Gun Control

[Winter]

Reminder​

This is a friendly post to remind all participants within this thread to refrain from making any personal comments and to keep the debate civil among everyone involved in the topic of this discussion. We understand that controversial topics might spark differences of opinion but any behavior conflicting with the sites rules and or policies will not be tolerated. If you find yourself becoming heated or frustrated with the opinion of another then we strongly recommend you do not continue posting and remove yourself from the thread. If at any time you feel like any of the rules have been breached then we advise you to make use of the report feature. Thank you all for your time.

 

[Lusterine]

My points were perfectly reasonable and rational. Chicago does have background checks but they obviously don't work if the crime rate there is any indication. Literally anyone and everyone can pass a check no matter how comprehensive it is. And even if they did fail, they can just get a gun illegally anyways.

Did you not read about how institutions selling guns can use the default version of background checks? Brady's Law requires a background check, but there are different levels, and most never see the depth that they should. And no, in 2014 2,400 at minimum were allowed a gun with a basic background check that otherwise they would not have. They would work. Also, if we were stricter on illegal gun usage instead of drugs, that'd be ideal. Also, Chicago doesn't work because of the lack of consistency across state lines. That's why Chicago doesn't work, because using it as an example sets it up to fail anyways.

The vast majority of gun homicides in the U.S. are gang related. How do gangs get their guns? ILLEGALLY. You also aren't distinguishing homicides from self-defense either. Don't forget about suicides also. If you're gonna point to homicide rates, make they're OVERALL homicides and not gun homicides. Like I said before, you don't need a gun to commit a heinous crime or massacre.

The only credible source of information that either of your videos used, was Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice. (Anarchist news, youtube, or blogs are not considered credible sources of information) Interestingly enough, if anyone had read the actual thing, they'd know that it doesn't say that gang violence is the primary medium of gun related deaths. Within gang violence, guns are the number one tool. But there was still a whopping 70%+ of gun homicides resulting from arguments. You cannot extrapolate data that isn't there. Nothing cited on either video has said anything to prove this point. Also, on other countries, overall violence, Europe might experience a slightly higher rate, but in terms of fatal violence, we far out do them. United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats

Yes I watched the video and it didn't use a credible source nor did it use good arguments unlike my videos which at least provided decent points.

Which part wasn't credible? The man going to actually purchase the firearm and receive training? My peer reviewed journal article? Or the FBI? The good argument was that: it is way too easy to get a gun and arming everyone would not be useful, considering they are not legally required to receive even somewhat adequate training.

Wanna curb gun violence? Make them readily available and watch the crime rate plummet like it did in Texas. Train and educate people on how to properly use firearms and about firearm safety. Change the mental health system so people can actually get the help they need. By the way, the mentally ill are far more likely to be VICTIMS of violence than perpetrators so yeah I'd argue they probably need guns the most. If they wanna hurt someone, restricting guns isn't gonna stop them.

I agree with training, and overall mental health services should be better. Though, it's nice to not that only 3-4% of those committing gun violence are mentally ill. And you're right. Statistically, seriously mentally ill patients are (schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, autism, down syndrome, etc). But the largest population of homicide victims are young African American males. And giving guns to someone who is potentially not receiving proper treatment for schizophrenia (for instance) surely isn't the right solution.

You're not gonna stop gun violence by restricting gun ownership. Criminals will be the only one to have them if that's the case. Unless you plan on stopping illegal purchases/the black market which is damn near impossible to do. Gun violence isn't going to be stopped period no matter what you propose. Hell you can't stop violence at all. Especially when the homicide rate in America has actually been decreasing but the gun ownership has been increasing. You can thank all of the recent mass shootings for that which wouldn't have been prevented by gun control. Mental health treatment though? Yeah that would've worked much better.

I don't understand why it has to be one or the other, can we not support mental health treatment and create stricter background checks?

 

[SacredWarrior]

Also, if we were stricter on illegal gun usage instead of drugs, that'd be ideal.

The War On Drugs is a failure for a reason. It never has worked as anyone can see. Being stricter on illegal gun usage will just make things worse.

Also, Chicago doesn't work because of the lack of consistency across state lines. That's why Chicago doesn't work, because using it as an example sets it up to fail anyways.

Each state has their own set of laws set in place by their own government. I don't see how the lack of consistency is a bad thing. Why not let each state do what they want when it comes to certain topics? You can't exactly change how the U.S. is set up.

But there was still a whopping 70%+ of gun homicides resulting from arguments.

That does not distinguish homicide from self-defense. Also they weren't all from arguments. Where's the suicide and accidental rates too?

Europe might experience a slightly higher rate, but in terms of fatal violence, we far out do them.

You have to control for population. Also cultural differences are a thing too. That's not because of gun restrictions which vary by country. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership but has a very low crime rate.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It's time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the attention was instead focused on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

And giving guns to someone who is potentially not receiving proper treatment for schizophrenia (for instance) surely isn't the right solution.

But getting them the help they need is.

I don't understand why it has to be one or the other, can we not support mental health treatment and create stricter background checks?

They'll always be a way around the latter which I don't see stopping anytime soon.

 

[A.O. Taku]

I'm making a big mistake talking politics but... I was actually going say what Winter said about everybody being calm. Iwaku is the friendliest place I've ever seen online. As such, we should be able to have controversial discussions 'without' incident.

This thread Sacred created ought to be a calm place for discussion about this topic, and no one should be getting heated. Not saying anyone is heated, of course, but I don't think it hurts to offer a reminder...

Let's also not ignore Gun Control is a VERY complicated subject. That is just how it is. So don't be offended if someone disagrees, and don't feel the need to crusade your position either. I'll be honest... I find the "Go Home, You're Drunk" rating to be particularly insulting— unless, of course, the person is goofing off and having a laugh in good fun. So when I saw someone was being given those ratings, I was dismayed. Rational discussion is being made here, so I don't believe there's any cause for that.

I think a sign of maturity and stability is being able to control yourself in the face of something you have difficultly with. Outright banning of subjects like this would only hinder people, because then it turns into a system of "we're friendly because the rules say we have to be." I disagree with that. Iwaku itself is an amazing place because of the friendly community, though, fortunately.

That being said... I feel like some people are afraid of touching controversial issues because of potential backlash. And that isn't a good sign. (Though we are an RP community first and foremost... we're still a 'community')

So! Everyone, let's do our best to be amicable here, and prove Iwaku is the place we all know it is!
That being said, politic talk frightens me so I'll just exit after this PSA.

P.S. Don't be dismayed for making the thread, @SacredWarrior . I think it's important we have these talks. Not in reference to Gun Control, but difficult topics in general. It'll be a good experience and give people the chance to test themselves in terms of calmness and friendliness.

 

[Legens Legentis]

I am a lifelong opponent of gun control. I can understand anti-poverty measures, support of law enforcement, or mental healthcare reform, but not gun control.