Thread: "All in favor of gun control, raise your right hand!"

If you think a war on guns would work well, look at the war on drugs. Thugs WILL have guns, period. Don't take away my right to shoot them when they come into my house or vehicle with the guns that they WILL have.

Gun control sucks, doesn't mean anyone should be able to grab an AK-47.

This thread just reminded me to get my pistol permit & buy a gun.

If you think a war on guns would work well, look at the war on drugs. Thugs WILL have guns, period. Don't take away my right to shoot them when they come into my house or vehicle with the guns that they WILL have.

Well, that can be disproved by counterexample. The two aren't comparable; anybody can get drugs (illegally) in the UK, but you hardly ever hear about instances of gun crime. The vast majority of the police force aren't even allowed guns, and it works.

You've just got to look at the figures, where deaths by shooting in the USA is something ridiculous like 10,000 times that in the UK.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, that can be disproved by counterexample. The two aren't comparable; anybody can get drugs (illegally) in the UK, but you hardly ever hear about instances of gun crime. The vast majority of the police force aren't even allowed guns, and it works.

You've just got to look at the figures, where deaths by shooting in the USA is something ridiculous like 10,000 times that in the UK.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5my1tWxwf4g

Guns are a deterrent.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Guns are not a deterrent.

Seriously, how can you make a comparison based upon 'crime rate'? That would depend entirely on the laws of that country, the efficieny of law enforcement, etcetera. It's too variable by an order of magnitude.

The only way to do it properly is to look at a specific, objective crime such as murder. This is basic statistics.

US: 0.042802 per 1,000
UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000

US/UK = 3.0.

Originally Posted by Xei

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Guns are not a deterrent.

Seriously, how can you make a comparison based upon 'crime rate'? That would depend entirely on the laws of that country, the efficieny of law enforcement, etcetera. It's too variable by an order of magnitude.

The only way to do it properly is to look at a specific, objective crime such as murder. This is basic statistics.

US: 0.042802 per 1,000
UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000

US/UK = 3.0.

At first those numbers seem to prove your point, but if you take a closer look at some of the other major factors contributing to murder rates, it quickly breaks down. The most important of these would be population density. UK's most densely populated city is London (obviously) at 4700 p/km^2. America's three most densely populated cities number 18,043.78 (Bronx), 17,134.91 (Astoria), and 11,238.04 (Philadelphia).. I couldn't find any definitive source for the murder rate per capita in london (although I know it is extremely high) and so I also didn't bother looking up the rates for those three US cities since I would have nothing to compare them to, but if you can find some reliable data, I'd be willing to bet that the numbers would show a strong correlation to population density.

Edit: Actually, I misread the site. Those aren't the three most densely populated cities, just the three most densely populated cities out of a random selection of 200. It also now looks like its not all that reliable because its coming up with different numbers as I refresh the page. Let me look for something more accurate.

if you take a closer look at some of the other major factors contributing to murder rates, it quickly breaks down

I couldn't find any definitive source for the murder rate per capita in london (although I know it is extremely high) and so I also didn't bother looking up the rates for those three US cities since I would have nothing to compare them to, but if you can find some reliable data, I'd be willing to bet that the numbers would show a strong correlation to population density.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, that can be disproved by counterexample. The two aren't comparable; anybody can get drugs (illegally) in the UK, but you hardly ever hear about instances of gun crime. The vast majority of the police force aren't even allowed guns, and it works.

You've just got to look at the figures, where deaths by shooting in the USA is something ridiculous like 10,000 times that in the UK.

You do realize you are comparing a population of about 61 million to one of about 300 million, and aren't taking into account the over all murder rate of either country, right? Just because gun violence is down in the UK, it doesn't necessarily mean that violence in general is down. People are still offing each other, they are just doing it with knives, clubs, etc.. Last time I checked, There was no discernible drop in violence in the UK due to the ban on firearms.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, that can be disproved by counterexample. The two aren't comparable; anybody can get drugs (illegally) in the UK, but you hardly ever hear about instances of gun crime. The vast majority of the police force aren't even allowed guns, and it works.

You've just got to look at the figures, where deaths by shooting in the USA is something ridiculous like 10,000 times that in the UK.

How do the two countries compare in terms of murder with other weapons? The U.S. is a much more violent country. That is the difference, not guns. The U.K. does not have the same gun demand we have. It is not that the U.K. has some awesome war on guns policy.

Why would a war on guns be so much more successful than a war on drugs?

Work it out yourself. I was just pointing out that 'wars on guns' are more successful than 'wars on drugs', looking at the evidence in the form of those countries who prohibit both.

I should also point out that this whole 'war on X' cliche sounds pretty funny outside of the US. Jeez, you guys will go to war with anything.

Originally Posted by Xei

Work it out yourself. I was just pointing out that 'wars on guns' are more successful than 'wars on drugs', looking at the evidence in the form of those countries who prohibit both.

I pointed out that you do not have evidence. You brought up a difference and assumed a reason. Again, it is not your government's gun policy that makes the difference. It is your far less violent culture.

Originally Posted by Xei

I should also point out that this whole 'war on X' cliche sounds pretty funny outside of the US. Jeez, you guys will go to war with anything.

Apparently your government has a war on guns, whether it is called that or not. You don't have to fight the foreign wars too hard, though. You know that we will do that business for you.

Do not have evidence for what? Again, I'm just disagreeing with this, based on actual empirical evidence:

If you think a war on guns would work well, look at the war on drugs.

And I hope you don't seriously believe that the USA fights wars for anybody other than itself.

Originally Posted by Xei

Work it out yourself. I was just pointing out that 'wars on guns' are more successful than 'wars on drugs', looking at the evidence in the form of those countries who prohibit both.

I should also point out that this whole 'war on X' cliche sounds pretty funny outside of the US. Jeez, you guys will go to war with anything.

It sounds just as funny from in the US. But I think it does make some sense considering war and prohibition are both generally moronic and deplorable.

I think that you do have a bit of a point though. Banning guns would work better and be easier than banning drugs. But both are terreible ideas. Neither will ever actually be successful.

I have been a supporter of gun control laws for some time and began typing up a post arguing to this end. I decided to stop, however, and first see what the sociological literature had to say. Below are some lit reviews that I found:

Spoiler for abstracts and links:

Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?

Originally Posted by Abstract

A comprehensive index that focuses on 30 weighted criteria applied to 6 categories of gun control regulations is constructed based on analysis of gun control laws in each of the 50 US states & the District of Columbia in 1998. Based on a literature review of gun control studies, two models are developed: the impact of gun control on crime rates & the impact of crime rates on gun control. Multiple regression analyses for 10 categories of crime in 1999 & 2001 reveal no statistically significant impact of gun control: There is no support for the contention that gun control reduces crime rates, nor any support for the contention that lax gun control in neighboring states undermines the effectiveness of state gun control laws. These results are consistent with the majority of previous state-level studies showing no impact of gun control on crime. On the other hand, high crime rates increase political support for gun control legislation.

The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis

Originally Posted by Abstract

The purpose of this study is to statistically and empirically evaluate the effectiveness of the gun control laws that have been adopted by states and municipalities. States are divided into two groups: states with no restrictions as to gun use and states with restrictions (e.g., waiting periods, license, etc.). Multiple linear regression models are used to evaluate the relationship between the number of gun related deaths in 1990 and sets of determinants which include state laws and regulations governing the use of firearms. The study results indicate that gun control laws have a very mild effect on the number of gun related deaths while socioeconomic variables such as a state's poverty level, unemployment rate and alcohol consumption, have significant impact on firearm related deaths. These findings suggest that any reduction in resources spent on social programs tied to the Crime Bill may be counter-productive.

Firearms Laws and the Reduction of Violence: A Systematic Review

Originally Posted by Abstract

Overview The Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force) is conducting systematic reviews of scientific evidence about diverse interventions for the prevention of violence, and resulting injury and death,including, among others, early childhood home visitation,1,2 therapeutic foster care,3 the transfer of juveniles to the adult justice system, school programs for the teaching of prosocial behavior, and community policing. This report presents findings about the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence. Studies of the following firearms laws were included in the review: bans on specified firearms or ammunition; restrictions on firearms acquisition; waiting periods for firearms acquisition; firearms registration; licensing of firearms owners; "shall issue" carry laws that allow people who pass background checks to carry concealed weapons; child access prevention laws; zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools; and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found the evidence available from identified studies was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed singly or in combination. A finding that evidence is insufficient to determine effectiveness means that we do not yet know what effect, if any, the law has on an outcome-not that the law has no effect on the outcome. This report describes how the reviews were conducted, gives detailed information about the Task Force's findings, and provides information about research gaps and priority areas for future research.

Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearm Violence
(This link expires in 7 days so get it while it's hot!)

Originally Posted by Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between access to handguns, gun control laws, and the incidence of violence associated with firearms. Utilizing F. B. I. data, census materials, vital statistics and Harris and Gallup surveys in a multiple regression statistical framework, gun control laws have no significant effect on rates of violence beyond what can be attributed to background social conditions. This lack of effect may be due to the laws not effectively controlling access to firearms. The data supported this contention. Finally, differential access to handguns seems to have no effect on rates of violent crime and firearms accidents, another reason why gun control laws are ineffective.

Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field
No Abstract

I didn't take a terribly close look at each paper to assess the methodologies, but from what I did gather, the efficacy of gun control laws appears to be highly questionable.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you think a war on guns would work well, look at the war on drugs. Thugs WILL have guns, period. Don't take away my right to shoot them when they come into my house or vehicle with the guns that they WILL have.

And that my friends is an example of a patriot, the only way they are going to take our guns is from our cold dead hands, after we fired hundreds of bullets in their faces.

I plan on having one regardless of the law. The reason you call the police is because they have guns. Cut out the slow middle man and save yourself while you still have the chance to. I will shoot at anyone who tries to take my gun from me.

If you don't like guns, don't break into my house.

Oh and that thread is fucking hysterical

It's pretty clear that most Americans are against gun control. There is a big difference between how the American people and European people look at gun control.

You grow up with it, it is normal to have a gun in the house, it is normal to see murders all over the place, it is the NORM. You don't want to see your loving gun gone. You have been raised with the little story about the old lady in her house, "oh, she can't defend herself, we must have guns". Btw studies have shown the most, or a lot of victims of home-defense guns have shot innocent famility members.

You fail to see the spiral, you fail to see the chain of event, leading from the criminals getting guns like candy, to brutal murders.

Do not think like this "All have guns, we need guns to protect ourselves" but think like this "No one have guns, we don't need guns to protect ourselves".

I will bet that guns and arms in your country have killed thousands of more people than it has ever saved.

Will a strict gun control refrain you from geting a firearm? No, but you have the earn the right, it should be a privilege and not an inherent right.

Now stop, get rid of the fear, liberate yourself from the unnessesary violence.

Prohibition of anything just plain doesn't work in the US, whether it be drugs, alcohol, guns, or politically sensitive texts. Banning something only makes it more appealing to Americans.

And don't get started on the democrat=gun control debate. It doesn't. In the backwards redneck county I live in, everybody voted for Bush MkIII because of this.

Originally Posted by Odd_Nonposter

Prohibition of anything just plain doesn't work in the US, whether it be drugs, alcohol, guns, or politically sensitive texts.

I'm just throwing this our there, but I feel that one of the reasons it would be so much more difficult to eliminate gun ownership in the US as well as control the prevalence of drugs is because we have two very wide borders. With the UK, you are surrounded by water. Transportation to and from your country is limited and is more easily monitored. There's less space for people to hide.
Area of UK: 244,820 SQ KM

Area of US: 9,161,923 SQ KM

The US is 37.4 times the size of the UK. There's an awful lot of places for someone to hide and distribute goods and making it more difficult for law enforcement to execute these proposed gun control laws. People complain that law enforcement is wasting money looking for and persecuting pot-heads, but it will cost even more to look for and prosecute those with hunting rifles in their homes.

As far as automatic weapons or sub-machine guns and the like, I don't think the public needs to possess those. They are not used for hunting and are *pardon the expression* overkill when it comes to self-defense, so yes, I could see restrictions on those kinds of weapons. At the same time, I'd hate to deprive a peace-loving collector from possessing a firearm, but even those should be registered and the owner should inform authorities of any theft. They should do that anyway, but now I'm rambling.

Disjointed thoughts, go.

On an somewhat unrelated note, in Oregon our state congress is talking about making public the names of those people who have concealed weapons permits. If that passed, there'd be a nice database for criminals to go through so they can see who has a gun they can steal.

I think you guys are missing the entire point of this thread.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

I'm just throwing this our there, but I feel that one of the reasons it would be so much more difficult to eliminate gun ownership in the US as well as control the prevalence of drugs is because we have two very wide borders. With the UK, you are surrounded by water. Transportation to and from your country is limited and is more easily monitored. There's less space for people to hide.
Area of UK: 244,820 SQ KM


As far as automatic weapons or sub-machine guns and the like, I don't think the public needs to possess those. They are not used for hunting and are *pardon the expression* overkill when it comes to self-defense, so yes, I could see restrictions on those kinds of weapons. At the same time, I'd hate to deprive a peace-loving collector from possessing a firearm, but even those should be registered and the owner should inform authorities of any theft. They should do that anyway, but now I'm rambling.

This may seem far fetched, but in these times especially it is something to be considered: Have you ever thought of the possibility of an invasion? Martial Law? Malicious uprisings? Gang Wars? For all of these events, any hunting rifle or shotgun is not going to be sufficient for the citizen willing to defend his country, Constitution, family, and himself.

Not to mention the lack of authority that the government posesses to ban these weapons, they are precisely what the founders of our country would have wished to have in their hands if only technological progress would have permitted it. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it shall not be violated by any entity private or governmental, and in the Constitution it is directly stated that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I honestly feel that legalization and regulation of various drugs would reduce the rate of violent crimes in the US.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

I'm just throwing this our there, but I feel that one of the reasons it would be so much more difficult to eliminate gun ownership in the US as well as control the prevalence of drugs is because we have two very wide borders. With the UK, you are surrounded by water. Transportation to and from your country is limited and is more easily monitored. There's less space for people to hide.
Area of UK: 244,820 SQ KM

Area of US: 9,161,923 SQ KM

The US is 37.4 times the size of the UK. There's an awful lot of places for someone to hide and distribute goods and making it more difficult for law enforcement to execute these proposed gun control laws. People complain that law enforcement is wasting money looking for and persecuting pot-heads, but it will cost even more to look for and prosecute those with hunting rifles in their homes.

As far as automatic weapons or sub-machine guns and the like, I don't think the public needs to possess those. They are not used for hunting and are *pardon the expression* overkill when it comes to self-defense, so yes, I could see restrictions on those kinds of weapons. At the same time, I'd hate to deprive a peace-loving collector from possessing a firearm, but even those should be registered and the owner should inform authorities of any theft. They should do that anyway, but now I'm rambling.

Before I saw this post, I was just about to say that geography definitely plays a part in all this. America's size and close proximity to third-world nations switch up the playing rules.

America actually does control guns quite a bit, but it doesn't take them away from people. You have to have a background check and such done before you can get a gun, and if I'm not mistaken, in some states you can own an automatic weapon but only after quite a long process. I am satisfied with this form of gun control laws.

On an somewhat unrelated note, in Oregon our state congress is talking about making public the names of those people who have concealed weapons permits. If that passed, there'd be a nice database for criminals to go through so they can see who has a gun they can steal.

Do you think they realize that basically defeats the purpose of having a concealed weapon permit?

It has nothing to do with fear at all. I should know, because I am not even remotely scared, and I do not own a gun. Even though I do not own a gun, should they ever become banned I would go out and buy one, just out of spite. Because I feel that strongly in the right of every person to be able to own one, should they wish it.

People who own guns, are no more violent than people who do not own them. Guns do not cause violence, they do not cause people to become angry or cause people to murder each other. They are simply tools. Nothing but tools.

Fear comes in, with the people who want gun control. They seek to control what they fear, which are guns. I have never known a person who has been shot, and none of my friends or family ever been murdered. So saying I grew up in a dangerous place were murder is common is silly.

People some how believe that guns are dangerous to a the people who own them. The fact is, responsible people who are carefully are not going to accidentally shoot them self or anyone else. Most accidents happen around the house and people die all the time. Not from guns, but from just general accidents. When people get careless they cause accidents.

If you never point a gun at another person, you will never kill anyone. People who are aware of where they point their gun, never accidentally hurt people. Your stance isn't really an argument for gun control, but an argument for better teaching in gun safety. Though I don't believe that at all. Some of the stats that go around, is that half of all homes have a gun in them. Well I can tell you now, if half of the population accidentally shot them self at some point, we would know it. Its simply not true, that most people owning a gun hurt people or have accidents.

As for defending yourself. Lets say for example, that no criminal had a gun. You still need to defend yourself from knife attacks and people with clubs and stuff. Even equipped with your own knife to defend yourself there is a very high chance of dying. Knife attacks are brutal and lets be honest here. Most people need a gun to stop an attacker who has a weapon. Even if that weapon is a knife.

The example of the old lady with a gun is a classic example, because the gun is the great equalizer. If we had no guns, the strongest person would always win the fight. Meaning if the thug if a big bodybuilder, he will be able to subdue 90% of the people he robs. That is not the case with a gun. You can be weak, crippled, fat and slow but if you have a gun you can stop someone who is physically stronger than you are.

Besides, even if you banned all guns. Criminals would still get them. There are simply to many of them. Being able to defend yourself is an inherent right. Its a god given right. Heck forget god, even if your an atheist you should believe in the right to defend your own existence.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

It's pretty clear that most Americans are against gun control. There is a big difference between how the American people and European people look at gun control.

You grow up with it, it is normal to have a gun in the house, it is normal to see murders all over the place, it is the NORM. You don't want to see your loving gun gone. You have been raised with the little story about the old lady in her house, "oh, she can't defend herself, we must have guns". Btw studies have shown the most, or a lot of victims of home-defense guns have shot innocent famility members.

You fail to see the spiral, you fail to see the chain of event, leading from the criminals getting guns like candy, to brutal murders.

Do not think like this "All have guns, we need guns to protect ourselves" but think like this "No one have guns, we don't need guns to protect ourselves".

I will bet that guns and arms in your country have killed thousands of more people than it has ever saved.

Will a strict gun control refrain you from geting a firearm? No, but you have the earn the right, it should be a privilege and not an inherent right.

Now stop, get rid of the fear, liberate yourself from the unnessesary violence.

Heres a simple retort to that statement:

On the black market, you can buy any gun, so in cities like new york, guns are illegal, yet criminals still have guns, how is this?

Instead of said criminal buying the gun from a store which has a unique serial number, and the person who bought it would be on record for buying the gun, so it would be easier to catch him if the gun were legal.

Reguardless of law, people will find guns from various illegal gun salesmen all over the nation, and the world.

If you want to rid guns of the world, pass a law forcing every gun to be destroyed, even the militaries...I assume no nation would ever consciously do that.

So thats why in our constitution it says we have the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from criminals, AND from the government if it becomes tyrannical which it is infact already been tyrannical for quite some time.


That is why America shall always have legal guns, wether hillary clinton and her bubby obama like it or not.

We will keep our guns by peace, or by force...and I mean that for all Americans, they will all defend their guns, I want to see obama even attempt to take any gun away without asking for another civil war, one where its the US Citizens vs the government