If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   In one day, more people have signed a petition asking Obama to address gun control than Texans wanting to secede from the Union   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 1049
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3076 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1049 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 12:05:39 AM

Dimensio: Given what you have proposed for "gun control": no.


Well then go ahead and keep pretending that all the gun violence in the country would go away if we had a better mental health system, that seems to be the rallying cry the gun nuts are going to go with.
 
2012-12-16 12:05:41 AM

rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Yes, but it rised dramatically as gun control became more restrictive. The number of guns in the country was reduced and the gun based crime increased. Odd huh?

Maybe, just maybe, gun control wasn't what changed the metrics. I wonder what it could have been...

it sounds like bullshiat -- the information has been sliced in a dishonest way.

what we do know (reading the homicide rates from my wikipedia link above): if the nation has less guns that nation has less homicides.

I'm good with that as a starting point.

If a nation is Norwegian, they have terribly low homicide rates so the solution is simple. All we have to do is convert all Americans to Norwegians! It's so farking simple! Why didn't I think of this!

Now, how do you change the behavior of a single demographic? You state the metrics are cooked, you have any better metrics?

/guessing not
/talking out your ass seems to be your thing


Good news! Your dog whistle works great!
 
2012-12-16 12:05:50 AM
zenobia

"That's all well and good if you want to obsess about that's your hobby. I don't want to interfere with responsible gun owners' enjoyment. I do want Joe Schmo off the street who has a bug up his ass to not be able to grab a weapon of mass destruction out of someone's gun closet and relieve his tensions. How about you and one of your buddies work on that study for a change?"


I want to stop it too, but I also want to do it while logically looking at things, rather than rushing into new laws without considering the negative effects. This brash decision making is what gave us the clusterfark of an agency called the TSA, the shiat sandwich called the Patriot Act, and the general travesty that was the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

As I said in previous posts, if we wanted to cut down on lots of crime, and particularly child porn, we could just make an agency that has thousands of people to read and listen to every form of electronic communication ever sent over the wires and air in this country. We could cut all forms of crime down considerably overnight! Why don't we do it? Because the positive effect of less crime has to be weighed against the harm to our civil liberties, the general breaking of our Constitutional rights, and because it's not as simple as "we need to fight a problem...make ANY laws that might help!"

But just like the child porn problem, as soon as stuff happens to innocent children perfectly rational people start to abandon all logic and rational thought in favor of an immediate solution, without any consideration of repercussions. Any yet if any gun enthusiasts point this out, WE are the ones labeled as uncompromising, and nutcases. That is the gist of my problem here.
 
2012-12-16 12:06:16 AM

Pokey.Clyde: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Nice emotional, knee-jerk reaction. Come back when you're less emotional and more rational.


No. The industry has had plenty of time to come up with a reasonable proposal, but all I see is bought politicians introducing more laws on where guns must be allowed. That's BS. You had your chance to step up, and now it's time for a little knee-jerk reaction from those of us who care more about people than profits.
 
2012-12-16 12:06:58 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Given what you have proposed for "gun control": no.

Well then go ahead and keep pretending that all the gun violence in the country would go away if we had a better mental health system, that seems to be the rallying cry the gun nuts are going to go with.


You are equating a rejection of your unreasonable proposals and a rejection of any reform at all. That I reject your proposals does not mean that I am not willing to accept new regulation.
 
2012-12-16 12:07:40 AM

zenobia: Pokey.Clyde: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Nice emotional, knee-jerk reaction. Come back when you're less emotional and more rational.

No. The industry has had plenty of time to come up with a reasonable proposal, but all I see is bought politicians introducing more laws on where guns must be allowed. That's BS. You had your chance to step up, and now it's time for a little knee-jerk reaction from those of us who care more about people than profits.


So what "knee-jerk" reaction do you propose, and how, exactly, will it reduce rates of violent crime?
 
2012-12-16 12:08:22 AM

Methadone Girls: You guys can argue all night long. You're not going to do anything of value to prevent this from happening again. You're too in love with your guns and too afraid of provide appropriate health care to your population. You'll get over it.


Sad but true. At least in the short term.

The demographic shifts happening in this country do favor an eventual crackdown on the 'wild west' approach we have to gun ownership in this country. I think we're at least a decade off before that really has any effect though.

We're sadly going to witness more horrific shiat like this before we pull our heads out of our asses and start getting real about regulating firearms properly.
 
2012-12-16 12:08:41 AM

Dimensio: You are equating a rejection of your unreasonable proposals and a rejection of any reform at all.


My proposals are very reasonable to anybody that doesn't think they need an armory in their bedroom.
 
2012-12-16 12:09:04 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: I've noticed that one side of this argument wants to talk about what we can do, and one side wants to discuss what we should do.

It's sort of a recurring theme in the Politics tab.


Unfortunately both of those are the same side.
 
2012-12-16 12:09:32 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: You are equating a rejection of your unreasonable proposals and a rejection of any reform at all.

My proposals are very reasonable to anybody that doesn't think they need an armory in their bedroom.


You are now appealing to the "poisoning the well" fallacy.
 
2012-12-16 12:09:45 AM
Popcorn Johnny
"Dimensio: Please describe a means of guaranteeing such a scenario.

Oh I dunno, how about metal detectors? They seem to work pretty well at courthouses, airports, sporting events, federal buildings, etc."


Metal detectors aren't what deters crime, it's the guys in uniform with their own guns working the metal detectors. Just having a metal detector is useless without the armed individual willing to ensure proper passage by unarmed individuals THROUGH said metal detector. In this example, say there was a metal detector at Sandy Hook Elementary. Without a cop working the metal detector, it justs give everyone inside a few seconds more warning before he starts his rampage. So unless you're proposing a metal detector in every single building in the country with equivalent armed individuals to man them, your solution is useless. And ironically enough, if you do propose the cops/guards to go with them, you've proposed a solution to the problem that involves a lot more firearms. Funny how that works, huh?
 
2012-12-16 12:11:15 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: What the hell kind of paranoid delusions are you suffering that you need an AR-15, a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and, if reports are to be believed, two other guns to protect you? From what? Zombies? Zee Germans? Jack-booted stormtroopers? Satan's minions? The UN? Commies? Roving bands of negroes? I have a shotgun for home protection and an air rifle for weeding out the local squirrel population, but if I ever felt the need for an assault rifle and more handguns than I have hands, I guess I'd take it as I sign that I need to move somewhere safer. I don't get it. But then again, I don't fetishize guns. It's a tool, like my hammer, just a lot less dangerous, and one that gets used much, much, much less often.


**sigh**

Once again, an AR-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE!
 
2012-12-16 12:11:39 AM

Methadone Girls: You guys can argue all night long. You're not going to do anything of value to prevent this from happening again. You're too in love with your guns and too afraid of provide appropriate health care to your population. You'll get over it.


Not exactly sure what we can do to prevent this again. Our nation is saturated with guns and unless we commit everyone diagnosed with a mental disorder there is always the possibility they might not take their medication.
 
2012-12-16 12:11:43 AM
"You attacked Guns before?
"Of course. Over the ages, our weapons have grown more sophisticated. With Guns,we tried a new one: Economics. But we underestimated certain of US' citizens... such as your parents. Gunned down by one of the very people they were trying to help. Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal. Their deaths galvanized the city into saving itself... and Gotham has limped on ever since. We are back to finish the job. And this time no misguided idealists will get in the way. Like your father, you lack the courage to do all that is necessary. If someone stands in the way of true justice... you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart."

Its time we try economics.

1. Property taxes on guns yearly, proceeds go to victims and proactive mental health programs.
So a percent of value? How much?

2. Buyback programs that give close to, or just under market value. Military grade weapons can be used to arm our military, antiques to museums, or whatever other feasible safe non-use.
thats fine

3. 2x-5x increases in punishments for all gun related crime. Basically using a gun in any crime doubles the penalty automatically.
mandatory sentences rarely work to decrease crime. Look up three strikes or other drug crime laws to see how poorly most of those work

4. In any place it doesnt exist, registration, just like cars with titles. The owner of the title is legally responsible for the weapon. (this is already in place i believe)
Many do states do have laws about being responsible with firearms, Approved safes, trigger locks, etc. I'm not a big fan of mandatory registration for all firearms...but it's not a deal breaker either

5. Required mental health screenings for a license to own a gun, that need to be renewed yearly, or periodically, akin to updating registration / drivers license.
Possibly...depends on how it is organized and operated.

6. 100% government tax on all new guns, across the board.
meh...you would just decrease sales of expensive guns. More people would just purchase cheaper guns.

With these solutions you will dramatically lower the number of guns in the general populace and change the entire gun culture within the US in less than a generation.
 
2012-12-16 12:11:44 AM

trackstr777: zenobia

"That's all well and good if you want to obsess about that's your hobby. I don't want to interfere with responsible gun owners' enjoyment. I do want Joe Schmo off the street who has a bug up his ass to not be able to grab a weapon of mass destruction out of someone's gun closet and relieve his tensions. How about you and one of your buddies work on that study for a change?"


I want to stop it too, but I also want to do it while logically looking at things, rather than rushing into new laws without considering the negative effects. This brash decision making is what gave us the clusterfark of an agency called the TSA, the shiat sandwich called the Patriot Act, and the general travesty that was the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

As I said in previous posts, if we wanted to cut down on lots of crime, and particularly child porn, we could just make an agency that has thousands of people to read and listen to every form of electronic communication ever sent over the wires and air in this country. We could cut all forms of crime down considerably overnight! Why don't we do it? Because the positive effect of less crime has to be weighed against the harm to our civil liberties, the general breaking of our Constitutional rights, and because it's not as simple as "we need to fight a problem...make ANY laws that might help!"

But just like the child porn problem, as soon as stuff happens to innocent children perfectly rational people start to abandon all logic and rational thought in favor of an immediate solution, without any consideration of repercussions. Any yet if any gun enthusiasts point this out, WE are the ones labeled as uncompromising, and nutcases. That is the gist of my problem here.


You say you want to stop it too. You sound as if you have some knowledge of gun ownership. Then why spend four paragraphs talking about "civil liberties"? Quit being so defensive and propose a plan that logically addresses the problem of mass shootings.

/Or we will do it for you.
 
2012-12-16 12:13:15 AM

Pokey.Clyde: Prank Call of Cthulhu: What the hell kind of paranoid delusions are you suffering that you need an AR-15, a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and, if reports are to be believed, two other guns to protect you? From what? Zombies? Zee Germans? Jack-booted stormtroopers? Satan's minions? The UN? Commies? Roving bands of negroes? I have a shotgun for home protection and an air rifle for weeding out the local squirrel population, but if I ever felt the need for an assault rifle and more handguns than I have hands, I guess I'd take it as I sign that I need to move somewhere safer. I don't get it. But then again, I don't fetishize guns. It's a tool, like my hammer, just a lot less dangerous, and one that gets used much, much, much less often.

**sigh**

Once again, an AR-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE!


For some perspective: all rifles, of which AR-15 model rifles are a smaller subset, were used in 2.55% of all murders in 2011. In that same year, more than twice as many individuals were murdered by attackers who used unarmed attacks.

Prohibiting a popular subset of rifles based upon appearance will not reduce rates of violent crime. Any individual claiming otherwise is either poorly informed, irrational or dishonest.
 
2012-12-16 12:13:32 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Given what you have proposed for "gun control": no.

Well then go ahead and keep pretending that all the gun violence in the country would go away if we had a better mental health system, that seems to be the rallying cry the gun nuts are going to go with.


Until they realize they are the ones with the mental disorders and are being locked up, like Adam Larza.

Then they'll change back to an old illogical, invalid talking point.
 
2012-12-16 12:14:46 AM

Dimensio: zenobia


AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process
AGREE -- Stiff penalties if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands
DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military
AGREE -- Ban all assault weapons
AGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity
DISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements
AGREE -- Add a 32% surchage tax on all firearm purchases, new and used, for state mental health facilities. State's rights, building "the nuthouses" from the ground floor up and keeping it local.
 
2012-12-16 12:15:02 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Yes, but it rised dramatically as gun control became more restrictive. The number of guns in the country was reduced and the gun based crime increased. Odd huh?

Maybe, just maybe, gun control wasn't what changed the metrics. I wonder what it could have been...

it sounds like bullshiat -- the information has been sliced in a dishonest way.

what we do know (reading the homicide rates from my wikipedia link above): if the nation has less guns that nation has less homicides.

I'm good with that as a starting point.

If a nation is Norwegian, they have terribly low homicide rates so the solution is simple. All we have to do is convert all Americans to Norwegians! It's so farking simple! Why didn't I think of this!

Now, how do you change the behavior of a single demographic? You state the metrics are cooked, you have any better metrics?

/guessing not
/talking out your ass seems to be your thing

Good news! Your dog whistle works great!


Funny thing, I'm proposing a very liberal solution. That'll come later. Right now I'm pissed as hell everyone has come to a conclusion and is putting the research in after the fact. Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much.

That's not a dog whistle, that's reality. Ignore it at your own peril.
 
2012-12-16 12:15:59 AM

trackstr777: Metal detectors aren't what deters crime, it's the guys in uniform with their own guns working the metal detectors. Just having a metal detector is useless without the armed individual willing to ensure proper passage by unarmed individuals THROUGH said metal detector. In this example, say there was a metal detector at Sandy Hook Elementary. Without a cop working the metal detector, it justs give everyone inside a few seconds more warning before he starts his rampage. So unless you're proposing a metal detector in every single building in the country with equivalent armed individuals to man them, your solution is useless. And ironically enough, if you do propose the cops/guards to go with them, you've proposed a solution to the problem that involves a lot more firearms. Funny how that works, huh?


I assumed that everybody understood that metal detectors were manned by somebody, guess not. Also, I have no problem with police and professional security guards being armed, it's the Rambo wannabe internet tough guy crowd that needs to be controlled.
 
2012-12-16 12:18:22 AM

birdmanesq: I appreciate what you do, or are working toward with you studies? I don't exactly know what you do, but I read your posts. I assume most the gun violence in your city can be directly attributed to poverty, and I would rather see the poverty addressed than ignored and the murders continue. As I said in my Boobs I would like to see mental health spending increased and some HIPPA changes since I don't believe whatever form of gun control would be very effective against these spree killers.

I mean, I think that you and I would likely agree on a lot of stuff. I grew up shooting, and still handle a shotgun fairly well--though it's my wife's family who are the real hunters. I have no interest in taking anybody's guns--as long as they keep following the law.

But I do think that the counterfactuals on gun control don't really tell the whole story. Honestly, I think most of the evidence base on that is really crummy.



We probably do agree on a lot. I always find these threads so counterproductive to finding any solution and I think these threads are also largely representative of the national mood on finding something that might work, or at least help. It's all or nothing, love guns or hate guns, nothing else is ever considered. Guns save lives or gun owners have small penises and collectively have the blood of little kids on their hands. It's really frustrating and sickening that nobody will concede anything and we'll have to see this thread again. I'd rather see us spend a little money and talk about a few smallchanges to gun laws and HIPPA that might help than have a yesterday again.
 
2012-12-16 12:18:58 AM

rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much


where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?
 
2012-12-16 12:19:07 AM

contrapunctus: Methadone Girls: You guys can argue all night long. You're not going to do anything of value to prevent this from happening again. You're too in love with your guns and too afraid of provide appropriate health care to your population. You'll get over it.

Sad but true. At least in the short term.

The demographic shifts happening in this country do favor an eventual crackdown on the 'wild west' approach we have to gun ownership in this country. I think we're at least a decade off before that really has any effect though.

We're sadly going to witness more horrific shiat like this before we pull our heads out of our asses and start getting real about regulating firearms properly.


I really hope not but you're probably right. :( I'm sorry
 
2012-12-16 12:20:19 AM

zenobia: Dimensio: zenobia

AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process


I can accept such a measure only if the screening process relies upon objective criteria, so that a screener could not arbitrarily reject any applications based upon an anti-gun bias, or arbitrarily overlook potentially disqualifying conditions based upon a pro-gun bias.


AGREE -- Stiff penalties if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands


I can accept such a measure only if the penalties are applied if harm results from a third-party using a firearm (thus allowing an individual to fire my handgun at a target range would invoke no penalties so long as that individual violates no law) and if the penalties are only applied to individuals who did not implement an objectively-defined reasonable measure of security for their firearms.


DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military
AGREE -- Ban all assault weapons


Please explain the benefit that will be served by prohibiting civilian ownership of a subclass of rifles (which themselves are the least common class of firearms used to commit murder in the United States of America) based upon certain characteristics that do not actually affect lethality.


AGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity

Such a measure is not reasonable. Five rounds is a substandard capacity.


DISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements
AGREE -- Add a 32% surchage tax on all firearm purchases, new and used, for state mental health facilities. State's rights, building "the nuthouses" from the ground floor up and keeping it local.


The proposed tax is excessive. I may be persuaded to accept a lower percentage, though I would prefer a federalized health care system.
 
2012-12-16 12:20:39 AM

keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?


In fact, the actual statistics prove the opposite. The NRA lobby's statistics are nothing more than cherry picked, out of context BS.

That is a fact
 
2012-12-16 12:22:27 AM

Dimensio: Five rounds is a substandard capacity.


Substandard for what? A shotgun with 5 rounds can't stop a home intruder? A rifle with 5 rounds isn't enough to bag that buck? You can't target shoot with only 5 rounds? How the hell can anybody justify needing more than 5 rounds without having to reload?
 
2012-12-16 12:23:10 AM

keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?


Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.
 
2012-12-16 12:23:35 AM

zenobia: No. The industry has had plenty of time to come up with a reasonable proposal, but all I see is bought politicians introducing more laws on where guns must be allowed. That's BS. You had your chance to step up, and now it's time for a little knee-jerk reaction from those of us who care more about people than profits.


No, you're full of crap. Pass all the laws you want, it wouldn't have stopped that asshat from walking into that school and doing what he did. Or did you miss the part where he murdered his mother and stole the guns that he used from her?
 
2012-12-16 12:23:48 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Five rounds is a substandard capacity.

Substandard for what? A shotgun with 5 rounds can't stop a home intruder? A rifle with 5 rounds isn't enough to bag that buck? You can't target shoot with only 5 rounds? How the hell can anybody justify needing more than 5 rounds without having to reload?


"Need" is not relevant. Until you can demonstrate a public safety benefit from limiting all firearm magazines to the sub-standard capacity of five rounds, the proposal is not reasonable.
 
2012-12-16 12:23:58 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.


Yup. I knew it the second I heard about it.
 
2012-12-16 12:24:30 AM

rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.


you are dishonest.

good night.
 
2012-12-16 12:25:53 AM

rohar: Popcorn Johnny: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

What percentage of gun crimes do you think are being committed by the mentally ill?

I would suggest that murdering someone qualifies a person as mentally ill.


Bingo! People can look at the chart I provided and see it plainly, but most people here aren't interested in the truth.
 
2012-12-16 12:26:29 AM

Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: You guys can argue all night long. You're not going to do anything of value to prevent this from happening again. You're too in love with your guns and too afraid of provide appropriate health care to your population. You'll get over it.

Not exactly sure what we can do to prevent this again. Our nation is saturated with guns and unless we commit everyone diagnosed with a mental disorder there is always the possibility they might not take their medication.


But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane". "There's too many guns" "2nd amendment" "the crazies won't take their med's" "derpa do"

I'll be more shocked if anyone actually does something about it.
 
2012-12-16 12:27:16 AM

keithgabryelski: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

you are dishonest.

good night.


Seriously, I haven't found such a thing. Apparently neither have you. That's gotta suck seeing as you seem to have an axe to grind. All I ask for is statistics. You know, so that we can move on with honest resolve. You can't even deliver on that.

Nothing like coming up with a conclusion and supporting it later.
 
2012-12-16 12:28:26 AM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: NO! One mass shooting provides the only relevant data. The many, many, many, many years we have far surpassed them are irrelevant, because one guy killed a lot of people one day.

Statistically, school shootings are a blip on the body count radar of crime victims. So yea, let's look at a larger data set than a few mass shootings.


I think this is the most understated point in this whole debate. These events are extraordinarily rare, yet incredibly high visibility, and it is a mistake to frame the whole of gun control around them.

For context, far less than 100 people die from spree killings in an average year. If you consider this risk to be distributed randomly among the entire population, this puts the risk at something like death by lightning strike (roughly 50 people per year in the USA), by falling icicles (roughly 100 per year in the USA), or by choking on a hot dog (roughly 100 per year in the USA). Just so we're clear on relative numbers, there are about 310,000,000 people living in the USA.

Looking at gun control in the context of spree killings is taking these extremely rare events and blowing them way out of proportion. According to the FBI, there were 12,664 reported homicides last year, and 8,583 of those involved a firearm (about 67%). Even assuming 100 people died from spree killings last year (which is high, but I don't know the true number), the number of spree homicides is a tiny fraction of the total number of gun homicides (about 1%).

Aside from spree killings, there are other firearms deaths that are not homicides that get a lot of play in the media: suicides and negligent firearms deaths. The primary cause of firearm death in America is suicide. There were 18,735 suicides in 2009 (60% of all firearms deaths that year, homicides only comprised 37%.) Death by negligent firearms discharge is also less than is commonly thought: in 2009 there were only 554 unintentional deaths due to firearms. Compare this to 118,021 total unintentional deaths recorded by the CDC that year and negligent discharges are only 0.4% of all accidental deaths. For comparison (and I really fail to find any good measuring stick for how many deaths can be mitigated, but for the sake of comparison I have to find something) in 2009 there were 418 influenza deaths among persons aged 15-24. We can't compare these two directly, but there are 43,000,000 Americans aged 15-24 and about 84,000,000 Americans who own guns, so a teenager is about twice as likely to die from the flu as a gun owner, family member, or friend is likely to die from a negligent discharge (on average.) I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's important to keep the *relative* risk in perspective.

You can also look at this the same way but with guns rather than deaths: there are roughly 310,000,000 non-military firearms in America. Let's try to estimate how many total crime guns there are in America, out of the total. The homicide rate in America is declining, so suppose for the sake of argument that there were 10,000 gun related homicides in America per year for the last 10 years. There were also about 250,000 counts of reported aggravated assaults and robberies with firearms last year, so extrapolate that for the last 10 years as well. That would be 100,000 gun homicides and 2,500,000 non-fatal violent gun crimes in America over the last ten years, for a total of 2,600,000 total offenses. Assume that each of these offenses is committed with a different gun for the sake of achieving an upper bound. Then, you get that of the 310,000,000 civilian firearms in America, at most 2,600,000 of them have been used for some kind of crime in the last 10 years, or about 0.8%. This is the worst possible case, and the likelihood is that the true number is much less than that (as a lot of these guns are going to be used more than once, or one event is recorded as multiple infractions by the FBI such as a count of both aggravated assault and burglary stemming from one break-in).

My only point is to say that gun control policy should be considered in light of ALL gun use in America, not just the incredibly rare and traumatic lightning rod events. The vast majority (literally the 99%) of gun users in America are not criminals and 99% of guns are not crime guns. In the context of all gun deaths in 2009 (31,347 total), the total of all spree killings still represents a very small portion of that (0.3%, assuming 100 spree killings.) These deaths are still an outlier when you're only considering gun homicides (8,583 in 2011, or 1.1% assuming 100 spree killings.)

This is really not a rant against gun control: there are lots of causes of death out there that kill more or less people that we also make a big deal about: in 2009 there were only 529 deaths due to tuberculosis and only 649 deaths due to meningitis, and we test/vaccinate large swathes of the population to keep those causes of death under control. Both numbers are far, far less than the total number of gun deaths in the US, and yet we still spend lots of time and effort to prevent those diseases.

We really need to keep hard facts in our heads when we start debating policy. You have to bear in mind that a lot of regulation (not just gun control) is inconveniencing the responsible 99% population to protect them from the reckless 1%, and you have really question whether it is worth it. Suppose your proposed regulation would cut the firearms death rate tenfold down to 1 firearms death per 100,000 people (extremely optimistic). You would still have 3,100 people dying each year from firearms (as opposed to 31,000) but you would have done major regulation of the people who own and use guns and you would have had to pay money for policing and enforcement, and even at such a level we would likely still see these kinds of spree killings, though they would only kill about 30 per year rather than 100. You would have saved 27,900 firearms deaths, though it's important to note that some of those deaths could still occur (such as suicides), and this is not addressing other questions such as what would the overall effect on violent crime actually be.

Sources:

FBI - Crime in the U.S. 2011

National Vital Statistics Reports - Deaths: Final Data for 2009

Congressional Research Service - Gun Control Legislation 

Gallup - Self-Reported Gun Ownership is Highest Since 1993
 
2012-12-16 12:28:36 AM

Dimensio: Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Five rounds is a substandard capacity.

Substandard for what? A shotgun with 5 rounds can't stop a home intruder? A rifle with 5 rounds isn't enough to bag that buck? You can't target shoot with only 5 rounds? How the hell can anybody justify needing more than 5 rounds without having to reload?

"Need" is not relevant. Until you can demonstrate a public safety benefit from limiting all firearm magazines to the sub-standard capacity of five rounds, the proposal is not reasonable.


Explain why 5 rounds is sub standard.

This should be fun
 
2012-12-16 12:28:42 AM

rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.


I think gun crime fell quite a bit after Australia's last big buyback.
 
2012-12-16 12:29:20 AM

Dimensio: "Need" is not relevant. Until you can demonstrate a public safety benefit from limiting all firearm magazines to the sub-standard capacity of five rounds, the proposal is not reasonable.


Nothing is reasonable to gun nuts. There's an obvious public safety benefit by limiting the capacity of a weapon. Would you rather be facing a criminal with a 200 round drum or a 5 round magazine?

I'm dying to hear what's substandard about a 5 round capacity?
 
2012-12-16 12:30:53 AM

rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

you are dishonest.

good night.

Seriously, I haven't found such a thing. Apparently neither have you. That's gotta suck seeing as you seem to have an axe to grind. All I ask for is statistics. You know, so that we can move on with honest resolve. You can't even deliver on that.

Nothing like coming up with a conclusion and supporting it later.


He was pointing out how you are attempting to group violent crime. And when i say Japan, Singapore, you move the goalposts, because you are dishonest.

Good night.
 
2012-12-16 12:31:18 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: "Need" is not relevant. Until you can demonstrate a public safety benefit from limiting all firearm magazines to the sub-standard capacity of five rounds, the proposal is not reasonable.

Nothing is reasonable to gun nuts. There's an obvious public safety benefit by limiting the capacity of a weapon. Would you rather be facing a criminal with a 200 round drum or a 5 round magazine?

I'm dying to hear what's substandard about a 5 round capacity?


Duh. What if you're attacked by 6 non-Norweigans?
 
2012-12-16 12:31:26 AM

mittromneysdog: /unarmed = always the victim, never the hero

Rock on, bro! I do believe this KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS SHOULD PACK HEAT argument is a winning one for gun rights advocates. I think you should make it in as many public forums as possible. That's it. Shout it at the top of your lungs. Write to the editor of your newspaper. Do everything in your power to get this message out to as many people as possible.


F*ck you, don't waste my time, it's not my job to protect your stupid asses.

Despite the uninfringeable 2nd amendment i gotta pony up contact info for 2 other residents OF PHILADELPHIA before i can SUBMIT MY $9.95 CC PERMIT... uninfringeable indeed
 
2012-12-16 12:31:29 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

I think gun crime fell quite a bit after Australia's last big buyback.


And at the same time the Australian government put a ton of money into public mental health as well as huge stimulus package. But I'm sure you're right. Unlike any other time it occurred anywhere else on the planet, gun control changed the metrics.
 
2012-12-16 12:31:45 AM

Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: You guys can argue all night long. You're not going to do anything of value to prevent this from happening again. You're too in love with your guns and too afraid of provide appropriate health care to your population. You'll get over it.

Not exactly sure what we can do to prevent this again. Our nation is saturated with guns and unless we commit everyone diagnosed with a mental disorder there is always the possibility they might not take their medication.

But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane". "There's too many guns" "2nd amendment" "the crazies won't take their med's" "derpa do"

I'll be more shocked if anyone actually does something about it.


Because an island nation that has a population 15x less than ours is a good comparison?
 
2012-12-16 12:32:42 AM

Methadone Girls: Dimensio: Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Five rounds is a substandard capacity.

Substandard for what? A shotgun with 5 rounds can't stop a home intruder? A rifle with 5 rounds isn't enough to bag that buck? You can't target shoot with only 5 rounds? How the hell can anybody justify needing more than 5 rounds without having to reload?

"Need" is not relevant. Until you can demonstrate a public safety benefit from limiting all firearm magazines to the sub-standard capacity of five rounds, the proposal is not reasonable.

Explain why 5 rounds is sub standard.

This should be fun


I should qualify my statement: five rounds is substandard for most firearms. Of the four firearms that I own, one included as "standard" a five-round magazine. The others included a ten-round magazine, a ten round and a thirteen round magazine and a thirty round magazine. Those were the "standard" capacity magazines for those firearms; any smaller capacity would be substandard.

Two of my firearms are handguns; for both, their ten-round magazines are designed to fit flush with the grip and thus the magazines were designed specifically to the size and shape of the handguns (the thirteen round magazine for one handgun extends the grip to that of a full size pistol).

You have still not demonstrated a public safety benefit for restricting firearm magazines as you propose.
 
2012-12-16 12:32:43 AM

Fubini: Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: NO! One mass shooting provides the only relevant data. The many, many, many, many years we have far surpassed them are irrelevant, because one guy killed a lot of people one day.

Statistically, school shootings are a blip on the body count radar of crime victims. So yea, let's look at a larger data set than a few mass shootings.

I think this is the most understated point in this whole debate. These events are extraordinarily rare, yet incredibly high visibility, and it is a mistake to frame the whole of gun control around them.

For context, far less than 100 people die from spree killings in an average year. If you consider this risk to be distributed randomly among the entire population, this puts the risk at something like death by lightning strike (roughly 50 people per year in the USA), by falling icicles (roughly 100 per year in the USA), or by choking on a hot dog (roughly 100 per year in the USA). Just so we're clear on relative numbers, there are about 310,000,000 people living in the USA.

Looking at gun control in the context of spree killings is taking these extremely rare events and blowing them way out of proportion. According to the FBI, there were 12,664 reported homicides last year, and 8,583 of those involved a firearm (about 67%). Even assuming 100 people died from spree killings last year (which is high, but I don't know the true number), the number of spree homicides is a tiny fraction of the total number of gun homicides (about 1%).

Aside from spree killings, there are other firearms deaths that are not homicides that get a lot of play in the media: suicides and negligent firearms deaths. The primary cause of firearm death in America is suicide. There were 18,735 suicides in 2009 (60% of all firearms deaths that year, homicides only comprised 37%.) Death by negligent firearms discharge is also less than is commonly thought: in 2009 there were only 554 unintentional deaths due to firearms. Compare this to 118,021 to ...


and we are back to mental health again.
 
2012-12-16 12:32:43 AM

keithgabryelski: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

you are dishonest.

good night.


If he's dishonest, you should have provide a link showing such. The fact is, that gun control laws have been repeatedly shown to have no effect, or a detrimental effect on gun violence. The only solution is to get control of the mentally ill in our society which we have neglected since the 1960's. Our asylums have mutated into jails which means we have no preventative measures, only punitive. You are literally in favor of nothing more than punishing criminals after they have committed their crimes, we want them caught beforehand.
 
2012-12-16 12:33:21 AM

rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

I think gun crime fell quite a bit after Australia's last big buyback.

And at the same time the Australian government put a ton of money into public mental health as well as huge stimulus package. But I'm sure you're right. Unlike any other time it occurred anywhere else on the planet, gun control changed the metrics.


Geez. Relax. You asked for an example; I threw out an example.

It'll be okay. Nobody's coming for your guns.
 
2012-12-16 12:33:44 AM

justtray: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

you are dishonest.

good night.

Seriously, I haven't found such a thing. Apparently neither have you. That's gotta suck seeing as you seem to have an axe to grind. All I ask for is statistics. You know, so that we can move on with honest resolve. You can't even deliver on that.

Nothing like coming up with a conclusion and supporting it later.

He was pointing out how you are attempting to group violent crime. And when i say Japan, Singapore, you move the goalposts, because you are dishonest.

Good night.


But you're citing demographic differences while proposing temporal differences. I'm looking for a citation of the success of a temporal shift. You see the difference right?
 
2012-12-16 12:34:42 AM
Fubini

"

HOLY shiat THIS THIS THIS. You said this much better than I've been able to since I started posting. In short, the analog of the ban all semi-automatic firearms argument because of these isolated killing sprees, would be to ban all vehicles weighing over 2,000 pounds or making over 100 horsepower because of the danger they cause in causing automobile accidents and deaths. While on a purely base level, yes, it would decrease the number of auto fatalities going forward, does it really sound reasonable? Absolutely not.
 
2012-12-16 12:34:51 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: "Need" is not relevant. Until you can demonstrate a public safety benefit from limiting all firearm magazines to the sub-standard capacity of five rounds, the proposal is not reasonable.

Nothing is reasonable to gun nuts.


You are again using the "poisoning the well" fallacy.


There's an obvious public safety benefit by limiting the capacity of a weapon.

Claiming a position to be "obvious" is not equivalent to demonstrating the position to be accurate.


Would you rather be facing a criminal with a 200 round drum or a 5 round magazine?

If forced, I would prefer to be faced with a criminal using a 200 round drum magazine. Such magazines are unreliable and prone to jamming, while the smaller five round magazine would be substantially more reliable, allowing complete emptying and a swift reloading without complications.
 
Displayed 50 of 1049 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report