Anti-gun control people, where would you draw the line?

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
spartan231490 said:
loc978 said:
spartan231490 said:
loc978 said:
Quite alright. In all fairness, I wouldn't trust the average American with a firearm, if I had a choice. snip
Based on what? The less than 1/100,000 of us that have a fatal accident each year? So much safer than the more than 7/100,000 who kill themselves with a ladder each year. Or the 10/100,000 who accidentally poison themselves? That's not even mentioning the 14/100,000 that kill themselves in a car crash. And that rate of accidental firearm fatalities is based on an estimate for number of total gun owners that is probably low by as much as 20%. But no, it's clear that the over 80 million gun-owning Americans can't be trusted to handle a weapon safely. Then again, it's also clear that if you believe that then by simple numeric progression you also don't trust your fellow Americans with Cars, Bleach, or Ladders either.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents
Pretty much, at least on cars. With accidental ladder and poisoning deaths, the person at risk tends to be oneself. With guns and cars, the person at the most risk tends to be a stranger. The law isn't there to protect us from ourselves (or shouldn't be). It's there to protect us from each other.

But the horribly lax licensing laws of state DMVs is a whole other subject. Way to derail. Again.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize pointing out a flaw in your assertion that Americans are untrustworthy with guns, since they are provably safer with guns than they are with the unregulated ladders and cleaning products, was derailing. I didn't realize that implying that the majority of deaths do to guns come from intentional misuse, making any kind of safety training largely irrelevant, was derailing. Not to worry though, I'll be sure not to "derail" the tread with my facts again.
Sarcastic apology sarcastically accepted. See that you don't bring up unrelated statistics again.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Semes said:
spartan231490 said:
What information? Point out the flaws . . . go ahead, I'll wait.
Here are some links for you

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm
this site points out as many or more mistakes with your study as mine, and only points out that they might be inaccurate, and everything said is just a guess. To quote Kleck: "It is an impressive achievement to be able to arrive at such high-powered conclusions without the inconvenience of gathering or even citing any new empirical evidence." http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm
http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck
broken link.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1183422/-A-closer-look-at-DGU-numbers
TO again quote Kleck from above, a valid examination would propose suggestions for both under-reporting and over-reporting, not just over-reporting and trying to decrease the number which is what this source does. Also as mentioned by Kleck from above, a valid examination would give high credence to empirical evidence, and almost none to idle speculation. Unfortunately, both of these sources are comprised entirely of speculation.

Sorry, but the best you can do with speculation is propose that other studies with new methodologies are needed, you can't just assume that the results would favor your argument.
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
spartan231490 said:
http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck
broken link.
Not for me. Allow me to assist.
The Contradictions of the Kleck Study PDF Print E-mail

INFORMATION ON DEFENSIVE GUN USES

KLECK STUDY

In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by ?law-abiding? citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck?s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).

The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck?s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

Kleck?s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck?s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.

HEMENWAY CRITICISM OF KLECK

?Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias.

Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" 10% of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?" and 6% answered "Yes."

By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news?but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists. Yet the ABC News/Washington Post data on aliens are as good as or better than that from any of the thirteen surveys cited by K-G as supporting their conclusions about self-defense gun use.?
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

?Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.?

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDIES CONCERNING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: "Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to victims' injury outcomes."

What is also interesting is that the study notes that "In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms." Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters.

According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.
 

CrimsonBlaze

New member
Aug 29, 2011
2,252
0
0
It's very simple, really.

In regards to a convicted criminal or felon, the only thing they can arm themselves with is pepper spray and/or a taser. That's it.

If someone has been diagnosed with a medical condition that causes violent tendencies or psychotic breakdowns, then they can only wield pepper spray and/or a taser.

If someone lives with someone that has been diagnosed with a medical condition that causes violent tendencies or psychotic breakdowns, then they can only wield a single handgun and only be allowed to have it in a secure safe.

Also, no civilian can legally own a semiautomatic weapon, unless they are a member of the NRA or were part of some form of law enforcement or government agency (police department, navy, etc.).
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,790
1,407
118
CrimsonBlaze said:
In regards to a convicted criminal or felon,
Not sure about that. What if someone has been convicted of, say, tax fraud, or internet piracy?

CrimsonBlaze said:
Also, no civilian can legally own a semiautomatic weapon, unless they are a member of the NRA or were part of some form of law enforcement or government agency (police department, navy, etc.).
Why allow NRA members, but not other people?

And...why semi-automatic weapons? You can get a similar rate of fire with certain revolvers and multi-barrelled weapons, should these also be restricted?
 

aelreth

New member
Dec 26, 2012
209
0
0
Letters of marquee granted by congress once again. In the event of war, they conscript my personal warship.
 

Syzygy23

New member
Sep 20, 2010
824
0
0
Soundwave said:
I'm pretty pro-gun-control (so feel free to disregard what I'd say in a thread asking for the opinions of anti-gun-control people), and I feel that civilians should only have access to rifles and shotguns with fairly limited capacities. Handguns, combat rifles and automatic weapons have no business being in civilian hands, as they're designed specifically to commit murder, which is of course, illegal.
Our military breaks that law every day. THe difference is soldiers are trained to do it, civilians aren't (normally). If that's the issue, there's always mandatory gun safety and operation classes you could enforce.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
Topsider said:
You need exactly the same amount of licensing to buy a car as you do a gun: none.
Not universally true, but more importantly, is debating semantics. You can't legally operate a car without a license, and you are required to carry insurance and register with the DMV. You can only own a car without these requirements if you submit documentation regarding no intent to operate. The firearm equivalent would be an unusable display-piece weapon.
 

nepheleim

New member
Sep 10, 2008
194
0
0
Psychobabble said:
nepheleim said:
From an American historical standpoint Colonists had access to muskets, rifles, and (which nobody ever brings up) cannons. So people should be allowed whatever it is they want, provided they can afford it.
I think the British might have some rather good counter arguments as to why this wasn't such a great idea.
Well, they were expecting a war with us shortly, so disarming your opponent is a good first step. Now, if you're arguing that cannons were a bad idea for colonists to have in general, you need to go back to your history teacher and beat them for failing. Given the frequent spillovers of mainland european conflicts in the New World, coupled with wars (genocides really) against the native populations over territory, those cannons were used quite a bit.
 

Spearmaster

New member
Mar 10, 2010
378
0
0
A free people should be allowed the liberty to arm themselves as they see fit without oppressive restriction.
 

Dakkagor

New member
Sep 5, 2011
59
0
0
Hunting shotguns and hunting rifles, with a license, background checks and expensive fees.

Nobody needs anything else.
 

Fifty-One

New member
Sep 13, 2010
123
0
0
I don't see a reason to own automatic weapons. Other than that, I believe that people should be able to own whatever firearm they wish, provided they've taken the proper training courses and pass a standard background check.

It is the responsibility to the owner to properly care for and store their firearm in a secure location. If a law was made requiring gun owners to purchase a gun safe or locker to store them in, I would not be opposed to this. Might dissuade irresponsible people from purchasing a gun if they have to shell out additional money to store it. Most hunters and gun owners I've met own one anyway.
 

Karelwolfpup

New member
Jul 5, 2012
99
0
0
If you pass the monetary and psychiatric roadblocks, then you should be able to purchase whatever you want. The government has done its job, it's up to the weapon owner to be responsible. That's the cut and dry of it.
 

CrimsonBlaze

New member
Aug 29, 2011
2,252
0
0
thaluikhain said:
CrimsonBlaze said:
In regards to a convicted criminal or felon,
Not sure about that. What if someone has been convicted of, say, tax fraud, or internet piracy?

CrimsonBlaze said:
Also, no civilian can legally own a semiautomatic weapon, unless they are a member of the NRA or were part of some form of law enforcement or government agency (police department, navy, etc.).
Why allow NRA members, but not other people?

And...why semi-automatic weapons? You can get a similar rate of fire with certain revolvers and multi-barrelled weapons, should these also be restricted?
On the first comment, I was broad stroking the standards, but yes, certain felony and convictions may not apply to this rule. As a compromise, let's say that depending on the nature and degree of the felony and conviction, you are temporarily unavailable to while any firearms.

For the second comment, I suggested the NRA in order to have individuals who own powerful firearms to be registered, in order to keep track of them. There could be some other organization, not the NRA in general. An yes, we are all aware of the various other weapons that can be suitable replacements for semi automatic guns. I just feel that these are the guns that most psychopaths use to shoot up buildings and people.

Before you ask 'well, what would prevent those who can only wield pepper spray or a taser from just joining this (or another) organization an get their ok to wield firearms?' it will be necessary to have a background check first.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,790
1,407
118
CrimsonBlaze said:
On the first comment, I was broad stroking the standards, but yes, certain felony and convictions may not apply to this rule. As a compromise, let's say that depending on the nature and degree of the felony and conviction, you are temporarily unavailable to while any firearms.
Fair enough.

CrimsonBlaze said:
For the second comment, I suggested the NRA in order to have individuals who own powerful firearms to be registered, in order to keep track of them. There could be some other organization, not the NRA in general.
Ah, so that's just to have them registered? Fair enough, though I don't see why the government can't do that.

CrimsonBlaze said:
An yes, we are all aware of the various other weapons that can be suitable replacements for semi automatic guns. I just feel that these are the guns that most psychopaths use to shoot up buildings and people.
Well, true (excepting the assumption that mass murderers need by psychopaths), however I think this is at least partially due to them being very common. The AR-15 is sold in vast numbers, and has lots of support, lots of modifications and spare pars, you're always going to find ammunition for the more common configurations etc

CrimsonBlaze said:
Before you ask 'well, what would prevent those who can only wield pepper spray or a taser from just joining this (or another) organization an get their ok to wield firearms?' it will be necessary to have a background check first.
That seems fair enough.
 

chuckdm

New member
Apr 10, 2012
112
0
0
Supernova1138 said:
I'd say restrict gun ownership to weapons available at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted, so smoothbore muskets and flintlock pistols for everybody. Miss your one shot? Too bad, better pray the other guy misses too, and that you have brushed up on your swordsmanship and/or other hand to hand combat skills. You get your right to bear arms exactly as the founding fathers intended, and you eliminate the whole mass shooting problem the US has.

No I'm not being particularly serious about this, but I don't have much of a stake in this debate, I don't live in a country where half of everyone is armed to the teeth because they are afraid the other half is going to show up, kill them, and burglarize their miscellania.
I'd like this, but also shotguns. They also existed at that time, and unlike assault rifles, submachine guns, and pistols, they have actual, real world home defense applications. No, really. They have limited range, wide spray, and are much better at wounding than killing. If you want to stop a charging intruder, the shotgun is the weapon of choice. Not a rifle, which is too long heavy. Not a SMG, which has so much kick after the first shot that all the others aren't going to even hit your target (unless you're an off-duty soldier. Real SMGs are hard to control. Very hard.) And not a Pistol, which due to common bullet velocities are more likely to ricochet and potentially kill you instead of the intruder.

Only the shotgun has the proper characteristics to be a workable home defense weapon. Anyone who says otherwise has never woken up at 4:37AM in a stupor and tried to hit a target who was threatening to break down your door and kill you. My cousin did. It's also nice that shotguns make good door-breaching weapons. Best part? I got to see the bastard hauled off.

If, on the other hand, you want to pick off 20+ children at mid range in rapid succession like the impotent dickhead you'd have to be to want one, buy an AR-15.

And for hunting, like quote said, musket. If you can't hit one of the dumbest creatures on earth (a deer) with bait and a miniball that travels at nearly 90 times the speed of the arrows that have killed them for fucking millenia, you're just a bad hunter.

One more thing while I'm on the topic: The presedent of the NRA (the guy with the French name. which I'm sure he hates when people remind him, heh) said that "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Yanno what the Navy Yard Shooting has taught us? There are two ways to really stop a "bad guy with a gun."

A) A good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. And another good guy. That's all. Only 13 good guys had to die to stop this bad guy.

B) A mental health system where, when the guy told the cops he was hearing fucking voices, he gets some fucking help. Nobody dead. Problem (mostly) solved.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,384
1,703
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
chuckdm said:
I'd like this, but also shotguns. They also existed at that time, and unlike assault rifles, submachine guns, and pistols, they have actual, real world home defense applications. No, really. They have limited range, wide spray, and are much better at wounding than killing. If you want to stop a charging intruder, the shotgun is the weapon of choice. Not a rifle, which is too long heavy. Not a SMG, which has so much kick after the first shot that all the others aren't going to even hit your target (unless you're an off-duty soldier. Real SMGs are hard to control. Very hard.) And not a Pistol, which due to common bullet velocities are more likely to ricochet and potentially kill you instead of the intruder.
I'd like to know exactly how much experience you have with weapons, if any at all, because I have to say that not a single thing said in this paragraph is true.

It really sounds like you're getting all your weapons "facts" from Call of Duty.
 

Mr.BadExample

New member
Apr 25, 2012
17
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
I'd like to know exactly how much experience you have with weapons, if any at all, because I have to say that not a single thing said in this paragraph is true.

It really sounds like you're getting all your weapons "facts" from Call of Duty.
Hey buddy, I don't see your cousin stopping any home invaders. Maybe you should leave these discussions to the experts.

On topic, like most people who'd like our streets to be safe I favor the involuntary detainment of anyone judged a possible danger to society including anyone who currently cannot legally purchase a weapon or is statistically likely to commit a violent crime.