Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Roxinius]

No it's not. It shows how effective federal regulation can be at saving lives.



No hypocrisy, it's the legitimate need to protect themselves from the unhinged gun owners who make death threats against them.

so its ok for them to need to protect themselves but not common people? got it you've gone full potato

[Daelak]

so its ok for them to need to protect themselves but not common people? got it you've gone full potato

Are all gun owners under credible threats against their lives?

[PhaelixWW]

Are all gun owners under credible threats against their lives?

Don't many gun haters like to claim that gun owners are a credible threat against their lives?

[Deleted]

You think people would still be sleeping after hearing a gunshot from another room? Yet we always hear stories of people who shoot their family before killing themself.

It would be easier to sneak room to room with a knife stabbing people in their throats and chests.

Anyone who thinks it's easy to kill people with a knife clearly has no clue. Real life isn't hollywood.

[FinalWatcher]

I thought people have learned their lessons from that many school shooting cases.

[Ghostpanther]

Anyone who thinks it's easy to kill people with a knife clearly has no clue. Real life isn't hollywood.

It is easy enough, considering people every year are still killed by stabbings. A firearm is better of course, considering not many people can throw a knife accurately.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought people have learned their lessons from that many school shooting cases.

With that logic, people should have learned their lesson with all the kids killed on the highways each year.

Annual United States Road Crash Statistics:

Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20
Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year, or an average of $820 per person
Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad


http://asirt.org/initiatives/informi...ash-statistics

[Naiattavain]

i don't support assault weapons ban. we live in a day in age where mobsters/gangs could rush your house and kill you and then speed off in a car after words. so i support assault weapons to be owned. at least you should have a chance to defend yourself against a pack of wild dogs who should be euthanized.

[zenkai]

Anyone who thinks it's easy to kill people with a knife clearly has no clue. Real life isn't hollywood.

Yeah stabbing is way too hard, just use a truck like in Nice France. Clearly gun laws could have prevented those 87 deaths.

[Daelak]

Don't many gun haters like to claim that gun owners are a credible threat against their lives?

And? That doesn't contradict my point as to why people retain armed guards after being consulted with the FBI and local law enforcement.

Are you suggesting their justification for arming themselves is to ensure they can fire back at themselves?

[Deleted]

Yeah stabbing is way too hard, just use a truck like in Nice France. Clearly gun laws could have prevented those 87 deaths.

No, gun laws prevent killings where guns are used. Duh.

[zenkai]

No, gun laws changed the way how people kill where guns are restricted. Duh.

Fixed that for you.

[Ghostpanther]

No, gun laws prevent killings where guns are used. Duh.

No they do not. Cities like Chicago have strong gun laws and you can see by the news, they do not prevent killings. :P

[Deleted]

No they do not. Cities like Chicago have strong gun laws and you can see by the news, they do not prevent killings. :P

Oh so there are walls and guards around Chicago that prevent people with guns from entering the city?

[Ghostpanther]

Oh so there are walls and guards around Chicago that prevent people with guns from entering the city?

That was not your point. Go back to your statement. "No, gun laws prevent killings where guns are used". Admitting you are wrong is not so bad you know.

[Deleted]

That was not your point. Go back to your statement. Admitting you are wrong is not so bad you know.

I am not wrong. You are purposefully twisting the argumentation. Chicago having gun laws is inconsequential if Chicago is in a country that does not.

The US has more gun violence and higher murder rates than any other western nation, and not by a small margin. By an enormous margin.

[RaoBurning]

I am not wrong. You are purposefully twisting the argumentation. Chicago having gun laws is inconsequential if Chicago is in a country that does not.

The US has more gun violence and higher murder rates than any other western nation, and not by a small margin. By an enormous margin.

Related and wholly appropriate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5beb9f3b47bd

Surprise, the overwhelming number of guns used in crime in Chicago come from not Chicago. Well, maybe 60% isn't an overwhelming majority, but just imagine Chicago with 60% less gun violence and it still seems pretty nice.

[PhaelixWW]

Related and wholly appropriate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5beb9f3b47bd

Surprise, the overwhelming number of guns used in crime in Chicago come from not Chicago. Well, maybe 60% isn't an overwhelming majority, but just imagine Chicago with 60% less gun violence and it still seems pretty nice.

Your argument presupposes that all 60% of those firearms were illegal in Illinois. If they were not illegal in Illinois, then they could just as (if not more) easily have been purchased in Illinois before being used there in a crime.

[Svifnymr]

Related and wholly appropriate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5beb9f3b47bd

Surprise, the overwhelming number of guns used in crime in Chicago come from not Chicago. Well, maybe 60% isn't an overwhelming majority, but just imagine Chicago with 60% less gun violence and it still seems pretty nice.

Some caveats to the information:
1) Recovered guns, not guns used in crime. No gun, no trace. (You might make the argument that the seized guns are a representative sample, but we don't really know.)
2) Guns purchased outside the city limits are generally done illegally via straw purchasing. This is easy enough to establish and prosecute, but meh, not worth ATF's time.

The article mentions NY also, so it's interesting, really. The idea is that tougher gun laws reduce crime, but the evidence seems to be that tougher gun laws send criminals further away to get guns. "Chicago has tough guns laws, but they're useless because 60% of recovered guns aren't even from Chicago" ignores the laws that are broken, but also demonstrates that Chicago criminals will go elsewhere to procure weapons. The idea to make it tough everywhere, rather than like... go into those areas and fix them, is a pretty silly notion to some of us. Infringe on our rights so you don't need to violate the rights of the criminals murdering each other?

What is the volume in cubic meters of the drug trade through the drug pipelines that happen to match up to these crime areas? Do you really believe firearms wouldn't flow along with them?

[Ghostpanther]

I am not wrong. You are purposefully twisting the argumentation. Chicago having gun laws is inconsequential if Chicago is in a country that does not.

The US has more gun violence and higher murder rates than any other western nation, and not by a small margin. By an enormous margin.

I am purposefully correcting your statement. Did France's gun laws prevent the terrorists from shooting and killing some in Paris? If you had stated gun laws can help reduce gun killings, then I would agree.

And of course in a country which the citizen's have a Constitutional right to keep and carry firearms for self defense, you are going to have more killings from shootings. Just like a country which allows it's citizens to drive automobiles, is going to have more death's from highway fatalities than if they did not.

[Daelak]

Your argument presupposes that all 60% of those firearms were illegal in Illinois. If they were not illegal in Illinois, then they could just as (if not more) easily have been purchased in Illinois before being used there in a crime.

And they are, since unscrupulous firearms dealers will sell to them, and their out of state counterparts, to the extent of the law, since they are governed by demand from the market. Restrict the supply, restrict the amount of buyers, causing less people to purchase firearms, which result in less firearm violence. Voila, you've curbed violence and made federal law enforcement jobs that much easier to interdict and slow the trafficking of drugs, which is the genesis of this entire tragedy in Chicago in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Some caveats to the information:
1) Recovered guns, not guns used in crime. No gun, no trace. (You might make the argument that the seized guns are a representative sample, but we don't really know.)
2) Guns purchased outside the city limits are generally done illegally via straw purchasing. This is easy enough to establish and prosecute, but meh, not worth ATF's time.

The article mentions NY also, so it's interesting, really. The idea is that tougher gun laws reduce crime, but the evidence seems to be that tougher gun laws send criminals further away to get guns. "Chicago has tough guns laws, but they're useless because 60% of recovered guns aren't even from Chicago" ignores the laws that are broken, but also demonstrates that Chicago criminals will go elsewhere to procure weapons. The idea to make it tough everywhere, rather than like... go into those areas and fix them, is a pretty silly notion to some of us. Infringe on our rights so you don't need to violate the rights of the criminals murdering each other?

What is the volume in cubic meters of the drug trade through the drug pipelines that happen to match up to these crime areas? Do you really believe firearms wouldn't flow along with them?

Any patriotic citizen of the US would be supportive of letting the DEA, ATF, and local law enforcement use the lucrative country-wide drug and firearms trade as a means to monitor habitual straw purchasers and dealers.