The Gamespot Gun Control Debate

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]You know what's great about that guy's house? If someone breaks in and threatens him and/or his family, he can deal with the problem without having to hope he can sneak a call to 911 and wait 20 minutes for the cops to show up. He can defend his own damn home and life.Planeforger

Is America so completely screwed up that people don't even feel safe in their own homes without an automatic weapon close at hand?
If so, I might just change my mind about the whole gun control issue.

Don't get me wrong - gun restrictions/bans are ideal in most developed countries - but the gun advocates in these thread keep making me think that living in the US is twice as deadly as Bosnia and Syria combined. If that's the case, then by all means stay armed, and pray that you can one day migrate to one of the many nations where people don't have to worry about such things.

.

So I guess those of us who will neven own a gun have to live in fear of other people who choose to love these things. I once met a guy who had a loaded AK47 in his living room, it was our first time meeting and he showed it to me, needless to say it was the last time we spoke. How people could keep these instruments of murder just lying around the house scares the crap out of me.

Yusuke420

And others have to live in fear of people who drive fast cars. Others have to live in fear of people who show aggressive behavior due to video games and are prone to being negatively affected by violent video games.

You're chance of dying in a mass murder event like the other day is extremely, extremely rare.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

I should have said "dsiplayed", he didn't fire the weapon, but it's a AK man that type of stuff scares the $hit out of me just looking at it.

Yusuke420

Grow a sack.

Second to last link from the bottom Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Second to last link from the bottom Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.radicalcentrist

Thank you.

I moved here because my parents moved here because they thought they wanted to be out of California, we all agree it was the worst choice we have ever made. Once I finish school, I'm outta this joint.

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

What is the saying? Correlation does not imply causation. I'd like to see a map of how many of those shootings happened in urban versus rural areas. There are many other factors that could lead to there being more gun violence in the southern states. Now how many of the horrific "mass shootings" this year have happened in the south?

hartsickdiscipl

Relation without proven causation is irrelevant. I tend to think that those statistics have more to do with educational challenges related to urban environments in the south. Particularly associated with certain ethnic groups.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Second to last link from the bottom Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.radicalcentrist

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="curono"] It may not mean causation. But it DOES imply necessarily relation. The less guns are on the streets, the less violence is caused by firearms. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mention mass shootings, mainly because they are atypical and statistically rare. But do at leas acknowledge that the more guns there are, the more gun violence there is. Cause or effect is irrelevant. Both are related.curono

Relation without proven causation is irrelevant. I tend to think that those statistics have more to do with educational challenges related to urban environments in the south. Particularly associated with certain ethnic groups.

The 2nd Amendment disagrees with you. The right to bear arms is a cornerstone of the US.

I moved here because my parents moved here because they thought they wanted to be out of California, we all agree it was the worst choice we have ever made. Once I finish school, I'm outta this joint.

Yusuke420

I think their should stricter backround checks. Like people that are mentually ill shouldn't have guns at all like the Sandy Hook shooter for example.

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Relation without proven causation is irrelevant. I tend to think that those statistics have more to do with educational challenges related to urban environments in the south. Particularly associated with certain ethnic groups.

hartsickdiscipl

The 2nd Amendment disagrees with you. The right to bear arms is a cornerstone of the US.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="curono"] It may not mean causation. But it DOES imply necessarily relation. The less guns are on the streets, the less violence is caused by firearms. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mention mass shootings, mainly because they are atypical and statistically rare. But do at leas acknowledge that the more guns there are, the more gun violence there is. Cause or effect is irrelevant. Both are related.curono

Relation without proven causation is irrelevant. I tend to think that those statistics have more to do with educational challenges related to urban environments in the south. Particularly associated with certain ethnic groups.

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Relation without proven causation is irrelevant. I tend to think that those statistics have more to do with educational challenges related to urban environments in the south. Particularly associated with certain ethnic groups.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="radicalcentrist"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Second to last link from the bottom Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="radicalcentrist"] The problem with Duggan's paper, however, is that gun magazine sales are not a reliable metric of gun ownership link

radicalcentrist

I never claimed to be better qualified than John Lott, I merely asked for another source. Lott's own work has often not been robust and he's faced a good deal of criticism from other economists, which is why I ask.

Army situation=/= civilian situation. I´m no expert but look at this. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/uncommon-sense/question-1466485/?page=2&link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_m2TQKCuVrWo/TTA8qvEZcJI/AAAAAAAAB50/ZL_kwfen2bg/s1600/preventionEDIT-thumb-600x463-40174.jpg The south has more gun related deaths. Guess what. South is far more loose on gun control. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/20/gun-violence.html PErhaps I'm being naive, but It seems that the more guns are there, the more gunshots appear to exist. Care to retort?curono

Oh, you're not an expert. That's all right, I am. I said firearms make me safer. They make me safer because I am an expert. Get it?

[QUOTE="curono"]Army situation=/= civilian situation. I´m no expert but look at this. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/uncommon-sense/question-1466485/?page=2&link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_m2TQKCuVrWo/TTA8qvEZcJI/AAAAAAAAB50/ZL_kwfen2bg/s1600/preventionEDIT-thumb-600x463-40174.jpg The south has more gun related deaths. Guess what. South is far more loose on gun control. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/20/gun-violence.html PErhaps I'm being naive, but It seems that the more guns are there, the more gunshots appear to exist. Care to retort?Palantas

Oh, you're not an expert. That's all right, I am. I said firearms make me safer. They make me safer because I am an expert. Get it?

Hardly funny...curono

What the f*ck does that mean?

[QUOTE="curono"]Hardly funny...Palantas

What the f*ck does that mean?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="curono"] Perhaps relation without causation is irrelevant LEGALLY. But when taking hard life decisions, you should see things and patterns. Lets imagine that you make parties. After 10 parties you realize that the more chocolate you give in your parties, the more people end up fighting. You lower chocolate and no one fights. You raise the chocolate offered and everyone fights. I don't care if chocolate is not the direct cause. If the relation holds you have a clear indication of something raising or lowering violence, you should take that into account. Facts say: more guns have, the more violence. The less guns, the less violence. I haven't seen a single SOLID argument for gun "liberation" or free-er regulation. Please, spare us from anecdothes. Everyone has one.curono

The 2nd Amendment disagrees with you. The right to bear arms is a cornerstone of the US.

I don't want to government having any more control over who owns guns than they already have. The spirit of the 2nd Amendment had already been trampled upon enough.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="curono"] Perhaps relation without causation is irrelevant LEGALLY. But when taking hard life decisions, you should see things and patterns. Lets imagine that you make parties. After 10 parties you realize that the more chocolate you give in your parties, the more people end up fighting. You lower chocolate and no one fights. You raise the chocolate offered and everyone fights. I don't care if chocolate is not the direct cause. If the relation holds you have a clear indication of something raising or lowering violence, you should take that into account. Facts say: more guns have, the more violence. The less guns, the less violence. I haven't seen a single SOLID argument for gun "liberation" or free-er regulation. Please, spare us from anecdothes. Everyone has one.curono

So you want to make it harder for the good, law-abiding citizens to obtain guns? This will have little or no effect on the criminals and gangs who represent the biggest threat in this country, and are primarily responsible for the gun violence here. I know that the mainstream media likes to portray crazed young white men as the biggest threat around, as if they're constantly shooting up theaters, temples, and schools.. But the fact is that even if their official stories are true, mass shootings only account for 88 deaths this year. While any deaths are horrible, that number is peanuts. Let's focus on the real social problems that lead to most gun violence. Reducing the number of drugs on the banned substance list will make the drug business much less violent. Let's try giving people more freedom first, and see how that works. Instead we're sitting here talking about limiting people's freedoms and punishing the whole class for what a few bad kids did.

If you were trying to be funny, it is not. If you were bragging about your shooting skills, then, it is completely irrelevant to the conversationcurono

I'm not trying to be funny, and I'm not bragging about my shooting skills; it's simply what I do for a living. My original statement went thusly:

I don't know about the general public, but personally owning firearms make me safer.

I

You took issue with this statement of mine. That is the conversation, at least between us anyway. I wasn't describing society or gun control in general, just my own situation, and I made sure to point that out.

Disclaimer: I do not own any firearms and never plan too, but this is my opinion nonetheless.

I'll quickly throw in my two cents, now I'm not exactly anti or Pro-Gun control, but with the fact that there has been 2 Mass Murder shooting in a 5-month period, I do believe something has to be done, because out current plan isn't working. I'm not saying we need gun control, but we need to do something, because it makes me sick to my stomach thing something like this can and probably will happen again if we do nothing.

I'll leave a comment I found on the Guardian on the issue:

"The often-touted notion that American citizens need to hoard military arsenals to overthrow a corrupt government is absurd and paranoid.

In any case, America spends more than the next 26 countries combined on military expenditure. If the US Army comes for you, you won't even know about it, the battle will be over before you get your pants on. Your pistol will do nothing against a M1 Abrams tank, and you may as well flick pretzels at the drones patrolling your town.

Given the appalling levels of obesity in the USA, we can rule out the idea of gun owners marching on Washington to overthrow a corrupt government. Most of these so-called "survivalists" couldn't make it to the garden gate without an oxygen tank.

Despite living in a country awash with military-grade, privately-owned weapons, no gun owner came to the aid of the children of Newtown. The theory of citizen self-defence tragically failed on Friday, again.

If a country has to arm its teachers and educate its infants and children inside fortresses, it isn't a nation worth saving, anyhow.

But there's no point in telling the gun nutjobs this. Sales of weapons have leapt following the events at Newtown. The response to a gun horror has been to hoard yet more guns. It is going to happen again, in one month or five years. But it will happen again."

"The often-touted notion that American citizens need to hoard military arsenals to overthrow a corrupt government is absurd and paranoid. In any case, America spends more than the next 26 countries combined on military expenditure. If the US Army comes for you, you won't even know about it, the battle will be over before you get your pants on. Your pistol will do nothing against a M1 Abrams tank, and you may as well flick pretzels at the drones patrolling your town.

The Guardian

Right, because the US Army has proven extremely effective in fighting an insurgencies in recent decades, Abrams tanks being a key component of counter-insurgency warfare. All the freedom fighters just line up in an open field against the 1st Armored Division, like it's the Battle of Gettysburg. Small arms however, play little to no role in a revolution, as evidenced by their non-presence in Libya and Syria. Clearly the author of this paragraph is not only a military historian and strategist, but also a deep thinker.

Given the appalling levels of obesity in the USA, we can rule out the idea of gun owners marching on Washington to overthrow a corrupt government. Most of these so-called "survivalists" couldn't make it to the garden gate without an oxygen tank.

The Guardian

(Sarcasm terminated) I think the point of this article is more just to b!tch about and insult Americans than it is to make a sound point. Perhaps people who have zero experience in warfighting should shut the f*ck up, and go run their mouths about medicine or chemistry or underwater welding, or some other field they know nothing about.

I'll leave a comment I found on the Guardian on the issue:

"The often-touted notion that American citizens need to hoard military arsenals to overthrow a corrupt government is absurd and paranoid.

In any case, America spends more than the next 26 countries combined on military expenditure. If the US Army comes for you, you won't even know about it, the battle will be over before you get your pants on. Your pistol will do nothing against a M1 Abrams tank, and you may as well flick pretzels at the drones patrolling your town.

Given the appalling levels of obesity in the USA, we can rule out the idea of gun owners marching on Washington to overthrow a corrupt government. Most of these so-called "survivalists" couldn't make it to the garden gate without an oxygen tank.

Despite living in a country awash with military-grade, privately-owned weapons, no gun owner came to the aid of the children of Newtown. The theory of citizen self-defence tragically failed on Friday, again.

If a country has to arm its teachers and educate its infants and children inside fortresses, it isn't a nation worth saving, anyhow.

But there's no point in telling the gun nutjobs this. Sales of weapons have leapt following the events at Newtown. The response to a gun horror has been to hoard yet more guns. It is going to happen again, in one month or five years. But it will happen again."

Zaibach

Love it.

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]

I'll leave a comment I found on the Guardian on the issue:

tenaka2

Love it.

Yeah, it varies from nonsensical to emotional in its arugments, and it insults Americans. Here, I'll write a similar article:

F*ck America.

Sarcasm

Think they'd hire me as a correspondent?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]

I'll leave a comment I found on the Guardian on the issue:

Palantas

Love it.

Yeah, it varies from nonsensical to emotional in its arugments, and it insults Americans. Here, I'll write a similar article:

F*ck America.

Sarcasm

Think they'd hire me as a correspondent?

Calm down cowboy, its obviously tongue in cheek.

Calm down cowboy, its obviously tongue in cheek.

tenaka2

Fair enough.

Has anyone noticed that in the last 20 years, every mass shooting that has occured, has happened in a "Gun Free Zone"? Maybe someone should look into that. Outlaws don't care about the law, they have guns anyway. You take away people's guns, automatic sitting ducks.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]

I'll leave a comment I found on the Guardian on the issue:

Palantas

Love it.

Yeah, it varies from nonsensical to emotional in its arugments, and it insults Americans. Here, I'll write a similar article:

F*ck America.

Sarcasm

Think they'd hire me as a correspondent?

I think people just don't understand this whole arm yourself kind of thing and get themselves all riled up. It's a weird concept to other nations who live in relative peace without guns. On a base level it's just that simple fact that those who advocate arming themselves tend to shoot each other a lot more, and then claim owning a gun is a good thing. Of course it's a little more complex than that, and can get as complex as you want it to be, but to the average say daily mail reader agog for anything negative , they just think you Americans are darn weird and clinging on to some archaic right that was established when it was cool own a black slave.

Perhaps people who have zero experience in warfighting should shut the f*ck up, and go run their mouths about medicine or chemistry or underwater welding, or some other field they know nothing about.Palantas

Simmer down, Rambo.

C_Rule

Good contribution.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

Simmer down, Rambo.

Palantas

Good contribution.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"] Not really a good way of putting it. Look at the dozens of claims and incidents polices officers committed with fire arms.thegerg

But wouldn't you trust the cop with a gun licence over somebody with no proven history at all? Not saying they are infallible.

They could make it so that you need insurance on a weapon, and your premium scales with your potential risk of accident or whatever. Probably wont be a popular idea but i'd say that could make a difference.

"But wouldn't you trust the cop with a gun licence over somebody with no proven history at all?"

Probably, but I can think of a number of civilians that I'd trust over a cop. Cops aren't the only ones wtih training, you know?

To say that all civilians are too irresponsible and shouldn't have guns is just as foolish as saying all civials are responsible enough and should.

Has anyone noticed that in the last 20 years, every mass shooting that has occured, has happened in a "Gun Free Zone"? Maybe someone should look into that. Outlaws don't care about the law, they have guns anyway. You take away people's guns, automatic sitting ducks.JasonGriffee

So what you're saying is that nowhere is safe, and your best chances of survival is to carry around a weapon at all times?

Gosh, the US sounds terrifying. I'm surprised that travel books don't add it to the list of countries tourists should avoid without armed escorts.

On a base level it's just that simple fact that those who advocate arming themselves tend to shoot each other a lot more, and then claim owning a gun is a good thing. poptart

Completely tangential rant: It's almost like a bizarre, nation-wide arms race mentality, perpetuated by constant fear and paranoia.
Coming from a nation where I've never even seen a gun (outside of a tiny shooting range I went to once), I really can't make much sense of it.

The idea seems to be that in order to avoid the problem of members of the public using guns, more members of the public should arm themselves, and keep hoarding more and more guns until...what, they hit some kind of fantastical number where gun violence magically stops?

That mentality might work for nuclear weapons - Mutually Assured Destruction guarantees that launching a nuke would more-or-less end the world, and nobody in power really wants to do that - but it doesn't make any sense for guns. You can't deter the crazies with the threat of a slightly faster death, and stockpilling more guns won't stop all of those accidental deaths caused by children/friends/the elderly (if anything, it'll do the opposite: obviously more guns = more accidental deaths).

So...eh, the proposed 'solutions' of doing nothing, or buying more guns, don't solve anything. They're essentially the same as giving up and admitting defeat; 'we can't solve this problem, but we're happy with living in fear of it'.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

But wouldn't you trust the cop with a gun licence over somebody with no proven history at all? Not saying they are infallible.

They could make it so that you need insurance on a weapon, and your premium scales with your potential risk of accident or whatever. Probably wont be a popular idea but i'd say that could make a difference.

C_Rule

"But wouldn't you trust the cop with a gun licence over somebody with no proven history at all?"

Probably, but I can think of a number of civilians that I'd trust over a cop. Cops aren't the only ones wtih training, you know?

To say that all civilians are too irresponsible and shouldn't have guns is just as foolish as saying all civials are responsible enough and should.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about defending yourself from the average criminal.