Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Phatscotty]

We aren't too concerned how a bunch of blokes think our Constitution should be or how we should live. No offense

[stahrgazer]

I know that, but that historical context and intent tend to mean little or nothing to the people who want to reinterpret everything the Constitution says. At least if it had specifically said "individuals", there would be one fewer area for people who want to take away rights to go after.

True, and true. Of course, "their" argument is that we no longer need a militia in the old sense because we now have a regular army that taxpayers fund, rather than civilian volunteers who have to bring their own equipment. We also have National Guard and other branches of services, but again, they don't have to bring their own equipment. That means, the reason the Founding Fathers put in writing for the right of people to keep and bear arms no longer exists. What remains, is freedom.

Sentimentally, I understand those who think that banning guns would stop - or at least inhibit - the types of things we saw at Columbine, other Universities, a movie theater, and now a freakin' kindergarten/gradeschool. It's a knee-jerk, "gotta do something," reaction with some very powerful emotion behind it.

My point is, you cannot legislate against "crazy." A person crazy enough to shoot near-babies or adult strangers is a person crazy enough to find another way to do it. Historically we can see that people did find other ways to do their nutsoid things without guns. Not only did they, but they still do. It's why it's harder for farmers to buy fertilizer, because the nitrates and phosphates can be used in making bombs. But someone crazy enough to do it will either slowly buy enough fertilizer or heck, make their own.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[crispybits]

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Which would you rather be the victim of PS, a violent crime that leaves you alive or a murder?

Would you rather take a shot thru the head, or be in a wheel chair with permanent brain damage for the rest of your life, knowing that some stranger did that to you for the 17$ in your pocket?

If the potential victimhas a gun with them, odds are they will be able to defend themself in both cases.

Really hard to find up to date stats on this stuff... but here's some from 1992-1998 in the USA (and I don't see any major factors that would have changed this significantly)

- Nearly 1 in 5 injured violent crime victims, or an average of just under 480,000 persons per year, were treated in an emergency department or hospital for violence-related injuries.
- Of the violent crimes measured by the NCVS, a higher percentage involved injury when committed by an intimate partner (48%) or a family member (32%) than when committed by a stranger (20%).
- Between 1992 to 1998, 72% of the average annual 21,232 homicide victims age 12 or older were killed with a firearm

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=997

Nearly 1 in 5 hospitalised, which means there's over an 80% chance you won't even need hospital treatment. Of those that do require hospital treatment the majority are either going to be for lacerations needing stitches or broken bones. The percentage of violent crimes that leave you a vegetable in a wheelchair is tiny.

Compare that to firearm injuries, where there is a 1 in 5.3 chance you will die (52,000 deliberate injuries vs 12,000 deliberate deaths)

As for the self-defence bit:

OBJECTIVE:Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS:We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS:During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS:Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

[thegreekdog]

And I really don't get this logic. "We can make a huge dent in the problem, but not 100% solve it, so unless we can 100% solve it let's just not bother trying to do anything at all"

Yeah, I understand that.

What I don't understand is why the immediate response is to ban guns and not to prosecute criminals and prevent crime in the first place, or address the causes of crime in the first place. Guns don't cause people to kill others; they are a tool used, in the same way as a knife or blunt object or poison. Drunk drivers kill people. Do we ban alcohol or cars? No, we prosecute drunk drivers for breaking that particular law.

And yes, I understand that guns are horrible and used only to kill things (animals or people).

[thegreekdog]

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 17,941 people died in alcohol-related collissions in 2006. That is more than was killed (suicide, accident, or murder) by guns in the United States in 2004. Should we ban alcohol, cars, or both?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driv ... Statistics

[crispybits]

The immediate response is to ban guns because the majority of the rest of the world has moved on from the time where everyone is armed to a time when weapons designed as weapons are highly restricted, and with the exceptions of a few places with other significant cultural problems combined with a proximity to large legal gun markets for ease of illegal import the rest of the world has seen deaths caused by crime drop dramatically. We all still have murderers true, but we have a lot less per capita because either you have to get deep enough into the criminal world to be trusted by them to sell you a gun (it really is a big deal here, I'm pretty sure I know who I could ask who would know someone who knows someone, but it would be something really massive for me to start asking, and more likely than not I wouldn't get anywhere with those enquiries), or you have to commit the murder some other way which would nearly all require you getting up close and personal and beating someone to death or cutting them, which is a whole difference psychological experience to standing several feet away and pulling a small lever.

I'm off to bed now so I'm not going back to google for yet more stats but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of attempted murders requiring physical contact fail because when it actually comes to driving a knife into someone or hitting someone with a heavy object most people will not strike properly, either through lack of training or a lack of a real will to kill.

As for the drink driving thing, drink driving is banned. Is drinking while concealed carrying banned? Isn't that massively more dangerous to others?

[thegreekdog]

The immediate response is to ban guns because the majority of the rest of the world has moved on from the time where everyone is armed to a time when weapons designed as weapons are highly restricted, and with the exceptions of a few places with other significant cultural problems combined with a proximity to large legal gun markets for ease of illegal import the rest of the world has seen deaths caused by crime drop dramatically. We all still have murderers true, but we have a lot less per capita because either you have to get deep enough into the criminal world to be trusted by them to sell you a gun (it really is a big deal here, I'm pretty sure I know who I could ask who would know someone who knows someone, but it would be something really massive for me to start asking, and more likely than not I wouldn't get anywhere with those enquiries), or you have to commit the murder some other way which would nearly all require you getting up close and personal and beating someone to death or cutting them, which is a whole difference psychological experience to standing several feet away and pulling a small lever.

I'm off to bed now so I'm not going back to google for yet more stats but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of attempted murders requiring physical contact fail because when it actually comes to driving a knife into someone or hitting someone with a heavy object most people will not strike properly, either through lack of training or a lack of a real will to kill.

As for the drink driving thing, drink driving is banned. Is drinking while concealed carrying banned? Isn't that massively more dangerous to others?

The activity of driving while under the influence of alcohol is illegal. The two items which contribute to deaths related to illegally drunk driving are vehicles and alcohol.

The activity of killing someone with a gun is illegal. The item which contributes to deaths related to illegal gun deaths is a gun.

Why would we ban guns and not alcohol or cars? And if the answer is that cars are more useful than guns, why do we not ban alcohol? That serves no more useful purpose than guns, right?

[AAFitz]

The immediate response is to ban guns because the majority of the rest of the world has moved on from the time where everyone is armed to a time when weapons designed as weapons are highly restricted, and with the exceptions of a few places with other significant cultural problems combined with a proximity to large legal gun markets for ease of illegal import the rest of the world has seen deaths caused by crime drop dramatically. We all still have murderers true, but we have a lot less per capita because either you have to get deep enough into the criminal world to be trusted by them to sell you a gun (it really is a big deal here, I'm pretty sure I know who I could ask who would know someone who knows someone, but it would be something really massive for me to start asking, and more likely than not I wouldn't get anywhere with those enquiries), or you have to commit the murder some other way which would nearly all require you getting up close and personal and beating someone to death or cutting them, which is a whole difference psychological experience to standing several feet away and pulling a small lever.

I'm off to bed now so I'm not going back to google for yet more stats but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of attempted murders requiring physical contact fail because when it actually comes to driving a knife into someone or hitting someone with a heavy object most people will not strike properly, either through lack of training or a lack of a real will to kill.

As for the drink driving thing, drink driving is banned. Is drinking while concealed carrying banned? Isn't that massively more dangerous to others?

The activity of driving while under the influence of alcohol is illegal. The two items which contribute to deaths related to illegally drunk driving are vehicles and alcohol.

The activity of killing someone with a gun is illegal. The item which contributes to deaths related to illegal gun deaths is a gun.

Why would we ban guns and not alcohol or cars? And if the answer is that cars are more useful than guns, why do we not ban alcohol? That serves no more useful purpose than guns, right?

Im not sure how many actual gun owners will be on board with you banning alcohol.

[AAFitz]

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 17,941 people died in alcohol-related collissions in 2006. That is more than was killed (suicide, accident, or murder) by guns in the United States in 2004. Should we ban alcohol, cars, or both?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driv ... Statistics

Actually, all it would take was a breath-alizer attached to the cars ignition, to cut the number significantly...further, as with some gun murders, some of those accidents would probably have happened anyways, and alcohol was a coincidence, but that hardly justifies loosening drunk driving laws, which by all means, should be stiffened.

There are many regulations on cars, that kept that number much lower as well. Many, many safety features and regulations have simply saved lives, so essentially, many types of cars are essentially illegal...just as more regulations on guns would cut down on many deaths.

[spurgistan]

Banning alcohol would also take care of a whole lot of gun deaths, I'd imagine. Granted, given our great experiment of the 1920's, there might be a spike in criminal activity and related gun deaths, and possibly Zombie Al Capone, but it could be worth it. Count this non-teetotaler as interested. If nothing else, shouldn't public policy promote exciting activities and/or flappers?

Of course, there are more commonsense ways to combat drunk driving (make alcohol-serving establishments more culpable in preventing drunk driving, increase mass transit so we're not always having to draw straws to pick designated drivers and praying it's not the guy who thinks he can drink as much as us and then drive us all home, meaning we get to walk home from the bar in the dead of New England winter) but given that those involve, like. regulation and stuff, pretty much non-starters.

[thegreekdog]

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 17,941 people died in alcohol-related collissions in 2006. That is more than was killed (suicide, accident, or murder) by guns in the United States in 2004. Should we ban alcohol, cars, or both?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driv ... Statistics

Actually, all it would take was a breath-alizer attached to the cars ignition, to cut the number significantly...further, as with some gun murders, some of those accidents would probably have happened anyways, and alcohol was a coincidence.

There are many regulations on cars, that kept that number much lower as well. Many, many safety features and regulations that have simply saved lives, so essentially, many types of cars are essentially illegal...just as more regulations on guns would cut down on many deaths.

I think you've kind of proven my point. There are things we can do apart from banning alcohol to limit alcohol-related car accident deaths. There must be things we can do apart from banning guns to limit gun-related deaths. However, the first reaction to gun violence is to ban guns and the immediate response to the resistance to banning guns is "anything else would not be as effective."

Im not sure how many actual gun owners will be on board with you banning alcohol.

If guns are banned first and the government then bans alcohol, we're fucked.

[AAFitz]

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 17,941 people died in alcohol-related collissions in 2006. That is more than was killed (suicide, accident, or murder) by guns in the United States in 2004. Should we ban alcohol, cars, or both?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driv ... Statistics

Actually, all it would take was a breath-alizer attached to the cars ignition, to cut the number significantly...further, as with some gun murders, some of those accidents would probably have happened anyways, and alcohol was a coincidence.

There are many regulations on cars, that kept that number much lower as well. Many, many safety features and regulations that have simply saved lives, so essentially, many types of cars are essentially illegal...just as more regulations on guns would cut down on many deaths.

I think you've kind of proven my point. There are things we can do apart from banning alcohol to limit alcohol-related car accident deaths. There must be things we can do apart from banning guns to limit gun-related deaths. However, the first reaction to gun violence is to ban guns and the immediate response to the resistance to banning guns is "anything else would not be as effective."

I didnt prove your point. You are proving mine. Banning the most dangerous guns is obviously a good start to saving lives, and your analogy proves it.

[AAFitz]

Im not sure how many actual gun owners will be on board with you banning alcohol.

If guns are banned first and the government then bans alcohol, we're fucked.

...or better off...

[crispybits]

Im not sure how many actual gun owners will be on board with you banning alcohol.

If guns are banned first and the government then bans alcohol, we're fucked.

OK I lied - back for one last post before sleep

We've done this one TGD, and you've agreed (provisionally, based on you not coming back with further research and arguments we haven't seen yet) that any argument that goes back to defence vs government is flawed.

[AAFitz]

Im not sure how many actual gun owners will be on board with you banning alcohol.

If guns are banned first and the government then bans alcohol, we're fucked.

OK I lied - back for one last post before sleep

We've done this one TGD, and you've agreed (provisionally, based on you not coming back with further research and arguments we haven't seen yet) that any argument that goes back to defence vs government is flawed.

Im not sure he was fully serious, though, its a point worthy of considering, depending upon who "we" are, which in his case, seems to be a gun carrying drinker.

[thegreekdog]

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 17,941 people died in alcohol-related collissions in 2006. That is more than was killed (suicide, accident, or murder) by guns in the United States in 2004. Should we ban alcohol, cars, or both?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driv ... Statistics

Actually, all it would take was a breath-alizer attached to the cars ignition, to cut the number significantly...further, as with some gun murders, some of those accidents would probably have happened anyways, and alcohol was a coincidence.

There are many regulations on cars, that kept that number much lower as well. Many, many safety features and regulations that have simply saved lives, so essentially, many types of cars are essentially illegal...just as more regulations on guns would cut down on many deaths.

I think you've kind of proven my point. There are things we can do apart from banning alcohol to limit alcohol-related car accident deaths. There must be things we can do apart from banning guns to limit gun-related deaths. However, the first reaction to gun violence is to ban guns and the immediate response to the resistance to banning guns is "anything else would not be as effective."

I didnt prove your point. You are proving mine. Banning the most dangerous guns is obviously a good start to saving lives, and your analogy proves it.

Okay, but one of those British dudes said we should ban all guns. The most dangerous guns are apparently handguns (given homicide statistics), and no one from the White House or Congress is proposing that.

I think we should do a few things (this is my sort of final answer, after having thought about it and done two days of research):

(1) Have a limit on the amount of ammunition a single clip can hold for all semi-automatic weapons.
(2) Have a limit on the amount of guns (all guns) a single person can purchase in a given time period.
(3) Gun violence or illegal ownership of a gun should carry mandatory minimum sentences of upwards of 10 years (I'm not fond of mandatory minimums).
(4) Illegal sales of guns should carry mandatory minimum sentence of upwards of 10 years (again, not fond of mandatory minimums).

That's what I think we should do. Don't go back to the super ineffective and easily avoided Assault Weapons Ban.

[thegreekdog]

Im not sure how many actual gun owners will be on board with you banning alcohol.

If guns are banned first and the government then bans alcohol, we're fucked.

OK I lied - back for one last post before sleep

We've done this one TGD, and you've agreed (provisionally, based on you not coming back with further research and arguments we haven't seen yet) that any argument that goes back to defence vs government is flawed.

I was kidding. I attempted and failed to craft a good joke.

Go to sleep.

[Phatscotty]

Still, nobody has shown how reducing production/consumption of arms and ammunition will reduce crime.

[AAFitz]

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 17,941 people died in alcohol-related collissions in 2006. That is more than was killed (suicide, accident, or murder) by guns in the United States in 2004. Should we ban alcohol, cars, or both?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driv ... Statistics

Actually, all it would take was a breath-alizer attached to the cars ignition, to cut the number significantly...further, as with some gun murders, some of those accidents would probably have happened anyways, and alcohol was a coincidence.

There are many regulations on cars, that kept that number much lower as well. Many, many safety features and regulations that have simply saved lives, so essentially, many types of cars are essentially illegal...just as more regulations on guns would cut down on many deaths.

I think you've kind of proven my point. There are things we can do apart from banning alcohol to limit alcohol-related car accident deaths. There must be things we can do apart from banning guns to limit gun-related deaths. However, the first reaction to gun violence is to ban guns and the immediate response to the resistance to banning guns is "anything else would not be as effective."

I didnt prove your point. You are proving mine. Banning the most dangerous guns is obviously a good start to saving lives, and your analogy proves it.

Okay, but one of those British dudes said we should ban all guns. The most dangerous guns are apparently handguns (given homicide statistics), and no one from the White House or Congress is proposing that.

I think we should do a few things (this is my sort of final answer, after having thought about it and done two days of research):

(1) Have a limit on the amount of ammunition a single clip can hold for all semi-automatic weapons.
(2) Have a limit on the amount of guns (all guns) a single person can purchase in a given time period.
(3) Gun violence or illegal ownership of a gun should carry mandatory minimum sentences of upwards of 10 years (I'm not fond of mandatory minimums).
(4) Illegal sales of guns should carry mandatory minimum sentence of upwards of 10 years (again, not fond of mandatory minimums).

That's what I think we should do. Don't go back to the super ineffective and easily avoided Assault Weapons Ban.

Well Ive mentioned banning all of them too, but while I enjoy teasing the phatties of the world, I know that isnt practical right now.
And while the handguns kill the most people, the problem is in the numbers, just as with your drunk driving numbers. There are lots of cars with lots of chances for accidents. If you had as many assault rifles as you do hand guns, that number would necessarily and obviously be higher. Similarly, if you drive a semi(no pun intended) that carries hazardous materials, you must be extra licensed because you can wipe out so many people at once, just as an assault rifle can take out so many people, or children at once.

I agree with the mandatory minimum fear, because it limits the system to truly fit the punishment to the crime, and in some ways, every individual crime is different.

[AAFitz]

Still, nobody has shown how reducing production/consumption of arms and ammunition will reduce crime.

Who said anything about reducing crime. All that takes is more taxes and cops. Reducing the ability to shoot thirty schoolchildren very quickly is kind of the immediate goal right now.

The only thing that made that crime so heinous and possible, was the availability of an assault rifle.

[Evil Semp]

Still, nobody has shown how reducing production/consumption of arms and ammunition will reduce crime.

You haven't proven how arming everyone will reduce crime.

One reason I don't think repealing gun free school zones is good.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/new ... other.gun/

[AAFitz]

Im not sure how many actual gun owners will be on board with you banning alcohol.

If guns are banned first and the government then bans alcohol, we're fucked.

OK I lied - back for one last post before sleep

We've done this one TGD, and you've agreed (provisionally, based on you not coming back with further research and arguments we haven't seen yet) that any argument that goes back to defence vs government is flawed.

I was kidding. I attempted and failed to craft a good joke.

Go to sleep.

I had your back there...

Im not sure he was fully serious, though, its a point worthy of considering, depending upon who "we" are, which in his case, seems to be a gun carrying drinker.

Well...kind of.

[CreepersWiener]

Here is the divide...Arm everybody or Arm nobody. Which solution would have less deaths by firearms? The answer is blatantly clear towards an intelligent person.

[Phatscotty]

God Bless Piers Morgan. He continues to display in public that he does not understand the issue, as well as provide a case study for complete feelings based irrationality.

[Phatscotty]

Still, nobody has shown how reducing production/consumption of arms and ammunition will reduce crime.

You haven't proven how arming everyone will reduce crime.

One reason I don't think repealing gun free school zones is good.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/new ... other.gun/

Except I am not arguing that everyone should be armed. There are those here arguing that everyone should be disarmed...