Gun Control in the US

[alanschu]

Listing anecdotes of a firearm being present helped things out can go on all day.

 

There's an anecdote of a knife wielding maniac in China that injured several children but (last I checked anyways) killed none.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Hi, I have a degree in History with an emphasis in the US before the age of Industrialism.

 

I'm always confused when people point to our past, where minorities literally had almost no rights, as some sort of golden age of freedom. We have a better quality of life and more opportunities to pursue happiness than ever before in this country right now.

 

Can you be more specific about which right you have lost that you feel would cause the founding fathers to rebel? Because it kind of just sounds like rhetoric that radio jockeys spout to increase their ratings.

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a Sociologist with a degree to agree with you. The laws may have changed for those who were previously discriminated, but the story of modern society is one of ever tighter control over the mind and political liberty of the individual - worldwide, not just in the US.

Manipulative techniques used by today's political and business institutions make Goebbels Nazi propaganda look amateurish.

[Malcador]

You only seem to focus on the effect (bold) while you should be looking at the cause (underlined).. Imagine if the teacher had a network and tools at his/her disposal that could've helped this individual.. No you're right, it's easier to just get gun traning and shoot the kids we neglect when they try to get back at us.

 

Well, to be fair to him, the other side is doing that as well.

[Raithe]

This seems to be a really hard topic to have a conversation about without both sides running to extremes and/or bringing politics into it.

Are there any moderate areas or compromise issues between the far sides on it?

[Hurlshort]

To be honest, I thought the moderate area of compromise WAS controlling assault rifles and extended clips. The extreme would be no guns period.

[Raithe]

To be honest, I thought the moderate area of compromise WAS controlling assault rifles and extended clips. The extreme would be no guns period.

 

First we have to get people to agree on what an "assault rifle" actually is.

After all, it's not hunting if you can't have an extended clip and easily scalable fully automatic weapons throwing hot copper enshrouded lead at x rounds per second..

[Malcador]

Well, also the portrayal of the other side as loons, heh. Is a pretty vague term for a rifle when you think about it, if you mean it fires a certain kind of bullet, has a magazine of 20/30 rounds and can fire in modes other than semi-automatic, that might work. Then again could always go by the idea that if a military somewhere uses it, heh.

[Kaldurenik]

Can someone explain to me why you need to have a gun or a rifle? (other then hunting / sports?). I know some people say that they have guns so they can protect themselves against people with guns. However aint that abit of a illogical loop? By making guns easier to get dont you make it easier for "crazy" people to get weapons to kill other people?

 

Even if its abit to late to change right now because there are so many guns out in the hands of civilian people that even if they changed the law it would be very hard to enforce it.

 

Would having harder gun control laws remove all gun killings? No. But it would reduce it.

 

If you take sweden as a example most of our shootings are hunting related or gang vs gang (where normal people still dont get hurt).

 

But still i guess the core problem is how many Americans view guns from a cultural aspect.

[Diagoras]

Are there any moderate areas or compromise issues between the far sides on it?

 

I would caution against appeals to the middle ground. To use an extreme example, the moderates in the slavery argument of the 1860s were clearly wrong, and the Radical Republicans were in the right, despite being extremists against slavery. Just because a position is in the middle between two extremes is no guarantee that it is the correct one.

 

To be honest, I thought the moderate area of compromise WAS controlling assault rifles

 

Assault rifles are tightly regulated to the point of non-existence. They are controlled.

 

and extended clips

 

Would you mind defining an extended clip? And how controlling it would be helpful, considering that it usually take a max of one second to swap handgun magazines?

 

First we have to get people to agree on what an "assault rifle" actually is.

 

An assault rifle is a select-fire weapon with an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. That is the definition, and I"m not aware of another one.

 

Can someone explain to me why you need to have a gun or a rifle?

 

This is not the relevant policy question. The relevant question is, "Why should people not have a pistol or a rifle?" In the US at least, people are free until the state restricts their liberties, they are not slaves until the state grants them privileges. And the burden of proof is on the increase in state power, people do not have to explain why they should have a right.

 

Would having harder gun control laws remove all gun killings? No. But it would reduce it.

 

Why are gun killings our policy target? It should be homicide, or overall violent crime rate, and neither has been shown to be reduced by gun control.

[Krookie]

Would having harder gun control laws remove all gun killings? No. But it would reduce it.

 

Why are gun killings our policy target? It should be homicide, or overall violent crime rate, and neither has been shown to be reduced by gun control.

 

Gun related homicide is reduced with stricter gun laws. Gun related homicide is also largely responsible for mass killings. Do the math

[Calax]

Are there any moderate areas or compromise issues between the far sides on it?

 

I would caution against appeals to the middle ground. To use an extreme example, the moderates in the slavery argument of the 1860s were clearly wrong, and the Radical Republicans were in the right, despite being extremists against slavery. Just because a position is in the middle between two extremes is no guarantee that it is the correct one.

Are you really comparing the slavery debate to one about gun control? Yes there is such a thing as a grey fallacy, but in general you'll find that that middle ground is better than each extreme.

 

To be honest, I thought the moderate area of compromise WAS controlling assault rifles

 

Assault rifles are tightly regulated to the point of non-existence. They are controlled.

No they're not. You can still get them, and I would argue that them being privately owned has absolutely 0 purpose. Hell, one of my COWORKERS owns one right now

 

and extended clips

 

Would you mind defining an extended clip? And how controlling it would be helpful, considering that it usually take a max of one second to swap handgun magazines?

Something that increase the number of bullets over the standard. A good example would be the Drum Magazine on a Thompson.

 

It may take you or a gun nut less than one second to swap a mag, but most people it takes a bit longer, especially in the heat of the moment.

First we have to get people to agree on what an "assault rifle" actually is.

 

An assault rifle is a select-fire weapon with an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. That is the definition, and I"m not aware of another one.

Except that that means that an M4 or AK47 that has the "select fire" removed is no longer considered an assault rifle in technicality, while the voters who support an assault weapons ban would say that it's still an assault rifle with a 30ish round clip and no reason to exist beyond killing other people.

Can someone explain to me why you need to have a gun or a rifle?

 

This is not the relevant policy question. The relevant question is, "Why should people not have a pistol or a rifle?" In the US at least, people are free until the state restricts their liberties, they are not slaves until the state grants them privileges. And the burden of proof is on the increase in state power, people do not have to explain why they should have a right.

Because people don't like guns? Because people don't feel like the only way their civil rights will be protected is by shooting the other guy? Because when you get right down to it, anything that happens involving the need for guns, the guns will find their way there?

[mkreku]

Some of the right wing nuts in this thread sound exactly like the worst prejudices of Americans out there. It's hilarious! And it's real! Unbelievable.

[Malcador]

Except that that means that an M4 or AK47 that has the "select fire" removed is no longer considered an assault rifle in technicality, while the voters who support an assault weapons ban would say that it's still an assault rifle with a 30ish round clip and no reason to exist beyond killing other people.

 

So then every rifle is an assault rifle by that loose definition for the purpose part anyway. I guess the detachable magazine might be the best generalization of one for people for the purposes of banning them.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Malcador

[Diagoras]

Would having harder gun control laws remove all gun killings? No. But it would reduce it.

 

Why are gun killings our policy target? It should be homicide, or overall violent crime rate, and neither has been shown to be reduced by gun control.

 

Gun related homicide is reduced with stricter gun laws. Gun related homicide is also largely responsible for mass killings. Do the math

 

But overall homicide is not. There is a substitution effect.

[Diagoras]

Are you really comparing the slavery debate to one about gun control? Yes there is such a thing as a grey fallacy, but in general you'll find that that middle ground is better than each extreme.

 

No, I explicitly stated that was an extreme example to illustrate the general principle. Can you provide evidence for the fact that in general the middle ground is the optimal policy choice? Because if that were consistently true, policy making would be easy. You'd just aggregate the choices, and pick the average. No need for in-depth analysis.

 

No they're not. You can still get them, and I would argue that them being privately owned has absolutely 0 purpose. Hell, one of my COWORKERS owns one right now

 

I said tightly controlled, I did not say banned. And you have to go through an intense background check process.

 

How about this: how many people have been killed by assault rifles in the last twenty years?

 

Something that increase the number of bullets over the standard.

 

That's interesting - because all the policy proposals I've seen involve banning what are standard magazines. Can you tell me what the "standard" is, in your opinion?

 

It may take you or a gun nut less than one second to swap a mag, but most people it takes a bit longer, especially in the heat of the moment.

 

Okay. Does it take spree killers longer? Does it take criminals longer? Do limitations on the size of magazines reduce crime in any sensible way? Is there evidence that they reduce crime?

 

Except that that means that an M4 or AK47 that has the "select fire" removed is no longer considered an assault rifle in technicality, while the voters who support an assault weapons ban would say that it's still an assault rifle with a 30ish round clip and no reason to exist beyond killing other people.

 

It's not an assault rifle, yes. Assault weapons is, by all accounts, a made-up term that arbitrarily bans firearms based on how scary they look rather than any actual damage they cause. Handguns, for example, are by far more deadly in terms of use in homicide then all the scary black rifles in the world. Handguns and shotguns are also far more lethal, as the intermediate rounds fired by assault rifles are far less deadly and they're mainly useful at the sort of intermediate engagement ranges that criminals do not operate in.

 

Just because a weapon is in the military, doesn't automatically make it deadlier or somehow worse.

 

Because people don't like guns?

 

Does that meet the burden of proof required to expand state power? Specifically speaking, can you cite Supreme Court precedent?

 

Because people don't feel like the only way their civil rights will be protected is by shooting the other guy?

 

I have absolutely no idea what firearm ownership has to do with people's civil rights not being protected.

 

Because when you get right down to it, anything that happens involving the need for guns, the guns will find their way there?

 

I can't parse this sentence. What are you saying?

 

Some of the right wing nuts in this thread sound exactly like the worst prejudices of Americans out there. It's hilarious! And it's real! Unbelievable.

 

If you have nothing helpful to add, why are you even posting? And if you're talking about me: I'm from Hong Kong, China.

[Hurlshort]

I appreciate the educational posts about the different types of rifles.

 

I stumbled across this link and found it helpful. It seems like a huge amount of the weapons being used are obtained legally, which makes me think there has to be a way to prevent some of these through legal means.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

 

Most of the killings are done with semi-automatic pistols and rifles.

[alanschu]

But overall homicide is not. There is a substitution effect.

 

For first degree homicide I can see it.

 

How about things like second degree homicide and manslaughter?

 

 

Guns are used because they are effective at killing people, and eliminate most of the physical barriers that may otherwise prevent someone from taking out a target. I feel that it's trivial that guns make killing easier.

 

So with the substitution effect, do you feel that by removing a tool that makes killing easier, we would still see the same total number of homicides? (within reasonable discrepancy of course).

[Tsuga C]

...right wing nuts...

 

As opposed to the emasculated, government-whipped, Politically Correct socialists of Europe who are utterly convinced that governments exist to succor and guide their subjects because the masses are too mentally and/or morally incompetent to run their own lives?

 

Edit: you need to read the works of John Lott. Give him a listen in the following interview that's been broken up into several segments. Here's the first

Edited December 18, 2012 by Tsuga C

[Gfted1]

I have to admit, I was really shocked by Raithe stating that even pocket knives are illegal in England. Thats a case of the pendulum swinging too far the other way, imo.

[Diagoras]

But overall homicide is not. There is a substitution effect.

 

For first degree homicide I can see it.

 

How about things like second degree homicide and manslaughter?

 

 

Guns are used because they are effective at killing people, and eliminate most of the physical barriers that may otherwise prevent someone from taking out a target. I feel that it's trivial that guns make killing easier.

 

So with the substitution effect, do you feel that by removing a tool that makes killing easier, we would still see the same total number of homicides? (within reasonable discrepancy of course).

 

My go-to sources on these issues are the National Academy of Science's 2004 Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review and the Center for Disease Control's 2002 First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws. Both indicate that there is no correlation between firearm ownership and violent crime rates, homicide, suicide, etc. The latter also talks about gun control, and the former talks about specifically right-to-carry laws, with similar conclusions.

 

So, given that we don't see a correlation between firearm ownership and violent crime rates/homicide/suicide/insert social ill here, let alone a causal one (which is what we're really looking for), how can I sanely conclude that gun control is a reasonable policy?

 

Hell, the NAS study dismisses a correlation between firearm ownership and firearm crime - which is mindblowing to me, as I'd think that'd be a no-brainer. It wouldn't make a difference, as overall violent crime would be our policy target, but still. It mainly dismisses it due to methodological concerns with the studies in question, however, as opposed to them turning up zero correlation as an answer. So I can keep some sense of a stable footing.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Diagoras

[Gorgon]

I was always told you weren't allowed to carry around a pocket knife longer than the width of three fingers. You can carry a meat cleaver or a foot long carving knife if you wanted to though, as long as it isn't concealed.

[Diagoras]

...right wing nuts...

 

As opposed to the emasculated, government-whipped, Politically Correct socialists of Europe who are utterly convinced that governments exist to succor and guide their subjects because the masses are too mentally and/or morally incompetent to run their own lives?

 

Edit: you need to read the works of John Lott. Give him a listen in the following interview that's been broken up into several segments. Here's the first

 

Read the NAS study to see their take on Lott's work. And I'm pretty convinced that you're a left-wing American pulling off an over-the-top satire. To which I say: tone it down, conservatives aren't actually like that.

[Diagoras]

I stumbled across this link and found it helpful. It seems like a huge amount of the weapons being used are obtained legally, which makes me think there has to be a way to prevent some of these through legal means.

 

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted?

[Tsuga C]

Read the NAS study to see their take on Lott's work.

 

Sums things up nicely. They're screaming meemies. *yawn* Why am I not surprised?

 

 

And I'm pretty convinced that you're a left-wing American pulling off an over-the-top satire. To which I say: tone it down, conservatives aren't actually like that.

 

Just responding in kind. And, yes, I am a stalwart conservative, albeit one with a modest "green" streak. Check my profile.

[Valsuelm]

I stumbled across this link and found it helpful. It seems like a huge amount of the weapons being used are obtained legally, which makes me think there has to be a way to prevent some of these through legal means.

 

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted?

 

The worst school massacre in U.S. history was also done with explosives.

 

It's relatively safe to say that the 'substitution' would be close to 100%, and that's not considering the affects on other crimes such as robbery and rape that would very possibly increase in some segments of an unarmed populace. One can just look at the crime rates in England or Australia after their relatively recent disarming of the population and see how much their lack of guns hasn't helped their crime rate.

 

If someone is hell bent on killing person(s) X, they're more than likely going to be able to accomplish that with or without a gun if they have the element of surprise and aren't going up against armed people (even against armed people the first victim(s) are sadly going to be toast unless luck is on their side). The thing is we are all to an extent at the mercy of the 'madman' should he decide to strike us. You cannot legislate the 'madman' out of existence or take away all of his tools. The best thing to do to defend against the 'madman' is to have weapons close by to protect yourself and others once the 'madman' moves into action. Fortunately, for the would be armed or unarmed there aren't that many people out there who would perpetrate a crime such as was done last Friday.

 

There is no legislation that would have prevented any recent school massacre, nor any that will prevent the future massacre. What would have (would) possibly made (make) them less atrocious in terms of numbers of fatalities was if there had been (would be) someone there who could have stopped the perpetrator(s). People generally do try to do this, even if they're unarmed, but unless luck is very much on their side (and it sadly hasn't been) they're going to fail unless they themselves are armed with a weapon.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Valsuelm