Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tenlo]

Then you know very little of how to use a knife or bladed weapon . Many examples of a knife being used to kill/ wound multiple people at a time.

A knife is a melee weapon while multiple people could get hurt it'd be incredibly difficult to get more than a handful and probably take a good bit of training. I could go buy a gun and start blasting away and hurt/kill scores more much faster.

Knives can do wicked damage but guns do more damage much faster

[Themius]

Then you know very little of how to use a knife or bladed weapon . Many examples of a knife being used to kill/ wound multiple people at a time.

What are you confused about here exactly?

Knives are dangerous in fact there was a study showing very little difference between survival rates of knife or gun shot wounds. The thing is you are limited when it comes to the speed with which you can hurt multiple people.

[Svifnymr]

Apparently you’re playing the game of guns don’t affect murder numbers which is false.

No, I didn't mention guns. I must not have understood the game well. The church had 4+ good guns and 1 bad gun, so is the message that good guns need to outnumber bad guns?

Oh, wait, you mean "guns affect murder numbers" in that they reduce murders when present?

I gotcha, issue guns to everyone except bad guys, now we're on the same track. It seems like an expensive law though, would it mean raising taxes?

- - - Updated - - -

It isn’t slippery we have stats from other countries.

We have high murder rates because guns are used in many crimes and have a higher chance to kill than knives and hammers. So other countries like the UK can have the same to higher violent crime rates but with a much lower murder rate.

Before they banned guns, Australia and UK had less gun violence than us. Then they banned guns, and over the next 20 years, our crime declined more than theirs. Maybe there's a certain level of guns that need to go?

Of course, I've always maintained that the violence is not availability of guns, but proximity to Mexico, the further you get from Mexico the lower the gun violence! Sure, I have no actual concrete evidence, but since the UK/Aus/ Europe situations always get miscast (and for the most part all other nations are dismissed as unimportant to the discussion), and there's rarely if ever a comparison of definitions of violent crime or reporting procedures...

Eh, screw it, lets just outlaw poverty instead, that'll reduce gun violence!

[StillMcfuu]

It isn’t slippery we have stats from other countries.

We have high murder rates because guns are used in many crimes and have a higher chance to kill than knives and hammers. So other countries like the UK can have the same to higher violent crime rates but with a much lower murder rate.

Yes, guns make people more dangerous.

But the key is that in general the US has higher violent crime rates, regardless of the weapon being used. I'm generally for most firearm regulation/licencing, but it wouldn't solve our societal problems, and wouldn't even start too either.

[Ghostpanther]

A knife is a melee weapon while multiple people could get hurt it'd be incredibly difficult to get more than a handful and probably take a good bit of training. I could go buy a gun and start blasting away and hurt/kill scores more much faster.

Knives can do wicked damage but guns do more damage much faster

Yes, a gun is more deadly than a knife. From a distance especially. It is also easier for a weaker victim to defend themselves against a assailant who is stronger. Like the old saying, " God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

If we could just magically make everyone respect each other, there would be no need to carry a self defense weapon. Or police, military, etc.

[Spectral]

Of course, I've always maintained that the violence is not availability of guns, but proximity to Mexico, the further you get from Mexico the lower the gun violence! Sure, I have no actual concrete evidence, but since the UK/Aus/ Europe situations always get miscast (and for the most part all other nations are dismissed as unimportant to the discussion), and there's rarely if ever a comparison of definitions of violent crime or reporting procedures...

Eh, screw it, lets just outlaw poverty instead, that'll reduce gun violence!

This is similar to what I've seen referred to as Moynihan's Law of the Canadian Border. Summary from Spotted Toad here. Some choice quotes from Moynihan's Defining Deviancy Down:

I published an article showing that the correlation between eighth-grade math scores and distance of state capitals from the Canadian border was .522, a respectable showing.

By contrast, the correlation with per pupil expenditure was a derisory .203. I offered the policy proposal that states wishing to improve their schools should move closer to Canada. This would be difficult, of course, but so would it be to change the parent-pupil ratio.

A 1992 op ed in the NYT from Moynihan can be found here. Punchline:

I had a chart. Utah at the bottom, under $3,000 average expenditure per pupil per year. New York at the top, over $6,000. Now what of average scores on the national eighth-grade exam in 1990? Well, No. 1 was North Dakota, eighth from the bottom in spending; No. 9 was Idaho, third from the bottom. (As for Utah, the test was never given there but the state has the highest high school graduation rate.) New York ranked 20th.

Uh huh, nodded the audience. Same old stuff. Then it came to me. "Fellow countrymen!" I exclaimed. "If you would improve your state's math scores, move your state closer to the Canadian border!"

Do read the whole thing - it's short, to the point, and amusing. Not much has changed in the 27 years since he wrote it - a bunch of northern states that don't really go nuts on spending do much better on measures of educational and societal outcomes than Southern cousins.

There's some handwaving about climates and such and maybe there's something there since there's an effect that's noted worldwide, but we could probably come up with some simpler explanations that are less polite.

Bringing it back to the thread, Minnesota has a fair few firearms, but a murder rate that's more like Belgium than Baltimore. Most of the few murders they do have are in the Minneapolis area - as one works up towards Lake Superior, the number of firearms goes up while the murder rate goes down.

[Ghostpanther]

Bringing it back to the thread, Minnesota has a fair few firearms, but a murder rate that's more like Belgium than Baltimore. Most of the few murders they do have are in the Minneapolis area - as one works up towards Lake Superior, the number of firearms goes up while the murder rate goes down.

The same is true here and many places across the nation. less guns in high gun restricted/crime cities, only give the criminals a advantage over their victims.

[Svifnymr]

Bringing it back to the thread, Minnesota has a fair few firearms, but a murder rate that's more like Belgium than Baltimore. Most of the few murders they do have are in the Minneapolis area - as one works up towards Lake Superior, the number of firearms goes up while the murder rate goes down.

New Hampshire and Massachusetts are the examples I like to use, since I know folks there and NH is where SIG is based. NH has few gun restrictions, Mass has licenses and all that, but more deaths per capita from firearms. Big Cities, crime.

Also, of course, Canadian urban centers near USA urban centers have vastly higher crime than other areas of Canada I'd imagine.

Not that "proximity to Mexico" is really the issue, but if you draw lines of the drug trade on a map, the violent crime rates are a pretty obvious link.

[Amunrasonther]

Has it been revealed yet how someone deemed mental ill and with a lengthy criminal past, obtained his shotgun?

[Spectral]

Has it been revealed yet how someone deemed mental ill and with a lengthy criminal past, obtained his shotgun?

I haven't seen that yet, but my wager would be that he just had it for a long time and it was never confiscated. I'm curious though since there's no way he'd pass the check that retailers or approved FFL transfer services use.

[Ghostpanther]

Huh?

Even if you had a gun, you'd have to pull it out to use it. People wouldn't let you do that if they are willing to hurt you.

Depends on how close they get to you. Situational awareness is a important thing if you are going to carry a firearm for self defense. And do not think it is something which does not happen. It does more often than many think. Also, many cases exist where a citizen with a firearm, came to the rescue of another citizen being attacked. And the simple act of a aggressor knowing you have a firearm, might stop the attack.

A CDC study done in 2012, came to the conclusion that defensive use of firearms occurs hundred of thousands of times in the US each year. Maybe more than a million times. The great majority of them are cases which never was reported to the police. A simple act of showing you have a firearm to a criminal trying to harm you or break into your home would be a couple examples.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't seen that yet, but my wager would be that he just had it for a long time and it was never confiscated. I'm curious though since there's no way he'd pass the check that retailers or approved FFL transfer services use.

That could be true. And besides, many criminals get firearms various ways. Robbery or the black market would be a couple.

I read another article on the shooting, the shooter who took him down ( a firearm class instructor and former officer ) shot him in the head on purpose because he said he was shooting over people still sitting in the pews. That was a remarkable display of marksmanship to make a head shot from 50 feet.

[Dacien]

Dude I think twitter has some sort of contest to see who can tweet the stupidest "hot take*. If the joker movie taught me anything is the twitterverse is just all talk. They never buy products that they demand conform. Not to mention the horrible hypocrisy. But I'm getting off-topic.

If one ever feels the need to revisit disappointment in their life, they need go no further than find any of the worst takes and look at the hundreds or thousands of people that agree with it.

[Mayhem]

criminals don't have rights.

You don't want to live in a country that actually has that.

- - - Updated - - -

I saw that on the news. Those armed church goers saved no telling how many lives today. And another interesting point is, the shooter used a shotgun. The average respond time for the police to get to a crime scene is 8 mins. Depending on how close the patrol cars are to the scene. In 8 mins, a shooter can kill several people.

One thing which I saw in the video which showed the one guy he shot, appeared to be reaching for a firearm or something? If so, very dangerous to try to draw a weapon when a shooter has the drop on you. You need to await for a opening. But in that case, may not have made any difference if he was that close to the shooter and he meant to just kill random people in the church. I also saw some others in the crowd with weapons drawn.

I wonder if a armed person had been at the Jewish machete attack would have been able to stop the attacker. I think so. However the problem people will have in New York is getting a permit to carry a firearm. It is not near as easy as it is in Texas. As the State of New York is a may issue one.

Damn this is odd, so in the part of the country where almost everyone can carry, people got shot, died and two securities with guns stopped the attack, in another part of the country where almost no one can carry, people got wounded, and a good guy with a table stopped the attack and no one died.

- - - Updated - - -

Before they banned guns, Australia and UK had less gun violence than us. Then they banned guns, and over the next 20 years, our crime declined more than theirs. Maybe there's a certain level of guns that need to go?

I don't quite get what you're trying to say here. Did Australia and the UK had more gun violence than the US after they banned guns?

- - - Updated - - -

Huh?

Even if you had a gun, you'd have to pull it out to use it. People wouldn't let you do that if they are willing to hurt you.

Yeah, good luck with that argument, somehow carrying a gun automatically prevents you from being shot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

- - - Updated - - -

New Hampshire and Massachusetts are the examples I like to use, since I know folks there and NH is where SIG is based. NH has few gun restrictions, Mass has licenses and all that, but more deaths per capita from firearms. Big Cities, crime.

Also, of course, Canadian urban centers near USA urban centers have vastly higher crime than other areas of Canada I'd imagine.

Not that "proximity to Mexico" is really the issue, but if you draw lines of the drug trade on a map, the violent crime rates are a pretty obvious link.

https://www.thetrace.org/2019/10/gun...time-to-crime/

Here's a reason that might explain it.

[Svifnymr]

Damn this is odd, so in the part of the country where almost everyone can carry, people got shot, died and two securities with guns stopped the attack, in another part of the country where almost no one can carry, people got wounded, and a good guy with a table stopped the attack and no one died.

"securities"?
The real thing with the machete attack (because we're apparently ignoring the BHI's in Jersey City) is the police response time. The guy hacked 5+ people, and left. Got in his car and drove off.

I don't quite get what you're trying to say here. Did Australia and the UK had more gun violence than the US after they banned guns?

The USA had more before, and had more after, Aus and UK banned guns. During the same time period where Aus and UK banned all these guns, violent crime went down like 40%, but the same time period in the USA, violent crime went down 55% or whatever. So attributing the reduction to the bans in order to push for similar laws here doesn't seem logical.

https://www.thetrace.org/2019/10/gun...time-to-crime/

Here's a reason that might explain it.

That's not a reason for why NH has less violence...
It's often used to demonstrate that restrictive places have violence in spite of their laws because criminals can violate laws elsewhere to get guns.
It doesn't explain why those places where criminals get the guns FROM don't have the same levels of violence.

[Mayhem]

"securities"?
The real thing with the machete attack (because we're apparently ignoring the BHI's in Jersey City) is the police response time. The guy hacked 5+ people, and left. Got in his car and drove off.

Security-personnel, sorry sometimes the translation in my head doesn't work 100% ^^.

The machete attack was minutes, police response time is an issue yes, had the guy be armed with guns, people would've probably died and he might even have entered the synagogue.

The USA had more before, and had more after, Aus and UK banned guns. During the same time period where Aus and UK banned all these guns, violent crime went down like 40%, but the same time period in the USA, violent crime went down 55% or whatever. So attributing the reduction to the bans in order to push for similar laws here doesn't seem logical.

It's about gun violence, not violent crimes, there is a difference. You can't just compare them and be done, also you have to account for different reporting methods when comparing countries, violent crime can include different things in different countries.

That's not a reason for why NH has less violence...
It's often used to demonstrate that restrictive places have violence in spite of their laws because criminals can violate laws elsewhere to get guns.
It doesn't explain why those places where criminals get the guns FROM don't have the same levels of violence.

You were talking about more deaths per capita from firearms comparing it to stricter gun laws or the lack of them and how they have no impact. I simply showed you why the stricter gun laws aren't effective if your neighboring state has lax gun laws.

If you want to talk about crime or levels of violence then that is a different topic that needs to take more into account than simply the availability of firearms.

[Citizen T]

Security-personnel, sorry sometimes the translation in my head doesn't work 100% ^^.

The machete attack was minutes, police response time is an issue yes, had the guy be armed with guns, people would've probably died and he might even have entered the synagogue.




It's about gun violence, not violent crimes, there is a difference. You can't just compare them and be done, also you have to account for different reporting methods when comparing countries, violent crime can include different things in different countries.



You were talking about more deaths per capita from firearms comparing it to stricter gun laws or the lack of them and how they have no impact. I simply showed you why the stricter gun laws aren't effective if your neighboring state has lax gun laws.

If you want to talk about crime or levels of violence then that is a different topic that needs to take more into account than simply the availability of firearms.

The neighboring state argument is pointless. It is already illegal to purchase firearms from a state that you do not reside in. If your argument is straw purchases then that is already illegal as well. Argue that current laws be enforced before trying to make additional ineffective laws since criminals ignore them all.

[Mayhem]

What a compelling argument you've produced.

So let us think this through.

The neighboring state argument is pointless.

Ok so the ATF disagrees with you but what do they know, right?

It is already illegal to purchase firearms from a state that you do not reside in.

True, and? I mean, that obviously does fuck all. How would you enforce this law? Are you advocating for checks at every state crossing?

If your argument is straw purchases then that is already illegal as well.

True, and? Considering lax gun-law countries usually don't give a shit about private purchases, it being illegal does fuck all.

Argue that current laws be enforced before trying to make additional ineffective laws since criminals ignore them all.

Criminals ignore the ineffective laws because they currently can't be enforced.

So how would you better enforce the laws you've cited? You seem to know what you're talking about, so you should be able to come up with solutions.

I appreciate your input but it would help if you'd read the whole conversation and not just one part of it and then talk about something not said anywhere.

[Citizen T]

What a compelling argument you've produced.

So let us think this through.



Ok so the ATF disagrees with you but what do they know, right?



True, and? I mean, that obviously does fuck all. How would you enforce this law? Are you advocating for checks at every state crossing?



True, and? Considering lax gun-law countries usually don't give a shit about private purchases, it being illegal does fuck all.



Criminals ignore the ineffective laws because they currently can't be enforced.

So how would you better enforce the laws you've cited? You seem to know what you're talking about, so you should be able to come up with solutions.

I appreciate your input but it would help if you'd read the whole conversation and not just one part of it and then talk about something not said anywhere.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf

Lets see..

120,000 NICS denials which means these people either lied on their form 4473 or were somehow ignorant of felony/domestic violence convictions, being adjudicated mentally incompetent, etc. Of these, 90% weren't even investigated by ATF and only .01% were prosecuted.

Again, I say enforce current laws. This is just one aspect of this. It is also very very common to reduce or even drop gun charges for plea bargains

[Mayhem]

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf

Lets see..

120,000 NICS denials which means these people either lied on their form 4473 or were somehow ignorant of felony/domestic violence convictions, being adjudicated mentally incompetent, etc. Of these, 90% weren't even investigated by ATF and only .01% were prosecuted.

Again, I say enforce current laws. This is just one aspect of this. It is also very very common to reduce or even drop gun charges for plea bargains

Ok you have to walk me through your line of thinking here.

So investigating people that got denied on their background check (baring them from purchasing a firearm) is going to stop gun trafficking and private sales that don't require background checks?

You think the issue is solved with prosecuting NICS denials? There are 26mio checks performed annually and you want to go after the ones that got denied, be my guest, what would that solve?

How exactly does that keep people from privately selling firearms that require no background check and felons from trafficking firearms into states that have stricter regulations on purchases?

The "lets see..." part was funny though, it built up tension to an actual answer but you simply ignored everything you brought up previously to talk about something entirely different.

[Guy4123]

Out of all the government alphabet institutions the ATF is probably the most inept and should be trusted the least. Even the DMV looks competent compared to them.