Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

why cant there be a middle ground in gun legislation? why do we either have to have guns with little to no restrictions or ban guns altogether?

There really is a middle ground. The US Supreme Court has ruled no state or local government can outright ban lawful guns, but can regulate them. So it depends on the state how restrictive gun laws are. A extreme case of gun regulations would be New York. A much more relaxed regulations would be Vermont.

[breadisfunny]

There really is a middle ground. The US Supreme Court has ruled no state or local government can outright ban lawful guns, but can regulate them. So it depends on the state how restrictive gun laws are. A extreme case of gun regulations would be New York. A much more relaxed regulations would be Vermont.

but then how can they be allowed to ban guns like they do in certain states?

[obdigore]

Hey moderator is it OK to link photos as long as they are about gun control? Like this?

Actually nevermind, they will just dismiss the numbers, not even gonna bother with these anymore. lol



Infracted

I guess I'm confused how 'non firearm homicides' account for more homicides, when the supposed source (FBI) says differently?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

Total Homicides in 2011: 12,664
Total By Firearms in 2011: 8,583

Looks like well over 67% of murders in the US are by firearms.

Looks like your other numbers are wrong too.

Tobacco Use per CDC - 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/re...ns/aag/osh.htm

I mean... if the makers of the chart had any idea what they were doing, they would have included Heart Disease and Cancer, but w/e.

[Ghostpanther]

but then how can they be allowed to ban guns like they do in certain states?

Which State? Even New York has not banned any lawful guns. But they have very restrictive rules for handguns and CCP's. Which is different from outright banning them. But remember the Supreme Court has already ruled weapons classified as ones of mass destruction are not covered under the Second Amendment. Such as nuclear cannons. :P

- - - Updated - - -

I guess I'm confused how 'non firearm homicides' account for more homicides, when the supposed source (FBI) says differently?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

Total Homicides in 2011: 12,664
Total By Firearms in 2011: 8,583

Looks like well over 67% of murders in the US are by firearms.

Looks like your other numbers are wrong too.

Tobacco Use per CDC - 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/re...ns/aag/osh.htm

I mean... if the makers of the chart had any idea what they were doing, they would have included Heart Disease and Cancer, but w/e.

It may depend on the year in reference also.

[obdigore]

It may depend on the year in reference also.

There isn't a year in the FBI stats where guns are less than half of the tools used in homicides.

[Ghostpanther]

There isn't a year in the FBI stats where guns are less than half of the tools used in homicides.

You are right. I checked several other web sources and they all showed the same. Not sure what is up with the one chart. The good point however is gun homicides trail far behind other preventable death's. And the other is the overall crime rate and homicide rates have been going down the last 20 years. In spite of the millions of guns out there.

[obdigore]

You are right. I checked several other web sources and they all showed the same. Not sure what is up with the one chart. The good point however is gun homicides trail far behind other preventable death's. And the other is the overall crime rate and homicide rates have been going down the last 20 years. In spite of the millions of guns out there.

Except we do things to try and prevent other stuff. The CDC, for instance, can't even investigate any causes of gun deaths without getting their funding slashed by the exact amount of money they spent investigating.

[breadisfunny]

Which State? Even New York has not banned any lawful guns. But they have very restrictive rules for handguns and CCP's. Which is different from outright banning them. But remember the Supreme Court has already ruled weapons classified as ones of mass destruction are not covered under the Second Amendment. Such as nuclear cannons. :P

- - - Updated - - -



It may depend on the year in reference also.

arent guns banned in chicago?

[PhaelixWW]

Hey moderator is it OK to link photos as long as they are about gun control? Like this?

Hmm. That graphic is wrong, though. Non-firearm homicides more than firearm homicides? I don't think so. That looks more like all homicides, including non-firearms, vs. just firearm homicides.

Although I was surprised to find out that firearms are a much smaller part of the aggravated assault statistics than I thought.

Why not? We've already proven that guns only make you feel safer, it's far from reality.

No, you haven't proven that they only make you "feel" safer.

It's far from "idiotic" to restrict the "rights" of no net benefit to society.

No, you haven't proven that it's no net benefit to society.

Far more lives are lost than gained. 36:1.

Sure, because the only time firearms save a life is when they're used to kill the other person. /sarcasm

why cant there be a middle ground in gun legislation? why do we either have to have guns with little to no restrictions or ban guns altogether?

Probably because, no matter how much regulation and how many restrictions, people will still refer to them as too little regulation and too few restrictions.

That's the cold, unvarnished truth.

arent guns banned in chicago?

Well, Chicago is a city, not a state. And it was only handguns, not all guns. And that handgun ban got struck down by the SCOTUS in 2010 with McDonald v. Chicago.

[breadisfunny]

Hmm. That graphic is wrong, though. Non-firearm homicides more than firearm homicides? I don't think so. That looks more like all homicides, including non-firearms, vs. just firearm homicides.

Although I was surprised to find out that firearms are a much smaller part of the aggravated assault statistics than I thought.



No, you haven't proven that they only make you "feel" safer.



No, you haven't proven that it's no net benefit to society.



Sure, because the only time firearms save a life is when they're used to kill the other person. /sarcasm



Probably because, no matter how much regulation and how many restrictions, people will still refer to them as too little regulation and too few restrictions.

That's the cold, unvarnished truth.



Well, Chicago is a city, not a state. And it was only handguns, not all guns. And that handgun ban got struck down by the SCOTUS in 2010 with McDonald v. Chicago.

wasnt sure if it was the state or city that had the ban.

[Ghostpanther]

Except we do things to try and prevent other stuff. The CDC, for instance, can't even investigate any causes of gun deaths without getting their funding slashed by the exact amount of money they spent investigating.

Just how much do we actually spend in federal dollars on stopping smoking other than a warning label on the product? In treatment and research into medical treatment of cancer and other diseases associated with smoking we have and it costs the tax payers far more than the costs for gun violence. Yet we continue to let tobacco be legal to purchase. It is political hypocrisy to complain about the costs of gun violence while still allowing tobacco to be legal.

Not disagreeing with you on the need to spend more for ways to reduce gun violence. That would always be a good thing to do. But cigarette smoking is much more deadly and in costs to us all than gun violence is. All the charts I looked up confirmed that. Death's from gun violence is not even close to the number who die each year from those damn cigarettes.

- - - Updated - - -

wasnt sure if it was the state or city that had the ban.

Yeah. And also the District of Columbia. Both tried to outright ban private ownership of handguns. Chicago for example had to change their ban to allowing the ownership of a handgun to only inside the owner's home or place of residence. They are pretty regulated still there. Much more so than most large cities. But they continue to have gun violence around the clock. :P The vast majority of gun homicides are not committed by citizens who owe their guns legally. And speaking of assault weapons, very, very rare for a criminal to use them in a crime. Majority are committed with handguns.

[vaeevictiss]

arent guns banned in chicago?

Only for law abiding citizens. Criminals/Gang Members/Murderers/Rapists are still allowed to carry weapons.

Which State? Even New York has not banned any lawful guns. But they have very restrictive rules for handguns and CCP's. Which is different from outright banning them. But remember the Supreme Court has already ruled weapons classified as ones of mass destruction are not covered under the Second Amendment. Such as nuclear cannons. :P

They actually have in a way. Just by the term "lawful gun". Of course you can sit there and say they have not banned "lawful guns", because the ones they have not banned are the ones that are lawful. Case in point, they took measures to effectively ban the AR15, which is a "lawful gun" (honestly, there really is no such thing as an illegal gun, only illegal possession). Although the innovative minds at companies like Stag Arms and BRO have come up with ways to still make them compliant. Granted, they are hideous and barely an AR15 anymore.



Troy Arms even made a pump action version (which is actually pretty brilliant lol) for states that do not allow semi auto rifles.

[tombstoner139]

Only for law abiding citizens. Criminals/Gang Members/Murderers/Rapists are still allowed to carry weapons.

This i must disagree with.... its partially at the heart of all regulation issues. It only effects law abiding people up to the time they commit a crime. Existing criminals could care less what rules and regulations are in place. so the whole process cant address the real issues.... lack of economic opportunities and funding for mental health.

Secondly if making society safer for all is the goal. Then simply add in breathalyzers to the ignition on all trucks, cars, trains and plains.
for some reasons this hasn't happened.... could it be that some amount of alcohol related deaths are acceptable for a few seconds and the monetary expense saved is worth far more then all gun related deaths in the US.

It took 911 to get the air line industry to lock the cockpit door..... The addition of more gun regulation is a waist of effort.

[Svifnymr]

Except we do things to try and prevent other stuff. The CDC, for instance, can't even investigate any causes of gun deaths without getting their funding slashed by the exact amount of money they spent investigating.

The CDC wanted to research ways to reduce gun culture, so they got smacked on the nose. The way they expressed their research objective was flawed and political.

The National Institute of Justice does coordinate various gun research as well as criminal acts and effects of various laws.

The CDC has broadened it's mandate to all "health related" topics, but are they really the best solution to reducing criminal activity?

- - - Updated - - -

Just how much do we actually spend in federal dollars on stopping smoking other than a warning label on the product?

Don't forget all those stupid commercials! (Though, those may be paid for by tobaco money regulated by fed's or something.)

[Eroginous]

The CDC has broadened it's mandate to all "health related" topics, but are they really the best solution to reducing criminal activity?

I'd say police/FBI/ATF doing their damn job is more effective at reducing criminal activity.

[Gumboy]

Interesting poll up on a British newspaper website (Please people from there, let me know if this paper is legit or biased or whatever) (And yes, it is an online poll so who knows how legit it is I guess?)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-vote-now.html

Was a poll on which of the bills listed would you be in support of the most.

Term limit on Prime Ministers 1.6% (493 votes)


A flat tax 4.71% (1,456 votes)


Greening of public spaces 1.83% (565 votes)


Close child maintenance loophole 0.69% (213 votes)


Ban spitting 1.78% (551 votes)


Repeal the ban on hand guns 89.39% (27,617 votes)



That is a pretty crazy % of people wanting that, but it is up against some strange things as well (Banning spitting?)

[Ghostpanther]

Interesting poll up on a British newspaper website (Please people from there, let me know if this paper is legit or biased or whatever) (And yes, it is an online poll so who knows how legit it is I guess?)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-vote-now.html

Was a poll on which of the bills listed would you be in support of the most.

Term limit on Prime Ministers 1.6% (493 votes)


A flat tax 4.71% (1,456 votes)


Greening of public spaces 1.83% (565 votes)


Close child maintenance loophole 0.69% (213 votes)


Ban spitting 1.78% (551 votes)


Repeal the ban on hand guns 89.39% (27,617 votes)



That is a pretty crazy % of people wanting that, but it is up against some strange things as well (Banning spitting?)

Yeah, very interesting indeed. But the UK has a low crime rate? So I wonder why so many want a repeal of the ban on handguns? Unless they know if it only happens .001% of the time ( chances of you being a victim of a crime ) and you happen to be one of those in the .001%, the % does not mean a damn thing. :P

[PhaelixWW]

Interesting poll up on a British newspaper website (Please people from there, let me know if this paper is legit or biased or whatever) (And yes, it is an online poll so who knows how legit it is I guess?)

Well, to be fair, any online poll like this is going to be subject to self-selection bias, though it is the right kind of question to attempt to mitigate said self-selection bias.

But it may only show that there is a higher percentage of people who strongly believe in this topic more than the other ones listed. For example, someone may be inclined more towards voting for PM term limits, but not strongly enough to be bothered to vote.

Also, this poll is not limited to the British, though I would expect that website to be visited primarily by people in the UK.

[THE Bigzoman]

I don't need to go far to figure out why things like the NRA is necessary when we have people suggesting that handguns are an efficient way to hunt bears.

Or anyone who tries to bring hunting into the gun control debate anyway.

[NoShelter]

Any person who argues that people should have less liberty than their own government is a fool and deserves the chains that he will volunteer to wear.