be more safe than they were decades ago.

[Citation Needed]

[Mayhem]

Because 97% of the firearm deaths per year are intentional. Vehicle public use laws are there to try and make people drive more safely to avoid accidental injury.

i do am impressed by the excuses pro gunners come up with

[PhaelixWW]

So we should give people weapons to kill other people because that is what they are trying to do?

Hyperbole much? "Give people weapons to kill other people"?

No. But murder is already illegal. And there are background checks for firearm purchases. Limitations on what you can buy. There's already a ton of regulation on firearms. And once someone with a gun intends to ignore the law and commit murder, then ignoring a few more laws won't seem like an obstacle.

[Citation Needed]

It's mostly common sense, but if you feel the need for some kind of source...

[obdigore]

Hyperbole much? "Give people weapons to kill other people"?

No. But murder is already illegal. And there are background checks for firearm purchases. Limitations on what you can buy. There's already a ton of regulation on firearms. And once someone with a gun intends to ignore the law and commit murder, then ignoring a few more laws won't seem like an obstacle.

Private sales don't require background checks in many states. There isn't a 'ton' of regulation on firearms. Not by a long shot.

It's mostly common sense, but if you feel the need for some kind of source...

Your source indicates that the majority of stuff that is saving lives are better signs, better roads, and better requirements from the government on cars to make them safer. But I guess that rate isn't going down because of 'laws', right?

[PhaelixWW]

Private sales don't require background checks in many states.

And I've said before, many times, that I'm not against universal background checks. But requiring background checks on private transactions will be almost impossible to enforce, so its net effect will be minimal.

There isn't a 'ton' of regulation on firearms. Not by a long shot.

Yes, there is.

Your source indicates that the majority of stuff that is saving lives are better signs, better roads, and better requirements from the government on cars to make them safer. But I guess that rate isn't going down because of 'laws', right?

The source doesn't ever use the word "majority". Nor does it say that the advances in safety are all at the behest of federal regulations. I'm not sure any of the major car manufacturers are doing the bare minimum for car safety ratings. They all want to make the safest cars they can, because that helps sell cars.

But that's largely beside the point. We're talking about a comparison in laws, and to do so, we'd have to talk about regulations on the driver, not regulations on the car manufacturer.

You asked why vehicle fatality rates are going down, I'm saying that it's because cars are getting safer, not because the drivers are more regulated.

[obdigore]

And I've said before, many times, that I'm not against universal background checks. But requiring background checks on private transactions will be almost impossible to enforce, so its net effect will be minimal.

In your, wrong, opinion.

Yes, there is.

See the first response.

The source doesn't ever use the word "majority". Nor does it say that the advances in safety are all at the behest of federal regulations. I'm not sure any of the major car manufacturers are doing the bare minimum for car safety ratings. They all want to make the safest cars they can, because that helps sell cars.

But that's largely beside the point. We're talking about a comparison in laws, and to do so, we'd have to talk about regulations on the driver, not regulations on the car manufacturer.

You asked why vehicle fatality rates are going down, I'm saying that it's because cars are getting safer, not because the drivers are more regulated.

So you can't read your own source? That's awesome.

And no, it is because you make the cars, where they are used, and how they are used safer. Most of that is through federal regulation, or, as noted in the article, manufacturers adopting things they believe will become federal regulations.

[Eroginous]

Well yes, there absolutely is a link between having a firearm and killing someone with a firearm. In a Country like the US, the less firearms you have in the country, the less firearm homicides you are going to have.

Yes, there's a link between firearm ownership and firearm related deaths, much in the same way there's a link between car ownership and car related deaths. However, this link is not causal. Having a gun does not cause people to shoot each other. People wanting to shoot each other (for whatever reason) is what causes people to shoot each other. Having the gun is just incidental to the act.

[PhaelixWW]

In your, wrong, opinion.

See the first response.

Prove either one of these.

So you can't read your own source? That's awesome.

Where did I contradict my source?

How about:

But where industry planners routinely resisted new federal regulations in decades past, these days manufacturers are likely to introduce new features – often as standard equipment – without pressure from the government.

“There’s an expectation on the part of customers for more and more safety equipment,” explained General Motors designer Bob Boniface.

That seems to precisely back up what I just said, no?

And no, it is because you make the cars, where they are used, and how they are used safer. Most of that is through federal regulation, or, as noted in the article, manufacturers adopting things they believe will become federal regulations.

They're not doing it because they think it's going to become a federal regulation. They're doing it to sell cars. Pretty much all safety innovation comes from the car manufacturers themselves. In the case of ESC, for example, it was around for nearly two decades before it was made a federal requirement, and quite a few car companies already had made it standard in many of their lines.

But like I said, if you want this concept to apply to firearms, then by all means, try to get government mandated firearm safety ratings. I don't think anybody will argue with you, except for the fact that firearms are almost never found to be dangerous to the user when used correctly.

Hell, the government seems to almost do the opposite. With politicians seeking to ban things like forward grips and barrel shrouds, it seems like they want people to be forced to shoot rifles one-handed. Why ban something that's used to stabilize your grip?

[Deleted]

It's not surreal. Gun crime is way down. Homicide rates are at the lowest point in 100 years.



I'd be more impressed with this stat if the rate they quoted for the US wasn't "Based on single year available data between 1990 and 1995", which juuuuust happens to coincide with the absolute peak of gun crime in the US. And if it didn't include suicide deaths.



And the number of firearm deaths in the US dropped 21% between 1997 and 1999. It dropped 9.2% between 2007 and 2009. It dropped another 6.7% between 2009 and 2011. See, we can do this, too!

Besides, that stat about Brazil doesn't match up with the numbers reported here. It looks like firearm homicides held steady for years.



Gangs. We got 'em. They suck.



/facepalm

Reread your source. Your 60k firearm deaths... was for 2009 and 2010 combined (and included suicides, but whatever).

Still higher than any developed country by a long shot.

- - - Updated - - -

And I've said before, many times, that I'm not against universal background checks. But requiring background checks on private transactions will be almost impossible to enforce, so its net effect will be minimal.



Yes, there is.



The source doesn't ever use the word "majority". Nor does it say that the advances in safety are all at the behest of federal regulations. I'm not sure any of the major car manufacturers are doing the bare minimum for car safety ratings. They all want to make the safest cars they can, because that helps sell cars.

But that's largely beside the point. We're talking about a comparison in laws, and to do so, we'd have to talk about regulations on the driver, not regulations on the car manufacturer.

You asked why vehicle fatality rates are going down, I'm saying that it's because cars are getting safer, not because the drivers are more regulated.

Pretty easy to achieve actually IF sales are recorded everywhere. Obviously if any joe sup can walk to a gun fair and buy anything it's kinda hard to keep check.