Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

Again a basic observation for ''good guys with guns'' proponents.

A extremely vague agitprop argument pushed by the NRA is that in 1980(1) ''2 millions'' American defended themselves with a gun. That statistic is constantly pushed. I will be charitable and take it at face value. There are huge problems with that figure....

The most basic one is the huge gap between those numbers and the precise stories the NRA is able to push out. Let's say that the NRA did a ''little'' white lie and merely multiplicated by TEN the numbers of ''good guys with guns'' saving the day with their big glock.

200 000 cases per year Now, of course, the eeeeevil MSM supress those stories (to the point that the NRA can't push them...). One story out of 100 come out of the woods.

It still means that there would be 2000 cases of ''good guys with guns'' easy to find per year. 6 good guys with gun stories per day.

Is this the case ?

(No. That's why the same list of 15-20 cases, across a couple of decades, is always used)

(1)A 40 years old study is in itself a huge alarm bell

There is this report from CBS. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rime-deterrent

From the article; “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

[sarahtasher]

There is this report from CBS. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rime-deterrent

From the article; “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.


The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

500 000 to 3 000 000 is less a fork of estimate than a pitchfork of titanesque proportion.

(Especially considering that judging by the wording, this paper did not ressearched the question-it's proposing new methods to ressearch the information. Who would have forbidden the CDC to ressearch gun violence, pray tell ?)

[Ghostpanther]

500 000 to 3 000 000 is less a fork of estimate than a pitchfork of titanesque proportion.

Well, I do not think there is anyway to know positively for sure, since the majority of them are not reported to the police anyway. But Bloomberg had a good article on the subject and concluded it was not overly estimating to say there are hundreds of thousands such cases each year. There is the fact firearms are used to deter crime and for self defense which do save lives of victims. And also that same article concluded that suicides account for 61% of all gun deaths. I mean if people will not accept a government report commissioned by a liberal President, I am not sure any argument will. :P

[Stormdash]

The CDC is manifestly not so forbidden; it's a CDC study we're talking about after all.

[sarahtasher]

Without saying posts 49353 and 52 are dishonest, the link they used is seriously bordering on snake-oil peddling. Here is what the actual study says.

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

They are not saying there are 3 000 000 defensive uses, at all.

[Ghostpanther]

Without saying posts 49353 and 52 are dishonest, the link they used is seriously bordering on snake-oil peddling. Here is what the actual study says.

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

They are not saying there are 3 000 000 defensive uses, at all.

Well the important part of the study is this part; From the article; “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). One can argue about the estimates, but there is still the truth of that was the conclusion of the report. Reject it if you want. I feel it is correct.

Read this article; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-self-defense

[KayRule]

I respect the minority of "sane" gun owners, who want to own guns for self-defense and recreation. Sadly, a large amount of the violent, aggressive, feverish vocal majority of the opponents of gun CONTROL are fetishist gun nuts. These people don't even care about defending themselves or their neighbours in an honest sense, they're just cowards who found the one tool (yes, a gun is a tool) that lets them act like the bully they've always wanted to be and they relish in the day they get to kill a human being. It's sad these cowards freaks dominate the opposition dialogue of gun control because it makes the entire argument very one sided, as it colors the few sane gun owners as these fetishistic freaks and no one gives their opinion any thought.

[sarahtasher]

Well the important part of the study is this part; From the article; “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). One can argue about the estimates, but there is still the truth of that was the conclusion of the report. Reject it if you want. I feel it is correct.

Read this article; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-self-defense

But I linked you the ACTUAL content of the report, which is specifically about identifying new ressearch paths, not conducting ressearch on those paths

[Ghostpanther]

But I linked you the ACTUAL content of the report, which is specifically about identifying new ressearch paths, not conducting ressearch on those paths

So? I agree more studies are needed to know for sure. But there is little question in my mind they will find out there are more cases of guns being used to deter crime and save victims then there are of death's caused by them. Even if it is only 100,000 - 150,000.

[sarahtasher]

Not only this ressearch is not saying what you say, but this ressearch is not ''a proof'' since it's a document for zeroing on credible ressearch paths. This is a review of historiography, not new ressearch.

[Ghostpanther]

Not only this ressearch is not saying what you say, but this ressearch is not ''a proof'' since it's a document for zeroing on credible ressearch paths. This is a review of historiography, not new ressearch.

The conclusion was agreeing with my stance. lol! Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,

[Zantos]

Good opinion. And I agree with them. Thanks for your input. Always welcome to see thoughtful and respectful posts in here.

Thanks. I think a key point is the fact that people will always be people. Some are good, others are bad. That is a fact of life that has held true for thousands of years. No matter what regulations we put into place, that is only part of the battle. We need to have better ways to deal with these situations when the arise. Regulations may help to lower the rates at which things happen. And people can debate that all they want. I just don't believe it should be the only topic up for debate when it comes to gun control. There just doesn't seem to be enough focus on reacting to these situations when they happen, or reacting to warnings of these situations potentially happening.

[Maneo]

Here is the thing. Often when a firearm is used in self Defense it isn't discharged or reported to the police.

In my instance where my house was broken into and the assailents were met with the barrel of my M&P 15 (a AR-15 clone), then promptly took off like a bat out of hell, a police report was filed.

In my report I said the assailents retreated after meeting armed resistance.... Does something like this show up in the studies?

Second instance, I was walking down the street, and a gentleman stood 5ft front of me and pulled out a knife saying give me you "explative" wallet.

I took a couple steps back, reached into my jacket, unsnapping my holster then grabbing my 9mm, (he must of thought I was grabbing my wallet).

I then opened up my jacket, to show that I was armed and ready. The individual promptly turned and ran away.

I know for sure that wasn't reported although I should have.

[Stormdash]

Armed self-defense is a more meaningful deterrent to violent criminals than the criminal justice system, for reasons discussed above -- the same reasons people think they can bet themselves out of a losing streak, because there's always "later", there's always "after", some other moves they can make. Like, what's more likely to keep someone from swimming with a captive great white (there aren't any, I know, not the point) -- a year in prison and $50,000 fine if convicted, or being fucking eaten by the shark?

[sarahtasher]

Here is the thing. Often when a firearm is used in self Defense it isn't discharged or reported to the police.

In my instance where my house was broken into and the assailents were met with the barrel of my M&P 15 (a AR-15 clone), then promptly took off like a bat out of hell, a police report was filed.

In my report I said the assailents retreated after meeting armed resistance.... Does something like this show up in the studies?

Second instance, I was walking down the street, and a gentleman stood 5ft front of me and pulled out a knife saying give me you "explative" wallet.

I took a couple steps back, reached into my jacket, unsnapping my holster then grabbing my 9mm, (he must of thought I was grabbing my wallet).

I then opened up my jacket, to show that I was armed and ready. The individual promptly turned and ran away.

I know for sure that wasn't reported although I should have.

Ah yes, of course, the people who commit the acts lionized by the NRA are reporting them to the NRA, not the police. Gotcha.

[Maldarious]

Our founding fathers had no idea of the kind of weapons we would have today or the kind of sick twisted individuals that would freely be able to acquire them. The 2nd amendment is dated and is all wrong for the times.

No one actually needs a gun. People killed people long before guns ever got created. So the idea that people have the right to have a gun has never made sense to me. They are not necessary on any level. You want to hunt? Break out the bow and some knives. Kill things with your hands for crying out loud.

It will be a great day for America when we wake up and realize our founding fathers lived in a different world and the same rules no longer apply. Simple as that! Oh and guns are not a tool for self defense. You shouldn't be in a position to need one but that is an entirely different problem.

[Stormdash]

Our founding fathers had no idea of the kind of weapons we would have today or the kind of sick twisted individuals that would freely be able to acquire them. The 2nd amendment is dated and is all wrong for the times.

No one actually needs a gun. People killed people long before guns ever got created. So the idea that people have the right to have a gun has never made sense to me. They are not necessary on any level. You want to hunt? Break out the bow and some knives. Kill things with your hands for crying out loud.

It will be a great day for America when we wake up and realize our founding fathers lived in a different world and the same rules no longer apply. Simple as that!

It should be no trouble at all to you to muster the 2/3rds in both Houses of Congress, or proposal by a Convention of States to present its repeal and get 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify it, then. I mean if it's that obvious.

Your only other choice is to overthrow the government, after all.

[Deleted]

There was a development in the discussion:

https://i.imgur.com/kBiOzA8.gifv

[Wermys]

It should be no trouble at all to you to muster the 2/3rds in both Houses of Congress, or proposal by a Convention of States to present its repeal and get 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify it, then. I mean if it's that obvious.

Your only other choice is to overthrow the government, after all.

Not really, the constitution does not state that you have a right to a gun. It states you have the right to have arms. Its a distinction that keeps getting misunderstood time and again. The constitution is a living document and reflects on what the current society prevailing views are on what constitutes necessary self protection. Don't get me wrong, I actually do support the ability to own pretty much any type of firearm you want. Up to even an m60's with proper background checks and documentation. But at the same time please understand also that things can and do change with time to what bearing arms actually means. And I fully support background checks and requirements to own any type of weapon. Someone should be of sound mind to own a firearm. That should be a requirement in order to obtain one. And all firearms should be tracked by the government, and if someone sells a weapon to someone else they should be required to report this transaction. And for those that fail to do so they should have the right to own firearms taken away permanently. And sent to prison. Right now the biggest issue we have is who keeps getting these weapons and misusing them. After a few years we can then look back and decide if something more needs to be done. As for the suggestion that its not practical to do anything I suggested. Give it time, gun's break down all the time, they require parts to replace different triggers, barrels wear down etc, if we enforce the ability to have it necessary to always have documentation when replacing those parts it will reduce the amount of guns getting into criminals hands and for those who never should own a gun in the first place due to there mental capacity. And hopefully drive down gun related death's. Right now it's to habitual the way guns are traded around and lost in the system and falling into the wrong hands. More strict enforcement should be necessary. As for how difficult it is to determine if they are of sound mind. My response would be first and foremost, have they been reported as having any type of antisocial psychotic behavior. Have they been convicted of a violent crime. And finally those people who are seeing psychologists or psychiatrist and those professionals have a concern about those individuals being dangerous to society to own any type of weapon should be required to have a hearing to determine whether or not they are of sound mind to own a weapon of any type. A lot of these laws are also actually on the book in various places but the enforcement is lacking. Just my opinion.

[lockedout]

Not really, the constitution does not state that you have a right to a gun. It states you have the right to have arms. Its a distinction that keeps getting misunderstood time and again. The constitution is a living document and reflects on what the current society prevailing views are on what constitutes necessary self protection. Don't get me wrong, I actually do support the ability to own pretty much any type of firearm you want. Up to even an m60's with proper background checks and documentation. But at the same time please understand also that things can and do change with time to what bearing arms actually means. And I fully support background checks and requirements to own any type of weapon. Someone should be of sound mind to own a firearm. That should be a requirement in order to obtain one. And all firearms should be tracked by the government, and if someone sells a weapon to someone else they should be required to report this transaction. And for those that fail to do so they should have the right to own firearms taken away permanently. And sent to prison. Right now the biggest issue we have is who keeps getting these weapons and misusing them. After a few years we can then look back and decide if something more needs to be done. As for the suggestion that its not practical to do anything I suggested. Give it time, gun's break down all the time, they require parts to replace different triggers, barrels wear down etc, if we enforce the ability to have it necessary to always have documentation when replacing those parts it will reduce the amount of guns getting into criminals hands and for those who never should own a gun in the first place due to there mental capacity. And hopefully drive down gun related death's. Right now it's to habitual the way guns are traded around and lost in the system and falling into the wrong hands. More strict enforcement should be necessary. As for how difficult it is to determine if they are of sound mind. My response would be first and foremost, have they been reported as having any type of antisocial psychotic behavior. Have they been convicted of a violent crime. And finally those people who are seeing psychologists or psychiatrist and those professionals have a concern about those individuals being dangerous to society to own any type of weapon should be required to have a hearing to determine whether or not they are of sound mind to own a weapon of any type. A lot of these laws are also actually on the book in various places but the enforcement is lacking. Just my opinion.

Everyone is up in arms about school shootings. Nothing you said will stop that short of an all out ban and confiscation. As far as homicide rates they mostly come from 5 inner cities. Remove THAT problem and we are no where near other countries rates.