Gun control, which side wins?

[DirtyChai]

Update:

"Jeffrey Zeigler, 53, was found guilty of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony in the April 12 incident at his home involving 14-year-old Brennan Walker. He was charged with assault with intent to commit murder, but Judge Wendy Potts gave jurors the option of convicting Zeigler on the lesser charge.

Zeigler could get up to 10 years in prison for the assault conviction, plus a mandatory two years for the firearm count. Potts revoked his bond and ordered him to jail pending sentencing Nov. 13."

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2018/10/12/rochester-hills-homeowner-who-fired-teen-trial/1613420002/

[Ten oz]

Thank you for the update.

[Ten oz]

13 murdered in another mass shooting. After the mass shootings in Last Vegas there was a lot of optimism regarding the possibility of moderate changes to the law regarding firearm modifications. Joke was on those of us you would like to see gun control. No proposals went anywhere. At this point I no longer blame the NRA. At this point the majority of the nation is responsible. As a nation we accept it. 

[Ten oz]

Quote

 

Every year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues an estimate of the number of people nonfatally injured by guns, but even by the agency’s own standards, its recent numbers may not be trustworthy. This year’s estimate is less reliable than ever.

According to the CDC’s most recent figures, somewhere between 31,000 and 236,000 people were injured by guns in 2017. That range, which represents the confidence interval — the high and low ends of a range of estimates that probably contains the real number, whatever that number is — is almost four times wider than the one given in the agency’s 2001 estimate. Link

 

Gun Control is already a complicated enough issue to tackle without the data being corrupted. At a minimum regardless of how one feels about Gun Control quality data should be something we all agree on? 

Quote

 

In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC. Link

 

 

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Gun Control is already a complicated enough issue to tackle without the data being corrupted. At a minimum regardless of how one feels about Gun Control quality data should be something we all agree on?

 

If only...

[8link48]

Here in America (Especially in the deep south) we take pride in our guns and it is almost a way of life to have shot a gun at least once in your life here. Even though the idea of fighting back with our guns is the excuse we use, I believe its just a way of life that we're just trying to protect.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, 8link48 said:

Here in America (Especially in the deep south) we take pride in our guns and it is almost a way of life to have shot a gun at least once in your life here. Even though the idea of fighting back with our guns is the excuse we use, I believe its just a way of life that we're just trying to protect.

Protection of that tradition is going too far currently. The inability to even study the issue is nonsensical. 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Protection of that tradition is going too far currently. The inability to even study the issue is nonsensical. 

Yeah, hanging on to an unchanging Constitution that needs to adapt with the times is, I'm sure, not what its original authors intended. If it wasn't designed to be changed, no Amendments would exist on it, which, of course, they do. I'd like to see the NRA refute that argument.

Edited March 11, 2019 by StringJunky

[Dune]

On 2/22/2018 at 3:15 PM, Raider5678 said:

Would you be opposed to universal background checks and mental fitness checks for anyone buying a gun?

Would you be opposed to greatly increasing the mental health system of this country? As far as I know, sane people do not commit mass murder.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Dune said:

As far as I know, sane people do not commit mass murder.

So you think that everyone who kills multiple people, say during a drug deal gone wrong or in a terrorist attack, is insane?

[Dune]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

So you think that everyone who kills multiple people, say during a drug deal gone wrong or in a terrorist attack, is insane?

I think that any person capable of cold blooded murder is insane.

[iNow]

False dichotomy. Do both. Win win. 

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, Dune said:

I think that any person capable of cold blooded murder is insane.

Then you are inventing your own definition of the word "insane". Best we all use the definitions that are already in place so there is no confusion.

[Intrigued]

On 3/11/2019 at 5:03 PM, 8link48 said:

Here in America (Especially in the deep south) we take pride in our guns and it is almost a way of life to have shot a gun at least once in your life here. Even though the idea of fighting back with our guns is the excuse we use, I believe its just a way of life that we're just trying to protect.

In the UK, where gun laws are strict and (famously) few of the police are armed, I have several friends who have shotguns. Some favour their use on game birds, others on clay pigeons. But a shotgun is not a highpowered rifle, or a small handgun easily concealed. I understand - and sympathise - with the notion that this is "just a way of life that we're just trying to protect". Unfortunately, it has become just a way of death that you are trying to protect. What would it take for you to say "enough is enough"?

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, Intrigued said:

What would it take for you to say "enough is enough"?

I don't think there is anything that will be enough for a significant portion of the population. The reasons people don't want to give up their guns are varied: 

"It's my Right goddamnit!"

"Don't punish me for the actions of another."

"Yep, people die. Just like with cars, power generation, sunbathing, and saturated fat in food."

"Hunting, trap shooting, target shooting, plinking, etc. are all fun."

"If you take away my guns you put me more at risk."

And of course many others. Any solution is going to be nuanced and complex, and will never be accomplished with appeals for people to do the "right thing".

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't think there is anything that will be enough for a significant portion of the population. The reasons people don't want to give up their guns are varied: 

"It's my Right goddamnit!"

"Don't punish me for the actions of another."

"Yep, people die. Just like with cars, power generation, sunbathing, and saturated fat in food."

"Hunting, trap shooting, target shooting, plinking, etc. are all fun."

"If you take away my guns you put me more at risk."

And of course many others. Any solution is going to be nuanced and complex, and will never be accomplished with appeals for people to do the "right thing".

It needs a dictatorial government to solve.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It needs a dictatorial government to solve.

Yes, that would do it. Or perhaps if we have a war and guns are confiscated as part of a national emergency, and simply not returned.

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, that would do it. Or perhaps if we have a war and guns are confiscated as part of a national emergency, and simply not returned.

There is a precedent for that, with all privately-held gold being compulsorily handed in in the 30's and stashed in Fort Knox, which was built for it. I can't remember why.

Edited April 9, 2019 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Or perhaps if we have a war and guns are confiscated as part of a national emergency, and simply not returned.

If the war was on our own soil, I don't see the NRA boosters giving up personal defense, especially during an emergency involving enemy combatants. I think the national emergency angle would work best in tightening existing regulations and making background checks stricter. We're used to tightening our belts/going to extremes in times of emergency, and if we had a war it might be persuasive to think about avoiding death by friendly neighborhood fire.

Some public service announcements about our military mistaking our own civilians for the enemy because they were waving a gun might help some see the light.

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

There is a precedent for that, with all privately-held gold being compulsorily handed in in the 30's and stashed in Fort Knox, which was built for it. I can't remember why.

But those folks were compensated, iirc, and the economy was the worst it had ever been. The leadership now would have to figure out how to frame it as necessary for our very survival, and that's how guns are often considered in the first place.

[Bufofrog]

On 3/30/2018 at 7:37 PM, tmx3 said:

Going on a tangent, but I sometimes see gun reform as an undercover plot to remove guns from the public so the government has more say as to what happens to the people.

If every person in the US had an AK-47 the army could still come in an confiscate the guns (or pry them out of their cold dead hands) and there isn't a damn thing the public could do to stop it.  The military has tanks, jets, ships and bombs, it is absurd to believe a bunch of clowns with guns are going to stop a determined government.

Mass protests would do 10x (unevidenced estimation) the good that an armed resistance could.

[zapatos]

45 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

If every person in the US had an AK-47 the army could still come in an confiscate the guns (or pry them out of their cold dead hands) and there isn't a damn thing the public could do to stop it. 

Tell that to Al-Qaeda and the resistance fighters during WWII (just to mention a couple).

[Bufofrog]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Tell that to Al-Qaeda and the resistance fighters during WWII (just to mention a couple).

Both of those groups were supplied heavy weapons from governments and arms dealers. 

I never said there would not be terrorists, there always have been and always will be.  The military would sweep away any meaningful resistance in short order.

If we wanted to stop Al-Qaeda and or ISS in a country (say Iraq) it would not be difficult.  For goodness sake no foreign terrorist been able pull off any significant attack on the USA in 17 years.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

For goodness sake no foreign terrorist been able pull off any significant attack on the USA in 17 years.

Indeed. We have domestic right-wing terrorists who more than adequately cover that gap:

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by iNow

[zapatos]

59 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The military would sweep away any meaningful resistance in short order.

Like England swept away the IRA in short order.

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Like England swept away the IRA in short order.

It all depends on how much authorities are going to tap dance around collateral damage or not.