American Gun Control

[Mordent99]

If guns were banned, would it be easier or harder to get guns?

Let me put it this way.

During Prohibition, contrary to what you see in movies, it was MUCH harder to get liquor, and FAR more expensive. Sales and consumption of it was dramatically reduced.

Now answer your own question.

And Facade? Most of the Native American casualties at Wounded Knee were civilians. The official count was 90 men dead, 200 women and children dead, 51 wounded (7 would die from said wounds).

It isn't even referred to as a "battle" or "conflict", it's called a "massacre" in most records.

 

[PrinceOfFacade]

That really isn't good enough for me. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the statistical analysis you use to justify your claims. The studies I've read (with regards to gun control in the United States) generally show mixed changes or slight negative changes towards violent crime, but one area that is consistently decreased by gun control laws is the suicide rate. But appealing to common sense and personal anecdotes really do not make your argument stronger. Sources, please.

As I stated, I'm not going to go looking for sources. Take that as you will.

And Facade? Most of the Native American casualties at Wounded Knee were civilians. The official count was 90 men dead, 200 women and children dead, 51 wounded (7 would die from said wounds).

It isn't even referred to as a "battle" or "conflict", it's called a "massacre" in most records.

I'm not sure if this is directed to or merely spoken of me, but I do in fact refer to it as a massacre.

There is no other way to put it.

 

[Mordent99]

As I stated, I'm not going to go looking for sources. Take that as you will.



I'm not sure if this is directed to or merely spoken of me, but I do in fact refer to it as a massacre.

There is no other way to put it.

I meant, Facade, that the reason those civilians died had nothing to do with guns, because they were obviously captured and shot in cold blood.

It's called a "massacre" because referring to members of our own armed forces as genocidal murderers who invaded a town and butchered the citizens is frowned upon.

Capice?

 

[bobjr]

As I stated, I'm not going to go looking for sources. Take that as you will.



I'm not sure if this is directed to or merely spoken of me, but I do in fact refer to it as a massacre.

There is no other way to put it.

If you're going to go off of confirmation bias like that I just wouldn't post. Your experiences are not going to be the same as everyone elses, and it could not be the norm. Especially when we get so much data about guns, the problem is a lot of it is just flat out ignored by politicians.

 

[Mordent99]

Here's an idea:

http://dieharddemocrat.com/2017/10/23/michael-moore-shares-idea-repeal-replace-2nd-amendment-18765

Now go ahead, tell me why this wouldn't work.

 

[chess-z]

As I stated, I'm not going to go looking for sources. Take that as you will.

In general, if you aren't going to look for sources, you have no way of knowing that you're right aside from anecdotal evidence. You could very well be correct, but as it stands, you're arguing from a position of willful ignorance. Until such a time that you remedy that, I won't be responding to anything you post.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I don't know if you know this, but it doesn't matter how many guns you have, the government military is going to be better equipped than you, unless you have tanks and bombers in your garage. There is a point past which the required skill ceiling to reliably outperform war machines is so high that it is unfeasible for the average citizen, especially without extreme coordination with other similarly-skilled citizens, to attain, and managing it otherwise would require a lot of luck (which, of course, is beyond someone's control entirely). I could dig deeper into the nonsense of your rhetoric, but I mostly just wanted to point out that this particular argument isn't very good and is subject to some major, and majorly incorrect, assumptions. I know the US government hasn't been competent since the Carter era at the most recent, but that doesn't mean they're just going to instantly fold for you.

I'm not sure this rebuttal stands, though. If we're to take this hypothetical "American dictator that kills his own people" or whatever scenario seriously, the notion that we couldn't resist because government's guns are bigger is defeatist and untrue. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, are all examples where a technologically inferior enemy resisted a superior one.

 

[bobjr]

I think a lot of it is also that a resistance on that level would use more explosives than firefights with guns, but it's a hypothetical that hasn't been tested so it's way up in the air, and hard to use as a conclusive fact for either side.

 

[PrinceOfFacade]

If you're going to go off of confirmation bias like that I just wouldn't post. Your experiences are not going to be the same as everyone elses, and it could not be the norm. Especially when we get so much data about guns, the problem is a lot of it is just flat out ignored by politicians.

In general, if you aren't going to look for sources, you have no way of knowing that you're right aside from anecdotal evidence. You could very well be correct, but as it stands, you're arguing from a position of willful ignorance. Until such a time that you remedy that, I won't be responding to anything you post.

Fine, since you're all so eager to force my hand, I bend. It's degrading, and it sickens me, but you win.

- An article from law professor John Donohue, reflecting both sides
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/opinions/us-guns-evidence/index.html

- Two articles, reflecting Washington D.C.'s strict gun laws being futile in reducing the city's gun violence
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/17/eliminating-dcs-handgun-ban-had-no-effect-on-homicides/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7872/7-facts-gun-crime-show-gun-control-doesnt-work-aaron-bandler#

- And article from the BBC, regarding Australia's gun laws having not much of an effect on the nation's decline in gun violence
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35048251

- An article from independent journalist Justin King (who I honestly don't entirely agree with) who argues both sides are blind to the notions that guns themselves are neither the problem nor the solution
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

- A statistical spread with various findings on American gun laws and violence. This spread includes additional info on Washington D.C., as well as stats on Great Britain.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp


There. You have your sources. Read them all before forming your conclusion. For you in particular, chess-z, since the article you gave me was heavily flawed, and yet you demanded my own sources, you are going to have to double down on your rebuttal should you choose to make one. You must take a page from your own book, and provide extensive findings on anything you wish to object, or else your argument from here on out will be as void as you claimed mine to be.

I meant, Facade, that the reason those civilians died had nothing to do with guns, because they were obviously captured and shot in cold blood.

It's called a "massacre" because referring to members of our own armed forces as genocidal murderers who invaded a town and butchered the citizens is frowned upon.

Capice?

As for you, the massacre - as it is whether you like it or not - means a great deal to the examples of continual violence in this nation, and your claim that it has nothing to do with guns would actually serve my point, which you clearly did not conceive. Banning certain firearms, or any firearms, will not stop people from killing. The power to kill lies within the person, not within the weapon they use. This is why I also reference John Wayne Gacy. Much like many massacres within America's history, Wounded Knee was a [relatively] planned one (not to mention it follows an extensive history of crimes against the Indigenous); the soldiers arrived with an intent to kill and shot the moment the slightest probable cause came about. Weapon of choice is irrelevant. A person who wants to kill will find a way and a reason. Wounded Knee's reason was as plain as Dylan Roof's: racism.

The reasons for wanting to kill are what need to be tackled, not the weapons.

 

[bobjr]

I'd just argue that individual state laws won't do jack for gun violence for America, as it's usually not that hard to go to another state for a gun if they really want. Generally gun control has to be on a national level, not a state one. If you site places in the U.S. where there's strict gun control next to a state with no gun control, it doesn't really work.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...laws-in-indiana-fuel-violence-in-chicago.html

Also if someone is that focused on killing, to the point where nothing is going to stop them no matter what, why wouldn't we ban access to an invention designed to kill as many people as possible? It's too defeatist for me. Plus who here is arguing for gun control and nothing else? I'm pretty sure the people here who want gun control also want better mental health services, but I don't want to put words in mouths.

 

[PrinceOfFacade]

Also if someone is that focused on killing, to the point where nothing is going to stop them no matter what, why wouldn't we ban access to an invention designed to kill as many people as possible? It's too defeatist for me. Plus who here is arguing for gun control and nothing else? I'm pretty sure the people here who want gun control also want better mental health services, but I don't want to put words in mouths.

You answered your own question within your question.

Also, mental health services is part of the "why" I've been speaking of. Figuring out why people want to kill is much more important than figuring out what weapons they want to use. Gun control is a mere necessity, regardless of whatever problems we may have, now or in the future. The true aim should be stopping the source: the reasons for wanting to kill.

 

[chess-z]

Fine, since you're all so eager to force my hand, I bend. It's degrading, and it sickens me, but you win.

God, I hope this is a joke.

At any rate, have a source dump. In general, I think the sources you cited are correct on a smaller scale, but the issue is broader than what you make it out to be. I'm doubling down.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0077552
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989
http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf
https://www.sciencenews.org/article...-and-dearth-data?mode=magazine&context=191817
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

 

[PrinceOfFacade]

God, I hope this is a joke.

At any rate, have a source dump. In general, I think the sources you cited are correct on a smaller scale, but the issue is broader than what you make it out to be. I'm doubling down.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0077552
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989
http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf
https://www.sciencenews.org/article...-and-dearth-data?mode=magazine&context=191817
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Doesn't work that way.

You cannot merely post a set of links, especially without abstraction. You're going to have to explain your thesis. You will not turn this into a battle of sources. This isn't a game (at least not for me). Explain yourself, and explain each article.

Prove this actually means more to you than simply wanting to win an argument, 'cause right now, that's what it looks like. You haven't even confirmed you read any of the articles I posted. You just implied that you have. You're becoming what you claimed me to be. Either you straighten up, or you can just have your massively hollow 'victory.'

And for the record, yes, it is degrading, but I see explaining why would likely not serve either of us.

 

[chess-z]

Doesn't work that way.

You cannot merely post a set of links, especially without abstraction. You're going to have to explain your thesis. You will not turn this into a battle of sources. This isn't a game (at least not for me). Explain yourself, and explain each article.

Prove this actually means more to you than simply wanting to win an argument, 'cause right now, that's what it looks like. You haven't even confirmed you read any of the articles I posted. You just implied that you have. You're becoming what you claimed me to be. Either you straighten up, or you can just have your massively hollow 'victory.'

And for the record, yes, it is degrading, but I see explaining why would likely not serve either of us.

Dear LORD, it's so unfair to be expected to "defend" my position and clarify my points. I feel like so much less of a person now, I'm absolutely revolted at having to engage with this debate with a semblance of intellectual honesty and good argumentative practices.

Oh, but see, they aren't articles. These are studies, and that's the problem I had with your sources. They were largely opinion pieces, with tenuous grounding in statistical fact. The Just Facts source, I actually found quite interesting, but the analysis was selective, probably unintentionally, and just not quite as in depth as I would prefer.

My first source posited a correlation between racial prejudice and gun ownership, which I found to be interesting, albeit not entirely relevant to the our debate in specific. The second essentially proves my point, stricter gun laws do show a decrease in gun related crimes. The third refutes your source about Australia, the fourth is an article (a caveat I include because my earlier dismissal of your sources was because they were articles generally without a solid statistical ground) about the state of gun research in general, and the influence gun rights advocates have on the science. And the fifth is a comprehensive CDC review of the link between crime and gun laws (it is of note that this study is from 2000-2002, back when the CDC was actually allowed to do this research, so the data is by no means current, just take a look at that ugly ugly CSS).

Or you could, you know, read my sources and come to your own conclusion. Refusing to read my sources before I clarified them was probably a mistake on your part, because they really aren't all the strongest for my position (because my position is grounded mostly on a knee-jerk reaction to "make all guns unexist" [which would stop all gun related deaths, right?], and is informed by an emotional bias).

And I desperately want to know how it's degrading.

 

[bobjr]

If you ask for someone to post sources and then refuse to acknowledge them (If it's a biased source, or unusable in some other way you kinda have to explain why), that's kind of against the rules, so there's the blanket warning for this thread.

 

[PrimoPier]

Here in Europe it is very difficult to get a gun... Well, from here I can tell that most of us think that gun regulation would be a great thing for USA.
But it is a matter of different culture, maybe many Americans could not renounce to their weapons (so as many people here in Italy cannot renounce to evade taxes...)

 

[chess-z]

Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.

More blood senselessly spilled. The bell tolls for myself today, because my world is all the less. I'll politicize this issue, because the only way to end it is through policy, and the only way to pass policy is to be political.

 

[Sketchie]

It won't be possible to ban guns entirely here in America, it just cannot happen. (Especially not out here in the west, where hunting is popular and having a gun is status.) BUT That does not mean that we shouldn't try to regulate them! We have people go through so much training to get a license for a car, and even more training if they want to drive motorcycles or semi trucks or school buses. As a pilot, your basic pilots license only allows you to fly private, single engine prop planes on clear days. You need more training if you want to fly at night, or on cloudy days, or on cloudy nights, or flying a multi-engine prop plane, multi-engine jet plane, etc, etc, etc... (Not only that, but the FAA requires its pilots to be of sound mind and body, and need to have physicals fairly often.)

If we make sure that our pilots are trained to the nines, why can't we do the same for gun owners?

 

[bobjr]

I'd just focus on Semiautomatics at the moment. It's horrible in a sense, but it stops the "Not all the guns" defense.

That or have to pay a gun ownership tax per gun per year and the money is pooled for insurance to pay medical, property damage, and funeral costs of the victims of gun violence.

 

[LDSman]

My arguments against more gun control laws still stands from the last time this debate came up. Lets fix the current system before trying to pass laws that are A: ineffective or unenforceable b: unconstitutional. The Texas shooter was able to buy his guns because the Air Force failed to enter his conviction into the background system.