Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[downnola]

But the statistical chance of you actually being in a situation with a firearm to defend yourself are incredibly low, even in the US.

I thought we had a problem with gun violence in the US?

[Daelak]

I thought we had a problem with gun violence in the US?

Exactly, look at the numbers, and look at the irrational discourse on both sides.

[Tinykong]

The statistical chance of defending yourself and your property with a firearm or without are so incredibly low.

Why does that make gun ownership irrational? People collect them, shoot them for sport, and keep them for self defense. Those are all rational activities. I'm not worried about some masked intruders committing a home invasion, that is about just as unlikely as being afraid of stray bullets flying around.

However, I'd much rather own one and never need to use it, than need one and not be able to own one.

[Eroginous]

But pro-gun proponents run into the same thing anti-gun proponents have, the statistical chance of you partaking in any situation where you defend yourself or your property from harm with or without a firearm, it might even be lower with a firearm, is incredibly low, so the argument becomes that much harder to prove.

It's only a difficult argument if you refuse to acknowledge the statistics regarding events where people were hurt/killed because they had no means of self defense, along with the statistics where people weren't hurt/killed because they DID have a means of self defense.

Not everyone who has a gun can be a John McClain or Rambo in the event of a violent situation. Not everyone who has a gun can even begin to react in a way that keeps them safe or prevents an escalation. Having a gun does not automatically change situation or the potential for things to get really bad.

However, that's why it's important for gun owners to take their gun ownership seriously, including gun safety and violent situation training. In some situations, just having a gun can be a deterrent. In some situations, having a gun and the training to use it effectively can be a deterrent. In other situations, nothing you can do can stop things from getting way out of hand. The problem with your argument about statistics is that it conveniently ignores the small percentage where having a gun made a difference and assumes that just because those statistics are small, they are not worth accounting for.

People in those situations are not small numbers, their lives were ultimately changed by their gun ownership and the responsibility they took for their own safety. They are not to be dismissed out of hand because of small statistics. Instead, more people should be encouraged to become responsible gun owners who take their personal safety seriously. That would increase the statistical occurrences you were speaking of, making them inherently more significant/relevant.

[Daelak]

Why does that make gun ownership irrational? People collect them, shoot them for sport, and keep them for self defense. Those are all rational activities. I'm not worried about some masked intruders committing a home invasion, that is about just as unlikely as being afraid of stray bullets flying around.

However, I'd much rather own one and never need to use it, than need one and not be able to own one.

Because if you acted rationally you would understand that no matter how safe you are with firearms, you have a higher chance of your weapon being stolen, or accidentally discharged destroying someone else's life or property.

[Gemini Sunrise]

Because if you acted rationally you would understand that no matter how safe you are with firearms, you have a higher chance of your weapon being stolen, or accidentally discharged destroying someone else's life or property.

So a person with a weapon has a higher chance of their weapon being stolen than one without one. You don't say?

As far as the latter point goes, there's a reason you keep the safety on and not point it at anyone you don't intend to kill (even as a prank).

[Daelak]

It's only a difficult argument if you refuse to acknowledge the statistics regarding events where people were hurt/killed because they had no means of self defense, along with the statistics where people weren't hurt/killed because they DID have a means of self defense.

Not everyone who has a gun can be a John McClain or Rambo in the event of a violent situation. Not everyone who has a gun can even begin to react in a way that keeps them safe or prevents an escalation. Having a gun does not automatically change situation or the potential for things to get really bad.

However, that's why it's important for gun owners to take their gun ownership seriously, including gun safety and violent situation training. In some situations, just having a gun can be a deterrent. In some situations, having a gun and the training to use it effectively can be a deterrent. In other situations, nothing you can do can stop things from getting way out of hand. The problem with your argument about statistics is that it conveniently ignores the small percentage where having a gun made a difference and assumes that just because those statistics are small, they are not worth accounting for.

People in those situations are not small numbers, their lives were ultimately changed by their gun ownership and the responsibility they took for their own safety. They are not to be dismissed out of hand because of small statistics. Instead, more people should be encouraged to become responsible gun owners who take their personal safety seriously. That would increase the statistical occurrences you were speaking of, making them inherently more significant/relevant.

Again, the % of people with guns that deterred an burglary, assault, or homicide is so incredibly low it is within the MoE. To make it more statistically relevant you would have to almost make gun ownership compulsory, for vast majority of citizens have a explicit aversion towards firearms and any potentially dangerous situation.

But this is the difference in the argument that anti-gun people have; the mere presence of a firearm in your home greatly increases the chance of accidental discharge and a stolen weapon on the streets, whereby if you had *no firearms* you had a better chance of surviving, living, and not being in a potentially dangerous situation.

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 06:23 PM ----------

So a person with a weapon has a higher chance of their weapon being stolen than one without one. You don't say?

As far as the latter point goes, there's a reason you keep the safety on and not point it at anyone you don't intend to kill (even as a prank).

Statistically speaking yes, haha. There is no other way around it, if you make the decision to purchase and store a firearm you inadvertently increased the chances of you being linked to a gun-related crime, an accidental discharge, or destruction of someone else's property.

[Gemini Sunrise]

Statistically speaking yes, haha. There is no other way around it, if you make the decision to purchase and store a firearm you inadvertently increased the chances of you being linked to a gun-related crime, an accidental discharge, or destruction of someone else's property.

Sorry if my original thing came off as being an ass. I just couldn't help it.

Yeah, that part is true.

[Tinykong]

Because if you acted rationally you would understand that no matter how safe you are with firearms, you have a higher chance of your weapon being stolen, or accidentally discharged destroying someone else's life or property.

So because something can be dangerous, owning it is irrational?

I sure hope you don't own a car...

[oblivionx]

That's like saying if you choose to be a criminal you have greatly increased your chance at being involved in crime.

Really?

[Svifnymr]

We can look at individual examples of gun violence and determine a whole host of factors that led up to it, none of which have anything to do with the availability of guns or lack of strict gun control.

Adam Lanza: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...124951161.html

Is that the kind of person you would trust with weapons?

Is that the kind of person who is capable of making judgement calls about right or wrong? Most people would automatically shudder at the thought of using a gun to shoot up a school, because we have the mental cognition to separate 'right' from 'wrong' as well as the ability to understand the consequences of those actions and have the empathy to care enough about them not to commit such an act.

The Lanza example could lead in a few different ways, really.
1) His mother wanted to have him committed, but could not. (If we could have people committed easier, then this could have been avoided! But yeah, no, the potential for abuse of such a system would be obvious.)
2) If he didn't have access to the guns, it couldn't have happened! Except CT has an assault weapons ban in place and is on the stricter side of the gun-control debate. They have licensing for handguns, they have waiting periods. Assumedly the mother complied with these laws or obtained the guns illegally, but either way it seems to say these laws don't work 100%. The answer from some is "we need more laws!".
3) Apparently this school was one of the few in CT that DIDN'T have a police officer.
4) The wiki even mentions that they've only had 1 homicide in the town in the previous 10 years, so any measures for security before this event, would probably have been brushed off as over-reacting.

Most of the measures discussed nationaly would not have impacted Sandyhook if they were in place before the shooting. It's sort of the problem with the emotional nature of the discussion. They use this tragedy to advance:
1) Assault Weapons Ban: (gun used was not under old defintion, but would have been under new definition. But alternative rifles or simply using handguns would have worked)
2) Universal Background Checks: (guns were legally purchased and possessed and all background checks done)
3) Magazine ban (I've seen a few articles that said he was changing magazines frequently, not running empty, but we've discussed the merits of this throughout the thread, at least it is related to the shooting in some way)
4) Gun Trafficking (as 2, guns were legally purchased anyway)

I haven't seen anything about safe storage, the president mentioned increasing access of psychiatric records to the NICS system, but I haven't heard anything since, and I think it's more the democrat side blocking this through state personal health information blockades.

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 02:34 PM ----------

Exactly, look at the numbers, and look at the irrational discourse on both sides.

I think his point was saying "we have a problem with gun violence" and then saying "you don't need a gun because gun violence is unlikely" flows a little badly, as arguments go.

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 02:42 PM ----------

Again, the % of people with guns that deterred an burglary, assault, or homicide is so incredibly low it is within the MoE.

I think you mean "society deterence" as a whole, vs an individual detering a specific act. The latter is an unknown statistic that at best is estimated in completely random ways by both sides.

To make it more statistically relevant you would have to almost make gun ownership compulsory, for vast majority of citizens have a explicit aversion towards firearms and any potentially dangerous situation.

It does have some effect on types of crimes, I'm sure, in a substitution way. If certain areas are known to be gun-free, they are more likely targets. Just as some stores are robbed more frequently due to ease. I'd say there's also more "break in when empty" vs "walk in whenever you want" burglaries, depending on area. I don't really know how to track such things, so it's just my opinion of course.

But this is the difference in the argument that anti-gun people have; the mere presence of a firearm in your home greatly increases the chance of accidental discharge and a stolen weapon on the streets, whereby if you had *no firearms* you had a better chance of surviving, living, and not being in a potentially dangerous situation.

Obviously the odds of an accidental discharge are greater in a home where that potential exists via the presence of a handgun, but that's mostly a personal choice. (On par with how many times my brother accidentally cut himself with his stupid butterfly knives...)
The odds of a gun being stolen from you don't seem to matter either, given that's again under your control.
The odds that you are in more danger via criminal intent if you have a gun vs the defensive value of having the gun are one of the big debating points that can't really be accuratly measured IMO.

Statistically speaking yes, haha. There is no other way around it, if you make the decision to purchase and store a firearm you inadvertently increased the chances of you being linked to a gun-related crime, an accidental discharge, or destruction of someone else's property.

It was more a reaction to saying "the odds of your gun being stolen are much higher if you have a gun than if you don't have a gun", given your odds of your gun being stolen if you don't have a gun, should be 0%, so even if your odds are now .0000001%, that's still a lot higher, obviously.

[Daelak]

So because something can be dangerous, owning it is irrational?

I sure hope you don't own a car...

Of course it is, but humans are not rational in any way whatsoever, even consciously.

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 06:45 PM ----------

That's like saying if you choose to be a criminal you have greatly increased your chance at being involved in crime.

Really?

Yes, hence the irrational behaviors, we are irrational beings, and even trying to look at the objective truth of fire-arm statistics, we arm ourselves with heuristics.

[Tinykong]

Of course it is, but humans are not rational in any way whatsoever, even consciously.

Well, statistics prove otherwise. The vast majority of guns are not used in crime, the vast majority of cars aren't involved in fatal crashes, and on average, people are safer today than they were a few years ago.

Irrational fear is irrational.

[Daelak]

I think his point was saying "we have a problem with gun violence" and then saying "you don't need a gun because gun violence is unlikely" flows a little badly, as arguments go.

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 02:42 PM ----------


I think you mean "society deterence" as a whole, vs an individual detering a specific act. The latter is an unknown statistic that at best is estimated in completely random ways by both sides.


It does have some effect on types of crimes, I'm sure, in a substitution way. If certain areas are known to be gun-free, they are more likely targets. Just as some stores are robbed more frequently due to ease. I'd say there's also more "break in when empty" vs "walk in whenever you want" burglaries, depending on area. I don't really know how to track such things, so it's just my opinion of course.


Obviously the odds of an accidental discharge are greater in a home where that potential exists via the presence of a handgun, but that's mostly a personal choice. (On par with how many times my brother accidentally cut himself with his stupid butterfly knives...)
The odds of a gun being stolen from you don't seem to matter either, given that's again under your control.
The odds that you are in more danger via criminal intent if you have a gun vs the defensive value of having the gun are one of the big debating points that can't really be accuratly measured IMO.




It was more a reaction to saying "the odds of your gun being stolen are much higher if you have a gun than if you don't have a gun", given your odds of your gun being stolen if you don't have a gun, should be 0%, so even if your odds are now .0000001%, that's still a lot higher, obviously.

Right, depending on who you talk to, we might have a full blown crisis, or a statistical anomaly.

The only accounts you can get of deterrence with a weapon are in the NRA and GOA magazines, which is probably not a good sample size.

Perhaps, however that again would be quite tedious to data mine.

But it isn't a personal choice once it violates someone else's rights and life. You cannot control for all variables and that's where anti-gun proponents try to exploit.

Yea there seems to be a large gray, and it is probably negligible, that even having a firearm even deters *anything*.

Roll of the dice my friend.

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 06:56 PM ----------

Well, statistics prove otherwise. The vast majority of guns are not used in crime, the vast majority of cars aren't involved in fatal crashes, and on average, people are safer today than they were a few years ago.

Irrational fear is irrational.

Haven't car fatalities decreased since the advent of better headlights, sensors, air bags, etc.?

[Tinykong]

Haven't car fatalities decreased since the advent of better headlights, sensors, air bags, etc.?

Sure, they have.

And yet, you refuse to admit that those same type of advances in firearms technology and safety devices has reduced accidental deaths.

You're almost as likely to die from being hit by a car as a pedestrian as you are an accidental firearm shooting, yet people don't have an irrational fear of walking across the street and you don't see mobs of angry anti-car people screaming for bans on cars.

[Daelak]

Sure, they have.

And yet, you refuse to admit that those same type of advances in firearms technology and safety devices has reduced accidental deaths.

You're almost as likely to die from being hit by a car as a pedestrian as you are an accidental firearm shooting, yet people don't have an irrational fear of walking across the street and you don't see mobs of angry anti-car people screaming for bans on cars.

Not that I refuse to admit, it is more like I didn't know. This is coming from ignorance but can't a good chisel and hammer break out any trigger lock?

Haha I bet you there are some pretty serious anti-car people in the major cities.

[Eroginous]

The Lanza example could lead in a few different ways, really.
1) His mother wanted to have him committed, but could not. (If we could have people committed easier, then this could have been avoided! But yeah, no, the potential for abuse of such a system would be obvious.)
2) If he didn't have access to the guns, it couldn't have happened! Except CT has an assault weapons ban in place and is on the stricter side of the gun-control debate. They have licensing for handguns, they have waiting periods. Assumedly the mother complied with these laws or obtained the guns illegally, but either way it seems to say these laws don't work 100%. The answer from some is "we need more laws!".
3) Apparently this school was one of the few in CT that DIDN'T have a police officer.
4) The wiki even mentions that they've only had 1 homicide in the town in the previous 10 years, so any measures for security before this event, would probably have been brushed off as over-reacting.

Most of the measures discussed nationaly would not have impacted Sandyhook if they were in place before the shooting. It's sort of the problem with the emotional nature of the discussion. They use this tragedy to advance:
1) Assault Weapons Ban: (gun used was not under old defintion, but would have been under new definition. But alternative rifles or simply using handguns would have worked)
2) Universal Background Checks: (guns were legally purchased and possessed and all background checks done)
3) Magazine ban (I've seen a few articles that said he was changing magazines frequently, not running empty, but we've discussed the merits of this throughout the thread, at least it is related to the shooting in some way)
4) Gun Trafficking (as 2, guns were legally purchased anyway)

I haven't seen anything about safe storage, the president mentioned increasing access of psychiatric records to the NICS system, but I haven't heard anything since, and I think it's more the democrat side blocking this through state personal health information blockades.

Exactly.

Again, the % of people with guns that deterred an burglary, assault, or homicide is so incredibly low it is within the MoE. To make it more statistically relevant you would have to almost make gun ownership compulsory, for vast majority of citizens have a explicit aversion towards firearms and any potentially dangerous situation.

But this is the difference in the argument that anti-gun people have; the mere presence of a firearm in your home greatly increases the chance of accidental discharge and a stolen weapon on the streets, whereby if you had *no firearms* you had a better chance of surviving, living, and not being in a potentially dangerous situation.

I can argue like this too, wanna see?

'The amount of responsible gun ownership which doesn't result in the theft or accidental discharge of a weapon is so statistically high, that those cases where a gun is stolen or accidentally discharged is so incredibly low that it is within the MoE. In order to increase the statistical relevance of cases where a gun is accidentally discharged or stolen, more people would have to become irresponsible gun owners with their ownership resulting in higher statistics of accidental gun discharges and thefts.'

The entire point of responsible gun ownership is to be responsible. Responsible for your gun (keeping it locked up when not in use, knowing when, where, and how to use it), and responsible for the safety of yourself/others while you have a gun. The cases where gun ownership results in loss of property or life, it's arguable that the owner was not, in fact, being responsible, and that those cases in no way reflect on responsible gun owners. Much in the same way, violent crimes committed with guns are in no way a reflection of gun ownership which does not result in violent crimes.

I really wish you could be intellectually honest and stop bringing up points that have nothing to do with people who are capable of safely and responsibly owning a gun within the context of protecting themselves and their family. I also wish you would stop sweeping those self defense statistics under the rug in a futile attempt to advance your anti gun argument.

No one is arguing that irresponsible people should have guns. We are arguing against irresponsible gun ownership just as passionately as we are arguing against criminal gun activity.

[Svifnymr]

Haven't car fatalities decreased since the advent of better headlights, sensors, air bags, etc.?

Guns compared to Cars is one of those things that keeps coming up and then shot down because they're different and stuff, so who knows if it's "allowed" at the moment.
That said, my comparison would be "private ownership of guns vs private ownership of cars". Since cops/military would still have guns even when they take them from us peasants. Cars are needed, but do you need to own one? Taxi's exist, stores deliver, public transportation is much better for the environment than individual cars, right? But meh.

Anyway, my point! Guns are a lot safer now than they were 100 years ago. Firing pin blocks are standard to prevent a gun from firing if it falls (no law needed) and guns come with trigger locks (via federal law). AFAIK, airbags aren't required, though seatbelts are. Emissions controls would be comparable to the EPA laws about lead in shotgun shells, for example. Bullet design has increased the selection available, so you can select something more effective that also reduces chances of ricochet or over penetration.

It's not like the industry has stood still through all this, there has been a lot of advancement. (Though I think we need cheaper price, high quality safes.)

[Tinykong]

Not that I refuse to admit, it is more like I didn't know. This is coming from ignorance but can't a good chisel and hammer break out any trigger lock?

Haha I bet you there are some pretty serious anti-car people in the major cities.

If you have to use a chisel to remove a hammer break or a trigger lock, the shooting shouldn't be considered accidental.

You could use a hammer to smash the headlights out of your car and then go for a drive at night, but that really is a function of stupidity and not a failure of the safety device.

[Svifnymr]

Not that I refuse to admit, it is more like I didn't know. This is coming from ignorance but can't a good chisel and hammer break out any trigger lock?

A lot of the cheap cable looks would be comparable to a bike lock, they're a strong cable that can be cut through given enough time, but are more intended as a deterent to casual access (i.e. kids) than dedicated theft. Trigger locks themselves are not as popular, but well made ones would require more work than hammer/chisel. Though I mean, you could just cut the trigger guard off the gun if it's a stolen thing anyway.

Haha I bet you there are some pretty serious anti-car people in the major cities.

I've been in plenty of threads where Europeans think Americans are obsessed with cars irrationally.