[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[Steve Moss]

I wonder if many "guns show" purchased firearms have been involved in many crimes, period, mass shootings etc. I know there was a story where a gun discharged at a gunshow, someone got hurt but it would be interesting to see if statistically those weapons can be tied to crimes.

Those "straw purchasers" I heard happen on the border with Mexico too at gun shops in order to "gun run", get guns INTO Mexico.

1. Gun show purchased firearms are involved in less than 2% of crime, per the DOJ.

2. There is no gun show loophole. Gun dealers at gun shows have to do everything a gun dealer in a store has to do, including background checks. The 'loophole' is actually non-dealer person to person sales (if I decide to sell my gun to my brother, for example). But if they are open about closing that 'loophole' it would cause a bit of a firestorm so they call it something else.

3. Operation Fast and Furious dealt with dealers selling to gun runners with the consent of the federal government. People were killed because the feds didn't do their jobs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

[ultrablue]

2. There is no gun show loophole. Gun dealers at gun shows have to do everything a gun dealer in a store has to do, including background checks. The 'loophole' is actually non-dealer person to person sales (if I decide to sell my gun to my brother, for example). But if they are open about closing that 'loophole' it would cause a bit of a firestorm so they call it something else.

The other example would be a complete stranger selling his weapon to another complete stranger at a gun show, no questions asked. Hence the term "gun show loophole".

Also, so your brother needs a background check. So what?

[Steve Moss]

The other example would be a complete stranger selling his weapon to another complete stranger at a gun show, no questions asked. Hence the term "gun show loophole".

Also, so your brother needs a background check. So what?

Since when should the government tell me whom I'm allowed to sell my personal property to?

When we start "instant" background checking those to whom bartenders sell booze and/or car dealers cars, then I'll take the government seriously about wanting to reduce deaths.

Here's some UK examples of the government using banks to further treat their citizens as infants. http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/thanks-to-government-banks-treat-you-like-crap-and-spy-on-you/

[FGS5635]

We seem to be skipping around the main issue here ands thats saving lives and stopping needless killings. If that means the goverment have input on who you sell your gun to then how can that be a bad thing?

You can sell your car, but there are legal forms that have to be completed and processed. A gun should be no different in theory

[Steve Moss]

We seem to be skipping around the main issue here ands thats saving lives and stopping needless killings. If that means the goverment have input on who you sell your gun to then how can that be a bad thing?

You can sell your car, but there are legal forms that have to be completed and processed. A gun should be no different in theory

In the UK you should have universal knife registration under your logic.

And in the USA we should be registering baseball bats and hammers before we register rifles. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

[FGS5635]

In the UK you should have universal knife registration under your logic.

And in the USA we should be registering baseball bats and hammers before we register rifles. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

This isnt about the UK though, this is about an issue in the US.

I also dont understand that link. Is that just rifles and not all guns, or are them figures just for a particular area of the US?

[Steve Moss]

I've said repeatedly that there's something fishy about England's reporting of homicides.

I found a report which discusses how the death of children is reported in the UK and the author is shocked by the lack of reliable data, with different departments reporting wildly different numbers. http://straightstatistics.org/article/how-many-children-are-murdered-britain-every-year

Here's the first few relevant paragraphs:

"Sharon Shoesmith, Haringey’s former Director of Children’s Services last week gave evidence before the parliamentary Education Committee. In the process she re-ignited the basic unanswered question "Exactly how many children are murdered in Britain every year? "

It seems a reasonable enough and straightforward question, but in Britain it is one with no definitive answer, each answer offered being compromised by exemptions and caveats.

No single government department, it would appear, keeps a comprehensive record. Those Whitehall departments that do keep a record of tragic child deaths from unnatural causes - child abuse, maltreatment, murder etc - use different methodologies and thus the annual totals they produce are at variance with one another.

In broad outline, the available statistics from departments and child-focussed agencies fall into three groups each hovering at different levels for child deaths caused by abuse: around 50-60 a year, 100+ a year, or more than 200 a year. These discrepancies are very large."

[Guest Norbert]

So are you saying you should register something that can be used to kill within a few feet of the aggressor before something that can be used to kill anything up to 500 metres away from the aggressor?

[Steve Moss]

This isnt about the UK though, this is about an issue in the US.

I also dont understand that link. Is that just rifles and not all guns, or are them figures just for a particular area of the US?

I thought it was a gun law debate. I didn't know that pointing to England's foibles was out of bounds. Mea Culpa. Not.

The article was about rifles (including so called assault weapons) in comparison bats and hammers. It's a yearly figure of both across the USA.

So are you saying you should register something that can be used to kill within a few feet of the aggressor before something that can be used to kill anything up to 500 metres away from the aggressor?

I thought the driving motive was saving lives. So in your mind the driving motive should be the physical distance between the perpetrator and the victim?

I fail to see the logic, but I'm sure it involves some twisted claim of supposedly civilized behavior.

[FGS5635]

I thought it was a gun law debate. I didn't know that pointy to England's foibles was out of bounds. Mea Culpa. Not.

The article was about rifles (including so called assault weapons) in comparison bats and hammers. It's a yearly figure of both across the USA.

The discussion at hand is/was about the US. You replied to a comment of mine about the US

Serious question becasue I cant tell if your just arguing one side for the sake of it or not.

Do you think the US has an issue with guns?

[yoda]

The discussion at hand is/was about the US. You replied to a comment of mine about the US

Serious question becasue I cant tell if your just arguing one side for the sake of it or not.

Do you think the US has an issue with guns?

Off course they do, they issue them left right and center on the basis that they are safe in the right hands and are needed for self defense

[Guest Norbert]

I thought the driving motive was saving lives. So in your mind the driving motive should be the physical distance between the perpetrator and the victim?

I fail to see the logic, but I'm sure it involves some twisted claim of supposedly civilized behavior.

The logic is this. With an assault rifle, a person can go and murder a number of people in a short amount of time. With, say a sniper rifle, a person can take out another person completely oblivious that they are in any danger going about their business. With a baseball bat, if you want to use it to harm someone, you have to be at arm's length and at more risk to yourself if you miss or have the weapon taken off you during the fight. There is also the fact that unless you're some sort of Kung Fu master, you cannot kill multiple people in quick succession with such an item.

And that is not mentioning the fact that a kitchen knife, baseball bat etc. has more than one use and are mainly used for their original innocent purpose, whereas a gun has one-to fire pointy bits of metal at something and damage it.

I would have thought this logic was obvious in my message and I am surprised that someone who is as articulate as yourself missed it.

[Steve Moss]

The discussion at hand is/was about the US. You replied to a comment of mine about the US

Serious question becasue I cant tell if your just arguing one side for the sake of it or not.

Do you think the US has an issue with guns?

1. You are incorrect. The topic header is "Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational". It says nothing about limiting it to the USA. And as the gun debate is centered on the murder rate, in very large part, talking about any nation's gun laws and murder rates is fair game.

2. There are gun and murder issues in the USA, including:

a. Access to firearms by the mentally or emotional impaired (bad idea, in my opinion).

b. Whether "gun free" zones do any good (they don't).

c. Whether government has the obligation to provide security if it decrees a "gun free" zone (it does, IMO).

d. Whether disenfranchising the poor and helpless from firearm ownership serves the public safety (it doesn't).

e. Whether registering firearms will have a detrimental effect on USA murder rates (it won't).

f. Whether banning firearms in the USA will have a detrimental effect on murder rates (again, it won't- IMO the opposite is more likely).

g. Whether the government can regulate gun ownership (yes, in very limited circumstances, such as prohibiting violent felons and the mentally ill from possessing a firearm, and perhaps requiring certain minimum mandatory gun safety and use classes, so long as they are not prohibitive).

3. There are also gun and murder issues in the UK, including:

a. Have you made yourself safer as a result of your gun bans (statistics indicate not, on balance).

b. Does the UK accurately report its actual murder rate, as opposed to its skewed definition of that rate (the answer is no, IMO).

[yoda]

1. You are incorrect. The topic header is "Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational". It says nothing about limiting it to the USA. And as the gun debate is centered on the murder rate, in very large part, talking about any nation's gun laws and murder rates is fair game.

2. There are gun and murder issues in the USA, including:

a. Access to firearms by the mentally or emotional impaired (bad idea, in my opinion).

b. Whether "gun free" zones do any good (they don't).

c. Whether government has the obligation to provide security if it decrees a "gun free" zone (it does, IMO).

d. Whether disenfranchising the poor and helpless from firearm ownership serves the public safety (it doesn't).

e. Whether registering firearms will have a detrimental effect on USA murder rates (it won't).

f. Whether banning firearms in the USA will have a detrimental effect on murder rates (again, it won't- IMO the opposite is more likely).

g. Whether the government can regulate gun ownership (yes, in very limited circumstances, such as prohibiting violent felons and the mentally ill from possessing a firearm, and perhaps requiring certain minimum mandatory gun safety and use classes, so long as they are not prohibitive).

3. There are also gun and murder issues in the UK, including:

a. Have you made yourself safer as a result of your gun bans (statistics indicate not, on balance).

b. Does the UK accurately report its actual murder rate, as opposed to its skewed definition of that rate (the answer is no, IMO).

Is there a gun debate in the UK like there is in the USA,

Why so defensive? and bringing the us and them into the equation.

The per head of population ownership of guns in the USA compared to the UK is vastly different, do you not think there is a correlation there to the crime stats

[Steve Moss]

The logic is this. With an assault rifle, a person can go and murder a number of people in a short amount of time. With, say a sniper rifle, a person can take out another person completely oblivious that they are in any danger going about their business. With a baseball bat, if you want to use it to harm someone, you have to be at arm's length and at more risk to yourself if you miss or have the weapon taken off you during the fight. There is also the fact that unless you're some sort of Kung Fu master, you cannot kill multiple people in quick succession with such an item.

And that is not mentioning the fact that a kitchen knife, baseball bat etc. has more than one use and are mainly used for their original innocent purpose, whereas a gun has one-to fire pointy bits of metal at something and damage it.

I would have thought this logic was obvious in my message and I am surprised that someone who is as articulate as yourself missed it.

And I think your logic is non-existent.

That an assault rifle is a tool that can kill many people is true. But the real issue is how many murders are actually committed with an assault rifle. Under your logic is the number as "0" you would still ban it. You're putting the focus on the potential manner of death, as opposed to the actual manner of death. A very PC position to take, but not much good in the real world.

The USA murder rate has been failing steadily over the last few decades, despite an increase in the number of firearms publicly available. For example, firearm related murder was about 7.0/100,000 in 1993 and is about 3.6/100,000 in 2010. Total murder was 10.2/100,000 in 1980 and is 4.7/100,000 in 2011. And there has been a dramatic increase in gun ownership during that period, currently there are at least 310 million privately owned firearms in the USA.

As to the method of American murders (2011):

12,664 total murders.

6,220 handgun murders.

1,694 knife murders.

728 fist and feet murders.

496 clubs and hammer murders.

323 rifle (including assault rifle) murders.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/01/16/assault-rifles-are-not-involved-in-many-u-s-murders-a-look-at-the-data/

Counter-balancing the 12,664 murders, it the upwards of 2.5 million crimes/year prevented (including murder, aggravated assault and rape) due to law abiding citizens having and using firearms. As an aside, the 2.5 million figure is disputed (one critical author only acknowledged 80,000 crimes/year prevented) but more recent articles seem to be trending toward supporting the higher figure (citing between 500,000/year to 3 million/year crimes prevented). http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

So when it comes to the tools used to commit murders, we should be looking at knives, clubs and hammers before we even think about rifles, including assault rifles. That's logic. But this debate isn't about logic, it's about emotion knee jerk guns = bad originating with those who have somehow acquired a cultural fear of firearms.

Is there a gun debate in the UK like there is in the USA,

Why so defensive? and bringing the us and them into the equation.

The per head of population ownership of guns in the USA compared to the UK is vastly different, do you not think there is a correlation there to the crime stats

I'm not defensive at all. Some, including I think you, have cited to the UK rate as being what the USA would experience in the event we banned guns. I believe that to be untrue for two reasons:

1. The UK is not the USA when it comes to the culture and availability of guns, so you're expectancy is misplaced, IMO.

2. The UK murder rates appear to be unreliable, and is under reported based both on reporting methodology (take a look at the article on the child murder rate posted above) and concealed (via narrative verdicts, amongst other tricks).

It is not defensive to point out you are not comparing apples to apples, and therefore your argument is flawed.

[yoda]

And I think your logic is non-existent.

That an assault rifle is a tool that can kill many people is true. But the real issue is how many murders are actually committed with an assault rifle. Under your logic is the number as "0" you would still ban it. You're putting the focus on the potential manner of death, as opposed to the actual manner of death. A very PC position to take, but not much good in the real world.

The USA murder rate has been failing steadily over the last few decades, despite an increase in the number of firearms publicly available. For example, firearm related murder was about 7.0/100,000 in 1993 and is about 3.6/100,000 in 2010. Total murder was 10.2/100,000 in 1980 and is 4.7/100,000 in 2011. And there has been a dramatic increase in gun ownership during that period, currently there are at least 310 million privately owned firearms in the USA.

As to the method of American murders (2011):

12,664 total murders.

6,220 handgun murders.

1,694 knife murders.

728 fist and feet murders.

496 clubs and hammer murders.

323 rifle (including assault rifle) murders.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/01/16/assault-rifles-are-not-involved-in-many-u-s-murders-a-look-at-the-data/

Counter-balancing the 12,664 murders, it the upwards of 2.5 million crimes/year prevented (including murder, aggravated assault and rape) due to law abiding citizens having and using firearms. As an aside, the 2.5 million figure is disputed (one critical author only acknowledged 80,000 crimes/year prevented) but more recent articles seem to be trending toward supporting the higher figure (citing between 500,000/year to 3 million/year crimes prevented). http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

So when it comes to the tools used to commit murders, we should be looking at knives, clubs and hammers before we even think about rifles, including assault rifles. That's logic. But this debate isn't about logic, it's about emotion knee jerk guns = bad originating with those who have somehow acquired a cultural fear of firearms.

I'm not defensive at all. Some, including I think you, have cited to the UK rate as being what the USA would experience in the event we banned guns. I believe that to be untrue for two reasons:

1. The UK is not the USA when it comes to the culture and availability of guns, so you're expectancy is misplaced, IMO.

2. The UK murder rates appear to be unreliable, and is under reported based both on reporting methodology (take a look at the article on the child murder rate posted above) and concealed (via narrative verdicts, amongst other tricks).

It is not defensive to point out you are not comparing apples to apples, and therefore your argument is flawed.

Well keep doing what your doing then, no debate, no solutions offered, keep killing

[Steve Moss]

Well keep doing what your doing then, no debate, no solutions offered, keep killing

Again, this is incorrect.

In post 618 above I outlined several solutions. It is the most recent of several such posts. But because "gun ban" is not amongst those solutions, it apparently doesn't count.

[FGS5635]

I dont know wether its cultural differences, upbringing, or maybe I just dont get it....but from the outside looking in at the US it seems to me there is a massive issue with gun control. Your defence seems crazy to me but fair play your passionate and do your research. I bow out the debate and agree to disagree

[thenodrog]

What a tedious circular debate this has become.

[Tom]

What a tedious circular debate this has become.

Yep

Gun nuts will never see it any other way even when it's obvious they will find an argument and stick to it even ignoring the fact when pointed out that things like hammers have actual uses and using a figure of 2.5 million crimes prevented due to guns which is probably just a made up figure, what about non murder crimes aided by guns, home invasions, store robberies, rape etc?

In my opinion there is no solid argument why they should be legal but it really is a pointless argument to have with them

[dave birch]

Or Tom, why should you concern yourself with an issue that you cannot influence?

OK, you can have an opinion, but, realistically, what can you do?

[Tom]

I don't concern myself

I like moaning though

[yoda]

What a tedious circular debate this has become.

Yep

Gun nuts will never see it any other way even when it's obvious they will find an argument and stick to it even ignoring the fact when pointed out that things like hammers have actual uses and using a figure of 2.5 million crimes prevented due to guns which is probably just a made up figure, what about non murder crimes aided by guns, home invasions, store robberies, rape etc?

In my opinion there is no solid argument why they should be legal but it really is a pointless argument to have with them

Or Tom, why should you concern yourself with an issue that you cannot influence?

OK, you can have an opinion, but, realistically, what can you do?

I don't concern myself

I like moaning though

All the above have relevant input but it is falling on stoney ground

I'am out,

some people can't be helped

[Tom]

Sorry I will remove myself from sidetracking the discussion

For that reason......I'm also out

[Steve Moss]

Gun nuts will never see it any other way even when it's obvious they will find an argument and stick to it even ignoring the fact when pointed out that things like hammers have actual uses and using a figure of 2.5 million crimes prevented due to guns which is probably just a made up figure, what about non murder crimes aided by guns, home invasions, store robberies, rape etc?

In my opinion there is no solid argument why they should be legal but it really is a pointless argument to have with them

Whatever happened to a dispassionate, fearless willingness to evaluate the evidence? I guess that's vanished in Merry Olde England, in favor of emotional, fearful knee jerk responses and insults. It must be what passes for civilized nowadays.

On that point, the FBI disagrees with you, Tom. They've studied the issue and have concluded:

"Using data reported by police to the FBI, the National Crime Victimization Survey reports that Americans used guns in self-defense 338,700 times over five years ending in 2011."

Keep in mind that's just the self-defense usage. There is likely, if one cares to evaluate matter based on facts and not blind ignorance and fear, a much higher crime prevention usage. There's lots of studies on the point. Look one up or scroll through the many posts I've made, as I've linked to several.

As an aside, the above quote comes from a very good pro/con article which can be found here: http://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2014/02/gun-debate-price-armed-america-more-dangerous-america