Gun Control

SilverishGoldNova

Because we know people who are thinking of murdering someone are going to follow firearms laws.

whiteflame

Can we just start this with some clarification? Gun control is a broad, multifaceted issue. Are you against gun bans? Registries? Background checks? Do you accept current gun control as reasonable and simply reject efforts to increase it?

msmary

@whiteflame I reject the gun laws people are currently protesting about. 

msmary

@whiteflame I agree with you. But, shooters will still get access to a gun even with strict gun laws in place. In 2009, a German high school student went on a rampage and killed 15 people. He did not have a gun. He used his father's 9 mm. Even in a country with strict gun laws, a shooter was able to find one and use it. 

whiteflame

@msmary

So you’re against any gun control that is not currently federal law, and is being supported in the US by any group?

Vaulk

I'm against gun control.  I understand that Gun Control is multi-faceted and cannot be simplified down to any single issue in reality. 

So far, there is no correlation between reduction in crime or violence and Gun Control...it's as simple as that.

With all the different organizations that track crime either as a government entity or a responsible organization that conducts research on statistics of violence, there isn't one study, research report or organization that can produce any conclusive evidence that Gun Control has or can reduce any type of crime.  Even in countries like Australia...there's no evidence to support that the Gun ban decreased crime or violence.

I'm against Gun Control because it's the wrong focus.  Anytime innocent people are dying and the supposed solution misses the mark and doesn't do anything to solve the issue...you have to wonder why people would do that.  Why focus on something that is proven over time to have no impact on the issue that we're trying to solve?

whiteflame

@Vaulk

While I agree with some of the points you're making, I do find fault with your argument on two levels. First, I disagree that no positive effects on violence (a term which has several facets of its own) can be attributed to staunch gun control efforts, including gun bans, such as that in Australia. However, I'm not going to argue this point, mainly because it gets rather hairy on the applications to the US, and thus is more of a theoretical discussion of how well their policies could apply here than a real discussion of sensible gun control policy that actually stands a chance of being implemented in the US.

Second, and this I will argue, your argument assumes that, because other systems of gun control have failed and because they are more severe than anything suggested in the US, we can only expect that all manner of gun control methods used in the US will fail. That's overgeneralizing. In fact, you're doing the same thing that many of the people who are pro-gun control do: treating the outcomes of other countries' gun control policies as representative of how all gun control policies will work. There's validity in the comparison where it's apt, i.e. where the policies suggested are similar, but even then, we're talking about very different countries with very different populations. Even if we're talking about former policies in the US, unless those policies are similar, I don't think we can make apt comparisons. Failures of previous gun control policies (assuming that they are failures) do not mean that all future gun control policies will be failures.

Vaulk

@whiteflame

I can respect that stance, and I honestly failed to substantiate my last point with the specific reference I had intended.  While I agree that Australia is a difficult comparison and probably couldn't be compared accurately...the reference I had intended to make (But failed to) was the U.S. Assault Weapon ban.  Since this weapon ban was implemented in the United States at the Federal level...we can accurately use this previous ban as evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of banning types of Weapons in the U.S.

Assault Weapons were banned from 1994 to 2004 when the ban expired and during that time the effects of the ban had little (Almost none) effect on firearm related violence.  The only provision that could support the pro-gun ban activists is that the study at one point concluded that, while there was no direct evidence to support it, if the ban had been left in place for longer that it could have had an impact on reducing firearm related violence. 

So as far as finding a solution to the problem of mass shootings and specifically school shootings...if banning Assault Weapons in the United States had little to no effect over the course of 10 years...we can deduce that even if we did introduce a new weapon ban...the evidence of precedence would suggest that it would take longer than a decade to even begin to see a result that positively impacted gun violence and that's assuming that it would work because, again,the established precedence of failure.

I'd like to take a moment here to swoop in for the coup de grace by pointing out the toppling fact that it would be morally reprehensible to suggest that the answer to the issue we're facing with mass shootings and more importantly School Shootings should be solved with a program that is 1: More likely to fail than succeed and 2: Not going to produce a discernible impact for more than a decade in the unlikely event that it does succeed.

So we just tell our kids: Hey, sit tight, in ten years or more MAYBE you won't have to worry about School Shootings anymore.

I'm of the strong opinion that this is the wrong answer. 

CYDdharta

Vaulk said:

@whiteflame

I can respect that stance, and I honestly failed to substantiate my last point with the specific reference I had intended.  While I agree that Australia is a difficult comparison and probably couldn't be compared accurately...the reference I had intended to make (But failed to) was the U.S. Assault Weapon ban.  Since this weapon ban was implemented in the United States at the Federal level...we can accurately use this previous ban as evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of banning types of Weapons in the U.S.

Assault Weapons were banned from 1994 to 2004 when the ban expired and during that time the effects of the ban had little (Almost none) effect on firearm related violence.  The only provision that could support the pro-gun ban activists is that the study at one point concluded that, while there was no direct evidence to support it, if the ban had been left in place for longer that it could have had an impact on reducing firearm related violence.

Actually, it isn't difficult to substantiate.  Research by the Univ of Melbourne on Australia's National Firearms Agreement (the forced gun buyback and ban) has found that their legislation was about as ineffective at reducing crime as our gun ban;

Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.

and that it was nothing more than feel-good legislation that had no real effect other than to increase government spending significantly;

Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

https://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf

someone234

@CYDdharta @Vaulk

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1823016659/amp

CYDdharta

Hmmm, right, no where but in the US;

The Deadliest Mass Shootings In History

1	Garissa University College Attack	Garissa, Kenya	2015	148
2	Peshawar School Massacre	Peshawar, Pakistan	2014	141
3	November 2015 Paris Attacks	Paris, France	2015	130
5	Westgate Shopping Mall Attack	Nairobi, Kenya	2013	67
6	2017 Las Vegas Shooting	Las Vegas, Nevada, USA	2017	58
7	South Korea Shooting of 1982	Uiryeong County, South Korea	1982	56
8	2016 Orlando Nightclub Shooting	Orlando, Florida, USA	2016	49
9	Sousse Beach Mass Shooting	Sousse, Tunisia	2015	38
10	Virginia Tech Shootings	Blacksburg, Virginia, USA	2007	32

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-history.html

BaconToes

Guns are not perishable, and easily accessible to murderers. Even with stricter gun control, it would not let the "bad guy" from attaining one. 

Vaulk

@anonymousdebater

The current debate on gun control includes multiple angles of "Ban all guns", the argument is not restricted to how many limits should be on guns.

whiteflame

I was considering giving individual responses, but I'm realizing that my points rather broadly apply to every point made over the last several posts, though I will address some of the specific points made and address them to the individuals to whom I'm responding.

Starting with @anonymousdebater, because I think the issue he's not understanding underpins why this post was made in the first place. Gun control has become a largely ideological issue, one that is inherently polarizing based on the emotions it raises within a great deal of people. For many of those who support strong gun control (i.e. substantial bans of firearms), there's a certain desperation to it. When the mindset is that widespread access to guns is, at least in part, to blame for shootings that occur in society, some will err on the side of caution and seek to reduce the ability to acquire those guns by as much as possible. There's a certain amount of truth to those arguments, but it's difficult to support with available data. On the other hand, for those who are strongly against gun control, there's the concern that any measure that will reduce access to guns in any way is the beginning of a slippery slope that would lead to harsher gun control. When every measure aimed at restricting access to any group, no matter how reasonable it may appear, is treated as just another step on the path to removing people's Second Amendment rights, it's easy to see why these people would have a hard time accepting any such measures.

I felt the need to start with that because, while I'm only getting a nebulous picture of the views of @msmary, I'm struck by how strongly views like this are held. I think @Vaulk, @CYDdharta and @BaconToes (more on that last one shortly) are all unequivocally against gun control because they view gun control chiefly as gun bans. I'll fully admit that many of the policy proposals presented by pro-gun control groups have included gun bans, but their arguments treat gun bans as the sole constituent of gun control as a whole. I think all of them would admit that gun control as a policy direction is not solely composed of gun bans, and yet they're committing to the fallacy of composition, which results from infering that something that is true of some part of the whole (gun bans being ineffective/harmful) is also true of the whole (gun control is ineffective/harmful). Even assuming that there's no rational support for a gun ban, gun control arguments go well beyond a simple ban. In fact, many of the arguments @Vaulk has presented on separate discussions I would characterize as gun control measures, even if those measures are merely to improve enforcement of laws that are currently on the books. Last I checked, that restricts ownership of guns in the US population further than it is currently, even if the bounds of that those restrictions are already supported by existing legislation. It's fine if he doesn't see it that way, and I have agreed and will continue to agree with him and @CYDdharta that there are other measures that have nothing to do with gun control that likely would result in meaningful reductions in gun violence. However, I'm also in agreement with @anonymousdebater that, when it comes to people who are less focused on ideology and more focused on breaking down actual effects of a set of legislation based on real world data, there's not a lot separating people who support gun control from people who don't. Both sides accept that there are rational gun controls, whether they believe those controls are already in place or require enhancing.

What really doesn't help the debate is posts like @BaconToes. That's an ideological argument that demonizes gun control proponents by fundamentally ignoring their argument and, instead, charicaturing their position by pretending that it's fundamentally the same as those instigated by some of the most reviled names in history. Treating any gun ban as turning America into a police state is absolutely absurd. We've instituted gun bans on subsets of firearms before without turning into Nazi Germany, and many of those bans are still on the books. There are many other countries with far more severe gun bans that, last I checked, aren't ruled by dictators who are actively murdering millions of people at home and abroad. If you want to argue that gun bans are ineffective, you're welcome to do so. If you want to pretend that the debate comes down to those who support a Stalinist government and those who value individual liberties, then you're just furthering the divide that makes it impossible to implement of any reasonable policy aimed at reducing the number of gun deaths in the US.

CYDdharta

@whiteflame You seem to have missed the whole point of @Vaulk 's thread.  The question he posed was "is the Gun Control Debate is targeted correctly".  As @Vaulk demonstrated in his thread, so long as the focus is on guns, the debate is NOT targeted on anything that is likely to lower the murder rate per capita.  There are a lot of things that likely will, but nothing that focuses specifically on "guns".

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

@whiteflame You seem to have missed the whole point of @Vaulk 's thread.  The question he posed was "is the Gun Control Debate is targeted correctly".  As @Vaulk demonstrated in his thread, so long as the focus is on guns, the debate is NOT targeted on anything that is likely to lower the murder rate per capita.  There are a lot of things that likely will, but nothing that focuses specifically on "guns".

I didn't miss that point. In fact, I granted that he made a very good point, several times in that thread and here as well. One of my points here is that he, like many others who are against gun bans, still considers himself to be anti-gun control. He's said as much, and yet he supports some measures that would increase gun control, albeit mainly through better enforcement of the laws already on the books. And his argument clearly indicated that he believes that those measures are, as you say, likely to the lower the murder rate. The idea that, because there is a focus on guns, there is no room to pass other relevant legislation that would also have an effect on murder rates seems off to me.

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

I didn't miss that point. In fact, I granted that he made a very good point, several times in that thread and here as well. One of my points here is that he, like many others who are against gun bans, still considers himself to be anti-gun control. He's said as much, and yet he supports some measures that would increase gun control, albeit mainly through better enforcement of the laws already on the books. And his argument clearly indicated that he believes that those measures are, as you say, likely to the lower the murder rate. The idea that, because there is a focus on guns, there is no room to pass other relevant legislation that would also have an effect on murder rates seems off to me.

What legislation, that focuses specifically on guns, would have a significant effect on murder rates?  You avoided that question in @Vaulk's thread.

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

What legislation, that focuses specifically on guns, would have a significant effect on murder rates?  You avoided that question in @Vaulk's thread.

Actually, if you look back at that thread (and all previous threads on the matter of gun control where I have commented), no one has asked me what measures I think should be taken to reduce murder rates. So, no, I don't think I've avoided a question that's never been asked. My focus in these discussions is to talk about general opinions on the matter, not my own, but if you want my perspective, I'll be happy to oblige.

My view is that a universal background check system would reduce access of legal firearms to individuals who clearly should not have them. There are multiple loopholes, such as the gun show loophole, that could easily be closed by simple legislation. Even better would be a basic permit-to-purchase law. Including some subsets of people in the group that does not get legal access to guns, such as those under domestic violence restraining orders or who had been convicted of violent misdemeanors seems like a no brainer. While I'm not sure that a gun registration policy would help, I think that basic identification requirements for guns would produce some benefit. Requiring licensing and inspections of gun dealers to ensure that they're following through to the letter of the law would also improve outcomes.

Honestly, that's the majority of what I'd support.

Vaulk

@whiteflame
Out of curiosity, if one day we completely and totally fixed the legal gun system and nobody who shouldn't buy a gun legally could buy one...what would we fight over with incidents like Sandy Hooks?

whiteflame

Vaulk said:

@whiteflame
Out of curiosity, if one day we completely and totally fixed the legal gun system and nobody who shouldn't buy a gun legally could buy one...what would we fight over with incidents like Sandy Hooks?

In that entirely theoretical scenario that's unlikely to ever happen? Chances are the conversation would shift to combating black markets and other means of illegal gun acquisition, monitoring individuals that have a higher likelihood of acquiring said weapons to commit a mass shooting, improving mental health diagnosis and treatment, and finding means to protect sites where such incidents are likely to happen.

Ampersand

Vaulk said:

I'm against gun control.  I understand that Gun Control is multi-faceted and cannot be simplified down to any single issue in reality. 

So far, there is no correlation between reduction in crime or violence and Gun Control...it's as simple as that.

With all the different organizations that track crime either as a government entity or a responsible organization that conducts research on statistics of violence, there isn't one study, research report or organization that can produce any conclusive evidence that Gun Control has or can reduce any type of crime.  Even in countries like Australia...there's no evidence to support that the Gun ban decreased crime or violence.

I'm against Gun Control because it's the wrong focus.  Anytime innocent people are dying and the supposed solution misses the mark and doesn't do anything to solve the issue...you have to wonder why people would do that.  Why focus on something that is proven over time to have no impact on the issue that we're trying to solve?

First of all, you're weaselling out of looking at the evidence critically. You state "there isn't one study, research report or organization that can produce any conclusive evidence that Gun Control has or can reduce any type of crime" but one study will never say "This is conclusive proof of X". Studies will investigate an issue, tell you what their findings indicate, tell you how likely it is those findings are right and will discuss possible issues that could be biasing their results.

The above description isn't specific to gun control, it is simply how scientific studies work. Your criteria is therefore irrelevant.

i would also note gun control in the USA varies from lax to incredibly lax. There is no correlation between gun control and gun prevalence despite the frequent complaints of gun advocates. The ideal solution would be to get serious and actually look at reducing the prevalence of weapons; rolling back the second amendment and stopping almost all gun sales. If nothing else it should help kill the gun fetishism - actual countries in the middle of civil wars have less civilian guns per capita than you guys.

Vaulk

@whiteflame

whiteflame said:

In that entirely theoretical scenario that's unlikely to ever happen? Chances are the conversation would shift to combating black markets and other means of illegal gun acquisition, monitoring individuals that have a higher likelihood of acquiring said weapons to commit a mass shooting, improving mental health diagnosis and treatment, and finding means to protect sites where such incidents are likely to happen.

Nicely put, I'd like to see that idea put into effect immediately because of the fact that while the scenario I proposed was hypothetical...the risks are still the same.  Legally purchased guns are less than 20% of the problem.  The VAST majority of firearm related crime is done so with illegally obtained firearms and THIS should be our focus.

Vaulk

Ampersand said:

First of all, you're weaselling out of looking at the evidence critically. You state "there isn't one study, research report or organization that can produce any conclusive evidence that Gun Control has or can reduce any type of crime" but one study will never say "This is conclusive proof of X". Studies will investigate an issue, tell you what their findings indicate, tell you how likely it is those findings are right and will discuss possible issues that could be biasing their results.

The above description isn't specific to gun control, it is simply how scientific studies work. Your criteria is therefore irrelevant.

i would also note gun control in the USA varies from lax to incredibly lax. There is no correlation between gun control and gun prevalence despite the frequent complaints of gun advocates. The ideal solution would be to get serious and actually look at reducing the prevalence of weapons; rolling back the second amendment and stopping almost all gun sales. If nothing else it should help kill the gun fetishism - actual countries in the middle of civil wars have less civilian guns per capita than you guys.

So, allow me to "Weasel" back in.  Research  can and has been conclusive in the past as you'll see from my source here.  Quantitative and deductive evidence is the key and with these types of research and study, one can come to conclusive findings such as this or even this.  Also, I never...ever...ever said that "Conclusive PROOF" was absent and therefor the argument against guns is flawed.  I did offer that "Conclusive Evidence" is missing.  I'll do you a solid and presume that you actually meant to use my statement instead of making up the "Proof" requirement...and by this admission, your statement is wrong.

Ampersand said:

one study will never say "This is conclusive proof of X". 

I have two studies sourced above that both offer "Conclusive evidence of X"...something you've stated directly "Will never exist".

Ampersand said:

There is no correlation between gun control and gun prevalence despite the frequent complaints of gun advocates. 

Oh really?  Then what's this?  Could it be a study produced by the National Center for Biotechnology Information regarding the correlation between gun ownership and homicide and suicide?  This was published in 1993...so this isn't some new thing that couldn't have been accounted for.

Lastly I'd like to point out the humor in suggesting that we need less guns in the United States and then using an example of a Country that's at War with itself as some sort of measuring point to us having too many guns.  So please...please oh please let me know which Country this is that you're referencing...I really truly sincerely want to know what Country we need to be emulating in our firearm reduction.

Here's the list of every country that's still in a Civil War...which one is it?

•  Myanmar, Internal conflict in Myanmar, since 1948
•  Papua New Guinea, Papua conflict, since 1962
•  Colombia, Colombian conflict, since 1964
•  Afghanistan, War in Afghanistan, since 1978
•  Peru, Peruvian conflict, since 1978
•  Turkey, Kurdish–Turkish conflict since 1978
•  Somalia, Somali Civil War, since 1988
•  Sudan, War in Darfur, since 26 February 2003
•  Pakistan, War in North-West Pakistan, since 16 March 2004
•  Paraguay, Paraguayan People's Army insurgency, since 2005
•  Sudan, Sudanese nomadic conflicts, since 26 May 2009
•  Syria, Syrian Civil War, since 15 March 2011, also see List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War
•  Sudan, Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile since 5 June 2011
•  Central African Republic, Central African Republic conflict, since 10 December 2012
•  Sudan, South Sudanese Civil War, since 15 December 2013
•  Iraq, Second Iraqi Civil War, since 4 June 2014
•  Libya, Second Libyan Civil War, since 16 May 2014
•  Yemen, Second Yemeni Civil War, since 19 March 2015

someone234

Solution to killing is not more killing

Ampersand

Vaulk said:

So, allow me to "Weasel" back in.  Research  can and has been conclusive in the past as you'll see from my source here.  Quantitative and deductive evidence is the key and with these types of research and study, one can come to conclusive findings such as this or even this.  Also, I never...ever...ever said that "Conclusive PROOF" was absent and therefor the argument against guns is flawed.  I did offer that "Conclusive Evidence" is missing.  I'll do you a solid and presume that you actually meant to use my statement instead of making up the "Proof" requirement...and by this admission, your statement is wrong.

Ampersand said:

one study will never say "This is conclusive proof of X". 

I have two studies sourced above that both offer "Conclusive evidence of X"...something you've stated directly "Will never exist".

@Vaulk Did you actually read those links (which error unless you correct them)?

If you'd responded with "My bad, I was a little to enthusiastic about my claims, what I should have said is..." then that would have been perfectly understandable. Instead you post evidence that points to your lack of knowledge.

Let's look at the studies referenced rather than random article talking about the studies second hand:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24625

This one actually does use the word conclusive, so lets see what they mean:

https://www.nap.edu/resource/24625/Cannabis-conclusions.pdf

In this context, conclusive means very likely - that alternatives can be ruled out with "reasonable confidence" - not the layman definition of conclusive which means absolute certainty.

For the actual study, although the obviously biased source of "vapeaboutit.com" says that the study finds vaping is conclusively safe if you take the time to actually check the study it says no such thing and is much more moderate in its statement that:

"Thus, the results obtained in the aforementioned studies and in the present work broadly support the potential for e-cigarette products to provide markedly reduced exposures to hazardous and potentially hazardous smoke constituents in smokers who use such products as an alternative to cigarettes. Additional research related to e-cigarette aerosol characterization is warranted. For example, continued characterization of Table 6 Per puff comparisons of quantifiable analytes for blu eCigs products from CAN puffing – yields and ratios to conventional product yields. Marlboro Gold Box lg/puff blu MMD lg/puff MGB/blu MMD Acrolein 16.4 ± 0.2 0.19 ± 0.06 86 Phenol 1.53 ± 0.16 0.0017a 900 a Fewer than three replicates were quantifiable; no standard deviation is listed. Table 7 Per puff comparisons of quantifiable analytes for SKYCIG products from CAN puffing – yields and ratios to conventional product yields. L&B average lg/puff SKYCIG CTB lg/puff SKYCIG CMB lg/puff L&B average/SKYCIG CTB L&B average/SKYCIG CMB Acetaldehyde 174 – 0.32a – 544 Acrolein 17 0.15 ± 0.02 – 113 – Propionaldehyde 12 – 0.11 ± 0.05 – 109 N-Nitrosoanatabine 0.010 – 0.0002 ± 0.0001 – 50 a Fewer than three replicates were quantifiable; no standard deviation is listed. R. Tayyarah, G.A. Long / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 70 (2014) 704–710 709 major components and flavors is needed. Establishment of standardized puffing regimes and reference products would greatly aid sharing of knowledge between researchers. Continued methods’ refinement may be necessary for improved accuracy for quantitation of analytes at the low levels determined in this study. To that end, it is critical that negative controls and steps to avoid sample contamination be included when characterizing e-cigarette aerosol since analytes are on the order of what has been measured in the background levels of a laboratory setting. Though researchers have reported quantification of select analytes, great care must be taken when interpreting results at such trace levels."

Both are exactly in line with my description of how scientific studies would and show you to be wrong.

As for your link to a random definition on some website where a is trying to sell his business book, I'm not really going to bother with such a meaningless source except to note that even that doesn't support your claim.

Vaulk said:

Ampersand said:

There is no correlation between gun control and gun prevalence despite the frequent complaints of gun advocates. 

Oh really?  Then what's this?  Could it be a study produced by the National Center for Biotechnology Information regarding the correlation between gun ownership and homicide and suicide?  This was published in 1993...so this isn't some new thing that couldn't have been accounted for.

Did you even read what I said?

"There is no correlation between gun control and gun prevalence despite the frequent complaints of gun advocates." Although from the original context it should be obvious, I'll point out so there's no confusion that I'm talking about the USA. I have no idea why you are responding to a different topic that I've never brought up.

Vaulk said:

Lastly I'd like to point out the humor in suggesting that we need less guns in the United States and then using an example of a Country that's at War with itself as some sort of measuring point to us having too many guns.  So please...please oh please let me know which Country this is that you're referencing...I really truly sincerely want to know what Country we need to be emulating in our firearm reduction.

Here's the list of every country that's still in a Civil War...which one is it?

•  Myanmar, Internal conflict in Myanmar, since 1948
•  Papua New Guinea, Papua conflict, since 1962
•  Colombia, Colombian conflict, since 1964
•  Afghanistan, War in Afghanistan, since 1978
•  Peru, Peruvian conflict, since 1978
•  Turkey, Kurdish–Turkish conflict since 1978
•  Somalia, Somali Civil War, since 1988
•  Sudan, War in Darfur, since 26 February 2003
•  Pakistan, War in North-West Pakistan, since 16 March 2004
•  Paraguay, Paraguayan People's Army insurgency, since 2005
•  Sudan, Sudanese nomadic conflicts, since 26 May 2009
•  Syria, Syrian Civil War, since 15 March 2011, also see List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War
•  Sudan, Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile since 5 June 2011
•  Central African Republic, Central African Republic conflict, since 10 December 2012
•  Sudan, South Sudanese Civil War, since 15 December 2013
•  Iraq, Second Iraqi Civil War, since 4 June 2014
•  Libya, Second Libyan Civil War, since 16 May 2014
•  Yemen, Second Yemeni Civil War, since 19 March 2015

Take your pick - although the fact that you think these countries should be viewed as an example is rather disturbing when they were meant as a warning. 

whiteflame

Vaulk said:

Nicely put, I'd like to see that idea put into effect immediately because of the fact that while the scenario I proposed was hypothetical...the risks are still the same.  Legally purchased guns are less than 20% of the problem.  The VAST majority of firearm related crime is done so with illegally obtained firearms and THIS should be our focus.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the idea that one conversation cannibalizes the other is just not true. Your argument seems to be that we should focus on these issues because they could potentially have a greater effect than any measure of gun control would. Ignoring the fact that none of these are simple problems, many of them would require substantial investment on the part of the state, and substantial changes to other issues like immigration that are also very complex, there's no reason why we cannot make gun control a focal point while seeking to address these issues. Yes, gun control dominates the national conversation after shootings, but the reason for that is mostly because of the controversy surrounding such a move, and the ideologies of both sides that make a clash inevitable. An attempt to shift the conversation away from gun control to other issues won't solve that because those ideologies will persist. Even in your entirely theoretical world, people will still argue for gun bans, perceiving a potential threat.

someone234

Help the cops find the bad guys with guns, don't concede it can't be done and let the neutral guys who may be good or bad get guns far easier.

Simple idea, gamble for the long term profit not the short term easy fix.

Vaulk

whiteflame said:

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the idea that one conversation cannibalizes the other is just not true. Your argument seems to be that we should focus on these issues because they could potentially have a greater effect than any measure of gun control would. Ignoring the fact that none of these are simple problems, many of them would require substantial investment on the part of the state, and substantial changes to other issues like immigration that are also very complex, there's no reason why we cannot make gun control a focal point while seeking to address these issues. Yes, gun control dominates the national conversation after shootings, but the reason for that is mostly because of the controversy surrounding such a move, and the ideologies of both sides that make a clash inevitable. An attempt to shift the conversation away from gun control to other issues won't solve that because those ideologies will persist. Even in your entirely theoretical world, people will still argue for gun bans, perceiving a potential threat.

Technically you're correct, one conversation doesn't cannibalize the other.  So let's make an educated guess then, why is it that you, I, hell anyone here have never heard one single proposal to tighten up the issue with illegal weapons funneling into our Country?  Why is it that we have no proposed legislation to fix the incredible amount of illegal firearms circulating through places like Chicago, Baltimore, D.C.?  If one conversation doesn't cannibalize the other...then where is the other?

Seriously though, have you heard....anything about illegal weapons funneling into the U.S.?  When's the last time people marched or had a city hall meeting or a political figure announced....anything about the War on illegal firearms in our Country?  I'm not exactly worldly with my intake of political information but I can honestly say that, with the exception of a documentary on netflix, I've never seen a single article or mention in the media to illegal firearms in our Country and how much of an epidemic it is.  You probably haven't heard about 80% of the issue, you probably haven't seen anything about the vast majority of the problem, instead what we can all cite and reference is the absolute minority of the problem as if it's somehow more valid because that's how our Country treats it.  17 kids die in a school shooting and the whole Country is in a roar about gun bans and gun control yet 50 kids are shot and killed over the course of a weekend in places like Detroit and Baltimore and you won't even hear about it.

Seriously though, not rhetorical...where is the discussion regarding the vast majority of the issue?  We currently have 2 separate discussions that are active and recent on this site that are targeted directly at what just happened with the school shooting but not a peep about the largest loss of life happening in our Country.  The issue I take with the discussion is not that it's the "Focal" point.........it's that it's the ONLY point being made in regards to gun violence.  Illegal firearms in this Country is not a "Behind the scenes" issue...it's not an issue at all and if it was, you and I could both recall at least one recent political agenda designed to address it.  Now I'm assuming a great deal in the assertion that you don't know of one off the top of your head but I have the feeling that I might be right.  You might find out if you search hard enough but to say that we know of one...I'm going to put my chips all in on "The agenda doesn't exist" and if it does then it's certainly not getting the power it needs.  Meanwhile the Country is again "Roaring" about gun control over a mass shooting at a school.  I'm not saying that it's wrong to work on fixing an issue, because 20% is still 20% and problems need to be solved regardless of how small they are.  But when we have Cities in America who's leaders are calling for help from the U.N. because of their desperation in regards to gun violence...it's hard to understand why the "Focal" point is where it's at.

This guy's definitely pro-gun however, he's also reasonable and appeals to both sides.  If you have a spare 7 minutes you should hear him talk.

whiteflame

Vaulk said:

Technically you're correct, one conversation doesn't cannibalize the other.  So let's make an educated guess then, why is it that you, I, hell anyone here have never heard one single proposal to tighten up the issue with illegal weapons funneling into our Country?  Why is it that we have no proposed legislation to fix the incredible amount of illegal firearms circulating through places like Chicago, Baltimore, D.C.?  If one conversation doesn't cannibalize the other...then where is the other?

Seriously though, have you heard....anything about illegal weapons funneling into the U.S.?  When's the last time people marched or had a city hall meeting or a political figure announced....anything about the War on illegal firearms in our Country?  I'm not exactly worldly with my intake of political information but I can honestly say that, with the exception of a documentary on netflix, I've never seen a single article or mention in the media to illegal firearms in our Country and how much of an epidemic it is.  You probably haven't heard about 80% of the issue, you probably haven't seen anything about the vast majority of the problem, instead what we can all cite and reference is the absolute minority of the problem as if it's somehow more valid because that's how our Country treats it.  17 kids die in a school shooting and the whole Country is in a roar about gun bans and gun control yet 50 kids are shot and killed over the course of a weekend in places like Detroit and Baltimore and you won't even hear about it.

Seriously though, not rhetorical...where is the discussion regarding the vast majority of the issue?  We currently have 2 separate discussions that are active and recent on this site that are targeted directly at what just happened with the school shooting but not a peep about the largest loss of life happening in our Country.

This guy's definitely pro-gun however, he's also reasonable and appeals to both sides.  If you have a spare 7 minutes you should hear him talk.

Are you seriously blaming the lack of discussion over this issue on gun control? The reason why there's no political will to do this is because there's no substantial push behind it. I haven't seen campaigns aimed at accomplishing the task of preventing illegal weapons from coming into the US. I don't pretend to know what the reason for that is, but you're essentially blaming the conversation over gun control for a lack of conversation over other pressing issues. Where are you getting that view?

As for the video, sorry, but I don't think he appeals to both sides, nor is he wholly reasonable. A lot of his points come off as extremely dismissive of gun control efforts as a whole, and he parrots several talking points that I have problems with, especially the comparisons to Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Communist China. I've heard good and even perspectives on gun control that weigh the pros and cons of the issue without making one or the other side sound wholly ridiculous and without appealing to emotion repeatedly. This is not one of them.

with_all_humility

The Austrailian gun control report was, for the most part, inconclusive due to lack of data.  Australia has only had 4 public shootings from 1980-2009 and New Zealand had 2 public shootings in the same time frame.  So to try and claim that Australia's weapons ban had a huge impact is a complete fallacy base on a strawman argument. From the Aussi report...

"It is thus reasonable to infer that the intended outcome of the 1996 NFA was to impact upon all types of firearm-related death (suicide, homicide, and unintentional) in Australia. However, research since that time has demonstrated that the legislative reforms did not deliver the desired outcomes. In the late 1990’s, studies suggested that the NFA may have been successful in reducing firearm suicides, but ineffective for other gun deaths (Carcach, Mouzos & Grabosky 2002; Reuter & Mouzos, 2003). Recent work confirms these observations (e.g., Baker & McPhedran, 2007; Klieve, Barnes, & De Leo, 2009; Lee & Suardi, 2010), suggesting that the only category of firearm-related death that may have been influenced by the introduction of the NFA was firearm suicide." (pg.6)[1]

"Firearm homicide rates were not significantly altered by the NFA, with the pre-existing downward trend in firearm homicides continuing at the same rate after the reforms as before" (Baker & McPhedran, 2007; Lee & Suardi, 2010)(pg 6)[1] 

While the Aussi's like to claim they have not had a mass shooting since 1996, they never had a big issue to begin with. So to say adopting policies like Austrailia's would be unfounded and complete conjecture.

In the US:
Suicide is the leading cause of firearm deaths in the US in the amount of 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US are from suicide.

 
Pretty much the same conclusions were made from the three reports from the Brady Bill era, they concluded there were little data and little to no evidence that the ban worked.  One report noted if there was a drop in assault weapons, crime rates did not drop probably because people used differen@whiteflame

[1] Sources "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence; Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker, Volume 8 – No. 1 – Spring 2011 

  @CYDdharta @whiteflame

whiteflame

@with_all_humility

Interesting analysis, but it's not really responsive to any of the points I'm making. I haven't argued for a gun ban of any sort, nor have I argued that the Australian example should be used as a basis for any kind of gun control in the US.

with_all_humility

I was trying to support your position on the previous page, not saying your incorrect @whiteflame

whiteflame

@with_all_humility

Ah, I see. Alright, appreciate that.