Gun Control Debate thread

[ThunderChunky]

[130] Paper: "Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals... [Violence Vict. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI



Page 363:



To estimate the frequency of firearm retrieval because of a known or presumed intruder, the authors analyzed data from a 1994 national random digit dialing telephone survey (n = 5,238 interviews). ... National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by Snowolf

We absolutely can become a more sensible nation without totally giving up our gun heritage, but that change will never come about by demogogues on the polar extremes of the issue tossing out their talking points and trying to outshout each other. It is going to come from us moderates who respect the positions of both sides and work to compromise and strike a balance. Unfortunately in our political climate of extremism and pokarization, no one is more hated than the moderate who seems to piss off both sides!

Actually, I don't support a complete gun ban in the US for one simple reason:

It will never happen because of the historical cultural nature of Americans.

And I do believe that responsible gun ownership could mitigate the gun violence problem since many other countries have private gun ownership but not the American gun violence rate. But the definition of responsible has got to be better than it is currently. Crap even a trigger lock might have slowed the Sandy Hook killer down long enough that the cops could have responded to his mother's home. Maybe she would have been the only death. Maybe if there had been some kind of enforceable limit on the number of rounds his mother owned, maybe if she only had a six shot handgun. Maybe if the guns were in a mandatory safe when not carried.

Most victims of gun violence know the shooter. The boogeyman of criminal home invader is less of a problem than your wound up partner/relative/neighbor. I'm not saying that the home invader doesn't exist, but is there not some acceptable compromise that will allow you to protect yourself against one without easily arming the other or both?

But I do get my back up when gun advocates tell me that it is all lies. Every else in the world is wrong but they're right and they loudly espouse only one solution: MORE GUNS, MORE AMMO, MORE LETHAL CAPACITY!

[cc898]

Okay. Here is my take on the gun issue. I have and own several. My children know and respect them, as well as they respect life. If someone is not right, and or lost in this world, no amount of legislation is going to stop them from hurting themselves or someone else. Guns have become the scapegoat for a failing society. Parents need to get off their dead asses and parent. Stop trying to be a friend. Create and lead good solid human beings that know the difference between right and wrong....evil and good. If it means a spanking or saying no....by all means DO IT!!!! If that fails and you need help, please ask for it....seek it out.

The old addage that guns dont kill people does not hold up any more. Guns do kill, but only when the PERSON holding it intends for that to happen. Wake up! What rate of loss is acceptable? If we ban what the MEDIA labels as an assult rifle, they will use something else...hopefully not kill as many. But how many dead is too many?

You cannot and I mean cannot ban or control guns. Its that simple. Did it work during prohibition? Does it work with drugs? Is it not illegal to drive a car drunk? How about something as simple as pirating music? Ever hear of black markets? This needs to be addressed for sure, but lets look at the root cause and not the tools used. I own guns, I am not a criminal, I will not use them for evil, but there are those that do. We need to asking WHY!!!! Address that!

[cc898]

Also, I just want to add that a lot of the tabels that have been passed around showing all these increased rates of violence, many, but not all fail to take into account the exponential rate of population increase. Think about that one for a minute.

[Noreaster]

Originally Posted by cc898

Okay. Here is my take on the gun issue. I have and own several. My children know and respect them, as well as they respect life. If someone is not right, and or lost in this world, no amount of legislation is going to stop them from hurting themselves or someone else. Guns have become the scapegoat for a failing society. Parents need to get off their dead asses and parent. Stop trying to be a friend. Create and lead good solid human beings that know the difference between right and wrong....evil and good. If it means a spanking or saying no....by all means DO IT!!!! If that fails and you need help, please ask for it....seek it out.

The old addage that guns dont kill people does not hold up any more. Guns do kill, but only when the PERSON holding it intends for that to happen. Wake up! What rate of loss is acceptable? If we ban what the MEDIA labels as an assult rifle, they will use something else...hopefully not kill as many. But how many dead is too many?

You cannot and I mean cannot ban or control guns. Its that simple. Did it work during prohibition? Does it work with drugs? Is it not illegal to drive a car drunk? How about something as simple as pirating music? Ever hear of black markets? This needs to be addressed for sure, but lets look at the root cause and not the tools used. I own guns, I am not a criminal, I will not use them for evil, but there are those that do. We need to asking WHY!!!! Address that!

Unfortunately, no amount of spanking or tough talking-to will stop a manic depressive schizophrenic who hears voices telling him he's a supervillain (superhero, super-agent, super-whatever-the-fuck-his-fantasy-du-jour-is) and the only way to realize that divine plan preordained just for him is to walk into a movie theater or an elementary school and start killing. Mental illness is not a function of bad parenting, neither it is always easy to recognize or treat. Paranoid schizophrenia is usually not apparent until late teens or early 20s and often manifests with a sudden onset. Autism spectrum disorders aren't associated with violent tendencies. I don't see how you can blame societal failings on the latest incidences of mass shootings. All of the shooters clearly had some form of mental or developmental instability that ran much deeper than a simple garden variety case of lacking family life.

And yes, we can control guns. It's been done before and it is being done quite successfully in many countries around the world. The examples are many and they've been repeatedly stated in this thread so I won't waste time on citing them yet again. As for us, we can at least start with enforcement of the existing laws, require background checks for ALL gun sales (the responsible, law-abiding citizens shouldn't have any problems with that), institute basic mental health evaluations (again, should not be a problem for a responsible gun owners - if anything, every sane human being should be glad that potentially violent individuals won't get their hands on guns) and ban semi-automatic weapons. These were designed for close combat and there's no conceivable reason for these guns to be on the streets. Yes, we all know that they are used in target shooting and that's a fun hobby to have. But some hobbies need to be restricted for the common good. After all, it is also fun to drive fast but we have speed limits for a reason. Time to grow up and realize that some toys are actually bad for us.

[cc898]

Please explain to me how we can control guns. Like we control illicit drugs? If there is a demand there will be a supply. End of story.

I have submitted to many background checks. Thats all fine and dandy...it says I am stable and reasonable....now...no....wait, it says I can say what they want to hear. Without a history, and an honest "criminal", it will get you no where. How can you presume to say what will happen in the future, good or bad. What if I snap tomorrow...they already said I was good to go. How do you stop that with a background check? If you ban a gun you create premeditation, or force the use of a different tool.

Other societies have not controlled the guns, they have controlled the desire for citizens to own them....that is a clear and defining difference.

[cc898]

Bush did not repeal it. It simply had a sunset date and did not get renewed. It expired.

[Noreaster]

Originally Posted by cc898

Please explain to me how we can control guns. Like we control illicit drugs? If there is a demand there will be a supply. End of story.

I have submitted to many background checks. Thats all fine and dandy...it says I am stable and reasonable....now...no....wait, it says I can say what they want to hear. Without a history, and an honest "criminal", it will get you no where. How can you presume to say what will happen in the future, good or bad. What if I snap tomorrow...they already said I was good to go. How do you stop that with a background check? If you ban a gun you create premeditation, or force the use of a different tool.

Other societies have not controlled the guns, they have controlled the desire for citizens to own them....that is a clear and defining difference.

Well... There's a bit more to a mental health eval than just a simple questionnaire. That aside, while talking about such incidences as mass shootings and violent crimes in general it's all about numbers. Mitigation is about taking specific action that leads to maximal risk reduction. And that's the ultimate goal. Nothing will ever guarantee that these events stop completely, but we can design and enforce a set of laws that can drastically reduce their possibility of happening.

Also, I keep hearing this "rationale" that a criminal will resort to other means if he (she) won't be able to obtain guns. That's a straw man if ever I've seen one. Why ban any type of weaponry at all then? Fully automatic guns? RPGs? Hand grenades? Military grade explosives? Why deprive responsible owners of their toys because of a few bad apples? After all, they will just find other means to commit mass murder anyway. Where should the line be drawn?

I don't understand how a society can control the desire of its populace to own a weapon. Perhaps, you could explain this point.

[that1guy]

Automatic weapons are not hard at all to acquire. I can take my bushmaster ar15 and put a paper clip inside the receiver bent a certain way and bam. It is fully automatic. Taught my wife's brothers to do it when they were younger and pissed off my mother in law real bad. I served in the army and know assault rifles well. There is no reason a civilian needs access to this kind of gun. They are called assault rifles because they are designed for assaults.

I am all for gun owners rights but do not believe we should be able to own certain weapons.
That said, most mass murders are committed by the person who is legally allowed to have guns.


It's a fucked situation

[sleev-les]

Originally Posted by Snowolf

In all of the last mass shootings including Ft, Hood, Virginia Tech, Aurora Co, Clackamas Mall, Or and now this, the guns were owned legally by people just like you and I. Law abiding with no clue that they would snap. Who can say with absolute certainty that in a month or a year or 10, that you or I won't snap and go from Johnny law abiding upstanding citizen to mass shooter? In all of these cases, they were law abiding people before wigging out. Christ! In the Ft. Hood massacre, it was a soldier; someone most of us would place complete trust in.

Getting these weapons under control and outright banning of some does work. Again, we don't see these mass shootings occurring regularly in Canada, Australia, Japan, France, Germany, England and other places where the average joe does not have easy access to them. Getting these weapons on the black market is not nearly as easy ad buying them legally at a gun shop. Bans absolutely do slow down these types of gun crimes; we saw it with the Clinton Assault Weapons ban. Even though the overall crime rates rose until he seriously funded more cops, mass shootings were rare. Bush repealed the assault weapons ban and here we are....... Burying children!

Originally Posted by Snowolf

An overall excellent post and I agree completely! I specifically quoted this first part to add that in many cases, spanking these children who have these issues can actually help create these monsters. Now, I am not one of these "never spank your kids" hyper liberals and believe it is effective and necessary for some kids and families. I myself received my fair share of sessions receiving the razor strap from grandpa and dad's belt. In school, like other boys, I have experienced the paddle from both the coach and the principal and I deserved it every time and I learned consequences for my actions.

But, this can have the total opposite effect with kids like you mention and if the parent does not conduct it properly, it does more harm than good. If done by a parent who is lashing out at the kid in anger or rage, it teaches the kid to lash out with physical violence when angry and can actually create a mass shooter. The whole spanking issue is a Pandora's box that can be a very good and positive disciplinary tool or can be very psychologically destructive.

I experienced both. My mom and dad both had serious anger control issues and the beatings I received were abusive and lashing out in rage with no constructive discipline value. On the flip side the coporal punishment I received at school and from my grandpa was administered appropriately and was constructive discipline.

Again, it's not about spanking your kids, it's about these damn guns!

Ft. Hood is a little different Wolf. Military bases have weapons readily available. I work on one and its not hard for enlisted to go sign out a weapon if not already assigned one. I don't remember specifics about Ft. Hood and I'm not posting to argue the point since I don't know where that shooter got his weapon (personal or assigned), but military bases are like candy stores if enlisted men/women decide to snap. I agree its not about spanking a child, but more about being an effective parent. Then thats only a piece of the pie. Mental instability is another piece of the pie and so on. There is a lot of variables that create the monster.

The reason I wanted to post something in here is what I saw as disturbing yesterday. There has been a lot of mentioning of assault weapon bans, but yesterday I saw that there are many ways to get around that definition. I went into my local gun shop and of course, they are selling weapons like its no tomorrow with all the fear of bans. I was looking at the different rifles. One was a 5.56 assault rifle, the other a .308 SAS assault rifle. Both guns looked very similar, but the 5.56 was the deemed assault rifle and required the standard background check and waiting period. The SAS, bigger caliber, longer range was a cash and carry weapon. They looked the same, but one was able to get past the definition and be walked out the door the same day if the simple background check was passed. I think that weapon should have been subject to the same background check as the 5.56 and was quite shocked.