Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 19, 2018.

  1. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    If you think that's the end of the argument, you haven't read a single page of this thread.
    It's a straw man that I haven't seen anyone here make.
    Many times more defensive uses of guns than gun crimes.
    The vast majority of gun crimes occur in Democrat-run cities with the strictest gun control laws.
    They obviously don't work when the root causes of violence and crime are not addressed.
    They are not "willing to put up with mass shootings of innocent people, the gun murder rate", which is why they believe people have a right to defend themselves, instead of the police showing up later to pick up the bodies.
    Accidental deaths are a very small and improving percent, and suicides are not a gun problem. Just look at the suicide rate across western countries, where you'll find Belgium, France, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland higher than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
    Who said tyranny from our own government was the only threat?
    But the modern US military had trouble with far lesser armed civilians in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

    You're people are also dying every day. Whether from terrorists in trucks, knives, etc.. It's trivially true of any people.
    Truck Captain Stumpy and Dr_Toad like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    it's already addressed in the comment I posted to Bells
    it also specifically addresses your AR comment

    1- and again: it's addressed by BATFE
    2- any vague comment regarding restrictions on rapid fire weapons is irrational
    3- "large" is subjective. Standard issue AR magazines come in 30 round, so as it's very common, and small considering the 100 round mag.
    4- this has all already been addressed and ignored by you
    nonsensical reply - it applies to any heavy pulling job that is currently being done by diesel
    and I repeatedly made the point that this is a subjective opinion
    of course, technically speaking, anything can be restricted by law - but that doesn't mean it will remain so. see linked comment above

    a wide majority of an opinion poll may reflect your opinion, but considering the linked data from Vociferous and existing data I already shared, it doesn't reflect the majority of the population

    Ah, you're getting it all confused in your head

    when called to act as a Military force, military training makes sense - but that isn't the usual

    the rest is just augmentation and it depends entirely on your history
    there is no weapons training usually
    that isn't my idea

    it's my idea that the civilian population should be able to arm themselves to the capacity no different than LEO's or militia, sans the controlled weapons as designated by BATFE
    I even commented about this once or twice... like:
    So it's strictly about the ability to arm

    if ya want to talk training, that is another argument entirely, and I personally advocate for training
    it's free locally from the NRA - with safety and Law being the primary focus before shooting

    well, I can leave you with your own words as well: "Look at how much of my posting - including this one - involves correcting you about my posts. inability to paraphrase without altering, changing vocabulary and meaning, etc."

    I am quoting you directly - so that isn't paraphrasing
    I am also making valid points backed by data which you're ignoring (fire rate, magazines, BATFE, "large", etc)
    I have already linked refuting evidence to your opinion being widely held, which Vociferous has also linked supporting data
    I have made clear arguments that you then used "deductive" reasoning to completely cherry pick, make false claims about then attempt to use as "reasoned" and "informed" opinion per my "posts" (already linked that to you)

    there is plenty more, but no need to continue
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    You need it to improve your chances.
    Never, and most gun owners/carriers hope they never will.
    Dishonest tactic to arbitrarily compare "gun deaths" in a country with more guns that any other, instead of just comparing deaths. It's called cherry-picking.
    Many western countries, and even a few US states, have assisted suicide laws. It would be hypocritical to criticize gun suicide but not the other.
    Personally, I'm against both, but know that a gun suicide is far better than a car suicide.
    Again, gang murders happen in Democrat-run cities with strong gun control laws. Proves that criminals don't obey the law. And gang members kill each other in prison all the time, with shanks.
    Are you comparing murders (not just gun deaths), taking into account the diversity and size of the US population, which are heavily skewed by murders in urban areas with strict gun control? Didn't think so.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Simple. Because limiting rate of fire would affect most rifles and handguns, and magazine size in inconsequential in real world tests.
    Dr_Toad and Truck Captain Stumpy like this.
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    With all the guns in the USA, we have far fewer homicides/100,000 people than many other countries.
    Wiki puts us at 97th out of 219-----some other sources place us with lower rates some higher.
    NationMaster places us at 99th out of 193

    Many of those with higher rates have stricter gun regulations.

    We could use some improvement there, but regulations will most likely not be the answer.

    About 70% of gun homicides are associated with gang activity.
    The Washington post has published that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon...

    Criminals in general aren’t deterred by the existence of criminal law, and it’s simply magical thinking to believe that any given new regulation will have any material impact on criminal behavior...

    Take out the criminals and gang activity, and our homicide rate drops precipitously.

    I know
    I know
    Lets make being a criminal against the law.
    Truck Captain Stumpy and Dr_Toad like this.
  9. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    What we should all do instead is pray to Jesus for more guns, which will make it much harder for criminals to get them.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    If prayer helps you feel better: I ain't gonna stand in your way.

    However, there seems to be a bit of a problem with your logic.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  11. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    You say the biggest problem is that America is full of criminals with guns. Incarceration rates in the US are already higher than anywhere else in the developed world, legal penalties are harsher, and yet the murder rate is still several times higher. What makes you think tougher punishments will bring the US more in line with other developed countries? Are you not aware that most criminals assume they won't be caught when they do something? If you toughen penalties on crime, do you expect anything other than for criminals to act with greater desperation and depravity when they fear the consequences of being arrested?

    Making it harder for criminals to obtain guns seems like a logical means for reducing their ability to commit crime. How do you propose to make it substantially tougher for them to obtain these weapons in the first place?
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Back the train up there Bork.
    I ain't the president and you ain't Gutzon Borglum.

    That ain't what I posted and that ain't what "I meant".

    If you wish to have an argument with yourself, go right ahead.
    Be kind enough to not include me in it.
    Dr_Toad and Truck Captain Stumpy like this.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    While ignoring the fact that those countries above you are either 3rd world countries with high crime rates to begin with or countries rife with armed conflicts.

    Wooooo! You're down the list, by the UN figures, just under Somalia. And from this list, you have more intentional homicides than Rwanda... Something to be boastful about, I guess...

    Have you looked at where you sit for intentional gun homicides?

    How about a comparison with higher income countries?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or do you prefer to include 3rd world countries and war tone countries to make you feel better about yourself?

    70% of gun homicides are associated with gang activity? Really? Hmmm...

    There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.

    According to the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the number of gangs and gang members has been on the rise for some time now, increasing by more than one-third in the past decade. Between 2010 and 2011, for example, there was a 3 percent increase in the number of gangs, but an 8 percent decrease in gang-related homicides.

    Can you please tell me how that adds up to 70%?

    That's a really astonishing (and as yet verified) claim. What a shame it is not backed up by actual reality.

    The most recent Centers for Disease Control study on this subject lends further credence to our claim. It examined five cities that met the criterion for having a high prevalence of gang homicides: Los Angeles, California; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Long Beach, California; Oakland, California; and Newark, New Jersey. In these cities, a total of 856 gang and 2,077 non-gang homicides were identified and included in the analyses. So, even when examining cities with the largest gang problems, gang homicides only accounted for 29 percent of the total for the period under consideration (2003-2008). For the nation as a whole it would be much smaller.

    The 80 percent of gang-related gun homicides figure purporting to support Loesch’s claim, then, is not only false, but off by nearly a factor of five. The direct opposite is necessarily true: more than 80 percent of gun homicides are non-gang related. While gang violence is still a serious problem that needs to be addressed, it is disingenuous to assert that the vast majority of our gun problem (even excluding suicides) is caused by gangs
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  14. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Well you argue that laws won't stop criminal behavior, but you fail to account for how the lack of easy access to guns on the black market would affect it. So if you're not suggesting that armed criminals are the problem, then what's causing the high rate of violent crimes?
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Suicides are partly a gun problem. Not as much as the exaggerations of the bothsides claim, but enough to be a legitimate concern.
    The only reason those countries have officially higher suicide rates, when they do (which is not always), is that they count their suicides accurately, and the US doesn't. It's an advantage of First World health care - you get better statistics on cause of death.
    That's bullshit - doesn't mean anything like what you want it to.
    But they do work when they are. So one should favor politics and politicians likely to do that, even if - especially if - they simultaneously involve gun control measures. Right?
    Last edited: May 7, 2018
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, it isn't. The context is the Constitutionality of what you are confused enough to call "retroactive laws". You are wrong about it, as illustrated. It is perfectly ok , Constitutionally, to regulate the use of objects purchased before the regulations were passed, including forbidding household possession of them altogether.
    I'm not ignoring it - I'm going to some trouble to point out that none of it is true or sensible or relevant. There is nothing irrational about pointing to the absence of sound regulation of large capacity magazines and rapid fire weapons - especially in combination - and recommending better regulation of same. "Large" is going to be quite objectively defined, in any such regulation - I imagine it's going to be an integer number of discrete objects, about as objective an entity as one can imagine. A robot can count them.
    And then posting falsehoods and misreadings and bizarre misconstruals, which imposes an inequitable burden of correction on every response.
    Like this:
    ? Not those jobs - the other ones, the subject of both of our posts, the matter at hand, the topic addressed, what we were talking about, what I was directly referring to, what I meant obviously and clearly.
    And you call my reply nonsensical.

    Are you doing this shit on purpose?
    Yes, it does. Your data and Vociferous's do not conflict with mine, when analyzed competently.
    Keep backing off like that - you're already back at civilians arming themselves as militia rather than military, which is my footing - and we'll be in the same place in a couple of pages.
    Which you seem to think invalidates all the reasoning and evidence behind it. The whole world is he said she said, competing propaganda slogans, equivalently valid opinions in collision, etc. If you want thirty round magazines to fend off charging grizzly bears, and people who live in cities want to reduce the risk of amokers who don't even have to reload, those are just subjective opinions - one as good as another.
    Reminder: Until it's written into law, by the large majority of people who operate on sense and adult judgment; then it's the law.
  17. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Unsupported claims don't warrant refute.
    Fact. Look it up.
    Doesn't mean anything but what it is.
    Unsupported claims don't warrant refute.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nice try, but you don't get a free pass just because you never support your claims.
    It doesn't mean what you want it to. You're bullshitting with it, however "fact" it may be. (Very few US urban areas have strict gun control, in those that do the crime rates don't track it, neither do the political Parties, and so forth).
    It was your unsupported claim, dude. I was just riffing on it.
    Do you have an answer for the question? It's independent of the claim - - -
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    If you don't want to support your claim that other countries have better suicide records than the US, that's on you.
    Whenever you (rarely) challenge anything I say with more than ignorant bare assertions, I support my claims.
    I try not to rub your ignorance in too hard unless you repeat it and require educating.
    ^Emphasis mine.
    One of the top ten states with the most restrictive gun laws in the country is Illinois, where last year there were 650 murders in Chicago alone, according to a USA Today's compilation of crime data.

    In Maryland, another state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Baltimore had 343 murders last year and has highest per capita murder rate in the nation. The city was also just named the most dangerous city in America by USA Today.
    You haven't shown that stricter gun control has additional benefits to successfully addressing violence and crime.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  20. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    yes, it is
    1- you can't state that BATFE regs aren't true - you should clarify your point on that
    2- BATFE does regulate rapid fire weapons - they just don't ban or regulate semi-automatic weapons because it still requires the human interaction of pulling the trigger to fire the round each time it cycles. The desire for you to restrict semi-automatics is based entirely upon your fear and irrational beliefs.
    3- background checks are definitely factual - and state complaince is also shown to be problematic, so you're lying about that being not true or sensible. your desire to add "universal" is irrelevant and irrational considering
    4- you keep harping on magazine restrictions. you can't provide anything other than your opinion therefore any refuting opinion is equally as valid and thus it is sufficient to simply take the opposing argument when you qualify your argument with your own opinion

    and don't bother trying to make yet another false claim about being supported by a vast majority as the refuting links demonstrated otherwise

    it is irrational to consider your opinion on the subject as superior to anything, and your entire argument about "sound regulation" is based solely and entirely on your opinion only.
    hoping that it will be defined in any such regulation means you didn't read H.R. 5087 and you have absolutely no experience reading congressional bills

    Have you never actually seen the sheer volume of drivel that goes through Congress?
    first: you're the pot calling the kettle black

    second: that statement was in direct reply to your quote taken in the context of the previous reply regarding the analogy, so it's factually correct and literal regarding your statements.

    if you didn't clarify "what [you] meant obviously and clearly" then it's upon you. When you made the point about "the job" it could be applied to several statements you've made, but considering the location and that it was unclear what you specifically wanted to refer to, it was linked to the analogy.

    even now that you're stating it wasn't in reference to the analogy, it isn't clear to which other statement it must then refer.

    wrong. the data simply is. the problem isn't the data, it's your interpretation of the data (your analytical competency)

    you're assuming that you and your "trusted source" are competent - despite the evidence that your source is biased

    and you're making the claim that your interpretations are the only competent interpretations and therefore it's not in conflict
    if the electric universe acolytes or zephir the aether worshipper were to make these same claims to you, you would be incredulous and likely report them for being idiots
    no, we won't
    You advocate for irrational controls based upon your percieved superiority as your opinion and biases are, to you, the only cogent argument

    it's not like I haven't fully explained this point several times
    what you are doing is
    I would definitely state your misreading and bizarre misconstrual above, given the repeated clear, concise statements I've made, is imposing an inequitable burden of correction

    actually, it does
    the thread contains the requisite evidence of direct refute to your claims with equivalent evidence (linked by myself or Vociferous)

    so then why do you continue to reject current laws and BATFE regulations because they're not as strict as what you wish them to be, even though they are written, enacted, supported by and enforced "by the large majority of people who operate on sense and adult judgment" ????
    Last edited: May 7, 2018
  21. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    clarification of point: your use of the term "rapid fire"

    According to the BATFE, rapid fire doesn't mean machine gun if it still specifically requires individual action on the part of the shooter, as annotated in their definitions that I've linked to you already
    And since you didn't read it the first times it was linked you choose to use the term because it's inflammatory and typically seen as derogatory. This is specifically misleading, especially as you've never once actually been able to make a statement of what "rapid-fire" means or how many rounds "rapid-fire" is in your definition.

    It is especially cogent to remind you that BATFE specifically regulates "rapid fire" machine guns

    So considering the BATFE is regulated by law, which is by the large majority of people who operate on sense and adult judgment, and that your argument of rapid fire is completely subjective, yet still covered under BATFE regulations, then it stands to reason that the arguments provided against semi-automatics using the term "rapid fire" are not by people who operate on sense and adult judgment

    historical reference and previous link to:
    27 CFR 479.11: MEANING OF TERMS
    ATF Rul. 2004-5
    Vociferous likes this.
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Tell that to California:
    A sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of that officer’s duties may borrow, purchase, receive, or import into this state a large-capacity magazine (Pen. Code, § 32405.)
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Cherry-picked comparison of countries with vastly dissimilar number of firearms and diversity and size of population.
    What happens if you treat the same land mass/population in the EU as a single country? You have to start adding up all those countries, many of which are the sizes of some US states, and together might represent the US demographic diversity.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.

Share This Page