Gun Control

[Buxbaum666]

got anything about people scaring attackers off with a firearm?

Do you? I'd bet the data, if there is any, isn't very meaningful either way but definitely won't support "guns save FAR more lives than they take".

 

[Risewild]

Well that just refers to blowing somebody away. got anything about people scaring attackers off with a firearm?

Well, mostly of the stuff I found was unreliable. But I found this article that gathers data from a few studies that involve several years and most US states:
https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html
Some relevant excerpts:

A new study, however, throws cold water on the idea that a well-armed populace deters criminals or prevents murders. Instead, higher ownership of guns in a state is linked to more firearm robberies, more firearm assaults and more homicide in general. [5 Milestones in Gun Control History]

"We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."

They found no evidence that states with more households with guns led to timid criminals. In fact, firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. Firearm robbery increased with every increase in gun ownership except in the very highest quintile of gun-owning states (the difference in that cluster was not statistically significant). Firearm homicide was 2.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. [Private Gun Ownership in the US (Infographic)]

The researchers were able to test whether criminals were simply trading out other weapons for guns, at least in the case of homicide. They weren't. Overall homicide rates were just over 2 times higher in the most gun-owning states, meaning that gun ownership correlated with higher rates of all homicides, not just homicide with a gun. The results will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

"This study suggests that it's really hard to find evidence that where there are more guns, there are less crimes, but you can easily find evidence that where there are a lot more guns, there are a lot more gun crimes," Hemenway told Live Science.

It's possible that people stockpile guns in response to higher levels of crime. The researchers tried to tease out whether this was the case by testing whether gun ownership levels were a prerequisite for crime or a response to higher crime levels. Though they still couldn't prove causation, they did find that higher gun ownership levels preceded crime increases, not the other way around.

That article also mentions that someone tried to make a study to see if what the trade-off between gun crimes and self protection, but they didn't get useful enough data.

Another recent study highlighted just how little researchers know. In July 2013, researchers published a paper in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, attempting to mathematically model the trade-off between increased gun crimes with gun ownership and gun use for self-protection. Because the available data isn't comprehensive enough, the researchers weren't able to make specific policy recommendations, study researcher Dominik Wodarz of the University of California, Irvine, told Live Science.

This is interesting though:

Nor do decision makers necessarily care about science-based policy: Hemenway recalls presenting his research to a group of congressional representatives and having one declare that he didn't care what the data had to say.

"One of the bad things the gun lobby has done is they've said, 'it's us or them, and you've got to choose sides,'" Hemenway said. "That makes it so people choose sides, and then they look for confirmatory data instead of trying to see what the world is really like."

Also it seems that the USA has been having a decline in violent crime for years now, but and increase in gun related deaths , I will have to search more to see if I can get any reliable sources though.

 

[Jogre]

Only things you disagree with or don't like

That's neither contradictory nor hypocritical.

Surely you are in favour of bills you disagree with being overturned and bills you agree with being maintained right?, That's how politics works, you want the things you agree with to stay and the things you don't to go.

If a bill you disagreed with was made last year, you'd want it overturned or amended, so why not a bill made 200 years ago?

I simply apply the same logic to all bills and laws regardless of how long they've been affect for.

But crime has been going down in the US without a gun ban. I'd post a chart but it would most likely be met with Sorry but it doesn't meet my preferred pixel size, better luck next time kiddo.

Nice, you are strawmanning me now.

My point is that simply relying on a document in place of all arguments doesn't show why the world would be better if we adhered to it.

If you posted actual statistics I would be interested.

Also, you say crime has been going down even without gun control, but does that prove that gun control would have no affect?, Surely if crime goes down anyway, but gun control would further reduce homicide rates(Note the homicide and gun homicide statistics I posted earlier in this thread) then it'd still be somewhat worthwhile.

"if it saves 1 life, its worth it!"

you are aware that given current numbers, guns save FAR more lives than they take every year?

If you are able to provide a reliable source on that I will change my stance completely.

a babies brain is developed within the first trimester and begins to function along with the heart and other internal organs. babies have been born as early as 21/22 weeks and survived thanks to modern medicine. that is within the 2nd tri-mester. as you live in the UK, the limit is 24 weeks from what i was able to find. the babies brain and heart are working at 10-12 weeks, so you are actually wrong in the "braindead for the entire period they can be aborted" part. oops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_perception
"Also in 2005, David Mellor and colleagues reviewed several lines of evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time in the womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain simply extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He questions the value of such data: Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however, that there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially incorrect. He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2 in both human and animal fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both sedated and anesthetized when in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with the newborn's first few breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing consciousness to occur."

"the scientific consensus is that a fetus "is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester", which "begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy".

So not only do fetuses develop the ability to feel pain, an incredibly basic response, 27 weeks in, but they are basically unconcious.

A fetus is less able to react to the world around it than even a chicken. Why then a fetus should be granted even the same let alone more rights than a chicken is beyond me.

but the point of this question, you are in favor of a single person condemning another person to death.

I feel like the term "person" is misleading.

To clarify this, I think we should judge it in terms of whether something should ethically be granted personhood.

Ethically speaking, I do not believe a foetus is anywhere near as worthy of moral consideration as a fully-grown, rational being.

but against 12 people determining a persons crimes to be so heinous they are not worth even attempting to rehabilitate and that society would be better off without them?

That is not at all what I said.

If there were ways to fully rehabilitate a former murderer quickly and put them back in to society, I'd be totally in favour.

That being said, I am not entirely convinced that every murder can be rehabilitated, and if there's next to no chance, I would see the practical advantages to ridding the world of this person instead of wasting a life sentence's worth of resources on them.

she used lethal force without exhausting all other options. by your standard, she is guilty of a double homicide. by our standards in the US, she is innocent of any crime. which is why no charges were ever brought against her. in your country, she would go to jail.

You raise an incredibly valid point.

If there is risk of genuine bodily harm from not exhausting all options, I can understand why you'd need to shoot back.

I'd consider it murder if you just shot any old intruder that came in to your house, or someone who was running, or were at a far enough distance that you could have first given them the chance to back down.

However in a scenario when you are in close range with two intruders with crowbars, and could be severely hurt if you don't shoot, I'd understand shooting, and consider it acceptable.

 

[Buxbaum666]

However in a scenario when you are in close range with two intruders with crowbars, and could be severely hurt if you don't shoot, I'd understand shooting, and consider it acceptable.

See my post above, there was only one intruder. He did use a crowbar to gain entry but the circumstances of the story are greatly exaggerated to better fit his POV.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Curious if TheGM would have been one of those people that argued for slavery some 200 years ago, cuz it was in the constitutionz!

A fetus is less able to react to the world around it than even a chicken. Why then a fetus should be granted even the same let alone more rights than a chicken is beyond me.

Because what ever it is, it is not about live when they talk about anti-abortion.

It is strange when you think about it. Many pro-lifers want to protect the 'life' of the unborn child at all costs, but at the sime time want to scrap everything that actually might be any kind of support to the mother and the child later. So the baby can grow up in the worst conditions, that's OK, as long it's born at all! That's not pro-life that's anti women.

 

[TheGM]

Also it seems that the USA has been having a decline in violent crime for years now, but and increase in gun related deaths , I will have to search more to see if I can get any reliable sources though.

Most likely to do with the unreported gang wars going on. lot of them lost their power bases when the city project buildings got torn down over the last decade and a half and they had to reassert control over their territory. now they just shoot each other.

Also, you say crime has been going down even without gun control, but does that prove that gun control would have no affect?, Surely if crime goes down anyway, but gun control would further reduce homicide rates(Note the homicide and gun homicide statistics I posted earlier in this thread) then it'd still be somewhat worthwhile.

The Assault Rifle ban did nothing because crime with assault rifles is like 1% of all gun crime. The places with the longest running hand gun bans had higher crime.

Curious if TheGM would have been one of those people that argued for slavery some 200 years ago, cuz it was in the constitutionz!

But it was never in the constitution.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Then why did the states secede? As the South, at least according to people following the so called 'Lost cause', they saw their 'constutional rights' in danger ... I quote:

The 5th Amendment
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Do you believe the Souths secession was just? Their 'motivation' was certainly only to protect their constitutional rights, to defend their property, which conviently for them a slave was only defined as three-fifths of a person. While the slave trade was outlawed shortly before the civil war, the ownership of slaves, certainly was not.

Of course, we all know that slave owners simply wanted to protect their wealth and keep their slaves. But one argument they made, was that they protected their 'property', as a constitutional right. Anyway, the civil war and slavery show that changes to the consitution can happen, when the times and societies change.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Secession is a self-evident rejection of constitutional and federal authority. The rest is just noise. The CSA wrote their own constitution.

 

[Hassknecht]

Two people shot in church discussing the shooting at the church.
http://wncn.com/2017/11/16/2-accidentally-shot-at-church-during-church-shooting-discussion/
Trigger discipline? Ain't nobody got time for that, there could be terrorists around!
Seriously though, stuff like that is why many want to restrict guns so much. They're dangerous in the hands of idiots, and there are a LOT of idiots around. And very few know that they're idiots.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And very few know that they're idiots.

I'm not so sure about that though ...

 

[Hassknecht]

I'm not so sure about that though ...

Everbody knows that 90% of the people around them are idiots. But very few understand that they're part of the 90% idiots others see.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Gotcha. Dunning Kruger Effect!

 

[Risewild]

I forgot this thread existed .

Well, now that I noticed it is here, I also noticed no one mentioned that just three days ago there was another shooting, this one in California. Four dead.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/14/northern-california-shooting-deaths-school

 

[Crni Vuk]

Do people in the US even care at this point if it's not 40+ casualties or a muslim shooter?

 

[MutantScalper]

Do people in the US even care at this point if it's not 40+ casualties or a muslim shooter?

Well the people affected by these incidents care about it. Most shootings are 'small' shootings with less than 4 dead or wounded. If its 4 or more dead or wounded it's classed as a mass shooting. Not that it makes a big difference though. Especially if they are in the impoverished black community.

I read that the Vegas shooter actually had altogether 50 firearms, all legal I guess. So one guy can acquire at least 50 guns which could all be semiauto assault rifles. So two guys could, over a certain time period I guess, get at least 100 assault rifles. Then distribute those guns to a group of what is basically a military company (~ 100 guys) and you have a formidable fighting force. No real need to even make the assault rifles full auto because you don't really even need full auto that much.

I hope for example El Chapo's friends don't get the idea to cause trouble in US because they could if they wanted.

 

[Risewild]

We got to admire the capitalism in America. They turned school safety into a business model:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/18/school-shootings-security-industry

 

[Deleted member 53669]

My subjective 2 cents based on objective facts up to this point.

America needs to be more like Europe and Europe needs to be more like America.

Gun rights and personal responsibility/individuality can't be seen as just an "American" thing, that way other countries can call out America on it's bullshit. Like it's exploitative and isolating capitalist culture and horrible mental health infrastructure.

Then why did the states secede? As the South, at least according to people following the so called 'Lost cause', they saw their 'constutional rights' in danger ... I quote:

The 5th Amendment
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Do you believe the Souths secession was just? Their 'motivation' was certainly only to protect their constitutional rights, to defend their property, which conviently for them a slave was only defined as three-fifths of a person. While the slave trade was outlawed shortly before the civil war, the ownership of slaves, certainly was not.

Of course, we all know that slave owners simply wanted to protect their wealth and keep their slaves. But one argument they made, was that they protected their 'property', as a constitutional right. Anyway, the civil war and slavery show that changes to the consitution can happen, when the times and societies change.

This country has fallen so far away from it's base ideals that arguing about it is useless. This country will look like Brazil in about 40 years because it's been taken over by big business.

It needs such an overhaul to get back to the ideas of the Bill of Rights and Constitution that to do so it would end up looking like Ukraine does right now.

For now it will just be a soup of bureaucratic bullshit designed to give the wealthy power and make certain groups feel better to make sure that the corporate control does not end.


We have a very antagonistic and isolationist culture in the United States which is the root of all the problems right now. In Norway for example, it is seen as doing the best thing having the wealthy and lower-classes live together happily with opportunities because it makes a better place to live overall.

In America it's all about "winning" and to win someone else has to lose. It's a hobby for the rich to drive around in expensive cars in slums and poor neighborhoods. It's called "Trolling", and is where the term started. To make yourself feel superior to those around you. It's how you get poor women to suck you off and be your secretary. If you're a woman and want to work for a powerful firm chances are it's because you're being sexually exploited.

For example, there is a dutch political party that I align with called the Democrats 66. They have policies that will never ever see the light of day in the United States. Like being for both low taxes and abortion rights.

There is no party here in America that supports that "A party that is considered legitimate". You're either pro-life to the point of being a rabid extremist and for low taxes, or for social rights and for raising taxes. There are no concessions and to make any is being a traitor to your political party. The reason it is that way is because the corporate structure targets those who are less intelligent and more emotional to exploit them. On the left, most have more money and do not start their own businesses so they are less likely to feel that raising taxes is a bad thing, and want more rights for themselves and to take away the rights of those poorer than they are, who are not in the "elite".

Which is why the majority of people in this country do not vote.

It's a rigged system that encourages people to attack each other rather than go after the law makers and business interests, and it works pretty well for them.

So it doesn't surprise me there are so many homicides and mass shootings here. Guns or not, the violence and sickness of society is evident.

And it's not only totally American "In the original sense" and morally right to stock up on firearms and live in isolation in the middle of the woods, it's the only smart thing to do. Otherwise you will in some way be exploited.

It's a catch 22 that people on the Alt-Right like Alex Jones and Donald Trump like to exploit to give them political power, no matter the policy. It's all fake news. The globalists want your daughters organs. They are all demons. Ect. Ect.

It's the product of a failed revolution. The CIA killed all the resistance groups in the 60's and 70's during the hunt for communists.

In Switzerland there are less guns overall, but every single home has a firearm. A Fully automatic military assault rifle. This is not a problem because of the culture and structure of Swiss society.

I would advise people that any group that tries to disarm the population without representation "Like this is a college town and there are no places for firearms or we don't want someone to hit the nuclear reactor next door ect." that they are either ignorant and reactive "Making them poor legislators" or are corrupt and trying to take away your power and personal human rights.

 

[Gizmojunk]

 

[Carib FMJ]

Governments have proven to be ineffective in keeping their citizens safe but very adept in mass murder.

I am for having more training and firearm awareness, because it seems those nuts who like to mass murder go for areas where they know that no one can resist them. Having a weapon is a choice and responsibility and it seems the folks in Switzerland and the Czech Republic got guns to spare. If you do not like firearms, fine. But if they are all taken away, look at Australia - nice lucrative black market trade and punishing folks for defending harth and home.

I like the idea I can fight back if my Government does decide I should go on the cattle cart.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

I don't have energy to fully go into the details, but I have an idea on how a society involving guns should work.

Fully Volunteer Professional Army, no conscription, draft only legal if an enemy occupies friendly territory.

Get rid of macho-gun culture. In highschool, the last 2 years are a basic version of ROTC. Lax, very slack. No yelling or screaming just positive reinforcement and competitiveness. Educate population on military subjects, firearms, basic war-fighting, tactics, strategy, history, ethics, ect.

If you don't want kids going out and buying guns because it's "Cool" or makes them feel "powerful", put them in school and make the subject boring as hell. Have instructors watching the roost of chickens like a hawk and make safety and positive attitude the highest priority.

Putting firearms into the curriculum that is already required in public school, along with mental well-being education will go a long way to sort this mess out.

However public paramilitaries have a tendency of pacifying the public because everyone wants to be an operator before you have to do some operator shit and spend 48 hours digging a hole into limestone. The draft caused regular people into the armed forces, causing the end of the Vietnam War. You have to have an agreed upon social and moral contract for using state sanctioned violence with the general populace. Doing that would cut down the numbers Haliburton and Phiser will be able to bribe and brainwash into their mercenary forces, so of course you have to fight political corruption first, or trick the elites into thinking this will benefit them.

They will also be afraid if the people have the ability to form their own militias. You're living in a dream if you think the U.S. still abides by the constitution. The tyranny has already instituted itself, slowly over time like a frog slowly boiling in a pot.