Gun Control

[cm husker]

Guns are illegal in the UK, no? Other than certain hunting long arms.

 

That's what I mean. I'd entertain arguments for outlawing all handguns and pump shotguns and whatever else, but let's be honest about the ask. And that is, a hard prohibition on most guns, at least if we follow the UK model.

[NM11046]

 

You can cry about protecting your home and your family all you want, but the statistical likelihood of an armed home invasion at your house is way less than the statistical likelihood of you having a mental breakdown and killing yourself, getting into an escalated argument and killing someone else, one of your children accidentally getting their hands on your gun, etc.

Like, that's not even remotely true.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

 

30 seconds of google searching shows that you're much more likely to have your home invaded.

 

This is a bit dated because (as we've covered previously) the CDC now is no longer able to compile information on gun deaths, but in a study done looking at hospital admissions, ER, police reports and medical examiners and published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care in 1998:

 

628 shootings in 6 cities over the course of 12-18 months

• Only 13 were in self-defense or legally justifiable (including three shootings by law enforcement officers on duty)
• 54 shootings were unintentional
• 118 were attempted or completed suicides
• 438 were assaults or homicides

In this non biased, scientific review for every 1 time a gun was used for self-defense there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or murders and 11 suicides or suicide attempts.

 

So perhaps your home is highly susceptible for invasion (I agree with Landlord on this one however), even so the likelihood of that gun in your bedside table or the one locked up in the safe actually being used for something other than protecting yourself is quite high. To boot you know how you want to "protect my family"? The numbers also show that those most often impacted by those murders, accidents, suicides etc are women and children.

[NM11046]

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

Suicide trial published in the American Journal of Epidemiology - Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

 

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

[cm husker]

I agree with you on that NM; sort of like "you're more likely to be in a car accident if you own a car."

 

So, as I said, if you want to reduce suicides, you have to prohibit gun ownership.

 

I'm perhaps ok with that, but I'd like to know the costs and other issues associated with that kind of prohibition.

 

Let's just have an honest discussion and assess the calls for gun control for what they are: prohibition.

[Red Dead Redemption]

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

 

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere.

[Saunders]

 

 

You can cry about protecting your home and your family all you want, but the statistical likelihood of an armed home invasion at your house is way less than the statistical likelihood of you having a mental breakdown and killing yourself, getting into an escalated argument and killing someone else, one of your children accidentally getting their hands on your gun, etc.

Like, that's not even remotely true.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

 

30 seconds of google searching shows that you're much more likely to have your home invaded.

 

This is a bit dated because (as we've covered previously) the CDC now is no longer able to compile information on gun deaths, but in a study done looking at hospital admissions, ER, police reports and medical examiners and published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care in 1998:

 

628 shootings in 6 cities over the course of 12-18 months

• Only 13 were in self-defense or legally justifiable (including three shootings by law enforcement officers on duty)
• 54 shootings were unintentional
• 118 were attempted or completed suicides
• 438 were assaults or homicides

In this non biased, scientific review for every 1 time a gun was used for self-defense there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or murders and 11 suicides or suicide attempts.

 

So perhaps your home is highly susceptible for invasion (I agree with Landlord on this one however), even so the likelihood of that gun in your bedside table or the one locked up in the safe actually being used for something other than protecting yourself is quite high. To boot you know how you want to "protect my family"? The numbers also show that those most often impacted by those murders, accidents, suicides etc are women and children.

 

The issue with that data is that it doesn't include that many times, the intruder survives. The goal isn't to kill the intruder, it's to stop them. And there's the issue where the homeowner being armed and producing a firearm scares off the intruder.

[NM11046]

 

 

 

You can cry about protecting your home and your family all you want, but the statistical likelihood of an armed home invasion at your house is way less than the statistical likelihood of you having a mental breakdown and killing yourself, getting into an escalated argument and killing someone else, one of your children accidentally getting their hands on your gun, etc.

Like, that's not even remotely true.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

 

30 seconds of google searching shows that you're much more likely to have your home invaded.

 

This is a bit dated because (as we've covered previously) the CDC now is no longer able to compile information on gun deaths, but in a study done looking at hospital admissions, ER, police reports and medical examiners and published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care in 1998:

 

628 shootings in 6 cities over the course of 12-18 months

• Only 13 were in self-defense or legally justifiable (including three shootings by law enforcement officers on duty)
• 54 shootings were unintentional
• 118 were attempted or completed suicides
• 438 were assaults or homicides

In this non biased, scientific review for every 1 time a gun was used for self-defense there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or murders and 11 suicides or suicide attempts.

 

So perhaps your home is highly susceptible for invasion (I agree with Landlord on this one however), even so the likelihood of that gun in your bedside table or the one locked up in the safe actually being used for something other than protecting yourself is quite high. To boot you know how you want to "protect my family"? The numbers also show that those most often impacted by those murders, accidents, suicides etc are women and children.

 

The issue with that data is that it doesn't include that many times, the intruder survives. The goal isn't to kill the intruder, it's to stop them. And there's the issue where the homeowner being armed and producing a firearm scares off the intruder.

 

It does include all shootings, survival or not. I'll have to dig into the data a bit more, It may not include if a gun scared someone without being fired (they would have to have filed a police report at a min or gone to the hospital). How often has that happened to you?

[The Dude]

After reading a few samples I'm going to use my better judgement and opt to not read the entire thread.

 

Has any gun control measures that would have prevented the Pulse night club shooting been suggested?

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

You can cry about protecting your home and your family all you want, but the statistical likelihood of an armed home invasion at your house is way less than the statistical likelihood of you having a mental breakdown and killing yourself, getting into an escalated argument and killing someone else, one of your children accidentally getting their hands on your gun, etc.

Like, that's not even remotely true.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

 

30 seconds of google searching shows that you're much more likely to have your home invaded.

 

This is a bit dated because (as we've covered previously) the CDC now is no longer able to compile information on gun deaths, but in a study done looking at hospital admissions, ER, police reports and medical examiners and published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care in 1998:

 

628 shootings in 6 cities over the course of 12-18 months

• Only 13 were in self-defense or legally justifiable (including three shootings by law enforcement officers on duty)
• 54 shootings were unintentional
• 118 were attempted or completed suicides
• 438 were assaults or homicides

In this non biased, scientific review for every 1 time a gun was used for self-defense there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or murders and 11 suicides or suicide attempts.

 

So perhaps your home is highly susceptible for invasion (I agree with Landlord on this one however), even so the likelihood of that gun in your bedside table or the one locked up in the safe actually being used for something other than protecting yourself is quite high. To boot you know how you want to "protect my family"? The numbers also show that those most often impacted by those murders, accidents, suicides etc are women and children.

 

The issue with that data is that it doesn't include that many times, the intruder survives. The goal isn't to kill the intruder, it's to stop them. And there's the issue where the homeowner being armed and producing a firearm scares off the intruder.

 

It does include all shootings, survival or not. I'll have to dig into the data a bit more, It may not include if a gun scared someone without being fired (they would have to have filed a police report at a min or gone to the hospital). How often has that happened to you?

 

Me personally? No. Family members? Yes.

[NM11046]

After reading a few samples I'm going to use my better judgement and opt to not read the entire thread.

 

Has any gun control measures that would have prevented the Pulse night club shooting been suggested?

nope. We have had a few ideas thrown out but pretty quickly stomped on.

[NM11046]

 

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

 

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere.

 

I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well).

[JJ Husker]

Soft prohibition makes sense to me, in a relatively similar form as the UK.

 

You don't make guns illegal, but you create an application process that puts the onus on the consumer to demonstrate a legitimate need for the weapon. You can get a game/sport permit, with certain kinds of guns allowed, and you can also get a self-defense/protection permit, if you live in an area with high crime, if you have a job that would make you a target or make enemies, etc.

 

Of course this will never happen, but I don't see why, in a hypothetical vacuum, it doesn't make good logistical sense. Of course it's not perfect, of course it won't stop gun violence, of course plenty of people won't like it, but none of those really matter. For example, if you're an elementary school teacher and you live in a housing development in Lincoln and you're not a hunter, sorry, you don't really need a gun for anything. You can cry about protecting your home and your family all you want, but the statistical likelihood of an armed home invasion at your house is way less than the statistical likelihood of you having a mental breakdown and killing yourself, getting into an escalated argument and killing someone else, one of your children accidentally getting their hands on your gun, etc.

This probably takes it one step further than I would like to see. The inherent problem here is giving the administering agency the power to determine who and who doesn't have need for a gun. Pretty tough to sell that when there are countless examples of people in areas (like a non-hunter teacher in a housing area of Lincoln) who have been victimized in their homes. Odds and stats mean little when going up against real world occurances.

 

I'm not opposed to being required to apply and stating what a person's reasons are for wanting a gun and then being run through a thorough check for terrorism, criminal, mental health, etc. but there is no way our government can be empowered to simply say "no, you have no need". That is the kind of tyranny that will not be allowed.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

 

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere.

 

I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well).

 

 

I never suggested Hawaii was devoid of poverty, violence, crime, etc.

Nor did I suggest they are devoid of western influences or technologies such as TV. Get a grip.

 

How popular are guns and gun rights in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures compared to mainland USA?

Those cultures have had a greater influence on them for a much longer period of time than USA

[NM11046]

 

 

 

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

 

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere.

 

I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well).

 

 

I never suggested Hawaii was devoid of poverty, violence, crime, etc.

 

How popular are guns in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures?

 

I can't speak to popularity in those countries.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

 

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere.

 

I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well).

 

 

I never suggested Hawaii was devoid of poverty, violence, crime, etc.

 

How popular are guns in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures?

 

I can't speak to popularity in those countries.

 

 

How popular/prevalent are guns and gun ownership rights in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures compared to mainland USA? More or less? Take a guess.

Those cultures have had a greater influence on Hawaii for a much longer period of time than USA's influence has had.