Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Eroginous]

What you mean with or? What part of reasonable regulations sounded unreasonable to you that made you post this answer?

A regulation is only reasonable if it does something that needs to be done and does it successfully.

I posted the answer that I did because it's important to pick the appropriate tool for the job. For instance, if it turns out that that majority of gun violence is committed by organized criminals (gangs, drug dealers, ect), then the best solution would be to increase manpower to investigate and apprehend those people. Conversely, passing a law against Assault Rifles would do little affect this firearm violence.

This is why it's important to know what the source of the violence is before you create laws intended to affect it. Deciding to enact a slew of gun control laws because some retard steals his moms guns and decides to murder a bunch of children at an elementary school is the definition of a knee-jerk reaction AND throwing a bunch of shit at a wall to see what sticks.

The majority of the bullshit studies that are posted here strip out the important data so they can be shaped to say what the anti gun people want them to say. Continuing to rely on these studies is a waste of time and the people who parade them around should feel ashamed of themselves. That's why I put 'or' at the beginning of my post. To distinguish an action that would actually be meaningful from the arbitrary garbage you kids have been linking for the last 2000 pages.

[Mayhem]

A regulation is only reasonable if it does something that needs to be done and does it successfully.

I posted the answer that I did because it's important to pick the appropriate tool for the job. For instance, if it turns out that that majority of gun violence is committed by organized criminals (gangs, drug dealers, ect), then the best solution would be to increase manpower to investigate and apprehend those people. Conversely, passing a law against Assault Rifles would do little affect this firearm violence.

This is why it's important to know what the source of the violence is before you create laws intended to affect it. Deciding to enact a slew of gun control laws because some retard steals his moms guns and decides to murder a bunch of children at an elementary school is the definition of a knee-jerk reaction AND throwing a bunch of shit at a wall to see what sticks.

The majority of the bullshit studies that are posted here strip out the important data so they can be shaped to say what the anti gun people want them to say. Continuing to rely on these studies is a waste of time and the people who parade them around should feel ashamed of themselves. That's why I put 'or' at the beginning of my post. To distinguish an action that would actually be meaningful from the arbitrary garbage you kids have been linking for the last 2000 pages.

Well i agree with the first paragraph, the other two are just baseless ramble and useless insults.

thanks for trying pop

[TZucchini]

Or we could have a few independent organizations break down the firearm deaths by type so we can see what the major cause of firearm death is, then make a decision that will actually impact the major cause.

We already have this. The FBI compiles this information each year. And again here.

A few things to take away: The majority of offenders know their victim. Gang killings are the minority.

And then of course, there's the fact that the majority of firearm homicides are self-inflicted. Medical professionals agree that suicide is incredibly preventable, and also agree that firearm restrictions could help reduce the suicide rate.

[lockedout]

A few things to take away: The majority of offenders know their victim. Gang killings are the minority.

And then of course, there's the fact that the majority of firearm homicides are self-inflicted. Medical professionals agree that suicide is incredibly preventable, and also agree that firearm restrictions could help reduce the suicide rate.

Are the majority of suicides done by people who aren't able to obtain a firearm legally? If not what will more firearm restrictions do to prevent it?

[TZucchini]

Are the majority of suicides done by people who aren't able to obtain a firearm legally? If not what will more firearm restrictions do to prevent it?

The majority of individuals that commit suicide have experienced mental illness. Firearm laws that restrict access for individuals with a diagnosed, current mental illness, along with laws that allow police to remove weapons when a medical professional deems it necessary, could very likely reduce the suicide rate.

[lockedout]

Firearm laws that restrict access for individuals with a diagnosed, current mental illness, along with laws that allow police to remove weapons when a medical professional deems it necessary, could very likely reduce the suicide rate.

Firearm laws already restrict mentally ill people from owning guns.

"The problem with this is that there are only two ways for someone to get on this type of list. Either they would have had to have had some kind of contact with the criminal justice system, or there condition would have to have been reported by a therapist that is treating them. The second alternative, of course, raises serious issues of doctor/patient confidentiality. Currently, therapists generally have a legal duty to make some kind of report if they know a patient is a danger to themselves or others, but the line of when that’s the case is hard to define, and the more common it becomes for therapists to report their patients to the state, the less likely that people are going to be to seek the treatment they need."

Here http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-a...tally-ill.aspx you can see that possession of a firearm by the mentally ill is regulated by both state and federal laws.

Using my state of NJ as an example you can see that you can't even get a firearm here if you're a "drunkard."

No handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card shall be issued:
to any person who is confined for a mental disorder to a hospital, mental institution or sanitarium, or to any person who is presently an habitual drunkard; to any person who has ever been confined for a mental disorder, or to any alcoholic unless any of the foregoing persons produces a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed in New Jersey, or other satisfactory proof, that he is no longer suffering from that particular disability in such a manner that would interfere with or handicap him in the handling of firearms.

[TZucchini]

Firearm laws already restrict mentally ill people from owning guns.

How are FFL dealers supposed to know if someone has a mental illness? What about private transactions? How are they supposed to know if someone has a mental illness?

There are no required mental health checks when purchasing a firearm. There is no professional evaluation.

It's a perfect example of why people are wrong when they say "just enforce the laws we currently have." In this case, the laws are not sufficient.

[lockedout]

How are FFL dealers supposed to know if someone has a mental illness? What about private transactions? How are they supposed to know if someone has a mental illness?

There are no required mental health checks when purchasing a firearm. There is no professional evaluation.

It's a perfect example of why people are wrong when they say "just enforce the laws we currently have." In this case, the laws are not sufficient.

The term "mental illness" is to vague as it covers too many illness's that shouldn't warrant someone from owning a firearm. Regardless are you saying anyone who wants to buy a firearm should have to see a doctor first? Who is paying for that?

[TZucchini]

The term "mental illness" is to vague as it covers too many illness's that shouldn't warrant someone from owning a firearm.

Here's a brilliant idea. How about we allow medical professionals to make that determination?

Regardless are you saying anyone who wants to buy a firearm should have to see a doctor first? Who is paying for that?

The individual purchasing the firearm will pay for it. Unless they're poor, then we can have the government pay for it. If such a program successfully reduces the suicide rate, any additional cost will be offset by that reduction in medical costs.

[lockedout]

Here's a brilliant idea. How about we allow medical professionals to make that determination?



The individual purchasing the firearm will pay for it. Unless they're poor, then we can have the government pay for it. If such a program successfully reduces the suicide rate, any additional cost will be offset by that reduction in medical costs.

In what world? Your ideas sound like maybe you should see one of these guys.

[TZucchini]

In what world? Your ideas sound like maybe you should see one of these guys.

This is where facts and evidence come into play. Try to stay with me, I know this isn't your strong suite.

The average cost of a single suicide to society is over $1 million.

If medical and academic professionals are correct, and these additional regulations reduce the suicide rate, then there's potentially billions of dollars to be saved each year. Like I said, any additional cost to the government will be offset.

[lockedout]

This is where facts and evidence come into play. Try to stay with me, I know this isn't your strong suite.

The average cost of a single suicide to society is over $1 million.

If medical and academic professionals are correct, and these additional regulations reduce the suicide rate, then there's potentially billions of dollars to be saved each year. Like I said, any additional cost to the government will be offset.

If if if. That's a lot of if's. Even if it did work the additional costs would not be offset. It doesn't work that way. What are the costs of this plan you would implement? How do you know it will be successful and how do you know it won't cost more?

How do they come to this number of The average suicide costs $1,061,170?

[TZucchini]

Even if it did work the additional costs would not be offset. It doesn't work that way.

Well yes, that's exactly how it works. The reduction in societal costs for suicide would offset the cost of the Government subsidizing mental health checks for poor individuals.

What are the costs of this plan you would implement?

The cost of what plan? Implementing new legislation requiring mental health checks? It would probably be expensive. Passing any new piece of legislation is expensive. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. But like I said, the costs would likely be offset by the reduction in suicide rate.

How do you know it will be successful and how do you know it won't cost more?

We don't "know" that it will be successful. Just like any other piece of legislation Congress passes. We gather evidence (stay with me here), conduct studies, and listen to experts in the field. We base our legislation on the scientific evidence available.

How do they come to this number of The average suicide costs $1,061,170?

You would have to ask the CDC that question. There is no reason to doubt the validity of that number. If you have evidence that it's less, please provide it.

[lockedout]

You would have to ask the CDC that question. There is no reason to doubt the validity of that number. If you have evidence that it's less, please provide it.

I have common sense, a suicide does not cost 1 million dollars. I also have had experience with a suicide but that's anecdotal...

This just in!

"72 People Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Massachussetts!

Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

On July 4th, 1776 these same "right wing anti-tax extremists" signed the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each other and their countrymen their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Many of them lost everything, including their families and their lives over the course of the next few years."

[TZucchini]

I have common sense, a suicide does not cost 1 million dollars.

OK great. So you have no evidence, just a gut feeling and 'common sense'.

Exhibit A as to why the term 'science denier' gets thrown around. lockedout is smarter than the CDC.

Lol. You make it so incredibly easy to criticize and debunk your positions.

This just in!

"72 People Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Massachussetts!

Posting conspiracy theories is against forum rules.

[Tinykong]

OK great. So you have no evidence, just a gut feeling and 'common sense'.

Exhibit A as to why the term 'science denier' gets thrown around. lockedout is smarter than the CDC.

Lol. You make it so incredibly easy to criticize and debunk your positions.

Not everyone puts a lot of merit to hypothetical projections. Then again, confirmation bias is your game, so I'm not surprised here.

[TZucchini]

Not everyone puts a lot of merit to hypothetical projections. Then again, confirmation bias is your game, so I'm not surprised here.

I'm not asking people to accept hypothetical projections. I'm asking people to accept evidence-based projections. We're talking about the CDC WISQARS report. Are you saying their projections are not supported by evidence?

[Tinykong]

I'm not asking people to accept hypothetical projections. I'm asking people to accept evidence-based projections. We're talking about the CDC WISQARS report. Are you saying their projections are not supported by evidence?

Even the CDC's numbers are hypothetical projections. There is absolutely no way to calculate with certainty what "would" have happened if someone hadn't died. It's still just an educated guess.

[Mayhem]

Even the CDC's numbers are hypothetical projections. There is absolutely no way to calculate with certainty what "would" have happened if someone hadn't died. It's still just an educated guess.

Is that trumped by common sense?

[TZucchini]

Even the CDC's numbers are hypothetical projections. There is absolutely no way to calculate with certainty what "would" have happened if someone hadn't died. It's still just an educated guess.

"Hypothetical: (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence."

Are you telling me that the CDC uses numbers that are highly conjectural, and not well supported by available evidence? If you're going to make that claim, you need to provide evidence for it. So please. Proceed.

Is that trumped by common sense?

Great question.