What's your opinion of gun control?

[prodigy8]

I do not own a gun or intend to ever buy one but I fully support everyone's right to have one. For me gun control has to do with our already disappearing rights and liberties.

[Beliathon]

Guns set to surpass the car as america's top killing machine.





Guns kill a lot of young people in the United States. Not just in school shootings or horrific “accidents” between toddlers that tend to garner the most media attention, but in every day shootings in communities around the country that result in the deaths of thousands of children and teenagers.
In 2010, 6,201 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 died by gunfire. Guns were a close second to the leading cause of death among this age group, car accidents, which took the lives of 7,024 young people that year. But, while car accident deaths among young people have been steadily declining over the past decade, gun deaths have remained relatively unchanged. And, as described in a new Center for American Progress report released Friday, if current trends continue, gun deaths will surpass car accident deaths among young people sometime in 2015:[/img]

How can we explain these numbers? For car accident deaths, these numbers represent a significant victory. Deaths of young people as a result of car accidents have dropped dramatically in the last two decades, from a high of more than 12,000 deaths among this age group in 1990. This decline is not an accident: billions of dollars have been spent on public health and safety research to understand motor vehicle accidents and how to prevent them from becoming fatal. This research has resulted in design innovation, changes to cars and roadways, and new laws that have led to a significant and steady decline in such fatalities among all age groups, including young people. There was no silver bullet for reducing vehicular death: airbags, seatbelt laws, anti-lock brakes, better signage, and tough drunk driving laws all contributed to it. But, in combination these measures have saved tens of thousands of American lives.
For guns, these numbers represent an enormous failure. The United States has experienced a dramatic decline in violent crime over the last two decades, yet the rate of gun violence, particularly among young people, has barely moved. Why? We don’t know.

Unfortunately, since the early 1990s, very few public health researchers have been trying to find out. Restrictions on such research imposed by Congress have had a substantial chilling effect, which has resulted in the almost total abandonment of this issue by our nation’s public health research institutions. Without this research, policymakers, legislators, community leaders, and parents are left without much direction regarding how to best protect children and teenagers from gun violence.

As we approach that morbid milestone next year when gun violence kills more American children and teenagers than car accidents, it’s time to start approaching this problem in the same manner as we addressed car accident deaths. We know how to do this –-through a combination of public health research, technological innovation, legislative change, enhanced enforcement, and transforming cultural norms we were able to make motor vehicle transportation safer while at the same time preserving American’s unique car culture. We can do the same thing with gun violence by adopting laws and policies designed to prevent gun deaths while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/gun-deaths-versus-car-deaths/

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/22/3320751/gun-deaths-surpass-car-accidents-leading-cause-young-people/

[d4n13]

Guns set to surpass the car as america's top killing machine.

Alright, I'm convinced
1) Enact Car Control laws in all 50 states.
2) Only Law Enforcement and Gov't personnel really need cars.
3) Those in cities will use Gov't issued mass transit.
4) Those on farms will be relocated to cities.
5) Now all citizens claiming to own cars for "collector" reasons will have the death boxes confiscated and dismantled.
6) Having proven with 1-5 that a citizen's safety trumps their freedom move on to gun control.

At least that line of argument is intellectually consistent.

Premise: Freedom is dangerous
Premise: Gov't protects citizens
Conclusion: Gov't removes freedom to increase safety.

'Bout what you had in mind?

[d4n13]

Guns set to surpass the car as america's top killing machine.

Satire aside, your point is that Gov't regulation has successfully reduced vehicular death, and so perhaps Gov't regulation could reduce fire arm deaths.  The problem is that the statistics are all jacked.  Even the language is jacked.  Car "accidents" and gun "violence".  Vehicular death is much more violent than firearm death, so why is one an accident, and the other violence?  The deaths are also not broken down into criminal action and non-criminal action.

For example, Gov't regulation may reduce non-criminal vehicular death since more kids are in car seats (good).  But has Gov't regulation really reduced criminal vehicular death (ie drunk drivers and unlicenced truckers)?

Also, why isn't there a breakdown in firearm death.  Firearm deaths are all deaths with, by, near, or regarding a gun.  Rather nonsense if you ask me.  A guy robbing a convenience store and shooting the owner in cold blood... ok +1 on "gun violence".  BUT a homeowner shooting a guy who broke into his house... -1 on "gun violence" and +1 on good and positive use of firearms.  Now there is also the statistic of accidental shootings, but again, this are all lumped together in one mass number relating to all people killed by, with, near, or regarding a gun.  Honestly, its only a matter of time before they start grouping USMC casualties while in active engagements abroad as "gun violence".

When there are honest statistics (yes, that is an oxymoron) then we can have an honest comparison.

[Beliathon]

..the language is jacked.  Car "accidents" and gun "violence".  Vehicular death is much more violent than firearm death, so why is one an accident, and the other violence?

Although we may disagree on all the other points, I could not agree more with you about this. One of the changes Transportation Alternatives has pushed for is calling all vehicle crashes just that - crashes.

The truth is most death caused by car crashes are due to criminal negligence from at least one of the drivers involved, rather than "accidents". We remove rightful blame and make a mockery of justice by calling them all accidents.

You're right to say, "imagine the outrage if all gun deaths were called Gun Accidents"! The automobile, oil, and alcohol industries have this language-manipulation game down to a science, just like the cigarette companies did in the sixties.

Guns set to surpass the car as america's top killing machine.

1) Enact Car Control laws in all 50 states.
2) Only Law Enforcement and Gov't personnel really need cars.
3) Those in cities will use Gov't issued mass transit.
4) Those on farms will be relocated to cities. Not taking debate seriously / trolling
5) Now all citizens claiming to own cars for "collector" reasons will have the death boxes confiscated and dismantled. Not taking debate seriously / trolling
6) Having proven with 1-5 that a citizen's safety trumps their freedom move on to gun control. Strict and effective gun control laws already in place in NYC

You jest, but as a cyclist with permanent car crash related injuries in my wrist, left knee and left ankle, I would totally vote for you if you ran for NYC mayor on this platform.

The only vehicles on city streets should be buses, garbagetrucks, firetrucks, ambulances, UPS/USPS/Fedex trucks, and trucks bringing food to grocery stores. Everyone else can fuck off and take public transit.



People live here, our lives matter more than the convenience and conspicuous consumption of the petit-bourgeois and their giant metal boxes of death.

So you see, we may disagree, but at least I'm consistent in my total lack of tolerance for selfish consumerist bullshit that costs human lives and suffering.

[JLynn171]

I think no guns = no reason to have a gun to defend yourself from a gun...
If you feel you need one for home invansions think of something else to defend yourself and family, cops have stepped up and in most cases use "less lethal weapons" while sometimes death does still occur from these weapons the rate is much lower than a gun.
But to realisticaly think we could ever get rid of every gun and stop someone from just making their own is ridiculous.  This worlds self destruction is sure to happen.  Too much hate not enough love..

[d4n13]

So you see, we may disagree, but at least I'm consistent

Awesome... A well thought out political discourse is very healthy, and I wish more people were open minded to listening to points they disagree with instead of shutting them down.

I don't know where your views are on the political spectrum, but I've always seen it go something like this


communist---socialist---US_"liberal"---moderate---US_"conservative"---libertarian---anarchist
<================= more Gov't =============================== less Gov't =================>


Labels are dangerous, and apologies for their use, but I would characterize your point as tending to the "more Gov't" / socialist POV, while I'm in the "less Gov't" / libertarian POV, again... apologies for labels... they come with baggage.  [Note: US_"Republican" and US_"Democrat" are not in the list since they fail to have a consistent political ideology]

Now that aside, most of the world is in the "more Gov't" camp.  Much of Europe is socialist-ish.  The libertarian POV hasn't held power in a major country for a very very long time (like 1780's), although there may be good argument for other world leaders in the last 200 years.

That being said... the socialist POV is by far the global majority.  Most people want (judging by elections) a strong Gov't, while a few groups want a small Gov't with limited power.  I am one of those few that want a Gov't that harkens back to the US 18h century ideals and that is often a point of ridicule from those in the majority.  

But... ridicule aside, cryptocurrency and the cypherpunk movement sprang from, of many things, a distrust and disdain of large authoritarian regimes.  So if someone is on the socialist side of the fence, then their interest in cryptocurrency would likely be attributed to, if one was consistent, some level of convenience it provides in its use at POS and international transfer capabilities.  While, on the other hand, someone more libertarian inclined, like I imagine the cypherpunks were, love cryptocurrency because of its incorruptible nature.  Fiat currency comes with all the baggage of a corrupt and draconian Gov't.

So I guess my argument is:

Love_Cryptocurrency == Distrust_Gov't == Love_Liberty == Accept_Right_to_Arms

[jayce]

Reality is: we've left heaven on earth a long time ago since the snake and apple incident...
Reality is: if you live in a high crime area it is not by choice but economical reasons.
Reality is: if you are a proud member of the NRA then you respect life much more than the thugs killing and rapping the people in your high crime area.

I wish the concept of self protection was a myth. I wish "I mind my own business and I am peaceful so no one will attack or rape me" was reality.
Maybe where you live it already is and there is no need for that tool, as you have a private army of poor people making sure you and your family are safe, using that tool. But what about their family? Should they just call 911 and wait for the best while YOU have private security?

Do you know if every job has the risks itself? So what do you think about the army in war conflict areas? They are working there while their family are living in home. Same with a chef. He cooks to you some delicious foods, but how about his family? Should he just call McD delivery to his family? No, because he can go home when he has finished the work. For the "protectors", we don't expect them to work 24 hours without rest. We can use a shift system, so each of them just work in 6-8 hours a day, and after work they can go home. And one more thing, they have a license to using a gun, I guess they hide a gun in their home, so if there is a something bad, then their family can use it. Don't worry about their family, they can take care of it.

How is that fair?"I will say it again, we don't need it if there is no threads to ours."

Tough luck for everyone else then...

I don't know what you have done to your neighborhood or your society, cause you need a gun to protect yours. Maybe you have some enemies when you was running your business or you like to walking in the place that is not safe. If you need a something to protect your house from robbery, you can use a baseball bat in case you know how using it. You can't? Okay just buy the gun then.

[TECSHARE]

Actually cars kill A LOT more people than guns. Too bad all your bullshit bureaucracy does nothing to stop that.

Actually, my chosen bureaucracy does a great deal to stop that. I'm a Champion level supporting member of Transportation Alternatives.

When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

Oh I see, thats how it works is it? I point out a flaw in your logic the size of a watermelon, so then you just talk about something else like thats what you meant the whole time. Got another fallacy you are guilty of: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

-No licenses for drivers.
-No car registration
-No mandatory car insurance.
-Education for misdemeanor offenses?  Probably a good idea for both.
-don't treat people badly because they drove while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs).

Let's take a moment look at the effect strict motor vehicle laws have had on public safety:

Even with these laws protecting us in place, still we lost 32,719 Americans - enough to fill a football stadium - to car wrecks in 2013.

That number could easily be ten times larger, if we had unscientific morons crafting public safety policy.

In my city over 20,000 have already been injured or killed by cars so far this year (January - June 2015).

I love when naïve libertarians describe their dystopia with absolutely no irony.

So you are scientific then? When you learned science, do you remember the lesson about correlation does not equal causation? Were the traffic deaths going down because of regulations... or because actual safety technology used to build vehicles has vastly improved?  Of course you just assume all these regulations are what made people safer. Good thing you are so scientific. Here is another real fallacy you are guilty of: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

Additionally, none of those regulations prevent people from getting access to a car in any way, they are simply punishments after the fact for breaking the law, therefore they don't prevent anything, and your analogy with gun ownership is not applicable. There are laws against murder. There are laws saying you need a insurance to drive, but that wont stop you from going on Craigslist and buying a car with zero regulation and running 20 people down.  Your so called safety measures operate 100% on deterrent. Too bad murderous psychopaths don't care about going to jail. 

[Alecabel]

I am in favor of very strict gun control AND removal of guns from the hands of criminals.

[RodeoX]

Guns set to surpass the car as america's top killing machine.

Satire aside, your point is that Gov't regulation has successfully reduced vehicular death, and so perhaps Gov't regulation could reduce fire arm deaths.  The problem is that the statistics are all jacked.  Even the language is jacked.  Car "accidents" and gun "violence".  Vehicular death is much more violent than firearm death, so why is one an accident, and the other violence?  The deaths are also not broken down into criminal action and non-criminal action.

For example, Gov't regulation may reduce non-criminal vehicular death since more kids are in car seats (good).  But has Gov't regulation really reduced criminal vehicular death (ie drunk drivers and unlicenced truckers)?

Also, why isn't there a breakdown in firearm death.  Firearm deaths are all deaths with, by, near, or regarding a gun.  Rather nonsense if you ask me.  A guy robbing a convenience store and shooting the owner in cold blood... ok +1 on "gun violence".  BUT a homeowner shooting a guy who broke into his house... -1 on "gun violence" and +1 on good and positive use of firearms.  Now there is also the statistic of accidental shootings, but again, this are all lumped together in one mass number relating to all people killed by, with, near, or regarding a gun.  Honestly, its only a matter of time before they start grouping USMC casualties while in active engagements abroad as "gun violence".

When there are honest statistics (yes, that is an oxymoron) then we can have an honest comparison.

A+ Good points!
I am unaware of any gun statistics that do not include a bias one way or the other. The people who are against gun ownership have the right to live unprotected from violence if they choose. But stay away from us who know better. I'm sure the mental patient hacking up people at a mall will put down his hatchet to listen to your statistics.
The real problem with violence in this country is a societal problem involving poverty, mental illness, and the raising of children on a constant daily stream of hideous violent entertainment. You want to do something about violence? Try taking on TV advertisers, try paying for housing the mentally ill, try changing the tax code to reduce poverty.
This does not happen because YOU (a person wanting a gun ban) have to do something. Instead you would rather force someone else to do something. Until YOU can say what YOU are going to give up you should be ignored.

[pureelite]

Guns are made for one purpose, and that purpose is to kill.
I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it.
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, support for gun control increased dramatically.

Generally in America, the support for gun control has outweighed the support for gun rights.
Are gun control laws constitutional?
What would be your ideal set of laws regarding firearms?

It shouldn't be as liberal as it is in USA, it should be more rigorous. As you said it, they are made for one purpose, therefore not everyone should be allowed to own a gun.

[RodeoX]

... As you said it, they are made for one purpose, therefore not everyone should be allowed to own a gun.

Ah, you must mean Olympic target shooting. Yes down with Olympians!!! Go back to ancient Greece you nuts.

[Wilikon]

Reality is: we've left heaven on earth a long time ago since the snake and apple incident...
Reality is: if you live in a high crime area it is not by choice but economical reasons.
Reality is: if you are a proud member of the NRA then you respect life much more than the thugs killing and rapping the people in your high crime area.

I wish the concept of self protection was a myth. I wish "I mind my own business and I am peaceful so no one will attack or rape me" was reality.
Maybe where you live it already is and there is no need for that tool, as you have a private army of poor people making sure you and your family are safe, using that tool. But what about their family? Should they just call 911 and wait for the best while YOU have private security?

Do you know if every job has the risks itself? So what do you think about the army in war conflict areas? They are working there while their family are living in home. Same with a chef. He cooks to you some delicious foods, but how about his family? Should he just call McD delivery to his family? No, because he can go home when he has finished the work. For the "protectors", we don't expect them to work 24 hours without rest. We can use a shift system, so each of them just work in 6-8 hours a day, and after work they can go home. And one more thing, they have a license to using a gun, I guess they hide a gun in their home, so if there is a something bad, then their family can use it. Don't worry about their family, they can take care of it.

How is that fair?"I will say it again, we don't need it if there is no threads to ours."

Tough luck for everyone else then...

I don't know what you have done to your neighborhood or your society, cause you need a gun to protect yours. Maybe you have some enemies when you was running your business or you like to walking in the place that is not safe. If you need a something to protect your house from robbery, you can use a baseball bat in case you know how using it. You can't? Okay just buy the gun then.

You, obviously do not need protection, you can afford to pay for it. I am happy for you. A soldier is a civil servant. Just like some teachers. Teachers use a blackboard and slides. A soldier uses guns. I cannot send an army to a country if I am not commanding an army or ordered to do so by my commander in chef, my emperor, my ayatollah, my king or supreme leader. 
"We" can use a shift system. That's a noble thought. No one ever said a "protector" should work 24/7. If a "protector' exists then it is to protect you. From whom? A baseball bat is not a weapon. It was created to play in this game millions of people love called baseball. A baseball bat is meant to hit a ball, not a human skull. It is cruel to smash the head of a another human being with a baseball bat. You would need more than one swing to stop your assailant. Also for a woman it would have been unfair for her to use a baseball bat to try to smash a man's skull twice her size, with a gun in his hand ready to rape her...I don't know what you have done to your rich neighborhood or your exclusive society, cause you need a "protector" doing shifts to protect yours 24/7...

[Beliathon]

So you see, we may disagree, but at least I'm consistent

Awesome... A well thought out political discourse is very healthy, and I wish more people were open minded to listening to points they disagree with instead of shutting them down.

I don't know where your views are on the political spectrum, but I've always seen it go something like this


communist---socialist---US_"liberal"---moderate---US_"conservative"---libertarian---anarchist
<================= more Gov't =============================== less Gov't =================>

It's not a one dimension spectrum, political ideology is a graph with 4 quadrants evaluating economic issues and social issues on two separate planes.

Check out http://politicalcompass.org. As a social anarchist / libertarian socialist, I fall in the extreme bottom left of this graph.

Our essential point is that Left and Right, although far from obsolete, are essentially a measure of economics. As political establishments adopt either enthusiastically or reluctantly the prevailing economic orthodoxy — the neo-liberal strain of capitalism — the Left-Right division between mainstream parties becomes increasingly blurred. Instead, party differences tend to be more about identity issues. In the narrowing debate, our social scale is more crucial than ever.

[Wilikon]

11 times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, saving lives - Photos - Washington Times

[tvbcof]

11 times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, saving lives - Photos - Washington Times

 - images snipped.

That doesn't even include the three I could think of off the top of my head

 1) a supposedly would-be mass shooter in a mall in my state of Oregon who commited suicide when confronted by an off-duty security gaurd who carried.

 2) A chilling 9/11 call by an old lady who had someone breaking into her house:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_bhp-_e_D8  Actually this wasn't the one I was thinking of but there are lots of them like this.  Seems that elderly widows are targets for these kinds of things.

 3)  The most chilling one I can think of in recent times was the lady who fled upstairs into a bathroom crawl-space with her kids.  The invader followed her specifically and quickly.  When he broke down the third door to get at them she filled his head with .32 cal slugs.  Amazingly (and sadly) the guy survived.  He had been recently released from prison and claimed in court that in breaking into the house he was 'just trying to feed his family.'  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr6EaxJ7XWo  The telephone recordings of this incident are hard to listen to.

As I said before, it is a very good bet that in my area any given house will be armed and we just don't see these kinds of things.  There is no doubt in my mind that the low rate of such events is precisely because criminals know very well what the outcome of a robbery attempt will be.  We've got a lot of property crime which happens when a criminal thinks they won't encounter anyone.  These types of crimes are much less lethal.  I'll bet that if gun controls happened here, confrontational crimes and fatalities from them would skyrocket.

Outside our main large population centers the sheriffs and even the Dem representatives tend to be between mildly and strongly pro-gun.  We've got a saying "Oregon Democrats don't want your guns...we've got our own."

Lastly I would say that even if guns were not effective at limiting violent confrontational crime it would be highly cruel to deny individuals the safety they feel in being able to defend themselves.  Even if that feeling were mis-placed (and it's not) it is very strong.  Being alone and vulnerable has to be a very bad feeling for many of our older and less physically capable citizens.  How these gun control fanatics can ignore this is beyond me.

[Beliathon]

11 times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, saving lives - Photos - Washington Times

 - images snipped.

That doesn't even include the three I could think of off the top of my head

[the joint]

11 times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, saving lives - Photos - Washington Times

 - images snipped.

That doesn't even include the three I could think of off the top of my head

Then why do you use your data anecdotally (i.e. pulling isolated data points and drawing conclusions without ever subjecting those data points to a formal reasoning process)?

[Beliathon]

Then why do you use your data anecdotally (sic)?

This sentence does not make sense. Please try again.