General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Then let's just compare Russia with the US, since both have similar problems with corruption, drugs, and gangs.

Russia has a population of 141,000,000 with a total number of gun owners at 12,000,000 (approx) yet they have 5 times the violent crime and slightly more murders than we do at 13,100 homicides (source Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs report 2010).

We do compare well with Russia in both land mass, and population density, as well as borders with nations that harbor organized crime (be it Drug Cartels or Terrorists isn't really an issue, as you said earlier, they are similar).

America does compare well with Russia. But it's pretty hard not to compare well with Russia. It has serious problems. America is much better on all counts compared to Russia. Russia has a GDP per capita of only 13,000 compared to the USA's 48,000.

I would never consider moving to Russia, whereas right now, I'm actually seriously considering a move to the USA (Right now, Ireland sucks compared to the US, except in respect to Gun crime ).

Russia is more comparable to Mexico, really, in terms of social problems. Though Mexico lacks Russia's... military power.

[Lost Cause]

There's that term again "smart gun". Yet I wonder what Woukd happen if one of these hacker types got hold of one and managed to turn the gun "on" for anyone? Or managed to somehow put up an activation signal?
Plus the technology is still in its infancy! A padlock behind the trigger or a trigger lock will work too you know. Matter of fact police were giving these devices away at one time.

[Ithekro]

Comparing the United States to all of Europe might not be viable, but what about just the European Union?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Furthermore, the weapon most CCW holders would carry (a handgun) is not a very accurate weapon, and more difficult to aim then a rifle.

Indeed, but home/self defense scenarios are not long-distance affairs, if you find yourself trying to make long-distance shots with your pistol, chances are you probably shouldn't be shooting in the first place.

soldiers (particularly rookies) will often miss and even hit civilians.

Not quite, when civilians (and friendlies) are hit, generally speaking they were the target - the result of poor information/identification.

I believe soldiers in their first combat situation do not usually perform well, even with all their training. Usually they need to be embedded among more experienced veterans to keep them cool. Though, that's just my perception, obviously I lack first hand knowledge (not being a soldier).

It is just your perception Different people reacts differently under stress, but battlefield performance generally reflects the level of training the troop has received.

In any case, a war zone bears little resemblance to what a CCW holder would face, and contrary to what some people thinks, the CCW community is very much against the thoughts of people rushing out to be a hero. If you have absolute positive identification and a clear line of fire, then maybe, otherwise the prudent choice of action is to seek cover and protect those around you if possible. Trying to be a hero can create more problem than it solves.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Why? Both are flawed

one is still substantially better than the other.

Without bothering to get into the why, will you at least accept that the US's homicide and suicide rate is higher? Both with guns and without?

Sure, but without the why you can't really create effective policies to address it.

Also, doesn't Japan have a higher suicide rate?

And I'd hardly call Japan a police state.

/shrug, I got that from your article

A small fraction of the population. 30-45% is the number of households that report having a gun in the house... that means the gun could belong to the father, and not the mother or their two children. So, if you take an average of 1 our of 4 people being the gun owner in the house, that's roughly 8-11% of Americans who own guns. A small fraction.

or it could be both the husband and wife, as is pretty common among gun owners, some even train their kids how to handle a weapon (the horror!)

Eitherway, it's pretty pointless, if only 8-11% of people in the US cared about gun rights, you'd have a hard time not getting gun control legistlation through.

Possibly. Or possibly they find they don't need them. One other thing to keep in mind, then, since the country as a whole is turning more democratic and the stereotype of the white male republican is shrinking, is that soon, there will be enough people who will have no problems banning some guns. And that's regardless of what you or I think.

Eh, I'd say it's more of the independents and young voters that are being driven away by GOP's behavior in the past 4 years (me included). I wouldn't count them out just yet though, especially if the Democrats try to brute force gun control -
they paid for it dearly in 1994.

[james0246]

I can't help but feel that this thread has run it's course. It's devolved into talking heads providing seemingly random talking points (most of which are either repeated from earlier in the thread, or simply lifted from other websites (god, these useless anecdotes about guns saving or ending lives are killing me with their pointlessness)) none of which actually deal with the actual issue at hand (violence). Blah blah blah guns end lives blah blah blah guns defend lives, Ad infinitum. Guns do not save or take lives, people do. Guns are merely the convient tool used to kill or defend. The core issues have been brought up many times before, but they are constantly ignored (often in favour of fairly useless whining about gun rights, or whining about gun owners, or the constitution, or the government, et cetera).

Frankly, I feel this thread should be closed since it offers little to no actual discussion (anymore).

[Kyuu]

Interesting...

Sure. The gun was unloaded. The man parades himself as a sane and responsible gun owner.

However...

On a casual day -- when I don't know that -- I would view that man as a potential threat. That's because -- he's a total stranger, toting around a deadly weapon. And like hell would I ever know -- what's going on in that head of his.

What would I do if I find someone like that, while I'm casually shopping? I'd just stand, and look a little bit (without eye contact if possible). And then mosey myself along innocently.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Indeed, but home/self defense scenarios are not long-distance affairs, if you find yourself trying to make long-distance shots with your pistol, chances are you probably shouldn't be shooting in the first place.

I was more referring to the hypothetical "massacre" scenario where a "good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun". In that case you would have a lot of fear and panic and CCW holders would likely not perform well.

Home defense would be a bit different, as in that situation there aren't innocent civilians who could be accidentally hit.

Not quite, when civilians (and friendlies) are hit, generally speaking they were the target - the result of poor information/identification.

I don't know, what about all the children who get hit? A firefight is a messy thing. Of course it could be the insurgents hitting the wrong targets.

It is just your perception Different people reacts differently under stress, but battlefield performance generally reflects the level of training the troop has received.

Yes, and without any of the stress training soldiers recieve, I'm not sure how well a CCW could reasonably do against a gunman. It's notable that I haven't heard of any instances where a gunman in a mass shooting was actually stopped by a civilian carrying a gun.

A CCW holder has a reasonable chance against your normal criminal as criminals can feel fear, and don't want to die. But a gunman isn't afraid of dying, and so is a much harder opponent to defend against.

In any case, a war zone bears little resemblance to what a CCW holder would face, and contrary to what some people thinks, the CCW community is very much against the thoughts of people rushing out to be a hero. If you have absolute positive identification and a clear line of fire, then maybe, otherwise the prudent choice of action is to seek cover and protect those around you if possible. Trying to be a hero can create more problem than it solves.

That would be my opinion in any case. I'm skeptical how much a CCW holder in a crisis situation, and the wise thing to do for a CCW holder is to keep their head down, and only shoot if an easy shot presents itself.

[Vexx]

@Kyuu's post (shopping with rifle): This is another "we might be getting too stupid to have guns" moment. Frankly, this is a great way into *scaring* people into emotional non-rational kinds of gun restrictions.

One of the reasons CCW is effective is that the perp has no idea who is armed and who isn't.

@DQ (It's notable that I haven't heard of any instances where a gunman in a mass shooting was actually stopped by a civilian carrying a gun.)
The general view in the Oregon mall shooting is that the killer stopped his spree when a CCW holder aimed at him but couldn't take a shot because of the potential to hurt someone behind him.

In the mid-60s Texas bell tower sniper shooter's case,quite a few people were firing back with rifles, pistols, etc.

Originally Posted by from wiki for summary

Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and other armed citizens. One Texas Ranger used a student as spotter to help calibrate his shots. At this point, Whitman chose to fire through waterspouts located on each side of the tower walls. This protected him from gunfire below, but limited his range of targets.[44] Police sharpshooter Marion Lee reported from a small airplane that he had observed a single sniper firing from the observation deck. Lee tried to shoot Whitman from the plane, but the turbulence proved too great. Whitman shot at the plane, and it moved off to circle from a greater distance.

However, in most cases these days, the shooter has purposely chosen a "gun free zone".

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Vexx

@Kyuu's post (shopping with rifle): This is another "we might be getting too stupid to have guns" moment. Frankly, this is a great way into *scaring* people into emotional non-rational gun restrictions.

Yea. People are scared. And rightfully so. No single person on this thread can and will predict the next shooting.

And it is the government's job to deal with that - by installing policies that would satisfy as much of the public as possible. If things do not work, then additional changes must be made.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

America does compare well with Russia. But it's pretty hard not to compare well with Russia. It has serious problems. America is much better on all counts compared to Russia. Russia has a GDP per capita of only 13,000 compared to the USA's 48,000.

I would never consider moving to Russia, whereas right now, I'm actually seriously considering a move to the USA (Right now, Ireland sucks compared to the US, except in respect to Gun crime ).

Russia is more comparable to Mexico, really, in terms of social problems. Though Mexico lacks Russia's... military power.

Glad we agree that the US compares well with Russia in murder rates.
Granted Russia has approximately 5 times (well 4.6 times) the violent crime the US has, but due to the similarity in organized crime, drugs, and corruption (we do have a lot) perhaps we are closer to not just Russia, but even Mexico than most Americans are willing to admit?

We do have their gangs up here.
We have a porous border with them and some 20-30 million of their citizens living here illegally.
Now granted, our crime rates are falling, and have been for over a decade.
According to UNDOC the US has a homicide rate per 100,000 of 4.8 (2010), is down from 8.1 (1995).
And there are far more firearms in private hands now then there were in 1995, despite the 1994 ban on weapons, which was proven to have done nothing (either way) to reduce crime. A new ban would be equally worthless since it doesn't deal with the source of the problem.
Gun ownership is actually rising again and is the highest since 1993.
There are numerous factors involved in the decline of violent crime besides increased gun ownership and CCW permit holders.
Those I suspect include better police action against gangs, and better enforcement of existing laws (though that could improve).


And if you chose to move to the US, be sure to at least go to a range and try out a few firearms.

[Ithekro]

High powered combat rifles also have a tendancy to go through people and walls. Pistols with hollow points tend to not get much beyond the first solid thing hit due to the flattening of the bullet as it expends its energy faster. Why do you think the police use hollow tip bullet? To avoid hitting bystanders that might be several hundred yards beyond their target and to keep the bullets from going through walls.

In theory CCW holding in general should bring the number of random gun violence down in our society. The idea of people being more polite because they never know who might be armed, comes up from time to time.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

And if you chose to move to the US, be sure to at least go to a range and try out a few firearms.

I might, but first I'm getting myself a five guys hamburger.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

There's that term again "smart gun". Yet I wonder what Woukd happen if one of these hacker types got hold of one and managed to turn the gun "on" for anyone? Or managed to somehow put up an activation signal?
Plus the technology is still in its infancy! A padlock behind the trigger or a trigger lock will work too you know. Matter of fact police were giving these devices away at one time.

Hacker types? Do you understand how Smart Guns work? Granted, there is a lot of variety, but there is very little there to hack, from a software angle. There is this, the 1911 A1, which uses a magnetic ring. The magnetic type is the only type that is readily available at the moment, but there are many more that have been prototyped and/or are available in smaller numbers. My personal favorite is the RFID tagged ones, in which the gun won't fire unless it is in the hand of the person with the ring. Of course, instead of a ring, you could always get a small RFID chip installed under your skin. Hacking one would be a very long and cumbersome process, as you have to find the specific frequency and security key. The fast method is to rip the gun open, rip out the smart gun technology, and then re-engineer it to work without the RFID. Doable, yes, but it would take hours and considerable skill.

But sadly, even these small measures are being opposed (even on a voluntary scale!) as the NRA feels that any restriction on a gun is a slippery slope into taking all your guns and installing tyranny.

Originally Posted by kyp275

one is still substantially better than the other.
Sure, but without the why you can't really create effective policies to address it.

You'll get no argument from me on that regard, but we don't have something like that yet. And in the meantime, a lot of people are dying. So, we have a choice: Sit on our hands and do nothing, or try different policies and gauge their effectiveness. I respect that you feel we shouldn't waste our time doing things that might not work... but man had that attitude way back when, we might not have left the cave. After all, we had no data about what was out there, and bad things could have happened. Sometimes, you just have to try something, instead of sitting around while people die.

Also, doesn't Japan have a higher suicide rate?

Remember, you are talking about the country that had kamikazes in WW2, and has institutionalized suicide as a culturally acceptable item. Seppuku ring a bell? That said, it is interesting, when we take a look at various countries' suicide rate.
(per 100k)
Japan: 21.9 (!)
United States: 12.0
Canada: 11.3
Australia: 9.7
United Kingdom: 6.9

I mainly stuck with the three countries most like the US, and of course, including Japan. For the first time, we see a statistical outlier, but the other numbers still pretty much remain in similar positions, with the UK being the lowest of the 4 we're looking at. Suicide in Japan even has it's own article. Given that suicide is seen as more honorable there, I suppose it is not as surprising. So, as a statistical outlier, like most anomalies, it isn't useful by itself.

/shrug, I got that from your article

Yeah, from an unnamed historian. I was just saying, from my viewpoint, it isn't a police state. Citizens are still free to go anywhere, buy anything, leave the country, etc. A police state generally clamps down hard on their populace, demands papers, and the people have few rights.

or it could be both the husband and wife, as is pretty common among gun owners, some even train their kids how to handle a weapon (the horror!)

Eitherway, it's pretty pointless, if only 8-11% of people in the US cared about gun rights, you'd have a hard time not getting gun control legistlation through.

From all statistics I have seen, women as a % of gun owners, or even gun users, is fairly low, even among white women. I think something like 20% of women, was the last statistic I saw, who either owned a gun or knew how to use one. They may be trained a bit in it, but generally aren't the primary gun owner.

And I think you misunderstand the effect lobbying has on our government, particularly when money is involved. In something a bit closer to home for us here at AS, most people nowadays would think nothing of torrenting, and people generally feel that copyright laws have gotten way out of hand. But the MPAA/RIAA still has a lot of lobby money, and thus that is why we aren't seeing any copyright laws being rolled back, but instead always getting worse. We, as people in AS, lack the money and organization to oppose the RIAA/MPAA. The only reason we drove SOPA back, was because big players like Google got involved.

Eh, I'd say it's more of the independents and young voters that are being driven away by GOP's behavior in the past 4 years (me included). I wouldn't count them out just yet though, especially if the Democrats try to brute force gun control -
they paid for it dearly in 1994.

That's partially why I don't think anything major will pass congress. But it has to start somewhere, and who knows? Grover Norquist and his organization planned to punish anyone who voted to raise taxes... and quite a few Republicans broke their oath to do it, shattering the illusion of his power. It may embolden others, and we will have to see how it plays out in 2016 and 2016. 1994, however, was still mainly a Republican time.

All I'm saying is, things are changing. There will come a time when enough people get fed up that they are losing their children to guns. Something will happen eventually. We can either help to shape it by giving way, or stand obstinate and have our views ignored. And we can choose to support, or not support, organizations like the NRA and Alex Jones who choose the latter course of action, and thereby cause more harm than good.

Originally Posted by Vexx

However, in most cases these days, the shooter has purposely chosen a "gun free zone".

There were CCW holders in the Aurora theater, but none could get a shot off due to the smoke, darkness, and confusion. Mr. Orange hair didn't choose a "gun free zone."

And Kyuu brings up an interesting point... gun owners might not realize the effect they have on others. With a normal, non-gun person, I might have a cheery conversation, might ask him to stop doing something that is annoying people, or might be open to some negotiation regarding an incident that we are involved in (say, a car accident where we hit each other). However, once a non-gun person sees someone with a gun, they instantly retreat. They are no longer willing to engage, because saying the wrong thing could mean death. The gun essentially stops speech cold, and puts up a wall. You are no longer seen as a human being that we can relate to or work with, but a possible threat that we try desperately to minimize our contact with.

That is how gun owners appear to non-gun owners. Even if you are the sanest person we know, there is still that fear in the back of our minds.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Interesting...

Sure. The gun was unloaded. The man parades himself as a sane and responsible gun owner.

However...

On a casual day -- when I don't know that -- I would view that man as a potential threat. That's because -- he's a total stranger, toting around a deadly weapon. And like hell would I ever know -- what's going on in that head of his.

What would I do if I find someone like that, while I'm casually shopping? I'd just stand, and look a little bit (without eye contact if possible). And then mosey myself along innocently.

I seriously doubt he had an assault rifle.
That looked like a plain old civilian AR-15 to me.
There is nothing wrong with what he did, I see the local CMP team in King Soopers sometimes with their whole troop of AR-15s (unloaded) on their backs.
See it's that kind of hysteria of "oh my gawwwd it's a black rifle!!!" that makes gun control advocates look stupid and freakish.
Did this man abuse his right to carry an AR-15?
No.
Did anyone get hurt besides the gun control fools that wet themselves over the picture?
No.
I swear, if this guy was a cop, no one would have cared.
Talk about a double standard.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

There were CCW holders in the Aurora theater, but none could get a shot off due to the smoke, darkness, and confusion. Mr. Orange hair didn't choose a "gun free zone."

Thanks for pointing out I said "most" and yes, the Aurora shooter used other techniques to improve his situation.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Thanks for pointing out I said "most" and yes, the Aurora shooter used other techniques to improve his situation.

Vexx, don't listen to him, he's lying through his teeth.
Cinemart has a "gun free zone" policy in all 456 of its cinemas nationwide.
There were no CCW permit holders in that theater.
I just double checked by calling a police officer I know who works for the Aurora PD.

Here is the USAToday article to back up my statement:

It appears that Cinemark Holdings Inc., owner of the theater where these murders took place exercises its rights as an owner of private property in Colorado to bar those who hold concealed carry permits from exercising their rights in its theaters. As a result, law-abiding citizens, including owners of concealed carry permits, who were in the theater that dreadful night were unarmed and thus unable to defend themselves and their fellow movie-goers from the murderous attack visited upon them.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I swear, if this guy was a cop, no one would have cared.
Talk about a double standard.

Trusting cops; a legitimate authority figure; more than your average nobody is a double standard?

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Thanks for pointing out I said "most" and yes, the Aurora shooter used other techniques to improve his situation.

I don't even know about most. This is a fairly comprehensive list of shootings from 1982 to present. There are quite a few schools, but also cafes, malls, hotels, other places of business. It's true, they probably aren't going to go shoot up a police station, and with the exception of Fort Hood, they won't aim for an army base, either. I won't speculate beyond that, just leave it as an informative list for however people want to take it.

Edit: I just remembered reading something awhile back, when they interviewed a CCW person who was in the theater, but didn't have his gun. He said there was so much smoke and confusion in the darkness, he wouldn't have been able to fire back without hitting someone else. So I might have remembered incorrectly, and am cheerfully willing to withdraw that.

[kyp275]

@Kyuu

Heh, obviously the guy is there to make a political point, and he's certainly gotten the attention he wanted

Personally I've always found open carry to be more of a hassle than it's worth, and tbh most people who do it these days are doing it for the same reason as that guy - to make a political statement.

I certainly wouldn't freak out though, it's one thing to carry an unloaded rifle on your back when it's legal to do so, if he started to take a magazine out to load for no reason, then I'll be worried

Though I suspect most of the people who were scared didn't know that their state is an open carry state to begin with, and so naturally they draw the most negative conclusions.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I don't know, what about all the children who get hit? A firefight is a messy thing. Of course it could be the insurgents hitting the wrong targets.

It could be from either side due to fire discipline issues (or if they just didn't care), or from area-of-effect weapons like mortar, artillery, IEDs etc.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

High powered combat rifles also have a tendancy to go through people and walls. Pistols with hollow points tend to not get much beyond the first solid thing hit due to the flattening of the bullet as it expends its energy faster.

It depends more on the type of ammunition used, some .223 rounds penetrates less than even 9mm rounds, just gotta use the right ammo for the situation.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

You'll get no argument from me on that regard, but we don't have something like that yet. And in the meantime, a lot of people are dying. So, we have a choice: Sit on our hands and do nothing, or try different policies and gauge their effectiveness. I respect that you feel we shouldn't waste our time doing things that might not work... but man had that attitude way back when, we might not have left the cave. After all, we had no data about what was out there, and bad things could have happened. Sometimes, you just have to try something, instead of sitting around while people die.

I'm of the opinion that we should try to beef up regulations like mandatory background checks, closing loopholes, and ensure proper enforcement of existing regulations, perhaps increasing mandatory prison terms for gun related crimes, and rebuilding the mental health care infrastructure first, but that's just my opinion.

Remember, you are talking about the country that had kamikazes in WW2, and has institutionalized suicide as a culturally acceptable item.

oi oi, why the sudden importance of culture when it comes to suicide!!!

Grover Norquist and his organization planned to punish anyone who voted to raise taxes... and quite a few Republicans broke their oath to do it, shattering the illusion of his power. It may embolden others, and we will have to see how it plays out in 2016 and 2016. 1994, however, was still mainly a Republican time.

I wish I'm as optimistic about Norquist as you are. Either way, we'll see in 2014.

All I'm saying is, things are changing. There will come a time when enough people get fed up that they are losing their children to guns. Something will happen eventually. We can either help to shape it by giving way, or stand obstinate and have our views ignored.

I detect a hint of "My views are right, this is what will happen, if you disagree, you're wrong!"

There were CCW holders in the Aurora theater, but none could get a shot off due to the smoke, darkness, and confusion. Mr. Orange hair didn't choose a "gun free zone."

I couldn't find any references to information that says there were armed CCW holders in the theater, any links?

In any case, chances aren't good they could've done much, unless they were right at the front row and had clear view of Holmes.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Trusting cops; a legitimate authority figure; more than your average nobody is a double standard?

Yes it is.