The Gun Control Debate Thread

[visionary]

43 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Three separate people on twitter made this argument to me today. They were trying to argue against the need for gun control because such a high percentage of the violence occurred with handguns and in LIBERAL urban settings.  Seemed like it was the new talking point. A variation of "Gun control doesn't work because liberal cities have gun problems."

People have been saying this for years.  Generally Chicago is the number #1 talking point.  

Edited August 6, 2019 by visionary

[Burgold]

@tshile 

We're probably not too far in disagreement on this. I don't think guns cause suicides or that if you remove guns you'd prevent all 40,000 firearm related suicides that occur each year (or whatever the number is). What I think is that the number would be smaller. I think it's part of the puzzle and an addressable part of the puzzle. Likewise, I remember when Bill Cosby (back when he was a positive role model) said, that in his day, the inner cities had the same level of anger and hostility as they do today, but that the reason there were fewer homicides is because the people in the inner cities didn't have the same access to the weapons they do today. It's a lot easier to kill or make the decision to kill when you have a gun versus a knife or a bat or a lead pipe, etc.

 

Would gang violence drop to zero with better (and enforced) gun control laws? Hell no. Would the number drop. Hell yes.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Burgold

[twa]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

Funny you bring that up.

 

I cannot help but wonder if very strict control measures would take the gun issue and make it like the drug issue. Would we largely comply like other nations, or would we just have a crazy black market for it all like drugs?

 

 

 

The black market already exists and would likely expand.

The major difference would be trying to remove guns already in place, many people here are not very compliant.

add

 Mexico has very strict gun laws, enforcing them is another matter.

Edited August 6, 2019 by twa

[GhostofSparta]

19 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Claymore.  

 

Mine? Sword? Both in combination?

[Bozo the kKklown]

Chicago has a lot of gun violence, partly because you can drive 50 minutes to Indiana and buy all the guns you want.

 

You can also go down to Missouri and buy guns.

 

I grew up in PG County, and we have a no fireworks policy. But fireworks still went off on July 4 because you can buy all you want at the pop-up fireworks stand on the DC side of the DC/Maryland border.

Edited August 6, 2019 by BenningRoadSkin

[tshile]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

People have been saying this for years.  Generally Chicago is the number #1 talking point.  

It always felt like that was because Obama (and holder) have roots there. 

 

I don’t remember Chicago being the talkingpoint like that until after Obama won the presidency

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

What I think is that the number would be smaller

I agree with what you said. 

 

I think out disagreement (if it’s even that) at this point is over how much smaller, juxtaposed with restrictions on an amendment. 

 

I think our opinions probably vary a bit on both ends of that. 

[Burgold]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

It always felt like that was because Obama (and holder) have roots there. 

 

I don’t remember Chicago being the talkingpoint like that until after Obama won the presidency

I agree with what you said. 

 

I think out disagreement (if it’s even that) at this point is over how much smaller, juxtaposed with restrictions on an amendment. 

 

I think our opinions probably vary a bit on both ends of that. 

Probably. Everything can be looked at through a cost/benefit lens. The problem with a question like this is you can't go back in time and try out both variables. That's one of the reasons I am a fan of the scientific studies @PeterMP has posted over the year which show the effect, statistical confidence we can have in said effect, and its power. That said, even with that what we have is projection.

 

The question then becomes how many lives are worth a reduction in our liberties? More specifically, how much inconvenience (because I don't foresee the rights themselves being taken away) are saved lives worth. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[twa]

All of them seem sensible to me.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

And people say that, after another mass shooting, politicians don't do anything.  

 

Remember what the legislative response to Sandy Hook was?

 

Spoiler

Georgia made it easier for weapons carriers to carry weapons into schools, hospitals, churches, government office buildings, and bars.  

 

[LD0506]

[No Excuses]

 

[Berggy9598]

15 hours ago, twa said:

 

The black market already exists and would likely expand.

The major difference would be trying to remove guns already in place, many people here are not very compliant.

add

 Mexico has very strict gun laws, enforcing them is another matter.

Do you see the Adam Lanzas, James Holmes and Cho Seung Huis of this world being able to purchase guns on the back market with the same ease? (Genuine question) 

[Springfield]

The thing about Chicago, I read, is that most the gun violence occurs in about a 1 square mile are over 2-3 pockets of a VERY large and sprawling city.  That per capita Chicago is one of the safest cities.  Also, that the war on drugs created this atmosphere, void of any concentrated criminal enterprises, left with smaller gangs battling for territory of (as mentioned above) like 2-3 spots.

[Cooked Crack]

 

2020 Dean Heller

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

Do you see the Adam Lanzas, James Holmes and Cho Seung Huis of this world being able to purchase guns on the back market with the same ease? (Genuine question) 

 

 No, which likely will result in which?

 

a: them becoming better people

or

b: choosing different weapons and tactics

 

I'm going with B

 

and you need to address how to remove the ones in circulation

[Springfield]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 No, which likely will result in which?

 

a: them becoming better people

or

b: choosing different weapons and tactics

 

I'm going with B

 

and you need to address how to remove the ones in circulation

 

Let’s say you’re right and it’s B.  Is it likely that they choose a more or less deadly weapon?

[twa]

 

 

38 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Let’s say you’re right and it’s B.  Is it likely that they choose a more or less deadly weapon?

 

I hope you don't find out.

 

since no one wants to answer about the ones in circulation, Adam Lanza killed to get his weapons

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

 

Let’s say you’re right and it’s B.  Is it likely that they choose a more or less deadly weapon?

I would go with more. 

 

It assumes that no access to guns doesn’t deter them from wanting to commit mass murder, so they have to find another mass murder tool.

 

There are reports that no access to guns means some people that would commit suicide dont. I dont know the quality of such studies, I’m not qualified to determine that. 

 

I dont know if it’s reasonable to assume that would translate to mass murder. I don’t know if there are studies on it. 

 

I have reservations about a study that claims there is a significant number of people that wanted to commit suicide but didn’t solely because they couldnt acquire a gun. I’d have a lot of reservations about a study claiming there’s a significant portion of potential mass murders that didnt or wouldn’t do anything simply because they couldn’t acquire a gun. 

 

So I don’t know if that can or would translate. 

[PeterMP]

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

I would go with more. 

 

What do you thin they would use?

 

I think more is extremely unlikely.  People with these issues aren't specific to the US, and through most of the western developed world, you don't see people with these issues getting more deadly weapons in general.

 

Instead, you get things like this:

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/sweden-stabbing-attack-feared-to-be-anti-semitic/

 

(The only comparable attacks in other countries are with cars and ramming attacks, and they certainly aren't more deadly.  MAYBE they are just as effective, but they aren't more.)

1 hour ago, twa said:

I hope you don't find out.

 

since no one wants to answer about the ones in circulation, Adam Lanza killed to get his weapons

 

Just because we can't solve every problem today, doesn't mean we should solve the ones we can.

 

This is an argument to do nothing for any problem because you can never solve every problem completely.

Edited August 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

17 hours ago, twa said:

 

The black market already exists and would likely expand.

The major difference would be trying to remove guns already in place, many people here are not very compliant.

add

 Mexico has very strict gun laws, enforcing them is another matter.

 

It is very unlikely you would develop a black market guns outside of the drug market.

 

Unlike drugs, guns are not addictive and guns are much harder to do things like ship (generally they are larger for the profit).

 

Every other developed western country has gun laws and drug laws.  They have substantial problems with black market drugs and very little problems with black market guns outside of the black market drug community.

 

The illegal gun market in Mexico is heavily tied to the illegal drug market, and the fact that they neighbor us and guns are easily had here doesn't help.

 

To suggest the US would be different than every other western country in the world with no evidence, makes no sense.

Edited August 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Just because we can't solve every problem today, doesn't mean we should solve the ones we can.

 

This is an argument to do nothing for any problem because you can never solve every problem completely.

 

It is argument for doing effective things rather than DO SOMETHING.

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

The one thing we haven’t tried on a national level is gun control...  places with more guns have more gun fatalities and places with less guns have less gun fatalities.  Seems an obvious way to reduce gun violence is to reduce guns.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

(The only comparable attacks in other countries are with cars and ramming attacks, and they certainly aren't more deadly.  MAYBE they are just as effective, but they aren't more.)

 

 

 

You're wrong.  I don't mean this as a anti-gun control point, just pointing out a fact.  I don't think we have had any mass shooting that created this much carnage.  

 

Quote

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people^[2] and the injury of 458 others.^[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

[bcl05]

51 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

There are reports that no access to guns means some people that would commit suicide dont. I dont know the quality of such studies, I’m not qualified to determine that. 

 

 

There is a lot of excellent science behind this.  Having access to a gun has no affect on the likelihood of a suicide attempt.  It has an exponential affect on the odds of that suicide attempt leading to death.  People in the throes of severe depression are often suicidal.  The attempt itself is typically a sudden, impulsive decision and people use whatever means they have on hand.  Suicide attempts with overdoses, knives, ropes, etc all have a low chance of "success."  Many people who are discovered after these kinds of attempts can be treated for their acute injuries, get treated for their depression, and, in the majority of cases, fully recover.  People who attempt suicide with guns almost always die.  

Edited August 7, 2019 by bcl05