Gun Control Discussion

[Time the Crestfallen]

Since the election thread keeps coming back to this topic, here's a thread specifically for gun control and gun control-related issues. Discuss away my friends!

EDIT: Discussion started:

What is your stance on gun control?

Why do you hold that belief?

Is gun control effective at reducing crime?

If not, what do you think is a more appropriate alternative?

Edited September 14, 2016 by Phillius

[Res]

For reference, I've lived in both the UK and the U.S.

I love it. I'm all for tight gun control. I see no need for ownership of guns outside of hunting. I felt so much safer in the UK, especially with a demilitarized police force (my brother's a police officer and I'm not even sure he's touched a gun). That being said; I fully understand that the U.S. is vastly different, culturally, and a ban here would not work. It's not the solution.

So my answer to your third question is: Yes, depending on the country's culture and history with guns.

I don't know what the solution is in the U.S. What I'd like to see is heavier penalties/restrictions on certain types of firearms. I would also love to see a change in the weapons police carry and the way they tackle crimes (that's a whole other topic in itself). I also think changing depictions in popular media would have to occur, too. But no matter what I think you'd be looking at decades of work to change attitudes in the U.S. Between guns & the healthcare here, I pretty much kick myself every day for leaving the UK.

[Captain Karnage]

I'm ok with people having fire arms

but I think we need to make them harder to get, like

banning gun shows as you can sell firearms to people without doing a background check

none of this, your background check wasn't able to go through the state "here you go"

you can't purchase one if you have been convicted of a violent crime

not really, I think it could only make it worse by creating a black market for them

I believe I need my elephant rifle JIC of an elephant stampede were to happen here in TN, you never know when you're going to need an elephant rifle

[Moblin Major General]

1. Absolutely not. There are a lot of scary things in this world, not least the Feds.

2. I was raised to not trust government as far as I could throw it. If they have the capability, they have that power.

3. If it was, would every major city in the US that has done gun control be having the murder rate issues?

4. Media reform. The only reason gun control is even on the table. So much of the media is uneducated on firearms that it turns into the blind leading the blind. If the misinformation is curtailed, the fearmongering against guns will lessen to a large enough extent that gun controllers will have no credence. Also, increase penalties for gun crimes to the standard of making meth while living with children, or 25 years plus loss of custody. Harsh, but when a misplaced shot leads to the death penalty, it's not cruel and unusual to punish crimes that use guns.

[Tryhard]

What is your stance on gun control?

If there are less guns in circulation, then obviously there is going to be less gun crimes. Gun control is a good idea that works for many countries.

Pretty much as Res said, it's hard to say that a complete ban would would work in the US, and I assume that's what we're discussing as opposed to as it is in other countries. It would be very hard to just remove guns from circulation because there because there is more guns than residents in the US.

Why do you hold that belief?

Other countries that haven't had a fanatical attachment to guns have seen a decrease in gun homicides and gun shootings since they have taken steps to do so.

On the subject of a black market, though, it probably doesn't help if a culture is addicted to guns. Prohibiting it outright like alcohol or drugs may not work in countries like this. Common sense gun regulation should always be on the table, though, as the US free-for-all blocking all possible gun regulations is a farce.

Is gun control effective at reducing crime?

Yes, but other factors have to be considered too.

If not, what do you think is a more appropriate alternative?

Better mental health services and a reformed attitude on crime prevention. The reason why this won't happen in the US is because firearms make a large amount of profit, guns are an unfortunate part of their culture, and nobody "benefits" from attempting to help mentally ill people.

[Nobody]

I'm not a fan of how easy it is to get a gun in the USA, but I don't really have any problem with controlled and regulated gun ownership being allowed, though it's not something i'd really want in my own country, since guns are not a part of our culture (unless in the hands of criminals <_>).

On the matter of crime rate, i legitimately believe gun laws aren't nearly as relevant to it as many people, on both sides of the discussion, believe, with the exception of mass shootings, which while tragic aren't a high porcentage of homicides, even in the USA. I think that there are other more effective ways of lowering crime rate other than by just banning guns, as seem by the plummet in murder rate the USA saw in the early 90s, for exemple.

Other countries that haven't had a fanatical attachment to guns have seen a decrease in gun homicides and gun shootings since they have taken steps to do so.On the subject of a black market, though, it probably doesn't help if a culture is addicted to guns.

Not in my country. In fact it has increased here.

Australia is often brught as an exemple of decreased murder rates due to full gun banning, but if you look at a chart of murder rate x year, you will see that it had started to decrease a couple of years before the ban

Edited September 14, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Tryhard]

Not in my country. In fact it has increased here.

Australia is often brught as an exemple of decreased murder rates due to full gun banning, but if you look at a chart of murder rate x year, you will see that it had started to decrease a couple of years before the ban

We were discussing this in the other thread, Phillius brought up these, which makes me think that isn't the case for Australia. With all due respect, Brazil isn't exactly a stable country in which many South American countries have homicide rates above the US. Like I said, other factors need to considered too.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

http://d3bo5ucoqkgs8h.cloudfront.net/yXObk/1/

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

We were discussing this in the other thread, Phillius brought up these, which makes me think that isn't the case for Australia. With all due respect, Brazil isn't exactly a stable country in which many South American countries have homicide rates above the US. Like I said, other factors need to considered too.http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australiahttp://d3bo5ucoqkgs8h.cloudfront.net/yXObk/1/

I agree that Brazil isn't an stable country and we have a big crime problem, but like, in that site, it's possible to see that the gun homice rate in Australia halved between 1988 and 1995. The increase in 1996 was due to the mass shooting, which changed the murder rate due to the fact that there were few murders in first place (just like the island shooting in norway multiplied its murder rate by 3 the year it happened). Can you post data for other countries before and after gun bans? It's something i'm legitimately interested in seeing, because my position in this subject is very subject to change, and every argument i see about gun bans lowering murder rate always bring up Australia, and only Australia.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Refa]

Guys, I think we need to shift this discussion off of gun control and onto the underlying issues that lead to shootings. What is it about people who perpetuate these crimes that makes them so violent? I didn't do any research on the subject whatsoever, but judging from general media reaction, it's definitely mental illnesses. How can we treat their mental illnesses so that there are less shootings?

Edited September 14, 2016 by Refa

[Tryhard]

It seems more to me that there was just a higher number of gun homicides in 1988 than the homicide rate being higher, perhaps due to a mass shooting that I'm unfamiliar with? The average seems to be about 0.45 and it has decreased from that.

I would say the UK, but it's hard to find statistics that predate 1996, in which firearm deaths were higher than they have been since due to the massacre that caused the laws. Japan is an example of minuscule firearm deaths, but of course they always didn't really have any tolerance for weapons.

This was an interesting article, and it does highlight the counterarguments (it can be inconclusive about how long it takes to impact) and other possibilities, such as how Germany has a lot of weapons but how they maintain a lesser firearm death rate.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control

[Nobody]

That the guardian article and the charts in it made me consider my opinion even more solid. After the gun ban, England and Wales saw a increase followed by a drop in gun crime. The plummeting of murder rate in Australia began in 1987 rather than 96 and the high firearm murder rate in 1988 was the norm before it, rather than an outlier, mass shootings appear to be the only sort of crime significantly affected by those sort of bans. In a country with so many mass shootings as the USA, it's definitely something worth considering, but i don't think its murder rate as a whole, considerably higher than other first world countries, would be significantly impacted.

But yeah, i do find it ridiculous how a mentally unheatly person can easily get a gun and cause a mass shooting in the US, and i think tighter regulation is something that would be great for that country even if the overall murder rate wouldn't particularly decrease by much. Mass shootings are way more shocking than average homicides

Edited September 14, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Res]

Guys, I think we need to shift this discussion off of gun control and onto the underlying issues that lead to shootings. What is it about people who perpetuate these crimes that makes them so violent? I didn't do any research on the subject whatsoever, but judging from general media reaction, it's definitely mental illnesses. How can we treat their mental illnesses so that there are less shootings?

The prevalence of (diagnosed) mental illnesses amongst shooters is actually lower than in the general population.

I'm not saying mental illness doesn't deserve a closer look and better treatment; it does. But to blame mental illness entirely is a scapegoat. This is especially true if you're looking at gun violence in general, and not just mass shootings. A lot of shootings occur after arguments, in the heat of the moment; the shooter just happened to have a gun to hand. You've probably also heard the statistic that toddlers shot more people in 2015 than mass shooters did (which is true); accidental deaths are another big issue.

Honestly, firearms are so entangled in the American psyche that identifying all the underlying issues is hard. The use of firearms on TV shows, the assumption that a home with a firearm is a safer home, all the gun shows, the way news is reported on, the history of the U.S., the higher-stress lifestyle...

[Tryhard]

How does a temporary increase (and then higher decrease) after the gun ban show anything other than it takes time for the changes to be effective? There was still a lot of guns in circulation at that time. As for Australia, I'm still not convinced, the average homicide rate has still dropped by a fairly significant amount, and you could easily chalk decreasing trends to periods of unrest before it.

And I don't think the homicide rate would change significantly without America tackling its other problems, not that it really would happen anyway. I do agree with what you said about mental health and mass shootings for the rest.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

How does a temporary increase (and then higher decrease) after the gun ban show anything other than it takes time for the changes to be effective? There was still a lot of guns in circulation at that time. As for Australia, I'm still not convinced, the average homicide rate has still dropped by a fairly significant amount, and you could easily chalk decreasing trends to periods of unrest before it.And I don't think the homicide rate would change significantly without America tackling its other problems, not that it really would happen anyway. I do agree with what you said about mental health and mass shootings though.

It took England 10 years for gun crime to get as low as it was before the ban. I don't see any relation between the ban and the low crime rates in the country over 10 years latter. On the matter of Australia, the 1987~1995 drop is very similar to the 1997~2005 one, with the exception being 96, and even then, if what you said about gun bans taking time to take effect is true wouldn't that mean the Australian gun homicide rate drop would be even less related to the ban? I'm trying but i don't see how these graphics correlate gun ban to lower crime rates

Edited September 14, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Tryhard]

It took England 10 years for gun crime to get as low as it was before the ban. I don't see any relation between the ban and the low crime rates in the country over 10 years latter.

On the matter of Australia, the 1987~1995 drop is very similar to the 1997~2005 one, with the exception being 96, and even then, if what you said about gun bans taking time to take effect is true wouldn't that mean the Australian gun homicide rate drop would be even less related to the ban? I'm trying but i don't see how these graphics correlate gun ban to lower crime rates

The UK homicide rate with guns definitely decreased. As for other crimes, it needs to be paired with a higher enforcement like Australia did. I will grant that the UK is not as good an example as Australia, which is why that is usually the one used, but it has still shown a decrease in the murder (and eventually other crime) rate with guns in the 20 year period since it was implemented. However, there really was not a lot of guns in the UK before the ban and citizens didn't have a particular fondness for weaponry, so this may have affected the statistics. I would say most British people contribute their low homicide with gun (and perhaps even homicides and crimes in general) rates to the banning of guns.

Depends on how the buyback program is. I believe the mandatory gun buyback plan from Australia was far more overreaching and quickly implemented.

For example, the graph here. Linking it only because the article is paywalled.

You could also say that the % drop from a paper by Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill (http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf) that "the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness." is irrelevant because there was a relatively low (but still noticeable) amount of gun homicides in Australia to begin with.

You could say that the decreasing prior crime rate (which may or may not be fluctating) could also be an indication that crime rate was dropping regardless.

Professor Simon Chapman, who wrote 'Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013' said that “We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”

To dismiss either or both of these seems unreasonable to a degree. Anyway, I don't really have an interest in discussing gun control at length, I've already done so before and it never really gets anywhere, and it's not as if America is really going to do anything anyway so it's a relatively pointless discussion.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

The problem I find with the gun issue is one of ignorance.

Don't take this as an insult. But generally, people who have never touched a gun in their lives will usually argue against guns.

My favourite issue is "well it's easy to get a gun". Not really. Background checks are mandatory by federal law and they work. Remember the reporter from the Chicago Sun Times? He was denied a gun because of his background check (domestic abuse).

What needs to be pointed out is that gun control laws only affect those who follow the law in the first place. If a bad guy wants a gun, he'll get one illegally. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the countries and some of the most crime (in proportion because when Raven responded to this in the last thread, he missed those words).

I'll keep going later on busting common myths because I have used many different type of guns and have been shooting since age 10.

[UNLEASH IT]

The problem I find with the gun issue is one of ignorance.

Don't take this as an insult. But generally, people who have never touched a gun in their lives will usually argue against guns.

My favourite issue is "well it's easy to get a gun". Not really. Background checks are mandatory by federal law and they work. Remember the reporter from the Chicago Sun Times? He was denied a gun because of his background check (domestic abuse).

What needs to be pointed out is that gun control laws only affect those who follow the law in the first place. If a bad guy wants a gun, he'll get one illegally. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the countries and some of the most crime (in proportion because when Raven responded to this in the last thread, he missed those words).

I'll keep going later on busting common myths because I have used many different type of guns and have been shooting since age 10.

This is something I've considered when discussing total gun control. In the case of gun crimes, what percentage are committed with illegally purchased guns? And if said percentage is very high, what good will gun control do?

[Lord Raven]

What needs to be pointed out is that gun control laws only affect those who follow the law in the first place. If a bad guy wants a gun, he'll get one illegally. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the countries and some of the most crime (in proportion because when Raven responded to this in the last thread, he missed those words).

Too bad you missed everything I said about attaching context to these stats.

Wyoming is a rural area. Chicago has a greater population and primarily urban. Which is more likely to have gun crime?

Illinois is filled with urban and suburban areas which tend to have significantly greater gun crime than a place that is basically entirely rural. Wyoming doesn't have a lot of gun crimes because people want to defend themselves against people; it's so they can defend against animals and hunt for food. Illinois has gun laws simply because of the amount of gun crime that goes on. In fact, why don't you dig up statistics on gun crime in Illinois before and after gun laws were enacted to strengthen your point?

This is another case of the "correlation-causation" fallacy you are applying.

My favourite issue is "well it's easy to get a gun". Not really. Background checks are mandatory by federal law and they work. Remember the reporter from the Chicago Sun Times? He was denied a gun because of his background check (domestic abuse).

This is factually incorrect. http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/federal-law/gun-dealers-other-sellers/private-sales/

Read this whole thing and get back to us. Your statement only applies to federally licensed firearms dealers, it does not have nearly as stingy requirements when it comes to private sellers. This is a fact we've been trying to tell you, yet you keep denying it and going on your soapbox. This is not a myth, and you are not busting it. There is no universal standard for a background check unless the firearms dealers are federally licensed, and there are loopholes.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Res]

The problem I find with the gun issue is one of ignorance.

Don't take this as an insult. But generally, people who have never touched a gun in their lives will usually argue against guns.

Well, yeah. Because people who don't own guns obviously see no need for guns in their life. (I myself have shot a rifle, although it was only for one session a long time ago). And several countries have proven that guns are not a necessity in society.

[Rezzy]

I swear we had this discussion a few weeks/months ago.

Guns are too ingrained into the culture of most of America to have any sort of comprehensive ban. I grew up in rural Illinois, and more people had guns than didn't. The sound of gunfire at my house was a regular occurrence during deer season, which is practically a holiday here.

I've worked in hospitals in both Chicago, St. Louis, and the rural midwest. In the cities, we treated gun shot victims pretty much every day. In the rural hospitals, it's pretty rare, and most of those are accidentally self-inflicted. I remember my first week, in the ER I had a guy who shot himself in the foot with a shot-gun, shattering his 2nd-4th metatarsal.

The problem with enacting a urban exclusive ban is that it's not enforceable. If gun sales are illegal in Chicago, they can just drive south down I-55 and buy them there, before driving back into the city. True gun control would require the entire country to have the same laws, and the rural community won't stand for that.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Rezzy

[Time the Crestfallen]

I swear we had this discussion a few weeks/months ago.

Mhmm, the Night Club in Orlando topic. Gun control keeps coming up in the election thread though, so I made a new topic for this.

[Rezzy]

Mhmm, the Night Club in Orlando topic. Gun control keeps coming up in the election thread though, so I made a new topic for this.

I see. I generally avoid that topic and the election coverage in general, since I'm not a fan of either major candidate. Being a libertarian primarily, I don't neatly fit into either side, so both hate me.

[Tryhard]

tbh there is quite a few there that don't particularly like either candidate lol.

I did bring up the whole state laws being pretty useless considering you could just bring guns into places like Chicago there and it would need to be federal-wide.

[Rezzy]

tbh there is quite a few there that don't particularly like either candidate lol.

I did bring up the whole state laws being pretty useless considering you could just bring guns into places like Chicago there and it would need to be federal-wide.

Yeah, I think I said something similar a few posts back, without having seen your argument. I don't think rural areas would allow such a law, but if were to be effective at all, that would be the only way to make it work, not that I think it's a good idea.

For the two major candidates, I just don't trust them. Trump seems to be a wild card, while Hillary has a track record of Machiavellianism. As a member of the LGBT community, I'm ashamed to see the way many of us fall for her being on our side. A decade ago, when she had the chance to actually make a difference, she was against LGBT rights. Now that the battle is already won, she tries to act like she's all for us and had been all along. I'm not buying it, sister.

[Life]

Too bad you missed everything I said about attaching context to these stats.

Wyoming is a rural area. Chicago has a greater population and primarily urban. Which is more likely to have gun crime?

Illinois is filled with urban and suburban areas which tend to have significantly greater gun crime than a place that is basically entirely rural. Wyoming doesn't have a lot of gun crimes because people want to defend themselves against people; it's so they can defend against animals and hunt for food. Illinois has gun laws simply because of the amount of gun crime that goes on. In fact, why don't you dig up statistics on gun crime in Illinois before and after gun laws were enacted to strengthen your point?

This is another case of the "correlation-causation" fallacy you are applying.

This is factually incorrect. http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/federal-law/gun-dealers-other-sellers/private-sales/

Read this whole thing and get back to us. Your statement only applies to federally licensed firearms dealers, it does not have nearly as stingy requirements when it comes to private sellers. This is a fact we've been trying to tell you, yet you keep denying it and going on your soapbox. This is not a myth, and you are not busting it. There is no universal standard for a background check unless the firearms dealers are federally licensed, and there are loopholes.

Back for more myth busting!

With regards to Illinois comments, I don't think you get the idea that criminals do not care about gun control laws. It's hilarious that I even need to state something like this because I thought it would be obvious.

As for causation, I'm not using correlation to prove anything because I already know what the causation is. But I am pointing out the correlation between more strict gun control and level of crime per capita. You don't need to be a genius to realize that gun control laws don't apply to criminals based on this premise.

Oh, you wanted statistics? Sure. Chicago is listed here with before and after gun control laws that were implemented.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

As for saying that I was factually false, I looked into your site. And I found a few interesting things.

1) That Mayors Against Illegal Guns is quoted as a reputible source. Which it isn't but we'll let it slide.

2) This case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-skirt-background-checks.html

Now remember that everything later in the article especially the "19 out of 30" bit is reported in a study... on behalf of Michael Bloomberg. Who has funded many campaigns to eliminate guns in totality and has forged data and claims in order to get there (see the controversy regarding John Lott and Katie Couric).

Strangly enough, Bloomberg also runs Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Now I ain't saying that it's circular evidence but... well, let's just say that facts do get twisted here to fit the narrative.

Long story short, your source relies on someone who has gone out of their way to lie in order to take guns out of law abiding citizen's hands.

BUT!

I'll meet you halfway. Let's assume that your source is 100% credible. Am I willing to eliminate private sales? Not a problem. But in return, you conceed that A) background checks are mandatory for reputable gun dealers and B) that states perform more background checks than the NICS as per FBI reports.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

Or you could always go out and buy a gun. I'll even gift you a gun online to prove a point. We can do it through ar15.com.

Hell, I'll go and check out how much it costs. That way, I can show you that I'm willing to drop my own money to prove a point and you get to learn practically about guns.