Senate Gun Control

That's exactly what he is advocating.

 

Mexico's extremely restrictive legal gun sale policy isn't effective, no. Not when they have billion-dollar arms manufacturers and sellers north of the border who make massive profits off the Mexican arms trade; and on that same border there's a superpower state that protects and facilitates those profits. And Chicago and D.C. can't effectively curtail gun violence (although their laws aren't actually all that restrictive compared to the rest of the developed world) because surrounding jurisdictions have looser gun laws.

Yes. But this is a thread about guns.

Because the ATF is incompetent.

 

"Dr Cancer Researcher, did you know that people die from Ebola?" -deathraygun

 

I frankly don't care about the feelings of gun owners losing their guns. This attitude should be adapted.

 

Uh, you know I R Nets, I can at least respect that you're up front about that. Completely disagree, but points for being honest.

And as if right on queue, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ngs-in-city-soar-to-level-unseen-in-43-years/

So, what is the solution that works for criminals that increasing homicide with firearm? Going to put a training class in place? More rigorous background checks? Ask that they purchase a super expensive gun safe for their illegally acquired guns?

I'm not talking feelings. I referred to stats, and the law. I regarded my own personal opinion and stated when I did so. I ask why you harp on this non-issue, in a very obsessive fashion compared to other methods of fatality. There were almost 9k alcohol related deaths in the UK last year. Most restrictions for the UK and alcohol, obviously they can't handle it. I'm sure if you worked out the per capita, it's probably higher than Canada... I mean come on... youre on the losing end of a long, and well debated argument. As far as solution, enforce current laws. Simple enough. Seems to be somewhat working as gun ownership has continued to skyrocket, while homicide with a firearm continues to decrease.

 

I could change the source but that doesn't change the facts, and that doesn't change my point. There's such a myriad of responses on here, ranging from mental health checks or more in depth background checks, to complete eradication of privately owned firearms. Yet, guns aren't the problem. Violence is caused by more than someone holding a handgun. You're all smart individuals, I'm sure you already realize that there are plenty of other reasons that factor into the murder of someone. Which is why I don't believe (nor does a majority of Americans) that the endgame is regulation, but confiscation. Like our Prez, who wishes he could do more about gun violence, amd bypass the legal system, I get the feeling that is an opinion shared many in the pro-control crowd.

 

That probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

Are we all a bunch of temperamental murderous thugs? We just kill people because "they need killin'," don't care what weapon we use, and if our guns disappeared, we would be scrambling around looking for another weapon to kill all those people who need killin'?

anakinfansince1983, I'm afraid what the answers to those questions you just posed might be. Because there are other countries who do seem to handle large amounts of firearms better than we do.

 

Yes, Switzerland has the third highest guns per 100 people. The U.S. ranks first of course. The U.S. owns around half of the world's handguns. But it ranks 28th in murders with guns per 100k. Guatemala, El Salvador, and Jamaica all have higher murder rates. Puerto Rico has the highest.

I'm referring to gun ownership. The regulations do vary from country to country. I'm looking more at why the U.S. seems to be: A) such a huge gun society and B)Have a higher rate than other western nations.

Some would immediately say regulation and firearm laws. There may be some of that. But, there is still gun ownership. You can still own a gun. So, what happens once all those guns are in citizen's hands?

The U.S. seems to have different outcomes.

Here's a story from the UK's Guardian that covers some of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

 

Iceland…..has 30 firearms per 100 people. Zero homicides. ZERO. 90,000 guns there.

The other interesting thing:

In the U.S., people consider a gun in the home a deterrent against intruders. The Swiss also have a military-issued weapon in the home but don't look at that weapon as necessary to protect their family in their homes. And the crime statistics show they are not suffering from rampant break ins.

So in the U.S. we have guns in the home and a high amount of home break ins or home intrusions, much higher than Switzerland anyway. Yet Switzerland, also armed at home, does not.

This seems to go against the gun as a deterrent argument gun advocates here use.

But the ownership rates still don't square with less guns automatically = less murders.

Look at India's numbers. Huge numbers of firearms nationwide, but very low gun homicide as a percentage. Is it a religious influence?

It would seem the U.S. culture/society seems incapable of handling firearms as responsibly as other western(or non-western nations).

 

The attitude that Gun Rights > Human Rights is the most baffling part of this whole mess.

 

That's because in the U.S. many tend to associate gun rights with human rights.

edit:

Here's what I tend to think. I could be absolutely wrong. Not an expert. But it would seem the problem is not guns. The pro-gun people are right. It would seem the problem is not the gun itself. It's just an inanimate object. It requires a user.

The problem is the user of the gun. Where pro-gun advocates might be off though is the guns become a problem in the hands of a American user more than other western owners.

Look at the differences within the US. Vermont: high gun ownership. Low associated crime from that ownership. Texas: high gun ownership. High associated crime.

Why? Cultural differences. And that demands we take action of some kind.

 

Is there any correlation between gun deaths and urbanization? Not that I expect it would be a "simple" correlation, of course.

 

Good question. The study doesn't offer any information on that it appears.

anakinfansince1983, I agree.

edit:

Like to add changing attitudes in the U.S. has to touch on subjects in other threads like law enforcement and the arms industry in the U.S. spreading munitions worldwide.

 

I have to wonder, then, if the fear of robbery/home invasion/random shootings, etc. leads to a greater fear and therefore a greater possibility of using one's gun in urban areas.

 

This just in... Congressional Study doesn't find any increase in mass shootings in the US.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf

Crazy, I know.

Jedi Merkurian Yeah, sure I feel like I need a gun for self defense/home invasion, etc. I also like to bring one with me on hiking trips, as I usually solo and do a lot of night photography. Always nice to have one in the downtown areas too when you're lugging around expensive photo equipment. Other than that, yes I want/like guns, I enjoy target shooting, I like shooting with my family. I'd love to get a gun safe to store my rifles and most of my handguns, it's just not high on the priority list right now. And of course, I need an assortment for the eventual Red Dawn scenario. Invaded by commies, anytime you know?

And there is a link between urbanization and firearm violence, it's in the BJS link I posted.

 

Yes, your rate of mass shootings remained stagnant at "too ****ing many."

I remember old user DarthKarrde's signature used to read "pro- is to progress as con- is to Congress"...

 

Ahh…good ol Darth Karrde. What happened to that good old tory?