Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grizzly Willy]

Holy crap SO much THIS ^ it's ridiculous. On average, mass shooting account for <100 deaths per year, even by the most played up numbers. Are we seriously focusing on such foolishness? Sure, it sucks for those affected by it, but geez...it really is a trivial number. More people are killed on the highway by hitting deer than in mass shootings. I don't see any proposals to ban deer floating around. Get serious people....kill every deer you can.

This falls to the "acceptable ramifications" ruling that I've realized. These deaths are, in the grand scheme of things, acceptable and insignificant because they're so rare. They don't matter, at least not enough to have any impact on how society operates. They will continue to happen because society has given its silent endorsement. I don't mean to make it sound like we like these events happening, by the way. Just that we are willing to pay this price for our rights. Whether or not that's morally acceptable is ultimately up to the society that it occurs in, and if it says yes, then so be it.

[Slybak]

Hey, maybe "...we need to pass the bill to see what's in it." So far, that has worked out great. Fits well with the barry administration's "transparency" theme.

A quote taken out of context. Pelosi was saying that the bill should be passed so that Americans can finally see that all the "death panel" bullshit was, in fact, bullshit. This is the "you didn't build that" of 2010.

On average, mass shooting account for <100 deaths per year, even by the most played up numbers. Are we seriously focusing on such foolishness?

Kindly give us a number of fatalities that would cause you to acknowledge that some regulatory action might be a good idea. Will it have to "suck" for a thousand families? Ten thousand? I only ask because I'm curious as to how many corpses a Man Card can actually buy. Also, do the corpses of first graders count more or less compared to adults?

More people are killed on the highway by hitting deer than in mass shootings.

Imagine what that number would be without laws regulating motor vehicle safety, like the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966 that required all automobiles have seat belts and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that required all cars and light trucks to have driver and front passenger side airbags. After 1966, for instance, the odds of walking away from an automobile accident unscathed increased by about 40%, and it's probably safe to assume that this even includes head-on collisions with deer.

[mistuhbull]

Imagine what that number would be without laws regulating motor vehicle safety, like the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966 that required all automobiles have seat belts and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that required all cars and light trucks to have driver and front passenger side airbags. After 1966, for instance, the odds of walking away from an automobile accident unscathed increased by about 40%, and it's probably safe to assume that this even includes head-on collisions with deer.

And can you point out where those laws banned the buying of a murcielago, a Veyron, or installing a 24 cylinder engine and nitrous booster to your car?

[Deleted]

And can you point out where those laws banned the buying of a murcielago, a Veyron, or installing a 24 cylinder engine and nitrous booster to your car?

Please stop comparing high-end sportcars with high-end semi-automatic rigles/guns. There is another topic in regards to it and the comparion is retarded. If you still don't get why, then you don't understand what a gun is and still think that everyting is ok in US with piles upon piles of weapons being sold each day, some (a lot) used each day and a lot of people dieing each day, because you (as an american) would rather use a lethal gun and end one permanently instead of taking all the required steps to make that last case scenario.

[Linkedblade]

Please stop comparing high-end sportcars with high-end semi-automatic rigles/guns. There is another topic in regards to it and the comparion is retarded. If you still don't get why, then you don't understand what a gun is and still think that everyting is ok in US with piles upon piles of weapons being sold each day, some (a lot) used each day and a lot of people dieing each day, because you (as an american) would rather use a lethal gun and end one permanently instead of taking all the required steps to make that last case scenario.

In 2011 there were 32,367 deaths due to motor vehicles. In 2011 there were 8,583 murders that involved firearms. Statistically vehicles are more deadly.

[obdigore]

In 2011 there were 32,367 deaths due to motor vehicles. In 2011 there were 8,583 murders that involved firearms. Statistically vehicles are more deadly.

How many vehicle deaths were intentional? And if you are going to compare all deaths due to motor vehicles, compare all deaths to firearms, which is just over 32,000.

We are trying to make less people die from motor vehicles, are we doing the same with firearms?

[Deleted]

In 2011 there were 32,367 deaths due to motor vehicles. In 2011 there were 8,583 murders that involved firearms. Statistically vehicles are more deadly.

Statistics doesn't matter is this case since you are comparing two total difference objects. You might as well include then, deaths via electrocution and anything else. That's just one reason why the comparison doesn fly, but there are many other reasons that I have explained in that topic, such as: funcition, usage, future research & development,...

And a TL;DR for that is something as in cars and automotive research tries to make the car safer, as in for any accident, rate of death to go down. So you will see the deaths drop in the near-far future. While on the weapon industry they are making guns more powerfull, easier to use, to load, in such a way where once a gun is used a death is almost certaint.

And the whole logic I have read for the past pages about "well it accounts for only 1% of deaths/crimes, why ban/legislate it, then?" it's false also. You could say the same in regards to flame throwers, bombs, nuclear reactors and w/e. Why are that stuff banned and legislated when you have a very low death rate. Well Statistics can't help you there, but any engineer or law agent can. Since you rank weapons based on how deadly it is. So it is not normal for you to have the right, because of an expired bill, to purchase, own and carry an semi-automatic rifle as it is more deadly then a mere cheap entry level gun.

It is not all about "how many deaths" talk:

a. You do not need that weapon type for your protection, when you have a ton of non-lethal weapons and then lethal entry-level ones such as pistol. You are not in a warzone so states where you can walk in the street with a semi-automatic rifles, should be fixed.

b. Most of the time you are not trained and or required to have training before purchasing such high-end semi-automatic weapons, making the chances of accidents high and or missusage. Not to mention based on what I have read here, people keep loaded guns in the house next to their beds.

c. Stricter gun laws will make so each owner knows the true power of what he own, he should be trained on how to proper use it and store it, not to mention gun registered/check-ups so the state can make sure the gun is "safe" as in not sold/stolen and the owner being a true law abiding citizen with good mental state so to avoid any possible problems.

[Cthulhu 2020]

We are trying to make less people die from motor vehicles, are we doing the same with firearms?

Nah, we're sticking our fingers in our ears and going "LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, oh yeah cars kill people too so we shouldn't try to stop gun deaths, cause straw men totally don't make my stance look desperate and grasping for straws."

[Linkedblade]

a. You do not need that weapon type for your protection, when you have a ton of non-lethal weapons and then lethal entry-level ones such as pistol. You are not in a warzone so states where you can walk in the street with a semi-automatic rifles, should be fixed.

b. Most of the time you are not trained and or required to have training before purchasing such high-end semi-automatic weapons, making the chances of accidents high and or missusage. Not to mention based on what I have read here, people keep loaded guns in the house next to their beds.

c. Stricter gun laws will make so each owner knows the true power of what he own, he should be trained on how to proper use it and store it, not to mention gun registered/check-ups so the state can make sure the gun is "safe" as in not sold/stolen and the owner being a true law abiding citizen with good mental state so to avoid any possible problems.

a. You are allowed to carry a weapon in public just as long as you don't brandish it or have it loaded.

b. In some states people are aren't trained to operate a motor vehicle and are allowed to own them. Nice argument by the way. Also, you have no idea what you are talking about. "Semi-automatic" What the hell does that mean? You do understand that "automatic" refers to the mechanism in the gun that automatically reloads it and NOT the rate of fire? I would rather people be walking around with AR-15s then a 9mm handgun; it is really difficult to conceal a rifle and the opposite for a handgun.

c. And how are you going to enforce new rules? More laws? More government? If you think like that you don't deserve liberty at all.

[Deleted]

c. And how are you going to enforce new rules? More laws? More government? If you think like that you don't deserve liberty at all.

Yes that. It's my liberty also to know that if you own and carry a gun you are trained and know what fuck you are doing. Also health checks and other should be mandatory and gun registration with inspections to stop the gun trade from legal to ilegal ones.

But hey, that's just my opinion. If you still want to live in the wild wild west where in almost each cathegory you got strict laws and regulations but when it comes to guns, everyone treats them as harmless candy, be my guest.

That will still not help your gun crime rates from going or mass murders from being hard to do.

[Linkedblade]

Yes that. It's my liberty also to know that if you own and carry a gun you are trained and know what fuck you are doing. Also health checks and other should be mandatory and gun registration with inspections to stop the gun trade from legal to ilegal ones.

But hey, that's just my opinion. If you still want to live in the wild wild west where in almost each cathegory you got strict laws and regulations but when it comes to guns, everyone treats them as harmless candy, be my guest.

That will still not help your gun crime rates from going or mass murders from being hard to do.

Well now you've obviously pointed out that: one, you don't understand the wild west and, two, you don't realise that people will murder one another with ot without firearms.

And as I've said before nations that have banned firearms have had their violent crime rates sore. UK and Australia have both had this happen. Another thing to mention: many of the deaths due to firearms are in places where local laws have banned firearms, for example Chicago.

[obdigore]

Well now you've obviously pointed out that: one, you don't understand the wild west and, two, you don't realise that people will murder one another with ot without firearms.

And as I've said before nations that have banned firearms have had their violent crime rates sore. UK and Australia have both had this happen. Another thing to mention: many of the deaths due to firearms are in places where local laws have banned firearms, for example Chicago.

Protip: You don't know what you are talking about regarding cause and effect. I suggest you investigate.

[Deleted]

Protip: You don't know what you are talking about regarding cause and effect. I suggest you investigate.

I would say the same. Also what I stated is you want to reduce the number of guns but given by the law you might not be able directly via it. But at least with proper legistations you can sort it out and "block" certaint citizens from having the gun or banning them for a period. Hence why health checks and gun registration checks should be in place.

All in place for everyones safety. Also then you will feel even more secure when a guy is carring his gun, since you know if he passed all the checks and he is owning a gun, there is a very likely chance that he is untrustworthy.

[bergmann620]

So politicians are responding to their constituents in order to gain more votes come election time. I see literally nothing wrong with that.

I see exactly what's wrong with the nation at the moment encapsulated in your words. When people complain about the 'Tea Party' or the 'obstructionist' Republicans... They are doing exactly what they were elected to do- and the other side calls it political posturing or 'holding the country hostage'. When Democrats leave a state to stall a vote or bring up a rather pointless AWB, it's 'responding to constituents.' No double standard at all, right?

I think what people like Diurdi are saying here is that, at some point, you have to take a step back and look at what's best for your country, rather than just your tribe.

I understand that emotional reactions are not ideal, but when are we allowed to put forward gun legislation without it being labeled political? Should we wait a few months? What happens if there's another mass shooting at that time? Do we have to restart the waiting period?

It's not about a time period, so much as the content of the legislation. The content of an AWB can really only be the product of an emotional response, as there is no statistical or logical support for it other than 'scary looking weapons are scary!"

It's up to the constituents to determine what will best help their personal situation, and then up to the politician to act on it, so long as it abides by the constitution. Whether or not the ban lowered crime rates is ultimately irrelevant.

This is so far from reality or the ideal it's scary. Especially considering that neither Congress nor the Administration have any consistent regard for the Constitution. It's up to the constituents to decide whether their representatives have done a good job representing them and the country at large.

[Slybak]

In 2011 there were 32,367 deaths due to motor vehicles. In 2011 there were 8,583 murders that involved firearms. Statistically vehicles are more deadly.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison. In the United States the overwhelming majority (90%+) of households either own or lease a car and use it regularly, but only around 40% of households own a firearm and do not use it regularly.

[Linkedblade]

I would say the same. Also what I stated is you want to reduce the number of guns but given by the law you might not be able directly via it. But at least with proper legistations you can sort it out and "block" certaint citizens from having the gun or banning them for a period. Hence why health checks and gun registration checks should be in place.

All in place for everyones safety. Also then you will feel even more secure when a guy is carring his gun, since you know if he passed all the checks and he is owning a gun, there is a very likely chance that he is untrustworthy.

That's pretty much exactly how it is now. Most states require background checks and references for firearm permits/licenses. You are just restating what is already in place.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 10:05 AM ----------

This isn't an apples to apples comparison. In the United States the overwhelming majority (90%+) of households either own or lease a car and use it regularly, but only around 40% of households own a firearm and do not use it regularly.

What is your point then? You just said you can't compare them and then you state rates of ownership. Isn't that a little ironic?

[Deleted]

In 2011 there were 32,367 deaths due to motor vehicles. In 2011 there were 8,583 murders that involved firearms. Statistically vehicles are more deadly.

People killed in road traffic accidents, or pool accidents, or industry based accidents all have one thing in common (They are accidents if you didn't work it out already). All accidents lead to investigations, which lead to legislation (drink driving laws for example) being put in place to reduce the chance of them happening again. They will still happen, however due to legislation this number steadily decreases year on year.

Then we come to alcohol and smoking (which pro-gunners scream "why dont we ban them too?"), which due to investigations in to effects on the human body and legislation regarding how these products are advertised make you aware of how damaging they are to you, use is reducing year on year.

Over 8,000 people are intentially shot each year according to homicide figures, yet someone suggests investigating the cause and passing legislation to reduce the chance of it happening again and every pro-gun person starts shouting "mah ritez!!!"

[Nadev]

Over 8,000 people are intentially shot each year according to homicide figures, yet someone suggests investigating the cause and passing legislation to reduce the chance of it happening again and every pro-gun person starts shouting "mah ritez!!!"

What cause are we investigating? And shouldn't legislation come after invesitgation?

[mistuhbull]

I see exactly what's wrong with the nation at the moment encapsulated in your words. When people complain about the 'Tea Party' or the 'obstructionist' Republicans... They are doing exactly what they were elected to do- and the other side calls it political posturing or 'holding the country hostage'. When Democrats leave a state to stall a vote or bring up a rather pointless AWB, it's 'responding to constituents.' No double standard at all, right?
.

In defense of the double standard, there's a difference between stalling a singular (or a few) votes by being an uncooperative douche and going into office with the sole intention of making sure nothing supported by the other party is passed

[Slybak]

What is your point then? You just said you can't compare them and then you state rates of ownership. Isn't that a little ironic?

The point is to reveal how a specific analogy - how the raw number of traffic fatalities are higher than gun-related fatalities, thus making cars statistically more deadly than firearms - is problematic. Fewer households possess firearms compared to those that possess cars, and cars are much more widely and consistently used than firearms. Simply comparing fatality rates and saying X is more deadly than Y, without noting the difference in how prevalent both X and Y are and incorporating that difference into the final number, leads to a faulty conclusion because you're not dealing with the full statistical picture. In other words, it's not an apples to apples comparison.