American Gun Control

[chess-z]

The constitution has been wrong before. The fact that the right to own a gun is enshrined in it is likely the origin of the gun control issues at hand.

 

[LDSman]

The constitution has been wrong before. The fact that the right to own a gun is enshrined in it is likely the origin of the gun control issues at hand.

Being able to defend yourself against attackers with effective tools is not wrong. Defensive Gun Use far outweighs criminal behavior re gun murders. The major issue in my mind is the mental health aspect. It's easier to blame guns than try and figure out which person is only antisocial or antisocial AND homicidal.

 

[chess-z]

Sources on defensive gun use please, I'd be really interested to know where you're getting this information.

The issue is a culture of violence, but w/e.

 

[LDSman]

Sources on defensive gun use please, I'd be really interested to know where you're getting this information.

The issue is a culture of violence, but w/e.

If it is a cultural issue, then removing guns would only disarm the non-violent leaving them to be victimized by those so inclined. The cultural issue would be unchanged. Find the root cause and address that.

I think a big problem is how the 24 hour news cycle seems to promote the shootings. If you want to make a statement or show the world, then a mass shooting gets you that coverage.

Study from the CDC. About4 years old.

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

 

[Mordent99]

"Guns.com"?

You want us to trust a gun-oriented blog?

Kinda makes as much sense as Chris Christie hiring his own legal team to investigate the bridge incident.

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

BUT when a gun is used offensively against a church full of children, I'd wager any amount of money that the injury rate (and death rate) of those children rises to near-certainty.

 

[LDSman]

"Guns.com"?

You want us to trust a gun-oriented blog?

I don't care what you trust. I do, however, refer you to Debate Forum Rule 2.

2. Read your opponent's source

The fact that I had to make this a written rule is nothing short of incredible. You can hate your opponent's position as much as you want, but to full out dismiss the sources that they use is incredibly rude. Any instance of people flat-out ignoring a source will be infracted immediately. Quite simply, it's bad forum and makes absolutely no sense because if the source is faulty you should be able to pick out the mistakes and add that to your debate.

The article does link to, and quote, the CDC study mentioned.

Reply to edit.

BUT when a gun is used offensively against a church full of children, I'd wager any amount of money that the injury rate (and death rate) of those children rises to near-certainty.

And? Substitute a crowbar, poisons, fire, whatever against a "church full of children" and you get similar results.

 

[chess-z]

If you read the study as written, and not as filtered through guns.com, you'll find that the data really doesn't support the conclusion guns.com comes to. There are several references throughout the study about how that statistic isn't actually accurate. due to where the data is drawn from, the years that the data was drawn from, and the definition of self defense.

The lack of standardization across databases limits their comparability (NRC, 2005). The absence of clearly defined concepts complicates data collection and interpretation. For example, definitions of “self-defense” and “deterrence” are ambiguous (NRC, 2005; Weiner et al., 2007). There is no standardized method for data collection or collation, which prevents researchers from harnessing the potential power of data across multiple datasets.

The study is a fascinating read though, thanks for linking it. It doesn't support your conclusions, so next time actually read the 115 page source before citing. Here, I'll even link it for you. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

Fatal and nonfatal firearm violence poses a serious threat to the safety and welfare of the American public. As discussed in the Introduction, there are legal and responsible uses for firearms, including law enforcement, self-defense, and recreational uses. However, the presence of guns in civil society can also lead to firearm-related violence. Although violent crime rates have declined in recent years (Truman, 2011), the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). In 2010, incidents involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 individuals in the United States.

From your study, as is this:

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

Oh, how about that. Interesting. Read your source, dingus.

 

[LDSman]

If you read the study as written, and not as filtered through guns.com, you'll find that the data really doesn't support the conclusion guns.com comes to. There are several references throughout the study about how that statistic isn't actually accurate. due to where the data is drawn from, the years that the data was drawn from, and the definition of self defense.

It supports the self defense issue though the numbers are in dispute.

The study is a fascinating read though, thanks for linking it. It doesn't support your conclusions, so next time actually read the 115 page source before citing. Here, I'll even link it for you. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

I disagree but okay. I've read the study itself. The study doesn't support most gun control positions either.

From your study, as is this:



Oh, how about that. Interesting. Read your source, dingus.

That seems to support my side? And bite me.

Edit: Part of the problem with counting DGU is determining what crime was prevented if any. Then there is the aspect that some jurisdictions could arrest you if you report that you thought you were about to be a victim of a crime and pulled a gun out.

 

[chess-z]

When taken in conjunction with the first quote, it really doesn't. Bite me back.

EDIT: Clarification, when you cherry pick the highest estimate of self defense and any low estimate of violent crime, of course you'd come to the conclusion guns.com came to, and since it is "in the study", it isn't wrong, just misleading. guns.com and, by extention, your use of statistics is misleading.

 

[LDSman]

When taken in conjunction with the first quote, it really doesn't.

This will be an aspect of confirmation bias then. I see it as supporting that DGUs are likely under-reported because there are no official definitions or databases and you take it to mean the numbers are wrong the other way. Regardless of how many there are, there are many self defense gun uses.

 

[chess-z]

Although overall crime rates have declined in the past decade and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years (FBI, 2011a), crime-related deaths involving firearms remain a serious threat. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 68,720 people were murdered in firearm-related violence between 2007 and 2011. During that same time frame, firearms accounted for more than twice as many murders as all other weapons combined (FBI, 2011b). More than two-thirds of victims murdered by a spouse or ex-spouse died as a result of a gunshot wound (Cooper and Smith, 2011). More than 600,000 victims of robbery and other crimes reported that they faced an assailant armed with a gun (Truman and Rand, 2010).

Contrast with the numbers about self defense;

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

All this to say, I think guns.com cherrypicked facts from the study, and by extension, so did you. If we go with the highest estimate, of course you're correct, but there's simply too much ambiguity in this source to draw a factual conclusion.

EDIT: But, good study. I appreciate it.

 

[Mordent99]

LDS Man, as you say, that article was written in June 2012.

Since then, there have been a horrendous amount of mass shootings in this country:

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

Note the alarming change in frequency. Schools, movie theaters, churches. Hundreds of innocents killed.

But this obsession with your precious guns is all you care for, all likely due to a problem you were made fun of in a high school locker room.

You cling to the Constitution, an argument that does not hold water. When that outdated document was drafted, the most powerful firearm available could shoot once every 20 minutes. It was that hard to load.

These modern guns can shoot hundreds of times per second and cause more death than Thomas Jefferson could likely have conceived.

Your Republican lawmakers cower like cowards before the NRA, who care nothing about the 2nd Amendment. They, like all lobbyists, are there to help gun manufacturers sell more and more guns.

But trust me, it will change. Yesterday, a 13-term Republican with an A+ rating on the NRA was unseated. This is a wakeup call.

When Trump is kicked out, which will happen in 2018 when Congress is mostly Democrat, this WILL be changed.

I just hope not as many children will die before it happens.

"Debate forum rule 2"? I did read your source. It was actually more sensible than comments like these opposing gun control:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...urd-arguments-against-gun-control-after-vegas

...which seem to get worse with each shooting.

 

[LDSman]

LDS Man, as you say, that article was written in June 2012.

June of 2013

Since then, there have been dozens of mass shootings in this country. Schools, movie theaters, churches. Hundreds of innocents killed.

No, there haven't.

But this obsession with your precious guns is all you care for, all likely due to a problem you were made fun of in a high school locker room.

Would this be a personal attack?

You cling to the Constitution, an argument that does not hold water. When that outdated document was drafted, the most powerful firearm available could shoot once every 20 minutes. It was that hard to load.

That's not actually true either. Look up the puckle gun. Plus does that argument apply to the other Amendments? If so, why are you exercising free speech on a computer?

These modern guns can shoot hundreds of times per second and cause more death than Thomas Jefferson could likely have conceived.

Machine guns are already restricted.

Your Republican lawmakers cower like cowards before the NRA, who care nothing about the 2nd Amendment. They, like all lobbyists, are there to help gun manufacturers sell more and more guns.

Wow! All the lobbyists help the gun manufacturers? I mean thats a lot of lobbyists that have absolutely nothing to do with the gun industry helping out.

But trust me, it will change. Yesterday, a 13-term Republican with an A+ rating on the NRA was unseated. This is a wakeup call.

When Trump is kicked out, which will happen in 2018 when Congress is mostly Democrat, this WILL be changed.

Okay. Don't care.

I just hope not as many children will die before it happens.

Ah, the "for the children" refrain. Are the children that die by gun more important than the kids that kill themselves? What are you doing about the other ways in which children die or are killed?

What about the parents that use a gun to defend their children? Should they not have been able to do that?
Edit to reply to add on:
Neat, twitter quotes. I could respond with all the crap things pro gun control people say. Things like murdering all gun owners and the like. Pointless though. Look long enough and every group will show stupid people.

 

[Mordent99]

Okay. Don't care.

These boards also have a Rule 3.

Ah, the "for the children" refrain. Are the children that die by gun more important than the kids that kill themselves? What are you doing about the other ways in which children die or are killed?

We talking about home invasions again? How many deaths have occurred as a result of that in the past year?

 

[1rkhachatryan]

Honestly it'a kind of pointless to talk about this?? There is never gonna be any gun policy reform until the right stop being brought and owned by the NRA and that's never gonna happen. The NRA have stopped any sort of bill that even mentions guns from being seen. I mean there isn't even an electronic database for gun owners cuz the NRA won't let it happen.

There could be a mass shooting everyday for years and nothing will change because the Republicans have proved long ago that no life is too sacred to lose to gun violence. If multiple children dying wasn't enough to wake them the **** up, their humanity and decency is way too far gone at this point.

 

[LDSman]

These boards also have a Rule 3.

Ah, but I did respond so I wasn't ignoring you. The rant about future votes has nothing to do with the current gun control debate.

We talking about home invasions again? How many deaths have occurred as a result of that in the past year?

Again? There are any number of listed self defense incidents (some made the news) inside the home and out. Its not a zero sum game though. "X number of people need to die in DGU to equal those that are killed by criminal use." Edit: To clarify, DGU does not need to include a death. I'v seen some allusions to that on the gun control end of things. End edit. Many criminals will run if the victim is armed.
I think you misquoted though since that's about how children die in other ways.

Edit:

Honestly it'a kind of pointless to talk about this?? There is never gonna be any gun policy reform until the right stop being brought and owned by the NRA and that's never gonna happen. The NRA have stopped any sort of bill that even mentions guns from being seen. I mean there isn't even an electronic database for gun owners cuz the NRA won't let it happen.

Interesting that people want to complain about the NRA and their money but don't seem to object to Bloomberg and his $50 million for his groups. A database for gun owners? Heck no. The last time the antigun got ahold of a gun owners list, they released it to the public because "people have a right to know who has a gun." Add that to the gun owner death threats and that's bad news.

Part of the issue is those bills would do nothing to affect the crime its being passed for. "More background checks!! Dude killed his mom and stole her guns. Or the air force failed to enter the data into the system so the background check won't show anything. Waiting periods! The guy had multiple firearms already, the waiting period wouldn't have stopped him but it would affect the person trying to buy a handgun due to her abusive ex stalking her and threatening to kill her. Which he did because she had to wait a week.

 

[chess-z]

Interesting that people want to complain about the NRA and their money but don't seem to object to Bloomberg and his $50 million for his groups.

This is whataboutism, as it isn't relevant to the debate at hand. The NRA has a history of obstructing research into gun control. They aren't beneficial to either side of the gun control debate if we were to approach it with intellectual honesty.

 

[LDSman]

This is whataboutism, as it isn't relevant to the debate at hand.

meh. People spend money on both sides. People with memberships in the NRA want them speaking on their behalf.

The NRA has a history of obstructing research into gun control.

I'd quibble on this. The CDC was caught blatantly running biased research.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/

They aren't beneficial to either side of the gun control debate if we were to approach it with intellectual honesty.

I disagree that they aren't beneficial to the gun owners side.

Edit: Before anyone asks, alludes or implies, I do not have a NRA membership.

 

[Mordent99]

LDS Man, seriously, this talk of needing a gun to prevent any sort of violence is downright creepy. Why does it have to be the answer to everything?

We never wanted a national gun registry. President Obama's attempt at a gun control law did not have that. In fact, it had a law that would prevent it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/nra-misfires-on-federal-gun-registry/

See?

In the example you made about the guy stalking a woman, wouldn't it be better to make sure the stalker did not have a gun? (Yeah, sure, you'll say criminals will get it anyway, but if we just made them harder to get, they'd be harder to get!)


Democrats DO NOT want to outlaw guns. Here's what we want:

1. Closing of gun show loopholes.

2. For those who desire to gain a carry permit, psychiatric evaluation, training classes, and classes on gun safety, including annual correspondence courses. Special variants for concealed weapons permits.

3. Bans on high-caliber firearms and magazines. (Military grade rifles are NOT necessary for any civilian use.)

4. Stricter penalties for gun dealers who violate existing rules.

5. Federal laws prohibiting those with a history of domestic violence from owning firearms.

Is that too much to ask?

Edit: 1rkhachatrya, I'm sorry you have such a dim view of humanity (even though there are times I agree) but remember, the same used to be thought about the Tobacco Lobby. Everyone thought it was also unbeatable and invincible. Then came one lone employee who decided he'd had enough...

 

[chess-z]

Reading your source, I'm just going to dismiss it, instead of going through a point by point argument as to why any person with a semblance of rationality would use it as a source, cause it's from the Federalist. Not the most unbiased dispenser of truth, I'd say.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article...-and-dearth-data?mode=magazine&context=191817

Good read about the NRA and sound science.