Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Some more statistics, a bit dated, around 10 years old, German Wikipedia, basing on Small Arms Survey 2004:

Number of killing incidents per 100,000 population:
USA 3.45 - Canada 0.55 - GER - 0.19

Number of legal firearms owned per killing incident with a firearm:
GER 194K - CAN 48K - USA 28K

Number of legally owned firearms (in brackets: total population in 2014)
USA 281 bn (318 bn)- CAN - 7.9 bn (35 bn) - GER 5.5 bn (80 bn)

Factors for the above ("how many people own one firearm")
USA 1.1 - CAN 4.4 - GER 14.6

Number of homicides with firearms, per 100K firearms
USA 4.2 - CAN 2.2 - GER 0.6

Granted, there are places with much higher numbers of horror. All of them belong to third world countries, failed states, Russia and Latin America. Does one really want to excuse one's own falure by comparing oneself to third world standards?


Of course I had the civilized, the first world on mind when writing that.

Those figures don't add up to the FBI's statistics. 8583 gun murders for 315m people is 0.367 deaths per 100,000 people. That would mean that accidental are 10 times the murder rate.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Those figures don't add up to the FBI's statistics. 8583 gun murders for 315m people is 0.367 deaths per 100,000 people. That would mean that accidental are 10 times the murder rate.

Sources:

Die Angaben in dieser Tabelle beziehen sich auf verschiedene Basisjahre. Während die Schusswaffenstatistiken aus den Jahren 2002–2003 stammen, gelten die Daten über die Tötungsdelikte mit Schusswaffe für das letzterhältliche Jahr, normalerweise 1998–2001, außer im Fall von Jamaika, wo 1995 zugrunde liegt. Bolivien und Paraguay wurden mangels spezifischer Angaben zu Tötungsdelikten mit Schusswaffe ausgeschlossen. Die Zahlen für Waffen/Tötungsdelikte mit Schusswaffe und Tötungsdelikte mit Schusswaffe/100'000 Waffen wurden gerundet, um falsche Präzision zu vermeiden. Quellen: aus den Tabellen 2.1 und 2.2 der Small Arms Survey 2004 zusammengestellt. Daten über Tötungsdelikte mit Schusswaffe von Chetty (2000); CRIME; UN (1998). Angaben über zivile Lagerbestände für die anderen Länder von Cross et al. (2003), GPC (2002) und Small Arms Survey (2002).

The article is on the abuse of firearms, and is in German language only, no use to set it up in full here. I took the numbers from one of its tables.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffenmissbrauch

Average mean values like mentioned here, ignore immense local differences within especially big countries (like the US). The article says that crime rate with firearms in 2006 has been comparable to Germany in for example New Hampshire and South Dakota, while Alabama, California and Texas had 25 times as high rates as in Germany. Differences also are between rural areas, and metropoles.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

And how would you license free speech?

The same way you license a gun owner. They fill out an application at the police department, buy a seat in an expensive speech safety class, pay a hefty fee (you know to prevent poor people from exercising their speech rights), a background check is conducted to see if they have engaged in hate speech or bullying in the past, then finally attend an interview with the local chief of police who can decide to deny the application without having to give a reason for the denial.

Simple really.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sources:
The article is on the abuse of firearms, and is in German language only, no use to set it up in full here. I took the numbers from one of its tables.

I think murder is the better statistic when discussing gun violence.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...e-data-table-8

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I think murder is the better statistic when discussing gun violence.

Me not, since every murder is a crime, but not every crime is a murder.

[Buddahaid]

Well abuse covers a large array of possibilities, not intent. Your Dr. using meds off label is drug abuse for instance.

One could argue that every death from traffic accidents was caused by someone abusing their vehicle. That makes 1 person out of 9000 killed by vehicular violence as compared to 1 out of say 12,000 for gun violence with 1 out of 35,000 killed on purpose. Figures rounded for clarity.

[em2nought]

Let's face it, it's the democrats that want us to give up guns, because democrat supporters can't handle guns http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/174003/gun-violence-not-republican-problem-its-democratic-daniel-greenfield

Good luck getting the guns from those folks that you've created, and until you do don't even think about my firearms.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Nobody but us has a right to shoot ourselves in the the foot, nobody!

Hey Im all for using technolgy to track background checks, requiring a firearms course and issuing an ID of sorts to the potential buyer. Im also for sellers to have immediate access to verify such an ID and the latest updates. Unfortunetaly some around here either see that as the devils work or the slippery slope to tyranny.

I can understand in a way where they're coming from, I mean the last thing anyone who is terrified of the government wants to do is give information to the government. However I think that you've got to put a bit of value on the human life and so such a sacrifice is worth it.

We already have a lot of laws on the books and requirements for background checks in place and in some states required firearms training. But theres more to this problem than filing the proper paper work and safety training.

Indeed, I've done a bit of research into what it takes to get a firearm in the US and the current system is a good start but it does need more consistency across the US so that each state has the same requirements in regards to training and responsible ownership.

No offense intended here but take a look at the stats and one people group/race shines above the rest when it comes to the use of firearms and homicide. Id bet the common factor there is poverty, welfare, lack of family, drugs, gangs, segregation the list goes on. Fix that and numbers would drop like a rock.

Ha, now that is the truth, and oddly enough I believe me and Neal got into a conversation about this back during the Ferguson days. Fixing poverty, destroying the gangs, and improving society would go a helluva long way to help reduce crime in general, not just gun crime. However in all the years that we've existed as a society I don't think anyone has managed to come up with an idea to fix such a thing that doesn't involve upsetting a lot of people. It's not a very easy thing to solve, that's for certain, and I don't think I could even begin to fix it in a manner which would be acceptable to the American people.
Probably better to start with mental health care and universal firearm safety and responsible ownership first, in theory that should help shave some of the numbers, and would probably quiet all but the most fanatical of anti-gun groups whilst not depriving responsible gun owners of their right to own a firearm. Once that is fixed, then work towards fixing poverty...however the heck that can be done.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

The same way you license a gun owner. They fill out an application at the police department, buy a seat in an expensive speech safety class, pay a hefty fee (you know to prevent poor people from exercising their speech rights), a background check is conducted to see if they have engaged in hate speech or bullying in the past, then finally attend an interview with the local chief of police who can decide to deny the application without having to give a reason for the denial.

Simple really.

Quick question though, if I walk up to you in the street and shout 'BANG' will it punch a 7mm hole in your chest?

Originally Posted by August

Right, let's pretend that your "apology" wasn't dripping with self righteous sarcasm. See you in a few weeks!

Long time no see August, how is life treating you?
Meanwhile...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gunfire-...ollege-campus/

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Quick question though, if I walk up to you in the street and shout 'BANG' will it punch a 7mm hole in your chest?

I dunno maybe if you have a weak heart? (insert shrug smiley)

On the other hand if I repeatedly tell you to commit suicide will you do it?

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...carter_enc.htm

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

I dunno maybe if you have a weak heart? (insert shrug smiley)

On the other hand if I repeatedly tell you to commit suicide will you do it?

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...carter_enc.htm

I wouldn't, because I've had a brain that's been telling me to do that for over a decade and I haven't yet. But I see your point.

The thing is, what I've put forward isn't so much a scheme to gain money from gun owners, I mean for what it's worth the licence could be free, the point is to instill into gun owners a code of safe handling and responsibility.
August, you own a gun, right? More than one probably. You keep it in a safe place where only you can access it, right? You wouldn't dream of brandishing it around amongst other people like it's a toy, right? The old saying that you don't point it at anything you don't want to shoot, right?
Now, taking the most recent incident in this thread as an example, that child, whether his mind was sound or not, should not have been able to access that shotgun. That was a failing of his father, and one that mentally he will have to live with for the rest of his life, but if his father had, by law, been forced to lock the gun away safely so that his young son could not have accessed it, then the child would not have been able to use it...perhaps he would have used a knife, perhaps he would have used his fists, but he would not have used a gun.
Think, I mean this is in favour of gun enthusiasts too, if we can cut down on incidents like this happening then we can reduce the number of people calling for the repealing of the 2nd Amendment, because the rate in which such tragic incidents occur will be reduced. It might, just might, allow for some more serious conversation about the 2nd Amendment and any modifications it may need for the modern era, but that is something for another time.

I trust that you are a responsible gun owner, August, just as I trust that Rockstar is...so what is the harm in making sure that all gun owners are as responsible as you two?

While we're here, why don't we put down in this thread what we consider a responsible gun owner would have and do? Here's some thoughts of mine, feel free to add your own.

1) Keep the weapon unloaded when not in use, or in the case of a pistol, make sure that the chamber is empty.
2) If the weapon is holstered ensure that the safety is on and/or the tong in place ensuring the weapon does not fall out of the holster.
3) Weapons should be kept in a proper holster as opposed to something like a handbag.
4) Weapons should be well maintained and inspected frequently, likewise magazines (last thing you need is a busted spring).
5) Trigger discipline is paramount, do not put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to shoot
6) Fire discipline is paramount, do not point your weapon at anything you do not wish to shoot at, if in doubt point it at the floor.
7) Weapons should be stored in a secure location accessible only by the weapon owner.

That's a start, what else should there be?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

On the other hand if I repeatedly tell you to commit suicide will you do it?

No, but I'd commit a murder in self defence.
Could repeated convincing to kill yourself be counted as assault

[U505995]

Originally Posted by Oberon

At not one point have I advocated the banning of firearms, ok? Heck, you can even get rid of gun free zones. The thing is, you say that there are 20,000 gun control laws on the books in the country, and yet if you do not have a criminal record, are aged 18 or above, you can go into a firearm store and apply for a firearm. In some states you have to watch a video and answer a test. Obviously it varies from state to state, like nearly all laws in the US, and if you go to a gun show or a private seller then you don't have to pass a background check.
Now how difficult would it be to make it universal that to buy a weapon from any place you have to have a firearms license, like a driving license, and to gain that firearms license you have to show to a registered official that you are capable of owning and operating a firearm safely. Once you have that license then you get your firearm and if you happen to violate the terms of that license then you get it taken away. Whether you get your firearm taken away as well can be debated but without a license you wouldn't be permitted to have it anyway, so it would probably be better that it was taken away.
Now what is so wrong with that? We already require such things for driving a car, driving a truck or bus or flying an aircraft...so why not for owning a gun?




Perhaps they will, you don't really know until you try. Perhaps it will work? After all, driving licenses were introduced in America after soaring fatalities in the newly introduced automobile provoked public outcry, and they have stayed since. Road vehicle fatality rates still remain high but this is a proportional increase as opposed to the high initial rate. In other words, more people drive cars therefore the likelihood of an accident increases.
Sure, it's not going to stop mass killings, it's not going to stop gang banger shootings...but it might reduce them, and surely that is worth a go?



Now you're just being silly.

I think I can agree with this as long as no other types of firearms are further restricted. I think that there should be a bill where anybody born on or after a certain year will have to go through a background check and a firearm safety class and can be affirmed that they are responsible enough to use a firearm.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So, basically, unless more people die then it's not worth trying to make things safer.

I think Ben Franklin said it best:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I'm not willing to give up my liberty, because people I don't even know refuse to take the necessary steps to provide for their own security and expect the government to do it for them.