The Gun Control Debate Thread

[AsburySkinsFan]

I will freely and loudly announce that I was complaining.

Complaining about the merits of an EO...sure feel free. I do it too.

But screaming that the President is violating the Constitution or is a tyrant because he's issuing EO's is stupid and only weakminded people believe it and repeat it.

[SkinssRvA]

This whole firestorm can be averted if the NRA wasn't a thug organization coercing legislators by force. They are the primary reason why there's no safety regarding guns. Anytime someone wants to try to stop bad people from getting guns the NRA claims that it will infringe upon the rights of regular gun holders. No one cares about you if you buy a gun legally and are mentally sane. Seriously. Terrorists shouldn't get guns. Is it wrong to say that? Or will legal gun holders complain? 

Need you be reminded of the countless healthcare organizations that support and keep obamacare afloat, simply because it makes them money?  Or no, you don't want to hear about that?  I know this isn't a healthcare debate, so I will stay out of the countless reasons why obamacare is a hack-show.

 

Anyway, California has some of the most strict gun control laws anywhere in the world, not just the US.  You can sell at gun shows, but it still abides the law by requiring accordance with all of the same regulations in-store.  And yet, California has the most gun related murders in the United States.  Granted, California is our most populous state, but even states like Texas and Florida which have far more lenient state gun laws show a lesser rate of murder as it pertains to guns.  Not only that, but less people own guns (% wise) in California, and it still is abundant.  

 

You tell me the real source of gun violence, please.  

[Kilmer17]

I notice you didn't address the hypocrisy part.  You must of overlooked it.  So I'll ask again

 

please explain the liberal insistence that similar requirements for voting are somehow a violation of our rights?

[The Evil Genius]

SkinssRvA,

 

Actually, according to Wikipedia, California has almost the same gun murders per 100,000 people as Texas (3.4 vs 3.2).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

 

Of course, stats like Hawaii, NY, and Massachussetts, states with some rather extreme gun laws - are on the low end too. So I suspect the correlation you are looking for might not always be there.   

Edited January 8, 2016 by The Evil Genius

[SkinssRvA]

SkinssRvA,

 

Actually, according to Wikipedia, California has almost the same gun murders per 100,000 people as Texas (3.4 vs 3.2).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

That's where I was looking as well. I suppose it wasn't clear so I misspoke, I was actually talking about gun murders as they relate to total murders.  But your point is fair, and also leads me to another conclusion entirely.  It doesn't make much difference at the end of the day what your gun laws are, the ratio of gun murders to population for our two largest states is essentially the same.    

Edited January 8, 2016 by SkinssRvA

[The Evil Genius]

I'd bet gun related murders have more to do with density of that states population than anything else.

 

That said, I'm never in favor of the attitude of throwing our hands up and saying "what can we do about it". <-- not saying that was what you were saying.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I was expecting this thread to have a lot more talk about the town hall last night.  Oh well. Here are some of my thoughts.

 

I will really disappointed that it was only an hour.  I think an hour could have been enough except that to many of the questions were very long winded and the answers had 5 minutes of political speak before even addressing the question.  That was very frustrating. 

 

I liked that the NRA was called out for not participating.  I despise the NRA with a passion despite being a Republican gun owner.

 

I was surprised by the gun death numbers.  I had never really looked into them.  So per POTUS, there are ~30k gun deaths each year.  ~2/3 are suicide (which I consider more of a mental health issue).  That leaves ~10k violent gun deaths each year.  That made me think of this question which I really wish had been asked:

 

According to MADD, there were ~10k drunk driving related deaths in 2013 (about the same number of violent gun deaths)  and 290k drunk driving related injuries.  Where is the Executive Orders and town hall discussions regarding this?  Why the huge push to control gun deaths but I've never heard POTUS mention drunk driving (not saying he hasn't but it hasn't had near the focus of guns).  Why no push to put a breathalyzer in every car?  Considering todays political climate, it seems you'd make a lot more head way focusing on these 10k deaths than the 10k violent gun related deaths.

[SkinssRvA]

I'd bet gun related murders have more to do with density of that states population than anything else.

 

That said, I'm never in favor of the attitude of throwing our hands up and saying "what can we do about it". <-- not saying that was what you were saying.

Of course not.  There are reasonable solutions and efforts moving forward, but imposing your (not actually YOUR, more Obama's/hard left) antiquated views on big gov't regulating certain aspects of free-trade when they are proven not to work is just not the right approach.  I consider myself right-center, but I find myself slipping more and more into the far right simply because im finding less liberals who can be centric.  

 

 

According to MADD, there were ~10k drunk driving related deaths in 2013 (about the same number of violent gun deaths)  and 290k drunk driving related injuries.  Where is the Executive Orders and town hall discussions regarding this?  Why the huge push to control gun deaths but I've never heard POTUS mention drunk driving (not saying he hasn't but it hasn't had near the focus of guns).  Why no push to put a breathalyzer in every car?  Considering todays political climate, it seems you'd make a lot more head way focusing on these 10k deaths than the 10k violent gun related deaths.

I bet if you look very closely and hard you can find an answer to this question without having to ask it.  

[Kilmer17]

As much (rightful) anger is pointed towards the NRA.  The fact is, BOTH political parties see and are now exploiting the political angle.

 

But I promise neither will acknowledge it.

[Chew]

Uniformed? Denial? Or because Obama is a muslim?

[PleaseBlitz]

 

 

According to MADD, there were ~10k drunk driving related deaths in 2013 (about the same number of violent gun deaths)  and 290k drunk driving related injuries.  Where is the Executive Orders and town hall discussions regarding this?  Why the huge push to control gun deaths but I've never heard POTUS mention drunk driving (not saying he hasn't but it hasn't had near the focus of guns).  Why no push to put a breathalyzer in every car?  Considering todays political climate, it seems you'd make a lot more head way focusing on these 10k deaths than the 10k violent gun related deaths.

 

 

Due in large part to legislation, the instances of drunk driving deaths have been dramatically reduced in the past 20 years because there HAS been a huge push in this area.  So the question is, why can't we do the same for gun-related deaths, and the answer is, because Congress won't do anything.  

 

 

Since the early 1980s, tremendous efforts have been made by the States and grassroots organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) – formerly founded as Students Against Driving Drunk, etc. to combat alcohol-related driving issues by passing new and tougher legislation. Most States in the United States have passed laws making it illegal per se for individuals to have a certain blood alcohol concentration (BAC) while operating a motor vehicle. Studies showed that significant reductions in alcohol-related fatal crashes were found in States that implemented illegal per se laws as well as underage drinking laws.

 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810942.pdf

Edited January 8, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[TheGreatBuzz]

I bet if you look very closely and hard you can find an answer to this question without having to ask it.  

Well I'd have really liked to hear the Presidents answer to this but I'll bite, what do you think the answer is?

[SkinssRvA]

SkinssRvA,

 

Actually, according to Wikipedia, California has almost the same gun murders per 100,000 people as Texas (3.4 vs 3.2).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

 

Of course, stats like Hawaii, NY, and Massachussetts, states with some rather extreme gun laws - are on the low end too. So I suspect the correlation you are looking for might not always be there.   

Actually, if you look at the top 10 states with the most restrictive gun laws, you will see that they all are very high in gun related violence.  The metric I use, which is what I alluded to in the last post, was the gun related murders to total murders.  The reason we need to look at murders and not population, is because for the most part not everyone is a murderer or plotting for murder.  It makes most sense to compare those who do the act with the weapon that we are talking about here.  

 

It's also no surprise that Hawaii is the only one that's below 50%.  Every other state listed has large cities within their state with high rates of violence/crime/murder.  When you look outside of numbers it's pretty easy to deduce why Hawaii might be the lowest, regardless of gun law.  

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/1/Pennsylvania-10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html

[@DCGoldPants]

I was expecting this thread to have a lot more talk about the town hall last night.  Oh well. Here are some of my thoughts.

 

I will really disappointed that it was only an hour.  I think an hour could have been enough except that to many of the questions were very long winded and the answers had 5 minutes of political speak before even addressing the question.  That was very frustrating. 

 

I liked that the NRA was called out for not participating.  I despise the NRA with a passion despite being a Republican gun owner.

 

I was surprised by the gun death numbers.  I had never really looked into them.  So per POTUS, there are ~30k gun deaths each year.  ~2/3 are suicide (which I consider more of a mental health issue).  That leaves ~10k violent gun deaths each year.  That made me think of this question which I really wish had been asked:

 

According to MADD, there were ~10k drunk driving related deaths in 2013 (about the same number of violent gun deaths)  and 290k drunk driving related injuries.  Where is the Executive Orders and town hall discussions regarding this?  Why the huge push to control gun deaths but I've never heard POTUS mention drunk driving (not saying he hasn't but it hasn't had near the focus of guns).  Why no push to put a breathalyzer in every car?  Considering todays political climate, it seems you'd make a lot more head way focusing on these 10k deaths than the 10k violent gun related deaths.

 

They don't need executive orders to go after drunk drives. There is no pro drunk driver lobby out there. We've seen laws change over time to try dealing with this. Is it solved? No. But there is a community out there that constantly tries to help people who are drinking, get home safely.

 

As far as voter rights and background checks. I don't actually disagree that it is too easy to cheat the system. I also thing it's too easy to make it harder for some demographics to vote in elections. AND, it's too each to gerrymander things especially on the state level.

PleaseBlitz's post 

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

That is the example of HOW you keep working to improve something.

Edited January 8, 2016 by @SkinsGoldPants

[TheGreatBuzz]

Due in large part to legislation, the instances of drunk driving deaths have been dramatically reduced in the past 20 years.  So the question is, why can't we do the same for gun-related deaths, and the answer is, because Congress won't do anything.  

 

*graph*

Sure by percentage it's about 50% which sounds good but over the course of 30 years I'd say it's actually not that good.  When there was ~20k and now there is ~10k, it's still far to many.  Especially when "don't drink and drive" is so easy for someone to do.  And violent gun related deaths have also declined, albeit not by as large a percent.  source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27

 

I'm not trying to turn this into a drunk driving thread.  I'm just really curious what is the reasoning for not a bigger push against DD and how the POTUS would have addressed that question.

 

They don't need executive orders to go after drunk drives. So then what can he do to get the number lower and why isn't it being addressed?  That is a lot of deaths for something so preventable.  There is no pro drunk driver lobby out there. I say this actually makes it worse that it isn't being addressed more.  At least with guns he has the excuse that he has to fight the NRA.  No one is trying to fight getting drunk driving under control.  We've seen laws change over time to try dealing with this. Is it solved? No. But there is a community out there that constantly tries to help people who are drinking, get home safely.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[PleaseBlitz]

Actually, if you look at the top 10 states with the most restrictive gun laws, you will see that they all are very high in gun related violence.  The metric I use, which is what I alluded to in the last post, was the gun related murders to total murders.  The reason we need to look at murders and not population, is because for the most part not everyone is a murderer or plotting for murder.  It makes most sense to compare those who do the act with the weapon that we are talking about here.  

 

It's also no surprise that Hawaii is the only one that's below 50%.  Every other state listed has large cities within their state with high rates of violence/crime/murder.  When you look outside of numbers it's pretty easy to deduce why Hawaii might be the lowest, regardless of gun law.  

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/1/Pennsylvania-10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html

 

 

Your link does not seem to support your contention.  

 

According to http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/13/24-7-wall-st-states-most-gun-violence/71003050/, the states with the most gun violence per capita are Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Montana - not ones with strict gun laws at all. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[Kilmer17]

Uniformed? Denial? Or because Obama is a muslim?

Abe Lincoln said- "Don't believe everything you see on the internet just because it has a picture"

[SkinssRvA]

Well I'd have really liked to hear the Presidents answer to this but I'll bite, what do you think the answer is?

Everyone is against Drunk Driving.  There's no pro-lobby groups for riding around drunk all the time.  

 

Obama is especially emotional (see, tears) and insistent on Gun Control at the moment because he fears for his party.  It is a rallying cry.  He's essentially building up a huge strawman argument, with no basis or facts, that says "if you are republican you are pro mass shootings."  He wants people to believe that his party's good intentions are far more important than actual results when it comes to gun legislation.  Just because he exclaims something doesn't make it a fact, and just because he keeps repeating it doesn't mean we are stupid for questioning it.  

 

Edit: @SkinsGoldPants already said what I was going to say about MADD.  Well said.  

Edited January 8, 2016 by SkinssRvA

[PleaseBlitz]

Sure by percentage it's about 50% which sounds good but over the course of 30 years I'd say it's actually not that good.  When there was ~20k and now there is ~10k, it's still far to many.  Especially when "don't drink and drive" is so easy for someone to do.  And violent gun related deaths have also declined, albeit not by as large a percent.  source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27

 

I'm not trying to turn this into a drunk driving thread.  I'm just really curious what is the reasoning for not a bigger push against DD and how the POTUS would have addressed that question.

 

POTUS doesn't need to focus on a problem that Congress actually has the balls to address (and has addressed).

 

A 50% reduction is really good.  If your standard is perfection, then I don't know what to tell you.  I would be very happy with a 50% reduction in gun-related deaths over the next 2 decades.

Edited January 8, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[SkinssRvA]

Your link does not seem to support your contention.  

 

According to http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/13/24-7-wall-st-states-most-gun-violence/71003050/, the states with the most gun violence per capita are Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Montana - not ones with strict gun laws at all. 

 

Again I'm not talking per capita.  I am talking per violent crime.  Most people are not murderers, so I think it's a safer bet to look at homicides in general and relate them to gun violence.  If you don't agree then I think we will have to agree-to-disagree.  your study is also accounting for suicide rates, and states only Louisiana as a state with less suicides than homicides related to guns. 

 

Edit: when adjusting for homicides only, and comparing to total homicides, Alaskan Gun homicides account for about the same as the other states...around 62%.  Some are higher, some are much lower.  

Edited January 8, 2016 by SkinssRvA

[bcl05]

I'd be thrilled with any legislation or action that led to a 50% reduction in gun deaths.  Please propose one.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

POTUS doesn't need to focus on a problem that Congress actually has the balls to address (and has addressed).

 

A 50% reduction is really good.  If your standard is perfection, then I don't know what to tell you.  

When was the last time Congress addressed it?  It's the same number of deaths as violent gun crime so why not the huge uproar?  I get there will never be perfection but why not a bigger focus?  It seems to me that guns are the "sexy" topic and it is just ignored that the same number of people die from DD.  I'm really not trying to turn this into some type of political debate.  I'm not trying to push some anti-Obama agenda.  Until last night I didn't even know these numbers.  And when I learned them it really bothered me.  Maybe some of it comes from my history with DD's.

[PleaseBlitz]

When was the last time Congress addressed it?  It's the same number of deaths as violent gun crime so why not the huge uproar?  I get there will never be perfection but why not a bigger focus?  It seems to me that guns are the "sexy" topic and it is just ignored that the same number of people die from DD.  I'm really not trying to turn this into some type of political debate.  I'm not trying to push some anti-Obama agenda.  Until last night I didn't even know these numbers.  And when I learned them it really bothered me.  Maybe some of it comes from my history with DD's.

 

 

Last time Congress passed a for-real law was at least as recent as July 6, 2012 and they passed a law making it more restrictive to drink and drive.  http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=126&page=556.  When was the last time Congress passed a law doing the same for guns? 1994?

 

So the point is, there IS a focus, and it is creating positive change, so people are content with that.  There is a focus on guns, and will continue to be, until there is some positive change.  

Edited January 8, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[@DCGoldPants]

When was the last time Congress addressed it?  It's the same number of deaths as violent gun crime so why not the huge uproar?  I get there will never be perfection but why not a bigger focus?  It seems to me that guns are the "sexy" topic and it is just ignored that the same number of people die from DD.  I'm really not trying to turn this into some type of political debate.  I'm not trying to push some anti-Obama agenda.  Until last night I didn't even know these numbers.  And when I learned them it really bothered me.  Maybe some of it comes from my history with DD's.

 

You should be doing your own leg work. But if you just googles congress and drunk driving legislation. You'd see both the last two Congress' took up the matter in one way or another. H.R.3759. 

 

There isn't an uproar because those deaths are going down. The other is going up. No?

There is a reason why no politicians or pundits would use this reasoning. 1. Because it would actually hurt any pro-gun rights arguement. 2. It would make them look like they aren't doing their jobs.

 

So, Congressman. Why aren't you doing more to fight drunk driving? 

[SkinssRvA]

When was the last time Congress addressed it?  It's the same number of deaths as violent gun crime so why not the huge uproar?  I get there will never be perfection but why not a bigger focus?  It seems to me that guns are the "sexy" topic and it is just ignored that the same number of people die from DD.  I'm really not trying to turn this into some type of political debate.  I'm not trying to push some anti-Obama agenda.  Until last night I didn't even know these numbers.  And when I learned them it really bothered me.  Maybe some of it comes from my history with DD's.

There's no agenda to have, man.  It's not a political issue because no one agrees with it. 

Things like abortion and gun control are divided issues.  Centralized gov't vs. decentralized.  I think everyone in this thread, regardless of political affiliation, doesn't want people driving drunk.  Every President is willing to fight that battle.