The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Please, tell the class why the vast and over-whelming super majority of LEO professionals and experts are wrong on this issue. 

 

What exactly is it that these people support that you're asking everyone to refute?

 

I have an idea, but I haven't seen where you've specifically stated it (if I missed it I apologize), but I don't want to make any assumptions.

[tshile]

12 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm still waiting for what exactly people want studied.

 

How laws impact (or don't) gun violence (not just mass shooting, but any gun violence; from inside the home to street/gang crime to mass shootings)

 

How people who have, and use, guns illegally acquire guns (there's some interesting research that suggests a small portion of gun dealers are responsible for a large portion of illegally owned guns, but you can only go so far when you don't require gun dealers to keep accurate inventory, cannot audit them, and cannot keep purchase records past 30 days)

 

A study on how people who commit gun crimes that would fall into the various categorizes of mentally disturbed (or any other illness, or hell, maybe it links back to certain things that happen in child hood) would be nice. I'm not saying I definitely expect concrete linkage here, or even something actionable, but it would be nice to see what the results are.

 

Walking into a public area and shooting people is not something a normal person can identify with. I don't know how it should be studied, or realistically what we can/should expect, that's out of my field of expertise; but I do believe there's probably a ton to study there.

 

As for the every day crime, where the guns come from, how they're acquired, and how that may be stopped would be interesting to see.

[twa]

23 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

There it is folks...twa knows more than law enforcement experts.

 

 

 

 

I have a different perspective while waiting for them to arrive ....so would they in my position. 

 

 

I have,and do, agree with them more police presence reduces the risk.

 

How many you willing to pay for?

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

35 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

I have a different perspective while waiting for them to arrive ....so would they in my position. 

 

 

I have,and do, agree with them more police presence reduces the risk.

 

How many you willing to pay for?

 

I'm willing to pay for more police than I am willing to put guns in the hands of vigilantes who believe themselves to be heroes which only add to the body count. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Still have a gun problem in the U.S.? Still impossible to even attempt to have an intelligent conversation without intentional obfuscation? Still impossible for our government leaders to say, "We, the United States of America, recognize that there is a gun problem in our country and that way too many citizens are dying unnecessarily every year. We are going to fund a study on gun violence, look at the data, and consider common sense restrictions, laws, or regulations that could save lives without impeding on an individual's rights to collect, hunt, own a gun for protection, or any other lawful use." because the NRA would use their political clout to block any such study?

 

Carry on then.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[twa]

11 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I'm willing to pay for more police than I am willing to put guns in the hands of vigilantes who believe themselves to be heroes which only add to the body count. 

 

And I'm willing to disarm everyone but me till you do.  

 

anyone know the response time to the airport shooting?.....depending on them running out of bullets and then laying down isn't practical.

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Like clockwork, take one line and ignore the rest. So tell me please why you think the vast and over-whelming super majority of LEO experts and professionals are wrong.

Ummm that doesn't happen BECAUSE these are gun free zones...see how that works?

Honestly, if you would have stopped and thought for a second I'm certain you would have figured that out.

I'll pose the same question to you as I did twa (since it appears you're defending the "more guns = safer" argument) 

Please, tell the class why the vast and over-whelming super majority of LEO professionals and experts are wrong on this issue. 

I never said they were wrong.  And there have been shootings outside of gun free zones.  So surely what you said will happen must have happened at some point, right?  Just go ahead and find some examples.

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

There are not many mass shootings for it to have a chance of happening, but as an example a citizen with a gun almost shot the wrong person at the Gifford shooting.

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/?_r=1

 

(Now, it didn't happen, but it isn't hard to see where it could happen if this was a more common thing.)

 

And there is the case of the Washington Naval Yard shooting:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting#Shooting_begins

 

" While on the first floor, the shooter moved around randomly before turning around and heading towards the front entrance. There, he fired at Richard Ridgell, the security officer stationed there, through a set of windows, killing him and taking his Beretta 92FS9mm semiautomatic pistol afterwards. "

 

The person wasn't a civilian, but I'm not sure the result would have been any different if it were.

 

Due to the infrequency of mass shootings, any conversation is extremely limited.  We do not observe many behaviors because they do not happen very often.  Even twa's graphic is extremely misleading because while many people have been killed it is due to an extremely small number of events.  It also ignores the fact that areas have been made "gun free" for reasons (i.e. in response to events).  Schools were made gun free because there were increases in gun violence in schools in the late 1980s.

 

 

So there was an "almost" and then another case where the gun was taken from the very person we want more of?  Interesting.  And I'll point out there still hasn't been one example of what people said will happen, actually happening. 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

The biggest thing is to do variations in state and national gun laws reduce violent crime in general and more specifically gun related violent crime.

 

There have been some good studies done that suggest at least in some cases some laws have been effective, but we need more of that.  While studies suggest that other laws (e.g. the Brady Bill) have largely been ineffective.

 

We need a robust number of studies that look at a large number of laws from states-to-state and even in other countries to determine best policies going forward.

 

Can we identify gun laws that seem to actually reduce violence and then can we identify commonalities in those gun laws?

I'm glad you agree that the Brady Bill is largely ineffective.  I actually was a proponent of some gun reform until someone here (I think Beal) made me realize there is no benefit in trying to find a middle ground because if you don't agree 100%, you just get called names.  As for the other things, I wouldn't mind some studies and I think you have some good ideas.  My concern is that the people tasked with the study will already have a predetermined outcome they are looking for or how the findings would be used.  After all, my understanding is the Brady Bill was actually already being drafted based off "studies" at the time but it wasn't until the Reagan attempt that they had a good means to push it through.  And we see the effects of that. 

51 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

How people who have, and use, guns illegally acquire guns (there's some interesting research that suggests a small portion of gun dealers are responsible for a large portion of illegally owned guns, but you can only go so far when you don't require gun dealers to keep accurate inventory, cannot audit them, and cannot keep purchase records past 30 days)

 

I wanted to key in on this one.  I don't mean to insult your intelligence, I'm just not sure if you are aware and wanted to share some info with the group.  Anyone with a FFL has to keep inventory, can be audited at any time, and have to keep records for a pretty long time (can't remember exactly at the moment but believe it is multiple years).  Problem is this only applies to transactions governed by an FFL (across state lines, etc).   Other rules are governed at the state level.  For example, Florida does a pretty good job of record keeping and accounting for hand gun sales.  A long gun?  Not so much. 

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I'm willing to pay for more police than I am willing to put guns in the hands of vigilantes who believe themselves to be heroes which only add to the body count. 

Oh look!  Another made up instance of what you think will happen.  Please point out how many instances of a wanna-be hero vigilante that added to the body count.  I'd like to compare them to the actual numbers of people that have stopped something bad from happening without killing any innocents around them.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I wanted to key in on this one.  I don't mean to insult your intelligence, I'm just not sure if you are aware and wanted to share some info with the group.  Anyone with a FFL has to keep inventory, can be audited at any time, and have to keep records for a pretty long time (can't remember exactly at the moment but believe it is multiple years).  Problem is this only applies to transactions governed by an FFL (across state lines, etc).   Other rules are governed at the state level.  For example, Florida does a pretty good job of record keeping and accounting for hand gun sales.  A long gun?  Not so much.

 

Does a gun dealer selling a handgun to a resident qualify as a transaction governed by an FFL?

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Tell ya what, why don't you use your family as your guine pigs in your gun happy lab experiment. Maybe this time the vigilante will shoot the criminal rather than the innocent victim.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

 

Oh but I know, this is anecdotal....the problem with anecdotal evidence is that when the bodies pile up it's not anecdotal evidence any more.

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Does a gun dealer selling a handgun to a resident qualify as a transaction governed by an FFL?

 

Depends on if it is being performed as a private sale or not.  Since you said Dealer, yes it is governed by an FFL.  Though not every transaction with an FFL has the same rules obviously. 

 

 

*Note:  I am NOT an FFL holder and have no desire to be so my knowledge here is limited, though probably still higher than most.  It's based off of conversations with friends who are FFL holders.  For concrete answers, follow the link below.

 

https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/conduct-business

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Tell ya what, why don't you use your family as your guine pigs in your gun happy lab experiment. Maybe this time the vigilante will shoot the criminal rather than the innocent victim.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

 

Oh but I know, this is anecdotal....the problem with anecdotal evidence is that when the bodies pile up it's not anecdotal evidence any more.

 

Your problem is that you're taking something for which we have little information and making it the default scenario for which we should all based our opinions on.

 

The average self defense shooting incident lasts less than 5 seconds. What's the average police response time to an incident?

 

How many times have we seen a good guy with a gun have their gun taken and used, or been shot by the police when they show up?

 

You want to say it's possible the police shoot the good guy with a gun because it's a chaotic situation? Sure, no argument there.

Or that the good guy will shoot the wrong person? Sure.

Or that the bad guy will take his gun and now has more weapons/ammo? Sure.

 

You want us to assume those are the default scenarios we should based our opinions on? No. You're going to need more than what you got if that's what you want.

 

There's a difference between plausible and most likely outcome. Your gripes are plausible, some of them have happened. They're not the most likely outcome.

 

BTW - Every law enforcement person I know says you better watch out for yourself, cause they only get to do cleanup duty. Time til reported and time for response just don't favor you, if you're the (potential) victim. Same with fire fighters - house is on fire you better get out on your own, waiting for them to show up and save you isn't your best bet.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Tell ya what, why don't you use your family as your guine pigs in your gun happy lab experiment. Maybe this time the vigilante will shoot the criminal rather than the innocent victim.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

 

Oh but I know, this is anecdotal....the problem with anecdotal evidence is that when the bodies pile up it's not anecdotal evidence any more.

Not sure what you mean regarding using my family.  My wife also carries a firearm.  My mom doesn't because she doesn't like guns.  The rest of my family does not live in as "gun-friendly" state as I do. 

 

Thanks for the one example.  I assumed, maybe wrongly, that we were talking about vigilantes stopping mass shootings.  Either way, here are some "good guy with a gun" stories for you to peruse from that right-wing rag, The Washington Times.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/

 

 

I'm not trying to tit for tat you to death on this.  The truth is that examples of good things and bad things happening can be found for almost any scenario.  If you look back far enough in this thread, you will see that I was for some common sense gun reforms.  But I have grown weary of others telling me that anything other than their way is wrong and how guns aren't needed and people that carry them are just wanna-be heroes. 

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

BTW - Every law enforcement person I know says you better watch out for yourself, cause they only get to do cleanup duty. Time til reported and time for response just don't favor you, if you're the (potential) victim. Same with fire fighters - house is on fire you better get out on your own, waiting for them to show up and save you isn't your best bet.

 

I quoted this because I think it is a very good point that deserves stressing.  Where I live, it isn't uncommon for police response time to an armed robbery to be 20 minutes!!  I'm sorry but I want to be able to at least have a chance at defending myself and not just becoming a statistic.  I also am smart enough to spend a good amount of time at the range making sure I can actually hit a target (and for enjoyment).  And I like your house fire analogy. 

[PeterMP]

56 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I never said they were wrong.  And there have been shootings outside of gun free zones.  So surely what you said will happen must have happened at some point, right?  Just go ahead and find some examples.

 

Again, it is a very small number of cases we are talking about due to the small number of mass killings, and the limits we do have on people having guns limit the possibility of it happening even more.

 

Civilians certainly do kill innocent people in confusion and by accident.  Just because it has not happened at a location/time that also happened to be a mass shooting isn't really evidence for anything (other than there aren't many mass shootings).

 

Do you want to claim that having more people with guns doesn't increase the chances of it happening?

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

Do you want to claim that having more people with guns doesn't increase the chances of it happening?

I want to claim that we really don't know.  The small number of good people being shot compared to the number of people that carry a gun shows me that the idiots are outliers.  Now if we increase the number of people with guns then yes, the number of times it happens would also probably increase.  But so may the number of bad guys that are stopped.  Similarly, if we increase the number of police, we will also probably increase the number of "bad shoots" but would probably also stop more crimes.  The increase in bad shoots shouldn't justify not having more police.  Again we really don't know.  But based off the current numbers, I feel okay with what we are at so far.

 

The old Buzz would probably have agreed that there should be some level of training before a civilian can carry a gun in public.  But being told enough times that I am a right-wing, gun loving, wanna-be hero has made me give up negotiations.   

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Not sure what you mean regarding using my family.  My wife also carries a firearm.  My mom doesn't because she doesn't like guns.  The rest of my family does not live in as "gun-friendly" state as I do. 

 

Thanks for the one example.  I assumed, maybe wrongly, that we were talking about vigilantes stopping mass shootings.  Either way, here are some "good guy with a gun" stories for you to peruse from that right-wing rag, The Washington Times.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/

 

The first four cases are a voluntary security guard (and ex-cop), a reserve sheriff's deputy, the police, and a paid security guard, and then the rest are home invasions/burglaries where it isn't even clear if anybody would have been killed without the gun and certainly not mass shootings.

 

It does happen where a random person (not a cop or security guard) on a permit stops this type of shooting, but it is extremely rare.

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

50 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

BTW - Every law enforcement person I know says you better watch out for yourself, cause they only get to do cleanup duty. Time til reported and time for response just don't favor you, if you're the (potential) victim. Same with fire fighters - house is on fire you better get out on your own, waiting for them to show up and save you isn't your best bet.

 

 

Law enforcement has historically been pro-gun control.  More recently there has been more of a split, but there are plenty of law enforcement officers out there that are still pro-gun control.  I know a couple that are in the FBI, and they don't bring their guns home.  I know another local police officer that says he never goes anywhere without his gun.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/446866939/gun-debate-divides-nations-police-officers-too

 

Fires are a very different ball game.  I don't think anybody wants to claim that having smoke detectors in your house increases you risk of having a fire.

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Law enforcement has historically been pro-gun control.  More recently there has been more of a split, but there are plenty of law enforcement officers out there that are still pro-gun control.  I know a couple that are in the FBI, and they don't bring their guns home.  I know another local police officer that says he never goes anywhere without his gun.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/446866939/gun-debate-divides-nations-police-officers-too

 

Fires are a very different ball game.  I don't think anybody wants to claim that having smoke detectors in your house increases you risk of having a fire.

I don't doubt that, but that's a terrible article.

 

One guy's refutation is that the laws don't stop the bad guys enough from getting back out there. They "learn nothing because the laws are so weak".

 

Anyways, I don't doubt many cops dislike citizens being able to carry guns. I'm curious how many of them would prefer their wife hide out for average response time (5-20 minutes, depending on where you live, the places with more violent crime ironically have higher response times) instead of having another option (assuming fleeing isn't an option, that's always the best choice unless you're trained to do otherwise.) I also wonder how many of them got their national CCL, and whether they'd be cool with just giving that up. Most cops I know don't live where they work, and wouldn't live where they work, so they have the convenient option of not wanting the people they're in charge of policing to have guns while not having their family subjected to the circumstances of the area.

 

Your remark about smoke detectors is funny, but not applicable at all to the actual conversation.

 

Also - you keep going back to the point that having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of someone being shot. Well, duh. Having a knife in the house probably increases the likelihood of someone being stabbed.

What happens if someone works on explosives in their house? Do you think that increases the likelihood of having an explosion in the house?

Edited January 9, 2017 by tshile

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I want to claim that we really don't know.  The small number of good people being shot compared to the number of people that carry a gun shows me that the idiots are outliers.  Now if we increase the number of people with guns then yes, the number of times it happens would also probably increase.  But so may the number of bad guys that are stopped.  Similarly, if we increase the number of police, we will also probably increase the number of "bad shoots" but would probably also stop more crimes.  The increase in bad shoots shouldn't justify not having more police.  Again we really don't know.  But based off the current numbers, I feel okay with what we are at so far.

 

The old Buzz would probably have agreed that there should be some level of training before a civilian can carry a gun in public.  But being told enough times that I am a right-wing, gun loving, wanna-be hero has made me give up negotiations.   

 

How many people are a few?

 

At least 77 minors were killed in 2015 due to accidental discharge of guns and that number might be low.  The AP puts in at 141.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/12/09/new-cdc-data-understate-accidental-shooting-deaths-kids/95209084/

 

And that's just minors!

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

How many people are a few?

 

At least 77 minors were killed in 2015 due to accidental discharge of guns and that number might be low.  The AP puts in at 141.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/12/09/new-cdc-data-understate-accidental-shooting-deaths-kids/95209084/

 

And that's just minors!

I never said "a few" so I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say.  Not being nitpicky, just want to be clear on what you are saying. 

 

I believe we were talking about people with guns trying to stop someone else or themselves being killed.  Accidental discharge is a different issue (often dealing with storing in a way that isn't smart).

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

How many people are a few?

 

At least 77 minors were killed in 2015 due to accidental discharge of guns and that number might be low.  The AP puts in at 141.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/12/09/new-cdc-data-understate-accidental-shooting-deaths-kids/95209084/

 

And that's just minors!

 

320 million people in the country, and according to this article ( Washington Post - American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years ) 32% of homes have guns.

 

Yes, 77 or 141 is a few. You dabble in enough statistical arguments on this board to know that.

 

That doesn't make it any less tragic.

 

On a side note - that WP article says gun ownership is at the lowest it's been in 40 years.

 

Kind of puts a little thorn in the Left's side on the gun issue, does it not?

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I never said "a few" so I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say.  Not being nitpicky, just want to be clear on what you are saying. 

 

I believe we were talking about people with guns trying to stop someone else or themselves being killed.  Accidental discharge is a different issue (often dealing with storing in a way that isn't smart).

 

You said small not few.  Sorry!

 

"The small number of good people being shot compared to the number of people that carry a gun shows me that the idiots are outliers."

 

But the two are linked.  You can't say I want people to have guns to stop people from being killed and don't think deaths to innocents are an issue and ignore people dying from accidental gun discharges.

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

320 million people in the country, and according to this article ( Washington Post - American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years ) 32% of homes have guns.

 

Yes, 77 or 141 is a few. You dabble in enough statistical arguments on this board to know that.

 

That doesn't make it any less tragic.

 

On a side note - that WP article says gun ownership is at the lowest it's been in 40 years.

 

Kind of puts a little thorn in the Left's side on the gun issue, does it not?

 

And that's just minors.

 

How many is a small or few?  What number of accidental deaths would you say is unacceptable or a need for concern?

 

Put a number on it.

 

No, I don't see why it would.  The problem isn't the number of people that have guns.  The problem is the ease in getting guns.

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

You said small not few.  Sorry!

 

"The small number of good people being shot compared to the number of people that carry a gun shows me that the idiots are outliers."

 

But the two are linked.  You can't say I want people to have guns to stop people from being killed and don't think deaths to innocents are an issue and ignore people dying from accidental gun discharges.

I wasn't trying to be snarky.  I was asking because I wanted to ensure I was addressing what you were saying correctly.

 

I agree the two are linked but anytime you increase the number of anything, the number of bad things that will happen because of it will go up.  Like I said, if we increase the number of police, the number of police doing something bad is bound to go up.  Simple statistics.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't increase though because there are also benefits.  As someone said (I believe it was you), the number of mass shootings is so low it is difficult to provide much analysis of them.  Also, it is hard to prove the negative of how many shootings DIDN'T happen because it was a gun friendly zone.  Again, not saying you are wrong.  I'm saying we don't know.

 

Also, you can look at Tshile's numbers above and see that it actually is a low number of children affected per capita.  That doesn't mean they don't matter though.

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I wasn't trying to be snarky.  I was asking because I wanted to ensure I was addressing what you were saying correctly.

 

I agree the two are linked but anytime you increase the number of anything, the number of bad things that will happen because of it will go up.  Like I said, if we increase the number of police, the number of police doing something bad is bound to go up.  Simple statistics.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't increase though because there are also benefits.  As someone said (I believe it was you), the number of mass shootings is so low it is difficult to provide much analysis of them.  Also, it is hard to prove the negative of how many shootings DIDN'T happen because it was a gun friendly zone.  Again, not saying you are wrong.  I'm saying we don't know.

 

Also, you can look at Tshile's numbers above and see that it actually is a low number of children affected per capita.  That doesn't mean they don't matter though.

 

Same thing as I asked tshile then.  That's just minors and in one year.

 

What would be an unacceptable number?  At what level do you get to a number that you'd say this is no longer so small or so few that you would no longer dismiss at as such?

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Same thing as I asked tshile then.  That's just minor and in one year.

 

What would be an acceptable number?  At what level do you get to a number that you'd say this is no longer so small or so few that you would no longer dismiss at as such?

I can't put a hard number on it.  Can you?  What number would you put as the number of children deaths per year before an issue needs swift and decisive action?

 

 

 

FYI:  The number of children drowning per year is roughly 10 times the number of child deaths due to accidental discharge (roughly 700 per year).  I guess we should have 10 times the outrage.  BAN SWIMMING POOLS!!!

Edit:  Wow.  That's about 2 children per day.  Why don't they matter? 

Edited January 9, 2017 by TheGreatBuzz