General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Bri]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Not really, I'm simply being practical here. Firearm is a huge force multiplier/equalizer, and if you can't even begin to deny the criminal elements access to these weapons, then you shouldn't deny them to normal civilians either.

And even if you could, I still don't think it's a good idea. As I said, it's big equalizer, and it allows those who choose to do so the ability to protect themselves.

That is pretty much the whole issue from a practical perspective. Unless you disarm the entire population including the criminal element, gun control is pretty much ineffective.

It's not impossible to disarm the population, but it would require invasive legislation and law enforcement that is extremely unlikely to ever get social and political support in the US.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by kyp275

And even if you could, I still don't think it's a good idea. As I said, it's big equalizer, and it allows those who choose to do so the ability to protect themselves.

And that was the question I posed earlier: Do Guns actually protect people? I do not have the time right now to look up statistics, so if anyone else wants to find out the percentage of incidents in which owning a gun saved a person versus the percentage of incidents in which owning a gun did nothing (and yes, we all know anecdotal evidence of a friend or a friend of a friend (etc) that was saved by owning a gun, or that was harmed even though they owned a gun), then please do. (If the main argument against gun regulation is that guns protect, then they have to be shown to actually protect in the vast majority of incidents.)

Originally Posted by kyp275

Maybe sometime in the future the SCOTUS will re-interpret the 2nd Amendment again, and maybe Congress and the States will ratify another amendment to alter it, but until then, the whole militia thing is irrelevant.

Which is sad. I can't help but think it is a more conservative bent that has reshaped the 2nd Amendment law over the past 70 years or so. Whatever the case, modern law disregards what I see to be the original intent of the amendment in favour of a free for all based on the logic you've stated earlier "if criminals have weapons, then everyone should"...

Originally Posted by kyp275

Also, if you need the government to ban guns to protect you from yourself... you've got way bigger issues, especially since it won't protect you from yourself anyway, 'cause you're still crazy.

That's a little overgeneralized. There are many countries that have strict government bans on gun and they and their citizens are not "crazy". As Bri mentioned earlier, it is not guns or a ban on guns that is the problem, it is the underlying social situation in your respective country...

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by james0246

And that was the question I posed earlier: Do Guns actually protect people? I do not have the time right now to look up statistics, so if anyone else wants to find out the percentage of incidents in which owning a gun saved a person versus the percentage of incidents in which owning a gun did nothing (and yes, we all know anecdotal evidence of a friend or a friend of a friend (etc) that was saved by owning a gun, or that was harmed even though they owned a gun), then please do. (If the main argument against gun regulation is that guns protect, then they have to be shown to actually protect in the vast majority of incidents.)

TBH, I doubt such a statistic exist, as the way crime reporting works, "prevented" crimes, even those reported, isn't tracked in the system. The best you're gonna have are the various studies and reports by private entities and occasionally some federal agencies with estimates only, which for the most part just splits down the partisan line.

Originally Posted by james0246

Which is sad. I can't help but think it is a more conservative bent that has reshaped the 2nd Amendment law over the past 70 years or so. Whatever the case, modern law disregards what I see to be the original intent of the amendment in favour of a free for all based on the logic you've stated earlier "if criminals have weapons, then everyone should"...

It's just facing the reality. Ideally we should also have no nuclear weapons or standing armies, but would it make sense for any country to unilaterally disarm itself?

You want a future without guns and whatnot? better start working on getting humans to reach enlightenment.

Originally Posted by james0246

That's a little overgeneralized. There are many countries that have strict government bans on gun and they and their citizens are not "crazy". As Bri mentioned earlier, it is not guns or a ban on guns that is the problem, it is the underlying social situation in your respective country...

The "crazy" part is referring to his statement implying that gun owners will eventually turn into a psycho killer.

[Ithekro]

As for stories of guns saving people, I can attest to an incident were an imcomplete shotgun scared away an intruder. Some was sneaking around outside under a second story window. The owner had his shotgun disassembled for cleaning, but was able to work the action on it (pump action shotgun). The intruder recognized the sound and fled. The intruder would not have been shot by this shotgun, as it was not in a condition to fire a shell (though he or she might have been shot with something else if they continued to break and enter).

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Actually, you did.

As the topic name says, if you cannot actually remain civil during the discussion and resorts to insulting people when you're either not willing or not capable of countering people's arguments, then you should probably just leave the thread.

I'm not mocking anyone, ok? You gave your point and it depends on us if we think its reasonable. No matter what you think. Guns are guns. I'm a peace advocate and please don't use "All Doctors should be banned" cause if you got shut by a gun, you would call us and we will not hesitate to help you whether you like it or not.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

I'm not mocking anyone, ok? You gave your point and it depends on us if we think its reasonable. No matter what you think. Guns are guns. I'm a peace advocate and please don't use "All Doctors should be banned" cause if you got shut by a gun, you would call us and we will not hesitate to help you whether you like it or not.

...you realize that's not what I really believe right? it's meant to be a satirical take on this statement of yours:

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

Anyone who carries a gun, could be , please note "could be" a potential offender in the future....

You sir, need to watch some late-night comedy shows

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by kyp275

You sir, need to watch some late-night comedy shows

Sorry, I'm not American. Can't relate to that.

Anyway, its night already in my place and I've a duty early tomorrow.

Thanks for the try.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by james0246

Singular anecdotal evidence is meaningless. I can find dozens of stories about men and women that, even with guns and even training (though most are without training), were still assaulted, and worse raped or even killed.

So you're going to make me dig up some of the local news articles.

Okay:

Marine Allegedly Upset With Military Status Opens Fire in Northwest OKC
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.as...il&Format=Text

Bridgeport Police: Restaurant Owner Shoots, Kills Armed Robber
http://articles.courant.com/2010-09-...dgeport-police

Family struggles after father, husband killed while attempting to rob business
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/11/post_199.html

Man Shoots At Robbers Inside His Home - Update
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/13963482.html

The original Richmond Times and Charolette Observer stories about the Appalachan School Shooting Those two are significant because the MSM altered the story to where the men that stopped Odighizuwa "tackled him" instead of using their guns. Even though the student (who was a police officer studying to be a lawyer) said this when interviewed:
"We went down, too, and Peter was in the front yard. I stopped at my vehicle and got a handgun, a revolver. Ted went toward Peter, and I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/apla2.html

Grandmother Shoots Intruder
http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/101882973.html

Like I said, you have to dig through the local news channels to find these because the national media will not report it.

Doctor Gary Kleck (Ph. D) did a study years ago about how often guns are used to stop crime.
He found that (at the time of the study) guns are used around 2.5 million times a year to stop a criminal incident.

What is amazing to me is that even after nearly 20 years of research and analysis proving gun control does not work we still see the same talking head politicians, lobbyists (Handgun Control Inc. mostly) and media spouting the same nonsense that was exposed for as fallacy in the early 1990s.


JAMA did a spin piece back in 2000 to try and "prove" gun control worked. They had to use Columbia as the control for the study and even then they concluded this:
"…implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."

Gun control is feel good legislation that does nothing to reduce or prevent crime.
All it does do is provide fertile ground for ciminals and nutjobs to prey upon unarmed victims.

[Ithekro]

What about this one?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...-fire-burglar/

Don't mess with Old Man Leone, you hear?
When Jay Leone of Greenbrae, California -- who happens to be 90 years of age -- found himself under fire by an armed home invader, he didn't throw his hands in the air and surrender. And when he was shot clear through the face, he didn't duck and hide.
"I told him 'Now it's my turn!'" said Leone. Then he proceeded to return fire.

I knew this man's son...a cop from the SFPD.

[synaesthetic]

Legally banning guns does so much to prevent gun crime, because, you know, robbers and murderers and gangsters are totally going to abide by gun control laws, amirite?

[Kafriel]

People have been killing without guns for many centuries, it's not like we lack imagination or anything. Guns facilitate actions like robbery, but the same effect could be had by someone putting a knife on the cashier's neck. When I think of guns, my mind immediately goes to hunting, since it's a useful skill to have and it's much easier to hunt dangerous heavy game with a powerful handgun or rifle than with...what, bows and traps?

[GundamFan0083]

Here is another one.

Grandpa Fights, Shoots Back at Intruder
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f35_1260429907

Here's another one:
http://www.barstoolsports.com/barsto...internet-cafe/

Here is the Youtube version curtesy of Mike Adams:

That's the edited version.
Originally the captions were "Holy SHIT!...and...There's more where that came from Bitches!"

Youtube blocked it so the user redid the captions without the "swear" words.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Legally banning guns does so much to prevent gun crime, because, you know, robbers and murderers and gangsters are totally going to abide by gun control laws, amirite?

Depends, if the risk of begin caught with a gun outweighs the advantage of using a gun, then yes, most criminals outside of high end organized crime will probably abide by a total gun ban.

Take for example Singapore, possession of even relatively small amounts of drugs warrants capital punishment. If you apply that type of legislation to guns, even criminals will think twice before using one, especially in lower level crime like street crimes, robberies, burglaries, etc. Given the severity of punishment, criminals would also be fairly sure that their intended victims would not carry guns, de-escalating the arms race between citizen and criminal.

[Ithekro]

Considering that there are so many people on death row these days that have been there for say 20 years and are only closer to death via age at this point likely attests to the punishment systems in America somehow.

Others get a speedier death, if they decide not to appeal ever.

And in other states, they don't even have capital punishment. I think some don't even effectively have life imprisionment.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Bri

Depends, if the risk of begin caught with a gun outweighs the advantage of using a gun, then yes, most criminals outside of high end organized crime will probably abide by a total gun ban.

Take for example Singapore, possession of even relatively small amounts of drugs warrants capital punishment. If you apply that type of legislation to guns, even criminals will think twice before using one, especially in lower level crime like street crimes, robberies, burglaries, etc. Given the severity of punishment, criminals would also be fairly sure that their intended victims would not carry guns, de-escalating the arms race between citizen and criminal.

Bri, the minimum sentence for having an illegal machine gun is 30 years, with a maximum of life in prison.
Criminals in the US still use machine guns and sawed off shotguns.
The only thing stronger than that would be the death penalty.

Not saying your suggestion doesn't have merit, I think it does only I'd modify it from possession of firearms to the penalties for use of a firearm in a crime.
Take say armed robbery and add a mandatory 10 years for use of a firearm over a knife or other lesser weapon.
Use of an illegal military weapon, the death penalty.
Use of a firearm that causes the intentional death of a victim, mandatory death penalty.
Use of a firearm that causes the unintentional death of a victim, mandatory 30 years-life.
Rape with the use of a firearm, castration.
I think if, like you said, the punishments were harsh enough then criminals would think twice before using a firearm to commit a crime.

[DonQuigleone]

You could argue that law and order is built on the government (IE police force) possessing a monopoly on force. When entities besides the state are well armed enough to be able to defy the state, you basically get modern Mexico.

That's why at least some level Gun (and weapons) Control is important, to prevent society from descending into anarchy. Where that level should lie is open to debate.

When there are no limits on weapons ownership, society devolves down to might makes right. You'll obey the gang down the road because they have far better weapons then you. In order to be able to defy them, you need to somehow amass more weapons then them.


As an example, let's say an entire town is very well armed. Every person owns a gun, though not necessarily everyone has the time or ability to use it well. In such a situation, a faction in the town could easily band together, and become more powerful then the police. At this point, the police will cease to have authority, and this gang will gain complete power over the towns affairs.

You could argue that the townspeople could all gather together and oust the gang, but inevitably one faction will rise above the rest of the community, and dominate the community to serve it's own ends.

Which is why it's essential to ensure that the police force are maintained as the strongest faction in the community, and likewise the police force are subservient to the political power of the community's elected representatives.

Mexico is a good lesson on failed weapons control. The reason Gun Control doesn't work in Mexico, is that the gangs are already more powerful then the state, and cannot be intimidated into submission. The mexican government, largely through corruption, turned a blind eye towards the gangs and allowed them to gain the strength they have now, until they realised, too late, that they are now impossible to control anymore. The drug lords are now their own law.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Bri, the minimum sentence for having an illegal machine gun is 30 years, with a maximum of life in prison.
Criminals in the US still use machine guns and sawed off shotguns.
The only thing stronger than that would be the death penalty.

Not saying your suggestion doesn't have merit, I think it does only I'd modify it from possession of firearms to the penalties for use of a firearm in a crime.
Take say armed robbery and add a mandatory 10 years for use of a firearm over a knife or other lesser weapon.
Use of an illegal military weapon, the death penalty.
Use of a firearm that causes the intentional death of a victim, mandatory death penalty.
Use of a firearm that causes the unintentional death of a victim, mandatory 30 years-life.
Rape with the use of a firearm, castration.
I think if, like you said, the punishments were harsh enough then criminals would think twice before using a firearm to commit a crime.

I agree that adding extra punishments for crimes when a gun is involved should have a deterring effect. However the main issue is risk assessment. A criminal seeks to gain an advantage over his target. Hence the machine guns and sawed off shotguns because they presumably give an edge over law abiding gun owners, even if the punishment is high.

You're suggestion raises the stakes. Some criminals will be deterred, others will become more ruthless/desperate for not getting caught. I'd expect the number of gun-related crimes to decrease, but the intensity of violence used to increase.

There is no incentive for de-escalation in this scenario. The option I was thinking of creates a MAD-situation, thereby removing the value of the type of weapon.

[Ithekro]

It is hard to find statistics for that since there are a lot of unreported incidents and times when the threat of a gun being used (Sign reading "Owner carries a 44 magnum") prevents the crime from happening. The "Don't go to that house, they guy's got a gun". Or the before mentioned working the action on a shotgun before the criminal enters the building scares the criminal into not actually committing a crime.

There aren't statistics made of things that are prevented from happening as you have little evidance or plot points to track. Sometimes you can't even prove it prevented a crime because there was no crime. Statictics tend to work on body counts, police records, and medical records.

[james0246]

@ GundamFan0083: Again, this is all anecdotal evidence. I can easily find lots of stories about people using their guns to defend themselves. Heck, go to any of the NRA websites and they'll hundreds of such stories. I'm asking for statistical proof that guns are more beneficial than harmful.

Sadly, this is a fool's errand since such research is hard to come by, especially considering that the NRA and the current Republican party (since the mid-90s) have gone out of their way to make it impossible for the government to properly fund any research that questions the use of firearms in modern society (to be a bit more specific, the CDC used to fund research into the deaths of all Americans (of which guns were a contributing factor), but the NRA forced the Republican majority at the time to either eliminate the program responsible for researching such data, or simply underfund the entire CDC (they went with underfunding the CDC, and would have continued to underfund the CDC unless they dropped their research (which they did)) all under the the belief that any research into any gun crimes is always partisan for gun control.

And it doesn't end with the CDC. Any real national research into guns, even if it simply research on how to make them safer, is often blocked by the NRA and the Republican Party on the national level. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has been neutered for over a decade by being forced to keep gun statistics secret, and just recently the Republican congress has tried to force the National Institutes for Health (NIH) from doing any research into gun related deaths (which is still the 2nd most prevalent cause of death for young Americans).

Do the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs? Sadly, this question has become more difficult to objectively answer. On every front actual national research into whether or not guns are actually helpful has been blocked, destroyed, or otherwise forced into hiding (and any research that is released is instantly attacked as partisan even if the basic facts of the research are sound).

I do currently believe in gun ownership, and I do believe in the right for the citizens of America to protect themselves (both from their neighbors, strangers, and if they have to their own government), but I do not know if guns are actually a good tool for protection (Consequently, gun ownership could actually be doing more harm than good).

edit: Here's one of the few decent studies that shows the lack of protection that guns provide (for various reasons described in the study)...

[synaesthetic]

The most powerful weapon anyone can carry is a mobile phone.

I say that having been raised around guns, born in the South, and having owned several during my lifetime.