Obligatory gun control thread

[Charles Bolivar]

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/six-things-americans-should-know-about-mass-shootings

 

Pretty much common sense imo but I am interested to see what people have to say in opposing the article.

 

Discuss

[Ol Uncle Isidor]

Ugh. It's 2015 and were still having this debate? I mean COME ON!

[Bilal the Great]

muh freedom

[New Scandanavia]

Gun-gun=no guns AND NO GTA

[Moreau]

Exclusive: only in Murica

[Lannan13]

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/six-things-americans-should-know-about-mass-shootings

 

Pretty much common sense imo but I am interested to see what people have to say in opposing the article.

 

Discuss

First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls."

 

 

 

This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. [1] Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. [2]

Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight. [3]

In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. 

 

Sources

1. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/01/so-what-can-us-learn-from-other.html

2.  (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide")

3. http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html

[Solomon]

Ugh. It's 2015 and were still having this debate? I mean COME ON!

Be patient. What should have been a rational decision became an emotional decision so it'll take a lot longer to resolve.

[Lannan13]

Be patient. What should have been a rational decision became an emotional decision so it'll take a lot longer to resolve.

I hate certain arguments that are simple Appeal to Emotion. 

[Captain_Vietnam]

Athiest like obama ban guns!

 

do we want to see liberal athiesm take over???!

 

hitler ban guns! if hitler not ban guns he not take over! obama is no different to hitler!

[Seryozha Nikanor]

lol

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Let's talk about Massacre prevention, the fact that tighter gun controls has succeeded preventing large levels of massacres in other countries is neither here or there. It probably says a lot that firearms have not played a part in UK terror attacks in recent times.

[Lannan13]

Let's talk about Massacre prevention, the fact that tighter gun controls has succeeded preventing large levels of massacres in other countries is neither here or there. It probably says a lot that firearms have not played a part in UK terror attacks in recent times.

That may be true, but that fails to explain why when the UK placed the ban on fire arms in the late 1990s that their crime rates skyrocketted. Sure they don't have "shootings," but the crime becomes worse.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Nukes don't kill people. People kill people. Everyone should have a nuke.

[WISD0MTREE]

If guns didn't exist, people would still kill people. 

If people didn't exist, guns wouldn't shoot other guns. 

 

Plus, if I wanted to kill people, I would just use fertilizer. Or a plane. 

[Lannan13]

If guns didn't exist, people would still kill people. 

If people didn't exist, guns wouldn't shoot other guns. 

 

Plus, if I wanted to kill people, I would just use fertilizer. Or a plane. 

Good Ol Chemical weapons. We found those WMDs in Iraq, but everyone was wanting them to have the bomb.

[Saruman]

Gun control saves lives. Conservatives claim they need automatic rifles to protect themselves. They're called assault rifles for a reason, I haven't heard these protective rifles you're speaking of. Another of your arguments is that we need assault rifles for defense against a tyrannical government. Well hey, maybe that'd be valid if the government couldn't just shoot a drone or missile you. Some idiots don't realize that the people could never win a war against the government. Thomas Jefferson said we needed guns to protect ourselves from the government. Times have changed just a bit since then. Back then, Muskets were all the people and the government had. Nowadays, a rebellion would be destroyed in less than a week. Another argument is that only dictators use gun control. That is complete and utter bull crap. Have a look around the modern world. Australia, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are just a few examples of non dictatorship countries with gun control. You know something else these countries have in common? A much lower murder rate! Those countries don't have to have their kids practicing crisis/lockdown drills, because school shootings don't happen there! The murder rate is cut by at LEAST 30% in each of the mentioned countries. So before you go making up stuff about how gun control isn't effective, have a look at the facts. 

[Caecus]

Athiest like obama ban guns!

 

do we want to see liberal athiesm take over???!

 

hitler ban guns! if hitler not ban guns he not take over! obama is no different to hitler!

 

The Ottoman Caliph banned guns too! They must be atheists. Damn Turks, never understood Islam. 

 

OMG! I just learned today that the Vatican bans guns too! Those !@#$ing atheists. I want my priests to have grenade launchers, and I want to bring my Ar-15 to church. Instead of a coat rack, it will be a gun rack. I would feel a lot safer too. After all, there is no "mass" in "massacre."

Edited December 9, 2015 by Caecus

[Caecus]

If guns didn't exist, people would still kill people. 

If people didn't exist, guns wouldn't shoot other guns. 

 

Plus, if I wanted to kill people, I would just use fertilizer. Or a plane. 

 

GUNNNNNNSSSSSS!!!!!!!!! Because people still kill people! I agree! 

 

!@#$ it, let's hand out 5 shots of tequila, a bag of fertilizer, and a fully-loaded full-auto AK-47 to every household and disband the police. What a !@#$ waste of money, a police force. People are still going to kill people, so why bother wasting tax money on trying to stop them? Like what those liberals say all the time! !@#$ the pooooolice. 

 

 

While deaths attributed to guns go down when guns are removed you know what doesn't go down?

The murder rate.

 

You know what also doesn't go down? My hard-on for guns. 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Caecus

[WISD0MTREE]

Gun control saves lives.

Conservatives

claim they need automatic rifles to protect themselves.

They're called assault rifles for a reason,

I haven't heard these protective rifles you're speaking of.

 

Another of your arguments is that we need assault rifles for defense against a tyrannical government.

Well hey, maybe that'd be valid if the government couldn't just shoot a drone or missile you.

Some idiots don't realize that the people could never win a war against the government. Thomas Jefferson said we needed guns to protect ourselves from the government. Times have changed just a bit since then. Back then, Muskets were all the people and the government had. Nowadays, a rebellion would be destroyed in less than a week.

 

Another argument is that only dictators use gun control.

That is complete and utter bull crap.

Have a look around the modern world. Australia, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are just a few examples of non dictatorship countries with gun control.

You know something else these countries have in common? A much lower murder rate! Those countries don't have to have their kids practicing crisis/lockdown drills, because school shootings don't happen there!

The murder rate is cut by at LEAST 30% in each of the mentioned countries.

 

So before you go making up stuff about how gun control isn't effective, have a look at the facts. 

 

Like under Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, all of the Kims, Stalin, and Hitler? 

You don't have to be conservative to be against gun control. 

Anyone who claims to need automatic weapons for defense are idiots. 

AR means Armalite Rifle, not assault rifle. (Armalite sold the design to Colt) See: AR-7

How about every gun in the right hands? 

 

Yes. For the rest of this section, please refer to the spoiler. 

 

Let's assume that 10% of all armed Americans revolt. Realistically, I think it would be a shit ton more, but 10% is a nice, even, generous number. That gives us 

1.5 million military personnel (They could most likely smuggle some shit off of base. Also, most military personnel tend to not be anti-gun pacifists from California, so this would likely be higher.) 

13.5 million militia members (including ex-military and combat veterans) 

About 3.5 million homes that could be used as safe houses

Assuming that everyone gave $750 a year (which would be more, since "muh old white male republicans"), then that would be about $11,250,000,000 a year (about the size of Spain's spending; way more than Saudi Arabia and North Korea)

Assuming that 1 in 5 vehicles (of the militia members, obviously) would be used for militia purposes, there would be about 2.4 million vehicles

At least 15 million guns, but tons of people have collections (could be anywhere up to 90,000,000 and non-militant gun owners could have "tragic boating accidents" and "not hand guns to militia members")

We would have aircraft (I can't find any FAA numbers. Almost all of their links are 404ing for me. I saw someplace that said there were about 100,000 private A/C in the USA, but it wasn't credible. If it was, then that would be around 10,000 aircraft.) 

Assuming that there are 250 rounds per weapon, then that could be anywhere from 15 billion to 90 billion rounds 

To add to that, jets can't enforce curfews, anti-protest laws, etc. in urban areas. Jets can't kick doors to take up guns. You need police or troops to do that. Lots of police won't risk their life to pick up weapons on $50,000 a year. In addition, foreign nations could give SAM launchers or MANPADS to shoot down planes. Or we could, you know, blow up their fuel tanks on the ground, destroy vital infrastructure that keeps them connected, or kill their pilots. 

 

We, as a nation, are sitting on a castle of cards. There are tons of internal problems that could have a ripple effect. How many of us could survive without PaW? 4chan? Tumblr? Reddit? The dark net? TV? If something dramatic were to happen to the power grid, the cities would be in complete anarchy. That is an additional front for the NG/military/police. Plus, the US government could use sites or TV stations for propaganda. Losing power would mean losing a valuable propaganda machine. Prison-breaks? Imagine a small number of prisoners taking this chance to be free. We do have a pretty decent number of prisoners. Farms? Cities son't produce as much food as rural areas. Guess who supports gun control? Mostly cities. I'm NOT saying that the government loyal side would starve, but their price of food would probably skyrocket. The government's logistics would also be a big problem. Many of the states with natural boundaries are red states. Think about the Mississippi River, the Rocky Mountains, the Missouri River, etc. It would be hard to get supplies across to, let's say, Denver if the supply trucks had a limited number of routes that were armed with rebels. Outside influences? Wouldn't countries that hate the good old USA aid the militias with training and weapons? Wouldn't terrorists love the police to be in anarchy to carry out terroristy-things? 

 

tl;dr: The US government would be absolutely !@#$ed over by any armed uprising.

 

Not only dictators, but almost every dictator has. 

Nope. 

Why did you exclude France? Paris doesn't support your argument? What about Brazil? Record high murders and almost complete gun ban? 

See above. 

"The murder rate is cut by at LEAST 30% in each of these cherry-picked countries." That works better. 

 

Right back at you. 

 

GUNNNNNNSSSSSS!!!!!!!!! Because people still kill people! I agree! 

 

!@#$ it, let's hand out 5 shots of tequila, a bag of fertilizer, and a fully-loaded full-auto AK-47 to every household and disband the police. What a !@#$ waste of money, a police force. People are still going to kill people, so why bother wasting tax money on trying to stop them? Like what those liberals say all the time! !@#$ the pooooolice. 

You would change your opinion if you were almost killed in a home invasion. Believe it or not, not everybody lives in a gated community with police a minute out. There are poorer communities out there who don't have access to top notch police coverage. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

While deaths attributed to guns go down when guns are removed you know what doesn't go down?

The murder rate.

 

Give me a source so that I can debunk it.

[Saruman]

<snip>

Brazil is a third world country. If you add in third world countries, I can give you plenty of examples of countries with virtually no gun control where the murder rate is extremely high. Paris was one terrorist attack. They happen everywhere, not just in countries with gun control. In Australia, before gun control was enacted in the late 1990s, there was more than two mass shootings per year. After legislature passed sweeping gun control in 1996, there has not been a single mass shooting, and the murder rate has spiraled down. It's a fact that gun control saves lives. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

Stupid arguments.

There is never going to be a ban on guns in the United States.

We banned Drugs. We even had a War on Drugs. Worked out well, right?

Prohibition worked out well, did it not?

I assume there is no Black Market in the United States, nor any easy access to contact it, correct?

Again, there is never going to be a ban on guns in the United States.

Over 350 Billion firearms to collect, house to house, to take from people who do not wish to give them up willingly.

Good luck.

Idiots.

[Solomon]

...

Over 350 Billion firearms to collect, house to house, to take from people who do not wish to give them up willingly.

...

Wow. I didn't realize the US's gun problem was that large.

[Spite]

There are multiple factors which play into things like murder rates, and reducing it to just arms control is over simplification. For example, the more of a shithole a country is, the more murders happen. That's why the murder rate in south America and Africa is a lot higher than in western Europe.

 

Nevertheless, arms control does play some part I believe. Certainly the presence of 300m guns in America makes it easy to pick one up and shoot your girlfriend when you catch her cheating, or shoot that guy running across the lawn with your TV, or whatever.

 

The murder rate in the UK is 1 per 100k people. In the USA it's 3.8.

 

Do guns make you four times as likely to be murdered? Probably not, there are lots of other factors. More gangs, more inner city problems, more violent crime in general. These things can probably be attributed to social problems. Despite this, I do thing unrestricted access to weapons does contribute to this sort of thing.

 

The USA has had more massacres in the last year than we've had in our entire recorded history. We've actually only had three mass shootings and each time there has been tighter gun controls put in place.

 

Sure you can get mad and stab your girlfriend, it's hard to get mad and stab a movie theatre full of people though.

[Sailor Jerry]

Wow. I didn't realize the US's gun problem was that large.

Why does it have to be a "problem".  Based on https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population'>THIS, the U.S. has the 3rd largest population in the world (which I honestly didn't realize but hey, there it is).  There is bound to be a few bad apples in the barrel that will ruin it for the rest.  The other countries that were named in previous posts that have gun control are also a lot smaller than we are.  Not saying a few million folks isn't a lot, but 300+ million people....there will be bad apples.