Poll: What should we do with guns?

[AmyNation]

But it's still untrue.

Are you claiming gun crime in countries where guns are illegal is significantly lower than the US, is just a coincidence?

Are you actually going to read my post this time? I am saying:
1. That this country is satuated with guns and it is physically impossibe to change that no matter what law is passed.
2. That trying to make any comparisons useing "gun crime" is meaningless. Violent crime is violent crime.
3. Gun control laws were in place at sandy hook and helped not at all. It's pretty idiotic to think that adding more will help anything.
4. "Assault weapons" are no more lethal than most common hunting weapons and considerably less than many.

1) I dont disagree
2) I don't think its meaningless
3)I don't disagree
4)I don't disagree

 

[FA_Q2]

Are you claiming gun crime in countries where guns are illegal is significantly lower than the US, is just a coincidence?

I already PROVED that so called 'coincidence' is utterly false. I posted all of the relevant information and you have ignored it. You have brought zero evidence to state otherwise. Take a look at the damn data. It completely disagrees with what you are stating and yet, you continue to cling to this idea.

You have? In this thread?

Yes, I linked the pertinent post.

As you seem unable to click a link:

In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

I think you'll find that the reason those areas have stricter gun control is because of the notoriety of their crime statistics.

You are reversing cause and effect. Gun control was implemented because of their high crime stats. And you cannot expect those stats to immediately change, especially when you have the mentioned areas surrounded by other areas with practically no gun control. A bit like banning cocaine (if it was legal) in Brazil, and expecting all negative events in the country regarding the drug to stop, when it still borders Columbia, Peru and Bolivia.

We could, however, expect them to change sometime. It has not happened to my knowledge.

I am going to post a copy of something I have been posting on many threads as of late. Around 4 threads have simply died immediately after I post this because there is simply ZERO evidence on your side. One of those threads you were arguing in. this is a bit off topic as guns are not the point and if, in the spirit of the CDZ, QW wants it removed I will remove it. I believe it is pertinent because so many here are trying to curb this into a gun control thread. Face the facts, Gun control does not work and the argument that fewer guns = fewer crimes is a fallacy. You TRY and deflect by stating there were crime waves but the evidence is all over the place and constant. If you were correct, then you should be able to post some actual numbers supporting your contention. Several places for that matter as there are several places showing that you are flat out incorrect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide veriety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY ******* THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Check the list of shootings in schools.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Banning guns, would severely curtail the number of gun crimes, in time ,and it would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook.

That being said, I dont think banning guns or banning types of guns, is the answer.

The simple fact that as more guns are purchased, major crimes decline, kind of contradicts your hypothesis.

 

[Pogo]

Banning guns, would severely curtail the number of gun crimes, in time ,and it would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook.

That being said, I dont think banning guns or banning types of guns, is the answer.

The simple fact that as more guns are purchased, major crimes decline, kind of contradicts your hypothesis.

I got your "fact" right here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Check the list of shootings in schools.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Banning guns, would severely curtail the number of gun crimes, in time ,and it would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook.

That being said, I dont think banning guns or banning types of guns, is the answer.

The simple fact that as more guns are purchased, major crimes decline, kind of contradicts your hypothesis.

I wonder why that list doesn't the Appalachian School of Law shooting. Could it be because it was stopped by armed students?

 

[asterism]

Current laws already exclude them.

That's precisely why I wasn't including them. But I figured clarification would be good since i couldnt fit all that in a poll.

How do we determine who's crazy? The last 3 mass shootings--all were done by young introvert males that were bat shit crazy--but who didn't have any prior criminal record. The Aurora Theater shooting--the "crazy" was able to purchase all of his weapons--he was the registered owner of these assault weapons.

I believe in the 2nd amendment--and that Americans have the right to own a gun for the "protection" of themselves and their families--BUT--I don't think military type assault weapons are the answer to self defense--unless you plan on getting attacked by hundred's of people at once--

So the question then becomes how do we keep these guns out of the hands of the bat shit crazy--(those with no prior criminal records)--and out of the hands of young introvert type males that continually commit these type of horrific mass murders--using military type assault weapons?

My solution is:

I think that anyone that owns or plans on buying a military type assault rifle--pistol or other should also be required to purchase a multi-million dollar insurance liability policy on the gun--along with a notarized statement--indicating that they will be the only person that will be using the gun--and also prove that they have a bomb proof gun safe in their home--that the gun will be kept--and that they will be the only one that has access to that safe. If the owner eventually wants to sell this weapon they have to sell it to a licensed gun shop. If the gun is stolen or lost the registered owner assumes all responsibility for the damage and death done to others. Those that do not follow the above--if caught--the gun is confiscated--and a hefty fine is placed on the person who is in possession of this type weapon. Also no more gun shows--where guns can be bought by anyone--with no I.D. and no background check.

This should take some of the macho interest out of these type weapons. If they've just got to shoot these guns then they can join the military. The military keeps track and locks their assault weapons up--so the public should be required to do the same.

That's a fallacy, the military keeps arms locked in armories on base most of the time but not on deployment. In many (most?) instances the weapons are either kept with the servicemember at all times or locked with a chain to some fixed object like a rack on ship or a vehicle in the field.

We always had ammo in our vests.

 

[OKTexas]

Check the list of shootings in schools.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Banning guns, would severely curtail the number of gun crimes, in time ,and it would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook.

That being said, I dont think banning guns or banning types of guns, is the answer.

The simple fact that as more guns are purchased, major crimes decline, kind of contradicts your hypothesis.

Did you bother to read your link, it includes accidental shooting, suicides, jilted lovers and a bunch of other incidents, but none of it negates the fact that over all crime has gone down and areas where concealed carry has passed has seen above average reductions.

 

[OKTexas]

Current laws already exclude them.

That's precisely why I wasn't including them. But I figured clarification would be good since i couldnt fit all that in a poll.

How do we determine who's crazy? The last 3 mass shootings--all were done by young introvert males that were bat shit crazy--but who didn't have any prior criminal record. The Aurora Theater shooting--the "crazy" was able to purchase all of his weapons--he was the registered owner of these assault weapons.

I believe in the 2nd amendment--and that Americans have the right to own a gun for the "protection" of themselves and their families--BUT--I don't think military type assault weapons are the answer to self defense--unless you plan on getting attacked by hundred's of people at once--

So the question then becomes how do we keep these guns out of the hands of the bat shit crazy--(those with no prior criminal records)--and out of the hands of young introvert type males that continually commit these type of horrific mass murders--using military type assault weapons?

My solution is:

I think that anyone that owns or plans on buying a military type assault rifle--pistol or other should also be required to purchase a multi-million dollar insurance liability policy on the gun--along with a notarized statement--indicating that they will be the only person that will be using the gun--and also prove that they have a bomb proof gun safe in their home--that the gun will be kept--and that they will be the only one that has access to that safe. If the owner eventually wants to sell this weapon they have to sell it to a licensed gun shop. If the gun is stolen or lost the registered owner assumes all responsibility for the damage and death done to others. Those that do not follow the above--if caught--the gun is confiscated--and a hefty fine is placed on the person who is in possession of this type weapon. Also no more gun shows--where guns can be bought by anyone--with no I.D. and no background check.

This should take some of the macho interest out of these type weapons. If they've just got to shoot these guns then they can join the military. The military keeps track and locks their assault weapons up--so the public should be required to do the same.

First you demonstrate total ignorance of the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Second, you car is more likely to kill someone than one of my guns, so how about you get a multimillion dollar liability policy on it. I guarantee that policy would cost more on the car.

Third, what good is a gun for defense if you have to jump through hoops to get to it, do you just call a time out and the bad guy will freeze while you get it? Pull your head out.

 

[AmyNation]

I already PROVED that so called 'coincidence' is utterly false. I posted all of the relevant information and you have ignored it. You have brought zero evidence to state otherwise. Take a look at the damn data. It completely disagrees with what you are stating and yet, you continue to cling to this idea.

You have? In this thread?

Yes, I linked the pertinent post.

As you seem unable to click a link:

We could, however, expect them to change sometime. It has not happened to my knowledge.I
I am going to post a copy of something I have been posting on many threads as of late. Around 4 threads have simply died immediately after I post this because there is simply ZERO evidence on your side. One of those threads you were arguing in. this is a bit off topic as guns are not the point and if, in the spirit of the CDZ, QW wants it removed I will remove it. I believe it is pertinent because so many here are trying to curb this into a gun control thread. Face the facts, Gun control does not work and the argument that fewer guns = fewer crimes is a fallacy. You TRY and deflect by stating there were crime waves but the evidence is all over the place and constant. If you were correct, then you should be able to post some actual numbers supporting your contention. Several places for that matter as there are several places showing that you are flat out incorrect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide veriety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY ******* THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:




Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

I never claimed crime was lower. I said gun crime is. As to anything involving crime per US city or US state, that's not what we were discussing.

 

[Ernie S.]

regulate all public firearms - lever / bolt action, 6 round maximum, chamber fed.

OK...Limit people protecting the prez to those weapons as well.

Fair is fair.

And the military. The reason we have the second amendment is that there may come a time when we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government.

 

[AmyNation]

Oh boy, more of the "I may have to take on the US military with my rifle" argument.

 

[Ernie S.]

It WAS the intent of the founding fathers. As a matter of fact, taking up arms against an oppressive government resulted in the United States of America. The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that the need might arise again.

 

[AmyNation]

I 100% agree it was their intent. However, it's been a few hundred years, and since the average citizen is not allowed to own military grade weapons, or typically has access to military techolnolgy, it's a silly argument for gun rights.

It's like saying we used to defend ourselves with slingshots, now the army has machine guns but I should be allowed to own a slingshot just in case I need to squash a government takeover.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have? In this thread?

Yes, I linked the pertinent post.

As you seem unable to click a link:

We could, however, expect them to change sometime. It has not happened to my knowledge.I
I am going to post a copy of something I have been posting on many threads as of late. Around 4 threads have simply died immediately after I post this because there is simply ZERO evidence on your side. One of those threads you were arguing in. this is a bit off topic as guns are not the point and if, in the spirit of the CDZ, QW wants it removed I will remove it. I believe it is pertinent because so many here are trying to curb this into a gun control thread. Face the facts, Gun control does not work and the argument that fewer guns = fewer crimes is a fallacy. You TRY and deflect by stating there were crime waves but the evidence is all over the place and constant. If you were correct, then you should be able to post some actual numbers supporting your contention. Several places for that matter as there are several places showing that you are flat out incorrect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide veriety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY ******* THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:




Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:


Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

I never claimed crime was lower. I said gun crime is. As to anything involving crime per US city or US state, that's not what we were discussing.

There is actually a very simple way to reduce gun crime without touching guns at all, want to know what it is, or do you want to pretend the government knows what it is doing?

Fair warning, you won't like the answer.

 

[AmyNation]

Lol, I hardly ever do with you.

Tell me anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh boy, more of the "I may have to take on the US military with my rifle" argument.

Actually, if you think about it, the point is the US Army might have to take on the citizens of this country. Tell me something, since you think the Army is going to make short work of any rebellion if it actually occurs, just how do you think the US is going to be able to take away the guns of 80,000,000 Americans if they don't want to give them up? The Army can't even effectively stop the insurgents in Afghanistan, and there are a lot less of them. I guess they could carpet bomb Austin, but that would kill more liberals than it would gun nuts.

 

[AmyNation]

Where did I say the army would "make short work" of any rebellion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lol, I hardly ever do with you.

Tell me anyway.

The Single Best Anti-Gun-Death Policy? Ending the Drug War - Noah Smith - The Atlantic

I actually started a thread about it before I saw the Atlantic piece.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/268905-surefire-way-to-reduce-gun-violence.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did I say the army would "make short work" of any rebellion?

You seem to be operating under the delusion that a modern military with planes trumps a bunch of people with rifles. I hope to educate you on the difficulties you are ignoring.

 

[AmyNation]

Lol, I hardly ever do with you.

Tell me anyway.

The Single Best Anti-Gun-Death Policy? Ending the Drug War - Noah Smith - The Atlantic

I actually started a thread about it before I saw the Atlantic piece.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/268905-surefire-way-to-reduce-gun-violence.html

Lol! "you won't like it"?

Its funny how impressions can form on the interwebs. I am agaisnt the war on drugs, and I wouldn't oppose legalizing recreational drugs. I don't think the government should have a say in what someone else puts in their body.