Gun control ... actual question

[lickitandstickit]

I personally find the idea of denying someone the right to vote because they, at some point in their lives, committed a felony pretty abhorrent.

you're just hitting the tip of the iceberg, start googling dumb/asinine/weird US laws. you'll start to wonder how we survived 200+years.

 

[mark_j]

This is possibly one of the most useful things I've read thus far - I really like the focus on the victims of gun violence, rather than those perpetrating it.

So ... the suicide stats, while obviously depressing, aren't, as far as I can gather, really linked to guns. The US suicide rates, while a bit higher than the international average, isn't startling. [The obvious proviso here is that suicide stats, like rape stats, are not particularly reliable.] Although there is evidence that maybe there's a correlation: "Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states." (Source) However, I think the solution here is pretty obvious. (Well, maybe not obvious, as if it were it would already be enacted, but I'm sceptical that tighter gun regulation would make a difference.)

The other two areas ... hmmm.

I think the point with suicide is that you are not going to stop it no matter what you do. Yes there are ways to "prevent" it or "intervene", but the reality is that if a person is hell bent on killing themselves taking away a particular methodology isn't going to change much.

People will still find a way.

Focusing on "the thing used" rather than the mental condition that causes suicide is rather short sided and ignores the greater problem.

 

[richard_daily]

Yeah, that was sort of my thinking too, but it was 5am and I couldn't really articulate it properly. To some extent, it doesn't matter so much how many guns a person has. They can only use one at a time. (Well, two I guess, but you'd have to be fairly enthusiastic.)
[Having said that, I do think 48 seems somewhat excessive. I'm still somewhat alarmed that stockpiling that number of firearms doesn't rings an alarm bell somewhere - surely, unless you're a collector, that's an indication that something's not quite right? I understand that the laws vary state by state - am I right in thinking that in some states, you'd have to register every gun, but in others, you just have one licence that allow you to own 'guns' ... but in some states is there no licencing or registration?]

I think the bolded point above is right, which points to complexity of establishing the extent of the issue ... if there is an issue ... but would you also have to include the number of deaths/crimes prevented through gun ownership as well?

I've prevented at least 2 crimes through gun ownership. Neither of them was ever recorded. I've caused 0 crimes through gun ownership.

 

[richard_daily]

So, in 2013 5% of gun-related homicides were domestic violence incidents - not quite the staggering rate the NYPost article implied, but still an issue worth addressing - I'm assuming we can all agree that people being killed by their (ex)partners, or the ex-partners of their current partners is not a desirable situation.
The regulation of gun ownership in instances of domestic violence seems patchy and fairly minimal in many cases (source)
Is one possibility tightening up that situation? For example, if someone is issued with a restraining order, removing their guns and revoking their legal ownership of guns (however 'legal ownership of guns' is established - I still can't quite work that out).

It's ridiculously easy to get a restraining order (and I can understand why). I have helped someone get one, and it required 0 proof, and it lasted for 2 weeks. Under your proposal, anyone who is simply accused of something would lose constitutional rights without due process.

Now, if someone is convicted of domestic violence, that's a different story, and one that already has laws on the books... those who are found guilty of domestic violence cannot pass a federal background check to buy a firearm.

 

[Lancecastor]

It's ridiculously easy to get a restraining order (and I can understand why).

Congrats...Acknowledging your condition is the first Step!

 

[richard_daily]

It's not time for the Gian Ghomeshi talent show yet.

Sit down lacie.

 

[KimGordon67]

I think the point with suicide is that you are not going to stop it no matter what you do. Yes there are ways to "prevent" it or "intervene", but the reality is that if a person is hell bent on killing themselves taking away a particular methodology isn't going to change much.

People will still find a way.

Focusing on "the thing used" rather than the mental condition that causes suicide is rather short sided and ignores the greater problem.

That's basically what I was saying. Although, as the research I linked to demonstrates, there is evidence to suggest that access to a gun does increase suicide rates. Did you actually read either my post in response, or the link that was embedded in there?

 

[lickitandstickit]

That's basically what I was saying. Although, as the research I linked to demonstrates, there is evidence to suggest that access to a gun does increase suicide rates. Did you actually read either my post in response, or the link that was embedded in there?

People been advocating that i commit suicide for years. Its always the same thing..

Go Fuck yourself and Die..

I always get stuck on Step 1..

 

[KimGordon67]

American constitutionalism overall:

Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

As it applies to weapon possession:

Everyone is naturally endowed with the unalienable right to keep and bear arms, and government can only obstruct that right if an individual commits felonies or suffers mental illness.

Indiana's Constitution is a perfect example: a citizen doesn't have to have any "reason" to carry a weapon because the law of that land recognizes keeping and bearing as a natural, unalienable right. The state has no power to deny a concealed carry permit to any citizen - unless they've committed felonies or have history of mental illness.

Indiana's concealed carry permit process is simple, swift and easy, and it used to cost just $25; it also used to offer a lifetime permit for just $100.

Socialism overall:

Everyone is at least a suspect - if not guilty - until they can convince the state otherwise. WHICH. ALMOST. NEVER. HAPPENS.

As it applies to weapon possession:

No individual has any "right" to freely keep and bear arms; government either outright outlaws such possession or it totally controls/regulates the possession of arms only to it and those elite few who government allows.

New York City is a perfect example: you can research yourself all the obstacles NYPD purposely puts in your way to even conduct its lengthy permit process; you also have to submit a Letter of Necessity to justify to the state why you have the audacity to even believe you have any need for a weapon at all (and, yes: the state decides whether your necessity merits approval - which it overwhelmingly doesn't); it's process is costly: over $425 - almost 20x Indiana's cost - non-refundable.


These are the fundamental differences between America constitutionalism and the rest of the world's socialism regarding this issue, and it's stark exposition of exactly how individual liberty and statism totally contradict each other certainly illustrates why socialists - whether foreign enemies to the Constitution like the OP, or domestic enemies like GB progressives - have no degree of appreciation, let alone reverence, for the natural freedom of individual man to defend his life, liberty, and property.

Rights are not 'naturally endowed'.
You're interpretation of 'socialism' is egregious at best. (Also, I'm not a socialist in the real sense of the word, although I'm pretty sure according to your relatively loose definition of the term, I am.)
States are not 'socialist' by virtue of not being the US.

Given that, I can't even be arsed engaging with the rest of your 'argument'.

 

[KimGordon67]

I've prevented at least 2 crimes through gun ownership. Neither of them was ever recorded. I've caused 0 crimes through gun ownership.

As I've said, I understand and empathise with that argument. But until you can present those data for a representative sample of the American population, it doesn't really mean much to anyone except you and those involved in the incidents you're talking about.

 

[richard_daily]

That's basically what I was saying. Although, as the research I linked to demonstrates, there is evidence to suggest that access to a gun does increase suicide rates. Did you actually read either my post in response, or the link that was embedded in there?

There is nothing in the link that shows that access to guns increases the desire of an individual or risk for suicide.

Suicide is an important topic, but it doesn't relate to restricting gun rights, unless you're talking about someone who has been mentally adjudicated, in which case, they have other core issues that we should address, rather than getting sidetracked on the issue of guns.

 

[KimGordon67]

It's ridiculously easy to get a restraining order (and I can understand why). I have helped someone get one, and it required 0 proof, and it lasted for 2 weeks. Under your proposal, anyone who is simply accused of something would lose constitutional rights without due process.

Now, if someone is convicted of domestic violence, that's a different story, and one that already has laws on the books... those who are found guilty of domestic violence cannot pass a federal background check to buy a firearm.

A constitutional right, not plural, and temporarily lose. But otherwise, yes that's right. I think it's worth giving that a go if it possibly lowers the number of (predominantly) women who are killed in instances of domestic violence. I did a quick check, and this would temporarily affect maybe a bit over million people at any given moment (source).

I would be more convinced by the argument of 'inalienable constitutional rights' arguments if, over here (source), we didn't have over 6 million Americans stripped of their human right (that's human, not 'constitutional') to vote because they'd committed a felony at some point. And, if I'm reading this right, for half of them that's not a temporary situation.

 

[KimGordon67]

There is nothing in the link that shows that access to guns increases the desire of an individual or risk for suicide.

Suicide is an important topic, but it doesn't relate to restricting gun rights, unless you're talking about someone who has been mentally adjudicated, in which case, they have other core issues that we should address, rather than getting sidetracked on the issue of guns.

Sigh ... again, I'm not really arguing that tighter gun control would lower suicide rates - I think suicide is something that needs to be addressed in a different way.

But the research states that (and I'm requoting from my earlier post) "Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states." (Source)
How does that not at least suggest that access to guns increases the risk of suicide?

 

[KimGordon67]

Extract suicide out of the equation

Out of the 74 countries for which data seems to be available, the US has the 17th highest rate of homicide by gun deaths (and the 17 higher countries are not exactly surprising - you really don't want to be living in Central or South America ...).

[I've extracted accidental deaths out of the equation, because the obvious retort to that is 'people being irresponsible'. I personally don't agree with that, but it's not worth having the argument.]

 

[Que]

Out of the 74 countries for which data seems to be available, the US has the 17th highest rate of homicide by gun deaths (and the 17 higher countries are not exactly surprising - you really don't want to be living in Central or South America ...).

[I've extracted accidental deaths out of the equation, because the obvious retort to that is 'people being irresponsible'. I personally don't agree with that, but it's not worth having the argument.]

Now cut the number by 60% to better represent America except for its gang-infested locations. I'm sure we're pretty far down the list.

Then take that 60% of gun deaths in attribute them where they belong in locations where six percent of the American population resides: Take 340 million * 6% and that particular sub population of America is by far and away the number one users of guns to kill people in the world.

Two Americas. I visit and work in the other America at times but I haven't been shot nor have I felt the need to shoot anyone.

To be more specific it's not actually attributable to gang violence. It's specifically black gang violence. I live amongst Latino gangs and they don't tend to shoot each other for no discernible reason.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I personally find the idea of denying someone the right to vote because they, at some point in their lives, committed a felony pretty abhorrent.

So you think people who violate society should get a say so in how society is run.

But you don't think people should be able to defend themselves or have civil rights.

LMFAO.....and you think we are backwards....*knee slapper*

Rights are not 'naturally endowed'.

In the USA they are, and they supersede the governments authority unless a very specific criteria is met and procedure followed in order to suppress/end a persons rights.

As I've said, I understand and empathise with that argument. But until you can present those data for a representative sample of the American population, it doesn't really mean much to anyone except you and those involved in the incidents you're talking about.

And that's why the 2nd Amendment is going nowhere.....and the anti-civil rights people are fucked.

A constitutional right, not plural, and temporarily lose. But otherwise, yes that's right. I think it's worth giving that a go if it possibly lowers the number of (predominantly) women who are killed in instances of domestic violence.

Well Americans like civil rights, so....tough shit for you Europeans who think we shouldn't have civil rights. Even if ending civil rights would save just one life.

Out of the 74 countries for which data seems to be available, the US has the 17th highest rate of homicide by gun deaths (and the 17 higher countries are not exactly surprising - you really don't want to be living in Central or South America ...).

[I've extracted accidental deaths out of the equation, because the obvious retort to that is 'people being irresponsible'. I personally don't agree with that, but it's not worth having the argument.]

And you're a xenophobic racist to boot.....

 

[KimGordon67]

Now cut the number by 60% to better represent America except for its gang-infested locations. I'm sure we're pretty far down the list.

Then take that 60% of gun deaths in attribute them where they belong in locations where six percent of the American population resides: Take 340 million * 6% and that particular sub population of America is by far and away the number one users of guns to kill people in the world.

Two Americas. I visit and work in the other America at times but I haven't been shot nor have I felt the need to shoot anyone.

To be more specific it's not actually attributable to gang violence. It's specifically black gang violence. I live amongst Latino gangs and they don't tend to shoot each other for no discernible reason.

Don't any of the countries in the list have areas that higher and lower levels of gun ownership?
Aren't the gun homicides in all the countries on the list primarily limited to specific sub-populations?

 

[KimGordon67]

So you think people who violate society should get a say so in how society is run.

I think if someone commits a crime and is duly punished for said crime, they should then be able to be fully participating citizens of the society they live in.

But you don't think people should be able to defend themselves or have civil rights.

LMFAO.....and you think we are backwards....*knee slapper*



In the USA they are, and they supersede the governments authority unless a very specific criteria is met and procedure followed in order to suppress/end a persons rights.

No, they are created by a document drafted by human beings. They didn't grow on a tree.



And that's why the 2nd Amendment is going nowhere.....and the anti-civil rights people are fucked.



Well Americans like civil rights, so....tough shit for you Europeans who think we shouldn't have civil rights. Even if ending civil rights would save just one life.



And you're a xenophobic racist to boot.....

..........

 

[BotanyBoy]

......

I think if someone commits a crime and is duly punished for said crime, they should then be able to be fully participating citizens of the society they live in.

So you think people who have violated society should get to retain their say so in how it's run. Just like I said.

No, they are created by a document drafted by human beings. They didn't grow on a tree.

No they weren't created by a document drafted by human beings. If you really believe that then you have completely misunderstood the Constitution and the American political/legal culture.

The document drafted by human beings is a list of RESTRAINTS ON THE GOVERNMENT not to violate our rights, that we are inherently born with. The BOR is not a list of rights granted to us by the government.

If you're really curious to know about our culture/politics you should try reading it sometime, it might help you better understand the USA and it's legal/political philosophies and culture.

 

[Que]

Don't any of the countries in the list have areas that higher and lower levels of gun ownership?
Aren't the gun homicides in all the countries on the list primarily limited to specific sub-populations?

Name a country where 6% of the population more than doubles the homocide rate.

Think of it this way you're a statistician wandering what the Mean Streets of America and you happen to not be a black male. Just by not being born black and male, you just reduced the likelihood that you're going to be shot to 4000 chances out of 320,000,000

On the other hand, if you are a black male in a predominantly black area, your chance of being shot is probably higher than any place on the entire planet. Nationally about 5000 out of 20,000,000.

Essentially you're trying to determine how safe it is to be in America, and that depends. It breaks down dramatically on racial lines.

Why would it make sense to establish gun policies based on national averages for someplace that doesn't have those challenges at all?

That would be like establishing gun policies for Costa Rica during the troubles in Nicaragua and El Salvadoran lumping that entire region together. It's meaningless.

The question you should be asking is what would be happen if we did establish some really strict gun laws in these places where a lot of black people kill each other?

...and it has been tried. It didn't work. It didn't work in Chicago it didn't work and. Washington DC. Both cities had an almost complete ban on handguns for years.


I guessed on the victim number subtracting what I assume is roughly proportion of female victims.

when you consider the perpetrators the numbers are higher.


SCOTUS came to the correct conclusion that law-abiding citizens in largely black cities don't get to have their civil rights violated simply because statistically they're more likely to shoot each other.

 

[KimGordon67]

Name a country where 6% of the population more than doubles the homocide rate.

Think of it this way you're a statistician wandering what the Mean Streets of America and you happen to not be a black male. Just by not being born black and male, you just reduced the likelihood that you're going to be shot to 4000 chances out of 320,000,000

On the other hand, if you are a black male in a predominantly black area, your chance of being shot is probably higher than any place on the entire planet. Nationally about 5000 out of 20,000,000.

Essentially you're trying to determine how safe it is to be in America, and that depends. It breaks down dramatically on racial lines.

Why would it make sense to establish gun policies based on national averages for someplace that doesn't have those challenges at all?

That would be like establishing gun policies for Costa Rica during the troubles in Nicaragua and El Salvadoran lumping that entire region together. It's meaningless.

The question you should be asking is what would be happen if we did establish some really strict gun laws in these places where a lot of black people kill each other?

...and it has been tried. It didn't work. It didn't work in Chicago it didn't work and. Washington DC. Both cities had an almost complete ban on handguns for years.


I guessed on the victim number subtracting what I assume is roughly proportion of female victims.

when you consider the perpetrators the numbers are higher.


SCOTUS came to the correct conclusion that law-abiding citizens in largely black cities don't get to have their civil rights violated simply because statistically they're more likely to shoot each other.

So, fundamentally, are you saying that the high rates of gun-related homicides aren't a problem?

 

[Que]

So, fundamentally, are you saying that the high rates of gun-related homicides aren't a problem?

Not for anyone who is not a black gang banger killing or being killed by other black gang bangers, and frankly I don't consider that much of a loss.

Even if you are black but not a gang member your chances of being killed drop dramatically. If I were black and a non felon living in a black community and for whatever reason I could not get myself in my family out of there I would want to be able to carry concealed. In most of those cities you're not permitted to do so.

Your entire premise is based on statistics. If I'm a white guy living in Iowa why would I care about statistics that have absolutely nothing to do with the America that I live in?

It's like the entire fraud that is the black lives matters movement. Your odds of being a black guy shot by a white police officer while you are unarmed is lower than the chances that you will be struck by lightning.

Assuming it doesn't spill over their border why should the Turks care what the death rate is in Iraq?

What have I been saying for days here? It is not a problem because it doesn't happen anywhere near as frequently as the anti-gun nuts would conflate statistics to imply that it would for any average non-suicidal, non-black non-gang member non-drug-dealing non-drug-consuming person in America.

It obviously isn't a problem for blacks living in black communities because a) they continue to do it and b) anyone that points this out is a racist and c) anyone involved in policing their community to remove violent offenders in jail them is a racist.

We have a problem with teenagers from MS-13 lopping each other's heads off with machetes. that's a very oddly specific problem which has nothing to do with America has nothing to do with any machete culture in America has nothing to do with machete ownership in America.

I don't know how I can make this any more plain. Half of our murders in America are black gang members killing other black gang members if I'm not a black gang member I don't care. At all. whether you choose to accept that rationale or not that is the rationale that every non-black non-gang member in America considers when they determine whether they are or are not safe walking down their street.

Nobody in Iowa worries for their personal safety when they hear that yet another weekend 100 people got shot in Chicago.

If the gun statistics worldwide went up next week next year or next decade they double triple or went up fivefold but in your neighborhood they stayed the same why would you be concerned for your personal safety?

 

[richard_daily]

A constitutional right, not plural, and temporarily lose. But otherwise, yes that's right. I think it's worth giving that a go if it possibly lowers the number of (predominantly) women who are killed in instances of domestic violence. I did a quick check, and this would temporarily affect maybe a bit over million people at any given moment (source).

I would be more convinced by the argument of 'inalienable constitutional rights' arguments if, over here (source), we didn't have over 6 million Americans stripped of their human right (that's human, not 'constitutional') to vote because they'd committed a felony at some point. And, if I'm reading this right, for half of them that's not a temporary situation.

So the solution to human rights being taken is to violate someone elses constitutional rights or curtail other rights?

I don't believe that we should be engaging in racist policy that prevents minority classes from attaining political power. We should accept that once someone is free from incarceration, that they have paid their debt to society.

There are actually plenty of gun rights advocates that are fighting to re-establish all rights for felons, including gun rights, along with voting rights.

I don't see how limiting a different right will right the wrong of the first infraction.

 

[richard_daily]

So, fundamentally, are you saying that the high rates of gun-related homicides aren't a problem?

What he's saying, is that he's a racist, and that black people are the problem.

His kind are the reason why we have gun control in the first place (from 1968 and 1939). Those gun control measures were fueled and fed by racism... he's happy to repeat the same mistakes again.

 

[KimGordon67]

Not for anyone who is not a black gang banger killing or being killed by other black gang bangers, and frankly I don't consider that much of a loss.

Even if you are black but not a gang member your chances of being killed drop dramatically. If I were black and a non felon living in a black community and for whatever reason I could not get myself in my family out of there I would want to be able to carry concealed. In most of those cities you're not permitted to do so.

Your entire premise is based on statistics. If I'm a white guy living in Iowa why would I care about statistics that have absolutely nothing to do with the America that I live in?

It's like the entire fraud that is the black lives matters movement. Your odds of being a black guy shot by a white police officer while you are unarmed is lower than the chances that you will be struck by lightning.

Assuming it doesn't spill over their border why should the Turks care what the death rate is in Iraq?

What have I been saying for days here? It is not a problem because it doesn't happen anywhere near as frequently as the anti-gun nuts would conflate statistics to imply that it would for any average non-suicidal, non-black non-gang member non-drug-dealing non-drug-consuming person in America.

It obviously isn't a problem for blacks living in black communities because a) they continue to do it and b) anyone that points this out is a racist and c) anyone involved in policing their community to remove violent offenders in jail them is a racist.

We have a problem with teenagers from MS-13 lopping each other's heads off with machetes. that's a very oddly specific problem which has nothing to do with America has nothing to do with any machete culture in America has nothing to do with machete ownership in America.

I don't know how I can make this any more plain. Half of our murders in America are black gang members killing other black gang members if I'm not a black gang member I don't care. At all. whether you choose to accept that rationale or not that is the rationale that every non-black non-gang member in America considers when they determine whether they are or are not safe walking down their street.

Nobody in Iowa worries for their personal safety when they hear that yet another weekend 100 people got shot in Chicago.

If the gun statistics worldwide went up next week next year or next decade they double triple or went up fivefold but in your neighborhood they stayed the same why would you be concerned for your personal safety?

Ok ... thanks for being clear. There's just do much I disagree with in this post I don't know where to begin, so I'll leave it.