Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Todgruppe]

The number of statistics being thrown around that completely ignore the gang violence problem in America is alarming.

I gave a quick view of the "deaths since newtown" link for the gun deaths in my area, and found a suicide, an officer involved shooting, a gang drive by, a gang retaliation, the murder of a witness in police protection, a shooting of a robbery suspect by a store owner, and several other gang related shootings.

By no means a comprehensive look, but I'd like to see a breakdown of these statistics to show the real figures on what the ban would be likely to prevent: murders committed by legal gun owners.

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Su...-Gang-Problems

Compare with, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl01.xls, you get a difference of <-10% change overall vs ~-2% in gang related homicides. That is just overall, would have to look more into it.

~9900 Firearm related homicides in 2011, 2020 gang related.

[ugotownd]

It asks if YOU support an assault weapons ban. Not YOU the Americans. Everyone's point of view is valued and it should not make it void simply living outside the U.S. as far as I'm aware their point of view still holds weight regardless of where they were born. Somehow saying only Americans count because we live here is simply outrageous. But I'm sure that considered skewed in in order to discredit them. Great job with that.

It completely matters. Since it doesn't effect them they have no care to vote yes. Second if the gov made the people of America vote on the ban there votes wouldn't count now would they. Seeing as how only 48% of America's support the AWB I would say your little poll here means jack shit.

---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 09:02 PM ----------

Sources:

1. "Obama Presses for Gun Measures, Offering Up Minneapolis as a Model," The New York Times, February 4, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=286995&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=4

2. "How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?" Slate, February 6, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=285995&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=5

3. "Gun safety advocates petition Rokita," Journal & Courier, January 31, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=287002&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=6

4. "Anti-Gun Violence Group Protests at NRA Headquarters in Fairfax," CBS DC, February 1, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=287036&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=7

5. "Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From," The New York Times, January 29, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=287022&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=8

Sources for you know people who live in reality and not fantasy. Who are not TOTAL Ignorant but are TOTAL common sense. I'm sure those Gun fanatics would find this information as useful. It's put in easy to understand print so the information does not crush brain of lesser advance beings who can understand it.

[Infracted]

Rofl really you complain and tell somebody get a real source if they use the NRA or foxnews. Then you list not one but five articles to support your garbage from moveon.org Could you get anymore hypocritical.

[Tinykong]

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Su...-Gang-Problems

Compare with, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl01.xls, you get a difference of <-10% change overall vs ~-2% in gang related homicides. That is just overall, would have to look more into it.

~9900 Firearm related homicides in 2011, 2020 gang related.

I'll have to keep looking, because I would be interested to see a break down of all firearm related deaths and their causes. I know I've seen it, but I can't find it at the moment.

[Todgruppe]

I'll have to keep looking, because I would be interested to see a break down of all firearm related deaths and their causes. I know I've seen it, but I can't find it at the moment.

Found this on CDC's website, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/dea...10_release.pdf.

Edit: Also, in correlation to gang violence, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nati...nce-drugs.html, gang violence less a result of drugs, more a result of retaliation. They don't go over what caused the original killing, would be interesting to find out what started the chain of events.

[Tinykong]

Found this on CDC's website, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/dea...10_release.pdf.

Edit: Also, in correlation to gang violence, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nati...nce-drugs.html, gang violence less a result of drugs, more a result of retaliation. They don't go over what caused the original killing, would be interesting to find out what started the chain of events.

I saw a chart that showed the total number of firearm related deaths, and a breakdown of the causes (police, murder, suicide, etc.) I'm curious as to what percentage of total illegal gun deaths are caused by gangs.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Sources:

1. "Obama Presses for Gun Measures, Offering Up Minneapolis as a Model," The New York Times, February 4, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=286995&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=4

2. "How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?" Slate, February 6, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=285995&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=5

3. "Gun safety advocates petition Rokita," Journal & Courier, January 31, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=287002&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=6

4. "Anti-Gun Violence Group Protests at NRA Headquarters in Fairfax," CBS DC, February 1, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=287036&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=7

5. "Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From," The New York Times, January 29, 2013
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=287022&id=...69-q7P4H9x&t=8

Sources for you know people who live in reality and not fantasy. Who are not TOTAL Ignorant but are TOTAL common sense. I'm sure those Gun fanatics would find this information as useful. It's put in easy to understand print so the information does not crush brain of lesser advance beings who can understand it.

[Infracted]

I'm not quite sure why this post got infracted, or why mine posted in a similar fashion got infracted, and yet the personal attacks from the pro-gun lobby and the crazy tin foil hat conspiracy theory posts about Obama orchestrating these gun shootings around the country are going relatively untouched. A few pages back there was 4-5 pages of people directly and baselessly attacking FusedMass, baiting her for a response with insults on intelligence and other things, and yet none of those got an infraction. Yet when she finally responds with a little bit of cheek she gets infracted? Come on. I've watched tin foil hat wearing lunatics go on for several pages about the sheeple not being able to see Obama's oppressive rule and never get touched. I can see why this post got infracted, or why mine did as well, but if you're going to do it to some posts you have to do it to all. I've rarely been one to consider moderation bias, but this is getting a little bit silly and frankly unnerving to the discussion.

On topic,

Criminals will just get their hands on guns anyway, why make laws for it?

And criminals will always murder, steal, and assault. People need to realize that laws are a deterrent and not a complete prevention. While their intent is to try and ultimately eliminate such things, nobody with a view set in reality will believe that laws will ever completely eliminate a behavior, but rather deter that behavior as a result of harsh consequences.

Cars/Hammers/toothpicks/pet goldfish kill many people a year, why not ban those?

Possibly one of the most asinine red herring arguments ever. Should we not consider trying to save lives each year because lives are lost to other things? Sorry, the discussion at hand is about preventing gun deaths. If your best counter argument is that we should start banning other things cause they kill people (despite, you know, those other things having a purpose other than death or killing) then the foundation of your argument is made of sand.

Also, there have been several posts about regulating guns like we do cars, and these have been opposed for no real apparent reason other than people seem to be staunchly opposed to any kind of gun control whatsoever.

Guns aren't made for killing or injuring, they're designed for firing projectiles at high speed.

Anyone who thinks this is just being dishonest with themselves and creating a straw man. You can deny up and down the design purpose of guns, that doesn't change that by their very nature they are a weapon. How you use that weapon is up to you. Even if you don't intend on killing or injuring anyone, guns are still a weapon. You can link the dictionary definition of a tool, a collectible, try to call guns collectibles and play semantics all day, but at the end of it all, that's all you're really doing is playing semantics. When aimed at a person and the trigger pulled, a gun will seriously injure or kill someone. Most other "utility" functionalities of guns either relate to killing or on accuracy, and a non violent self defense attack deterrent purpose is just under the guise of people being scared they're going to be shot. Again, if this is your only argument, the foundation of your argument is made of sand.

There's no such thing as an assault weapon/rifle, it hasn't been clearly defined.

Yes it has, this is where you check your sources. If you come into a discussion, be prepared to know about the subject matter from both sides. The term assault rifle and assault weapon have been clearly defined by the bill presented by Feinstein. You may no LIKE the definition, you may even have a very good reason for not liking the definition, but that does not mean that they have not been defined.

Lol Feinstein wants to ban pistol grips and folding stocks, what a stupid bill banning a gun based on appearance!

Anyone can see that the pistol grip and folding stock part of the bill are rather silly. But it seems people have yet again failed to do their research on the entire bill and are yet again making silly arguments based on a lack of knowledge. This is another straw man argument designed to detract from the rest of the bill which actually has a lot of very valid restrictions. If you refused to do your research on the bill and focus on the ergonomically oriented bans (which pistol grips and folding stocks are for, ergonomics and ease of wielding) then yet again, the basis of your argument is made of sand.

I don't like your news source, it looks so bias. Thus I invalidate your argument.

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen posted on this forum, and it's becoming a disturbingly regular "thing" these days. If you don't like someone's source, saying "I don't like your source" or "that source is bias" is one of the worst counter arguments ever. Discrediting the authority of a news site based on its bias is silly. There are a few examples that are obviously bias to the point of fabrication of information (MSNBC, Fox News being the two worst offenders) but many other news sources are fairly neutral with a slightly left or right leaning bias. Their articles are only bias in what they choose to report, not how they report it. If some news network shows only things that interest one side or another without actually altering the facts, that's bias, but that does not make the information they report any less real.

If you don't like someone's source, go google the information yourself to either confirm it's false or fabricated, or concede to the point. Some of the worst arguments I've seen made are people discrediting a source of an article reporting a study that has been reported by numerous other sites as well. Something isn't suddenly rendered untrue because a bias news source reports it. A source is not suddenly invalidated because you you don't like the looks of it. If you want to refute an article, go find a counter article.

I have to give a hearty chuckle to the people who believe CNN is is strongly bias one way or another. When you have human beings reporting the news, there's obviously going to be even a tiny bit of bias, but in the overall picture of shithole reporting that is the American media these days, CNN is fairly unbias towards the right or left. They possess an American bias where they only report things Americans want to hear, but their political affiliation is mildly neutral. Heck their headquarters is in one of the most red states and yet they still manage to get both conservative and liberal commentators.

Edit: Obviously if a news site is reporting commentary or opinion, that is going to be bias to whoever writes those sections, but a news site reporting an incident as-is isn't exactly going to be invalid due to their bias. The obvious exceptions, again, being Fox News and MSNBC.

Images:

How news works: http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/0/00/0...bama-pepsi.jpg
A visual representation of common rhetological fallacies in picture form (Courtesy Wells): http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...cal-fallacies/

And since a lot of you seem to be operating at the bottom of this pyramid, you should probably be looking to climb up a couple of levels: http://www.netbooknews.com/wp-conten...-of-debate.jpg

[Svifnymr]

the 7.62, the .223 are classic examples of ammunition types designed with long riffle barrels in mind. if you made a pistol that shoot 7.62 you would possibly break your wrist firing the weapon.

As mentioned elsewhere, 223/7.62X39 and such are more "intermediate" rounds, rather than real long rifle rounds, designed for shorter barrels and such. That aside, there are pistols for nearly every rifle caliber you can name in the Thompson Center line of single shot pistols. Some must be a bear to shoot, but most are not bad. I myself had an AK-style pistol (AMD-65, 9"ish barrel), it was controllable, though I don't like AK's anyway, sold it to a judge who "had to have it".

[Shadoweye]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xkhc6hwJ7ZA

[Wells]

His point is that you're calling out our homicide rate, which mainly has to do with having about over 250 million more people than you do.

The United States is also 5 times more populated, but you never seem to want to point that out?

I'd also like to point out, as I've said so many times, Chicago, New York, New Orleans, and California, have the highest murder rates, and the strictest gun control.

I'm not talking about absolute values, I'm talking about rate per capita, so population size isn't terribly relevant.

And the south has the highest murder rate per capita and is fairly awash in guns so really come on.

For example Louisiana has one of the highest murder rates in the nation and is also somewhere between 10-15 nationally on gun ownership.

[xylophone]

I'm not talking about absolute values, I'm talking about rate per capita, so population size isn't terribly relevant.

And the south has the highest murder rate per capita and is fairly awash in guns so really come on.

For example Louisiana has one of the highest murder rates in the nation and is also somewhere between 10-15 nationally on gun ownership.

You get that fancy pants per capita voodoo magic outta here, if you know what's good fer ya.

[FusedMass]

I'm not quite sure why this post got infracted, or why mine posted in a similar fashion got infracted, and yet the personal attacks from the pro-gun lobby and the crazy tin foil hat conspiracy theory posts about Obama orchestrating these gun shootings around the country are going relatively untouched. A few pages back there was 4-5 pages of people directly and baselessly attacking FusedMass, baiting her for a response with insults on intelligence and other things, and yet none of those got an infraction. Yet when she finally responds with a little bit of cheek she gets infracted? Come on. I've watched tin foil hat wearing lunatics go on for several pages about the sheeple not being able to see Obama's oppressive rule and never get touched. I can see why this post got infracted, or why mine did as well, but if you're going to do it to some posts you have to do it to all. I've rarely been one to consider moderation bias, but this is getting a little bit silly and frankly unnerving to the discussion.

I'm not sure why I got infracted. I have filed an appeal to contest it. Since this thread was open since page one. I may not agree but I NEVER directly insult or lose my control. I made a comical joke something that people have done and then some and then some and nothing was done to them. I been verbally assaulted and dealt with hostile knee jerk reactions. Called every name in the book. Most of those posters did not get anything done to them. I was making light out of a post.

If it's against the rules to flame. Then I guess I'm the exception for several threads there was nothing but flames. I learned to deal with it. Yet I am deeply disturbed one comment I make is infarcted. Therefore till the issue is resolved I will only update the front page. I will not risk being banned in a thread when people have done worse and gotten away. It takes the fun out of it. It sucked the debate from me and the will to even respond. Again I won't risk my account banned and I will only update front page till my appeal is resolved. I regret this but only way I can sincerely be out line of fire.

Mod Edit: Please don't discuss infractions in public.

[xylophone]

I'm not sure why I got infracted. I have filed an appeal to contest it. Since this thread was open since page one. I may not agree but I NEVER directly insult or lose my control. I made a comical joke something that people have done and then some and then some and nothing was done to them. I been verbally assaulted and dealt with hostile knee jerk reactions. Called every name in the book. Most of those posters did not get anything done to them. I was making light out of a post.

If it's against the rules to flame. Then I guess I'm the exception for several threads there was nothing but flames. I learned to deal with it. Yet I am deeply disturbed one comment I make is infarcted. Therefore till the issue is resolved I will only update the front page. I will not risk being banned in a thread when people have done worse and gotten away. It takes the fun out of it. It sucked the debate from me and the will to even respond. Again I won't risk my account banned and I will only update front page till my appeal is resolved. I regret this but only way I can sincerely be out line of fire.

It was the antagonistic note.

[Grizzly Willy]

Fused, you should know by now not to discuss moderator actions outside of contacting Sunshine. This isn't the place for that.

[Garnier Fructis]

Fused, you should know by now now to discuss moderator actions outside of contacting Sunshine. This isn't the place for that.

It's the same old song and dance.

[lockedout]

Senator Ted Cruz standing up for your constitutional rights in front of congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6gZU01yF8

[Todgruppe]

I'm not sure why I got infracted. I have filed an appeal to contest it. Since this thread was open since page one. I may not agree but I NEVER directly insult or lose my control. I made a comical joke something that people have done and then some and then some and nothing was done to them. I been verbally assaulted and dealt with hostile knee jerk reactions. Called every name in the book. Most of those posters did not get anything done to them. I was making light out of a post.

If it's against the rules to flame. Then I guess I'm the exception for several threads there was nothing but flames. I learned to deal with it. Yet I am deeply disturbed one comment I make is infarcted. Therefore till the issue is resolved I will only update the front page. I will not risk being banned in a thread when people have done worse and gotten away. It takes the fun out of it. It sucked the debate from me and the will to even respond. Again I won't risk my account banned and I will only update front page till my appeal is resolved. I regret this but only way I can sincerely be out line of fire.

Because the entirety of your posts "appeal to common sense", implying people don't agree with you they therefore have none. You are incredibly passive aggressive, and continue to push shit that has been disproven, why you weren't banned before is a better question you should ask the mods.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Senator Ted Cruz standing up for your constitutional rights in front of congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6gZU01yF8

HHahahaah "If this piece of plastic, this pistol grip, were attached to this rifle, it would suddenly become, a banned assault weapon."

[mvaliz]

Senator Ted Cruz standing up for your constitutional rights in front of congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6gZU01yF8

Why do you feel the need for deliberately hiding what your video is about instead of directly telling them? Why not say "Ted Cruz standing up for gun owners"? Why do you have to hide it behind "your constitutional rights" to make it sound all overly-dramatic while attempting to NOT tell people what it's really about?

Do you seriously think somebody is going to say "Oh! It was MY constitutional right he was fighting for! I suddenly understand why owning assault rifles is OK!" ?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Why do you feel the need for deliberately hiding what your video is about instead of directly telling them? Why not say "Ted Cruz standing up for gun owners"? Why do you have to hide it behind "your constitutional rights" to make it sound all overly-dramatic while attempting to NOT tell people what it's really about?

Do you seriously think somebody is going to say "Oh! It was MY constitutional right he was fighting for! I suddenly understand why owning assault rifles is OK!" ?

Yes, yes he is fighting for anyones rights that would like to exercise them. Just because you don't own a gun, or want to own one, doesn't mean they aren't your rights.

[Karn]

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook



Slashing through the bland authoritative front the media have presented, people want to know more about the Sandy Hook massacre. But the elite networks have no intention of answering the most obvious questions.

Why? Because the follow-up agenda of gun control is all important, and the official Sandy Hook scenario must stand, in order to forward that agenda.

Any return to the scene of the crime will:

divert media coverage from its all-out push to make guns into taboo objects of scorn, ridicule, fear, and hatred;

focus attention on reasons for the massacre that have nothing to do with guns;

engender deep distrust of the Sandy Hook police investigation and therefore, by association, throw into doubt the notion that law-enforcement personnel should be the only people carrying guns in America.

Here are 10 things the media doesn’t want to know about and has no intention of investigating. These are only the basics, amid a wider sea of unanswered questions:

Where is the video footage from inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School, footage that surely exists and shows some part of the massacre? Who has that video record? What does the video reveal? Where is the video (or photo) evidence that Adam Lanza was the shooter?

How did the accused killer, Lanza, gain entrance to the school? Having just installed a new security system that required outside (and presumably heavy) doors to be locked, and with a procedure for entry that demanded two-way video communication with the principal’s office—what exactly happened?

From available information, it seems almost certain Lanza was seeing a doctor and was on medication. Who was the doctor and what drugs did he prescribe? Did they include SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, or Ritalin and Adderall—drugs known to cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. If so, then all the focus would shift to excoriating the drugs and eliminating them from our society.

What was the exact story on the two or three other suspects captured and detained by the police? Who are they? Why were they pursued? What did their questioning reveal? Why were they released? No vague generalities. Instead, all the details. And let’s have in-depth television interviews with these suspects.

Once and for all, let’s have a definitive statement on what guns were used in the killings and what guns were found in the trunk of the car. So many lies and contradictions were floated, it’s a sea of confusion. So let’s have the facts—and evidence to back them up. For starters, let’s see photos of the killer and his weapons taken inside the school. Undoctored photos.

What is the detailed explanation for the massive shift from Lanza’s father being killed in New Jersey to Lanza’s mother being killed in Connecticut? No vague generalities. No nonsense about “typical early confusion” in reporting. Let’s see the whole chain of information and the people who forwarded it. Similarly, if the early conclusion pointed to Adam’s brother Ryan as the killer, a conclusion which was withdrawn because Adam was carrying his brother’s ID, explain that. According to reports, Adam hadn’t seen his brother in more than two years. Offer hard evidence that Adam was, in fact, carrying his brother’s ID.

Where are complete statements and interviews with witnesses who were in the school at the time of the shooting? We have seen a few short interviews. There must be more. Let’s have them or get them. Are we to believe (as independent investigator Mike Powell has rightly doubted) that one teacher stuffed all her children into classroom cabinets, which ordinarily are filled with school supplies?

In the television interviews with parents of children murdered in the Sandy Hook School, not one parent was angry, not one parent demanded a deeper investigation. Obviously, this screening of interviewees was purposeful. Where are the outraged parents? What do they have to say? Do they know anything we don’t know? Have they been told (as people were at Columbine) to keep quiet?

And now, as the gun-control agenda is being pursued, precisely how will new laws curb the majority of gun violence in America, violence which is taking place in cities—much of it gang-related. Explain why President Obama doesn’t vigorously and publicly target these high-crime areas, if his objective is to reduce the gun violence, rather than gun ownership.

The pending and often postponed Chicago trial of Jesus Niebla, high-ranking member of the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel, experiences delay after delay. What vital facts are being kept from the public? There are serious defense charges here; namely, that Niebla and other Sinaloa members have received permanent immunity from prosecution in a prior deal with the DEA and FBI, in return for supplying information on rival cartels. In fact, the US federal government has obtained a suppression of defense-attorney documents in the trial, claiming their exposure would violate National Security.

Does Sinaloa have explicit US government permission to deliver tons of cocaine and heroin into Chicago, and then to cities all over America? This enterprise would certainly, as a side effect, produce a significant amount of gun violence. Does the federal government really want to curb this violence, or is its arrangement with Sinaloa taking precedence?

Finally, in the wake of Sandy Hook, how does President Obama’s declaration that mental-health services will be expanded across America add up to reduction of gun violence? In fact, this will lead to higher levels of prescribed dangerous psychiatric drugs, which in turn will cause a serious escalation in gun violence and mass shootings.



Major media don’t want to know anything about these points. And yet they’re betting they will retain the public trust. But the fact that their ratings are sinking, month after month, year after year, is a message from the public.

The media refuse to hear it, though. They glide through their rehearsed paces and pretend they are captains of information. Their elite owners would prefer to let the media ship go down, rather than tell the truth.

That’s understandable. After all, these owners, and the owners who own them, are guilty of all sorts of crimes, the reporting of which would make ratings soar but destroy their own empires, reputations, and lives.