Gun regulation thread w. poll.

Gun Thread Poll

  • Own a gun and support right to bear arms completely.

    Votes: 4 12.5%

  • Own a gun but think laws should be stricter.

    Votes: 6 18.8%

  • Don't own a gun but support right to bear arms completely.

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Don't own a gun but think laws should be stricter.

    Votes: 20 62.5%

  • Support complete banning of guns.

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • Total voters
    32
horns said:
Fantasy vs. reality.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/256325-carson-i-faced-a-gunman
Click to expand...
He really likes to put his foot in his mouth a lot. Unless he is just that stupid:

Then Fox’s Brian Kilmeade asked if, like Obama, Carson would would still travel to visit victims’ families despite some residents protests of grandstanding, to which Carson replied all too casually:


"Probably not. I mean, I would probably have so many things on my agenda that I would go to the next one."

So Carson doesn’t have faith in any sort of regulation to stop the massacres that that have become all too routine in this country, nor does he apparently believe that anything can stop them ever.
 
Dark Helmet said:
So, you are saying that you would just stand there and let this guy put a bullet in your head? f*** no, I wouldnt....Id attack the guy also. Im not gonna let some scumbag put bullets in me or the people around me. I guess thats what separates the men from the boys...
Click to expand...

and yet he said he thinks the guy with the gun should be pointing the gun at the guy behind the counter. Do you see the hypocrisy? In one breath, he says he'd sacrifice himself to save people, in another breath, he throws someone under the bus.
 
via Imgur
by alegna713 · 19 hours ago

3OTUrOq.jpg

Alright, I have seen this picture be circulated around facebook too many times and it's time to work through the math for everyone to see why it's a 100% MYTH. Using only 2014 numbers (no 2015 numbers were up yet, here we go: Since the picture doesn't make any specifications, I’m just going to run the numbers as whole numbers, for the all countries in the world

So lets look at the first number, stating that the US is 3rd in the world in murders. The US is actually 8th in the world in murders, at 14,249 in 2014. Ahead of it are: Brazil: 50,108 India: 43,355 Nigeria: 33,817 Mexico: 26,037 Democratic Republic of the Congo: 18,586 South Africa: 16,259 Venezuela: 16,072 The 2nd part states that removing those 4 cities, Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, and New Orleans, would move the US from 3rd from top to 4th from last.

Let’s look at the murder numbers from those 4 cities (known to law enforcement, of course). Chicago: 411 Detroit: 298 New Orleans: 150 Washington DC: 105 Total: 964, or 6.77% of the total murders for the US in 2014. Now if you subtract that number from the total, it leaves you with 13,285 murders, which means that we aren't anywhere near "the 4th from bottom number" after taking out those 4 cities.

There are currently 218 nations in the world, after taking out those 4 cities from the total, the following cities are now above the US in total murders: Columbia: 14,670 Pakistan: 13,846 US: 13,285 China: 13,410 So America moves down 2 places to number 10 in the world. 4th from the bottom of 218 would be 214, meaning this infographic is very, very wrong.

Another thing to note is that the 4 cities aren’t all even the top 4 highest murder cities in the country. Those honors go to: Chicago: 411 New York: 333 Detroit: 298 Philadelphia: 248 Keep in mind: Big cities can have more murders than small cities, but those numbers above aren't as a rate per population.

This NeighborhoodScout report factors in population size to determine the number of murders in each city per 1,000 people, thereby normalizing for population and more clearly representing the risk to residents of a city. 1 East St. Louis, IL 2 Camden, NJ 3 Gary, IN 4 Chester, PA 5 Saginaw, MI *Disclaimer: the world crime statistics were taken from the 2013 homicide numbers, as there were none I could find for 2014. Citations: https://www.unodc.org/…/p…/2014_GLO...rg/…/p…/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf</a>
 
yeah, that image has already been debunked by snopes. However, true to form, people will continue to cling to these bogus images without fact checking.
Plainview said:
via Imgur
by alegna713 · 19 hours ago

3OTUrOq.jpg

Alright, I have seen this picture be circulated around facebook too many times and it's time to work through the math for everyone to see why it's a 100% MYTH. Using only 2014 numbers (no 2015 numbers were up yet, here we go: Since the picture doesn't make any specifications, I’m just going to run the numbers as whole numbers, for the all countries in the world

So lets look at the first number, stating that the US is 3rd in the world in murders. The US is actually 8th in the world in murders, at 14,249 in 2014. Ahead of it are: Brazil: 50,108 India: 43,355 Nigeria: 33,817 Mexico: 26,037 Democratic Republic of the Congo: 18,586 South Africa: 16,259 Venezuela: 16,072 The 2nd part states that removing those 4 cities, Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, and New Orleans, would move the US from 3rd from top to 4th from last.

Let’s look at the murder numbers from those 4 cities (known to law enforcement, of course). Chicago: 411 Detroit: 298 New Orleans: 150 Washington DC: 105 Total: 964, or 6.77% of the total murders for the US in 2014. Now if you subtract that number from the total, it leaves you with 13,285 murders, which means that we aren't anywhere near "the 4th from bottom number" after taking out those 4 cities.

There are currently 218 nations in the world, after taking out those 4 cities from the total, the following cities are now above the US in total murders: Columbia: 14,670 Pakistan: 13,846 US: 13,285 China: 13,410 So America moves down 2 places to number 10 in the world. 4th from the bottom of 218 would be 214, meaning this infographic is very, very wrong.

Another thing to note is that the 4 cities aren’t all even the top 4 highest murder cities in the country. Those honors go to: Chicago: 411 New York: 333 Detroit: 298 Philadelphia: 248 Keep in mind: Big cities can have more murders than small cities, but those numbers above aren't as a rate per population.

This NeighborhoodScout report factors in population size to determine the number of murders in each city per 1,000 people, thereby normalizing for population and more clearly representing the risk to residents of a city. 1 East St. Louis, IL 2 Camden, NJ 3 Gary, IN 4 Chester, PA 5 Saginaw, MI *Disclaimer: the world crime statistics were taken from the 2013 homicide numbers, as there were none I could find for 2014. Citations:
Click to expand...
 
Dark Helmet said:
So, you are saying that you would just stand there and let this guy put a bullet in your head? f*** no, I wouldnt....Id attack the guy also. Im not gonna let some scumbag put bullets in me or the people around me. I guess thats what separates the men from the boys...
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm only pointing out the delusional fantasies that some have.
 
Hearts goes out to the people of Oregon, and let's harden gun laws so we don't have to lose people in our communities!! This will happen over and over again if we don't take a stand!!
 
B S said:
Hearts goes out to the people of Oregon, and let's harden gun laws so we don't have to lose people in our communities!! This will happen over and over again if we don't take a stand!!
Click to expand...


he passed 10, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10! background checks!! What law would have stopped this? He used handguns, so an evil rifle ban (which kills less than 200 people a year) wouldn't have stopped this. he had multiple handguns so a gimped magazine ban wouldn't have stopped this. he bought his firearms over a long period of time so a "cooling off period" wouldn't have stopped this.

What laws are you people looking for?
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty liberal when it comes to social issues. Guns though, while I don't own any, I support. I just think laws to acquire them need to be more strict.
 
the gun problem seems more like a poverty and social inequality/alientation problem. you fix the latter and the former will invariably follow

in the immediate, stricter gun laws should be enforced so that its not easy as picking up a firearm along with your microwave dinner when you stop by walmart..

(note, i'm not american)
 
Dno69 said:
Aren't they already doing that? We have tons of statistics.
Click to expand...

Nope. Congress effectively froze all federal funding of firearm research in 1996. It started when the CDC backed a peer reviewed study that showed a gun in the home increased the risk of homicide and suicide threefold. Later studies, privately funded, showed similar results. Anyway, the NRA made accusations in the 90s that the CDC was backing gun control and Congress cut out whatever amount of funding was for firearms research from the CDC's budget. They've continued that until recently. Now you hear this schtick that the CDC is there to look at diseases not guns. It's not. Recently they've attempted to insert language into spending bills to allow federal studies of guns, but efforts have been blocked.

The US government funds billions of dollars worth of studies on just about everything. Research saves lives. Federal research is available to all and allows people to be more informed. There's no excuse to not fund it. Those opposing it are dumb. And they know the results will not likely support their beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dno69
Joon said:
the gun problem seems more like a poverty and social inequality/alienation problem. you fix the latter and the former will invariably follow

in the immediate, stricter gun laws should be enforced so that its not easy as picking up a firearm along with your microwave dinner when you stop by walmart..

(note, i'm not american)
Click to expand...

The first part i agree with you on, but the second part i think may be due to you not living in the states. in america right now if you were to buy a new firearm anywhere in this country you have to pass a background check. these checks state that you have no mental health issues and that you are not a prohibited person, I would venture to say that about 90%-95% percent of the firearms in america are purchased this way. I stay in gun freedom AZ and of the last four firearms i have bought in the last year i completed a background check on all of them, two of which were bought at a gun show with a background check completed and one i had to wait six months for while the ATF dug into every aspect of my history before i got to take it home.

Most of the people that commit mass murders in our country are people that passed background checks and up until they walked into gun free zone x and opened fire were just as normal looking as anyone you see on the streets.
 
morfeeis said:
these checks state that you have no mental health issues and that you are not a prohibited person, I would venture to say that about 90%-95% percent of the firearms in america are purchased this way.
Click to expand...

thats good. i guess it depends on how strict these checks are, and with the effects we see in the america one may assume they are not strict enough, right?

morfeeis said:
I stay in gun freedom AZ and of the last four firearms i have bought in the last year i completed a background check on all of them, two of which were bought at a gun show with a background check completed and one i had to wait six months for while the ATF dug into every aspect of my history before i got to take it home.
Click to expand...

i thought it was normal for people to walk into a shop and leave with their gun right then and there. is that not true?

also im genuinely curious, what do you need four guns for, are they all for protection?

morfeeis said:
Most of the people that commit mass murders in our country are people that passed background checks and up until they walked into gun free zone x and opened fire were just as normal looking as anyone you see on the streets.
Click to expand...

true, and to me that just means checks should be more relevant and strigent - if theyre passing these checks, then make the checks stricter. but i understand that this is a ddifciult thing to judge, which is also why there needs to be proactive solutions like counselling or support or employment help, for example, instead of only "negative" solutions such as just denying people or imposing more laws and thats all. like, you cant just tell a child to not do x, you need to also help that child learn y
 
I guess the question boils down to whether or not you think the right to bear arms is more important than preventing a proportion of these mass killings. No doubt that by removing a large number of firearms from the country you will reduce the number of crimes committed with them (whether they be lawfully acquired or otherwise). But you won't stop all such crimes and mass murders, and some of the crimes will still be committed by other means (knives, bombs etc.). The problem is a cultural one; you've got a country where lone mass killings with guns are quite common (by international standards).

However, I honestly believe that by imposing firearm legislation like that in the UK you would see a huge decrease in gun crime, but you have your rights, and guns are a way of life for a lot of US citizens. Like literally embedded in your society. Those pro-gunners will always argue that tougher legislation won't stop gun crimes because the majority of such crimes are committed with illegal weapons, and I'm sure they're right. The only answer I see is to massively reduce the numbers of guns (hence my opening sentence) which would eventually lead to a cultural shift away from them. But again, some people will want that and others won't.

That's my view as an outsider looking in anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: starseeker and Dno69
horns said:
Nope. Congress effectively froze all federal funding of firearm research in 1996. It started when the CDC backed a peer reviewed study that showed a gun in the home increased the risk of homicide and suicide threefold. Later studies, privately funded, showed similar results. Anyway, the NRA made accusations in the 90s that the CDC was backing gun control and Congress cut out whatever amount of funding was for firearms research from the CDC's budget. They've continued that until recently. Now you hear this schtick that the CDC is there to look at diseases not guns. It's not. Recently they've attempted to insert language into spending bills to allow federal studies of guns, but efforts have been blocked.

The US government funds billions of dollars worth of studies on just about everything. Research saves lives. Federal research is available to all and allows people to be more informed. There's no excuse to not fund it. Those opposing it are dumb. And they know the results will not likely support their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's kind of crazy.
Thanks for detailed reply.

Hasn't there been studies on the connection to these types of events and anti-depression drugs?
 
Normally, as an outsider, I aviod talking about guns, because I know normally it will not end well.

In my opinion, America can be one of the best places to live if you resolved a few key issues, like gun issue & racial tension (Discussion for another day)


To get it off the bat, I am not here to tell people if America should have strict gun control (like almost all other developed nations), but the opinion should be an informed one, base on unbias, & non-misleading data & statement.

As an Engineer that work wth data on regular basis, I can tell you its very easy to manipulate data to give bias & misleading information,

I find (& can provide evidences as well) some information from NRA & many pro-gun bodies are very bias & avoid obvious questions.

E.g Say some gun control cities have more gun violence, while ignoring information like they happened to be also the most densely populated, & there are NO gun control or border with metal detector to ensure no one bring guns in.

Also another is saying USA have less homicide /gun related death than many countries with strict gun control as evidence that gun play NO part in homocide rates. If people bother to check, you realise these strict gun control countries including North Korea, Pakistan & other third world nations in Middle-east & Africa, & America is sitting on top of every develop country by a distance & half the world nations.

If Americans say they are happy to beat half the world, then we can rest the case, end of discussion. But why are we setting such a low standard?

Data they never show you is homicide rates & gun relate death of comparable developed nations, because US is rate far below most!

When provided data to them, they swift goalpost like "people kill people, not gun", or "if we ban guns, bad people will have guns, but good people will not, it will get worst". Both sentences are true by the way but these are ostables to overcome, not justification!


Fact (not opinion) is that America has a higher homicide & gun related death than most if not all developed nations, & often by a country mile.

-A quick stat,

you are 5X more likely to be victim of homicide, & 18X victim of gun violent in Germany than USA (factoring population of course)



Before I go on, let it be known, I am not supporting gun control or not, just provide non bias, informed data.

Like I said, decision MUST be base on real data, not bias report & misinformation.


The question should be, knowing that America has a far higher rates than most develop nation,

do you want to impose strict gun control comparable to other developed nations? .

if No, why?

You can say its a constitutional right, which is a fair statement, you can say its a industry that provide wealth & jobs, a less convincing one, but nevertheless a valid one. They are probably so other good ones.

You should however NOT said, things like, "bad people will always have gun", "Its impossible, too much gun in circulation, people can bring guns from Mexico", because these questions are obstacles to tackle if we want strict gun control, not justification to have guns.

The problem is, people look at obstacles as as justification NOT to act, rather than overcome. Who ever said it was easy, its obviously hard, but every obstacle have a long term solution. if you are determine, it can be done, not in a week, a year, it could takes years, a generation or 2 even. It can be done, but only & only if you want it, It can be done in steps, say reduce the amount of bullets in circulation, to self defense quantity.

Eventually, you need to weight the pros and cons or each solution & its effectiveness, & base the decision on informed information (Any information from NRA is obviously bias. if its not obviosuly clear). DO your own reseach, look at real data (not statement from data that can be easily manuiplated).

If when all is said & done, you come to conclusion & say, "you know what, I know the issue with guns in America, but having firearm is part of our consititional rights & what makes America, America. We rather a solution that monitor people so guns do not fall into wrong hands, ever though it is easier said than done" I can respect that. Do not however made statement that there is no evidence to show strict gun control do not reduce homocide (USA have overwhelmingly higher homocide & gun related death than othsr devloped nations with strict gin control. Just google) & gun related death, because that is just untrue, & the information that support this is bias & misleading.
 
How about background checks to include household members?

The Sandy Hook shooter had a history of mental issues and fascination with mass shootings.....but the guns were his mothers.


I don't believe tougher laws will stop all mass murders, but even if they stopped some, that's progress. As a nation that claims to be a christian nation, all life should be considered precious, and new laws shouldn't be dismissed as "nah, they won't work".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back