The Usa Should Have More Gun Restrictions

[dairygirl4u2c]

while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks.

there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks.

at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people....

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/stats-show-background-checks-are-effective/article_ac6626fd-8bf5-55d7-83cf-d464e379000a.html

what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally?

it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect.

besides common sense, here are some points to consider as more evidence that not all will run to get an illegal gun:

 

the idea is, if you don't have a gun, you wn't use it. if you do, you will.

 

besides states and countries, i can also cite a study that says that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it.

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

a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent.

i can also cite a study that says that the more likely a state is to have guns, the higher their gun homicide rate is.. in fact, up to twice as high. if the above link is established to be true, this should be self evident.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/482217_632818526743662_181719589_n.jpg%22%20alt=%22482217_632818526743662_181719589_n.jpg

and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above....  isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?

In fact, our serious crime rate is about even with countries like Germany and Denmark, but our homicide rate is three times higher than either, largely the result of guns being used in criminal attacks.
 

we might find outliers, state or city anecdotal evidence, but the overall picture is painted with the above evidence.

 

think about common sense points too:

-think of someone on jerry springer having their arguments in the front yard. don't you think they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun if they had one? do you think they'd run in and get a knife? not as likely. /// i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks.it's almost even human nature.
-and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one?
-and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone?
-if there's any doubt about whether checks will make a difference, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience?

the evidence is overwhelming.

[superblue]

it basically sounds like you agree with me. i see merit in having guns, though i might be one to want to get rid of them or find way of significantly reducing them. aside from that, your other points you seem to agree with me on, pretty much. you're not as much of a gun advocate as you might think.

 

I never really thought of myself as being a gun advocate, and after reading your original post I think I can agree with you on somethings as you have stated, where we differ is I would not agree to getting rid of guns in America or finding a way in reducing them.

 

Though I say when it comes this type of a debate, it is tit for tat,  if the American people are to have a reduction or riddance of firearms, then in turn so should police and swat, and the national guard ( as they are the last ones called in when a riot gets out of control ).

 

It becomes unbalanced when people ask that the government reduce and or get rid of fire arms in America, but in turn does not demand the same of the government, meaning the ATF, FBI, NSA, IRS etc would also need to be reduced and limited in the firearms they are to carry.

 

Kind of like how countries handle nuclear weapons, one country just doesn't say okay ill get rid of all of mine and hope you don't nuke me while you keep yours, they both agree to a step down process which includes independent inspections of some sort... how that would translate to this debate I don't know.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i do have to admit, that england, australia, and japan, are renowned for their low gun and gneral murder rate. they are islands though and it would be a lot easier to regulate as a practical matter.

 

then we have canada who is known for being reputable with low gun and murder rates. they obviously are not an island. they require universal background checks and registration.

 

we have 43% more crime than canada, two and a half times more murder related death rates than they do irregardless of guns, 65 times more gun related death rates.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

[superblue]

i do have to admit, that england, australia, and japan, are renowned for their low gun and gneral murder rate. they are islands though and it would be a lot easier to regulate as a practical matter.

 

then we have canada who is known for being reputable with low gun and murder rates. they obviously are not an island. they require universal background checks and registration.

 

we have 43% more crime than canada, two and a half times more murder related death rates than they do irregardless of guns, 65 times more gun related death rates.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

 

 

does it really matter, the murder rate of statistics between guns versus other forms of murder, there is never going to be this utopia of a murder free world, so I see it as grasping at straws to pin the hope of peace on studying gun violence and stats and comparing the like.

 

Even if the stats you are rattling off are true, one murder from a gun, versus another means of murder , is equally horrible, and murder is murder no matter the statistics one country can have less than another, good for them, it doesn't mean anything in the end, when one reaches 0 % in murder then that would be something to investigate and digest.  But to say look look look, here it is less of a murder rate versus the USA, and ?

 

Murder is murder and a rampant sin that has been battling humanity since day one, and to weigh the murder rates and say well gun versus a knife  versus a rock, versus bare hands, I find odd. Since when are we as a people of faith, weighing how and what devices are used in committing a murder being one worse than another ?

 

Is it less of a sin to murder someone using a knife or bare hands versus a gun, or is it more moral to defend oneself with ones own bare hands and wits versus someone who is using a firearm ?

 

The statics for me become absolutely meaningless, and I think the issue people have is the word " Restrictions " it becomes a negative for Americans who hold the 2nd amendment to heart, a better term to get ones point across would be something like safety guidelines,  testing, background checks,

 

some of the background checks that do not take place are for long barrel firearms like shotguns and rifles under a certain caliber, ( from what I can remember ) , I do not know of one state where one can just walk in, and buy a semi automatic fire arm or a pistol of any kind, with out any background check what so ever, and I am referring to legal vendors, not your carnival gun shows, or some backwoods gun dealer. You cant even transport legally by mail one firearm to another state with out the proper paper work and documentation.

 

There is no way humanly possible way to 100% or even 50 % stop bad people from doing illegal things.

 

Then to quote the crime rate in America is a total bogus rational way to defend ones reasoning on gun legislation, first one would have to prove that those who conducted the polling are honest and trust worthy, and have no agenda for or against, then you have to take into consideration how much are actual criminals engaging each other with fire arms, versus law abiding citizens protecting themselves from criminals, and then try to correlate why a law abiding citizen needs to have more " gun restrictions " in protecting him or her self or their loved ones from criminals. The reasons behind deaths via fire arms are almost endless, and even with the best safety regulations, people who have a mental illness or are suffering from depression will find a way to hurt themselves with out a gun, and that doesn't mean well good at least they are not using a gun. Same for crime, take the guns away, there will always be brutal beatings taking place some where, but to say again well at least they are not using guns ? it just doesn't make any sense. How can one argue that it is better that there are not bullets flying and randomly hitting innocent people on the street, versus a person who has done nothing to no one being randomly assaulted viciously by a gang of people or person.

 

Either way innocent people are suffering from crime be it by a random bullet, or other means and again to separate the issue and say guns are by far the worse violence ever is, I think undermining a bigger problem altogether that no one wants to address. 

[Jesus_lol]

i do have to admit, that england, australia, and japan, are renowned for their low gun and gneral murder rate. they are islands though and it would be a lot easier to regulate as a practical matter.

 

then we have canada who is known for being reputable with low gun and murder rates. they obviously are not an island. they require universal background checks and registration.

 

we have 43% more crime than canada, two and a half times more murder related death rates than they do irregardless of guns, 65 times more gun related death rates.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

 

 

Actually, Canada does not require registration anymore. We got rid of the Long Gun Registry after we realized that it was insanely expensive and deeply flawed, with myriad privacy concerns and little to no benefit noticed on either crime prevention or solving crimes. Same thing registries everywhere end up being, as there is nothing to really be gained by keeping track of individual guns, and it certainly isnt an easy solution to implement(even canada had massive problems with it). And there is really no logical way to even defend them as crime prevention, as having a gun registered doesnt somehow make it safer.

 

Also, we do do background checks through a licensing system(much like the USA's concealed carry permit system in most states) where it is done on a continuous basis, but the government is not needed to be consulted or informed of individual firearms purchases. Many of the proposed back ground check laws in the USA are much less efficient, and end up being both a burden of time and money on people looking to sell firearms.

 

 

while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks.
 

 

No, they really dont in the way that you think. You couldnt get 90% of america to agree that kittens are cute, much less on this topic.

 

You will note, if you ever looked at the actual question, that they did not specify any actual method. All that was asked was if people support more comprehensive background checks. This has often been construed as support for the hugely flawed Manchin Toomey bill, when it absolutely should not be. It could as easily be shown as support for the much better Coburn proposal that was scuttled by democrats because it wasnt harsh enough. So much for "compromise".

 

Similarly, if a question said "would you support additional legislation to prevent drunk driving fatalities?", a large percentage of people would say "yes".

 

A much smaller percentage would say Yes if you asked "would you support legislation severely restricting the sale and imbibing of alcohol, and mandating that all cars be retroactively fitted with a breathalyzer ignition lock at the owner's expense?"

[dairygirl4u2c]

to my understanding, canada may have changed some laws, but it was only recently.

 

and at any rate, they still have checks... that's all the bottomline is that i'm pushing.

 

cause the bottomline. not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they don't have a crime at the time they'd do a crime, it likely won't be committed. this is supported by the fact that the more likely a individual, state, or nation is to have guns, the more likely there ae to be not just gun murders, but murders in general. sure, if a person is intent to kill, they may do it anotehr way. but to have a gun to begin with, increases your likelihood of using it when you'd otherwise not do a crime.

 

i don't know enough about canada's culture, or its economic security. but i would be willing to bet, if its gun murder and perhaps overall murder rate is lower, it's because they have fewer guns.

 

this would be supported by teh studies i've cited. even if i were shown canada to be an outlier or anecdotally different, it still does not rebut hte presumption that more guns equals more overall murder etc.

[superblue]

to my understanding, canada may have changed some laws, but it was only recently.

 

and at any rate, they still have checks... that's all the bottomline is that i'm pushing.

 

cause the bottomline. not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they don't have a crime at the time they'd do a crime, it likely won't be committed. this is supported by the fact that the more likely a individual, state, or nation is to have guns, the more likely there ae to be not just gun murders, but murders in general. sure, if a person is intent to kill, they may do it anotehr way. but to have a gun to begin with, increases your likelihood of using it when you'd otherwise not do a crime.

 

i don't know enough about canada's culture, or its economic security. but i would be willing to bet, if its gun murder and perhaps overall murder rate is lower, it's because they have fewer guns.

 

this would be supported by teh studies i've cited. even if i were shown canada to be an outlier or anecdotally different, it still does not rebut hte presumption that more guns equals more overall murder etc.

 

so murder by a gun is worse than any other murder ?

 

if I have to choose between getting my toe cut off with a rusty saw versus a new saw, does it really matter ?

 

To try an infer that someone would not commit a crime because one does not have access of a fire arm is a big farce, and just because someone commits a crime with out a fire arm, does not make the crime any better or any safer for anyone involved.

[Jesus_lol]

to my understanding, canada may have changed some laws, but it was only recently.

 

and at any rate, they still have checks... that's all the bottomline is that i'm pushing.

 

cause the bottomline. not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they don't have a crime at the time they'd do a crime, it likely won't be committed. this is supported by the fact that the more likely a individual, state, or nation is to have guns, the more likely there ae to be not just gun murders, but murders in general. sure, if a person is intent to kill, they may do it anotehr way. but to have a gun to begin with, increases your likelihood of using it when you'd otherwise not do a crime.

 

i don't know enough about canada's culture, or its economic security. but i would be willing to bet, if its gun murder and perhaps overall murder rate is lower, it's because they have fewer guns.

 

this would be supported by teh studies i've cited. even if i were shown canada to be an outlier or anecdotally different, it still does not rebut hte presumption that more guns equals more overall murder etc.

 

 

You are exactly right, canada only changed laws recently. Canada's gun laws have only been anywhere near as strict as they are now for about 20 years, since the mid 90s. Before that, canada's laws were significantly laxer, and if you go back a bit farther to the late 70s we could still buy full automatics and carry pistols for self defense, amongst many many other things.

 

Yet canada has been a safe country the whole time, with no additional safety that is attributable to newer gun laws. Even when we had access to guns that have been essentially banned in the USA for the past 30 years.

 

As for the registration, you are also right, it was only removed a few years ago. However, it had only been in place 10 or 15 years to start with. The vast majority of guns in canada have not been registered for the vast majority of canada's history.

 

This is the only study you are likely to find on canada's specific firearms laws and their effects on homicide.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?lpekoeub268b8af

Canadian Firearms

Legislation and Effects on

Homicide 1974 to 2008

Canadian Firearms

Legislation and Effects on

Homicide 1974 to 2008

 

It came to the conclusion that most of canada's gun laws have had little to marginal effect on overall crime and safety.

 

 

But yes, we still have checks. And so does the USA. In case you somehow still didn't know, all sales at gun stores and from gun dealers(including those at gun shows) in the USA are run through the NICS instant background check system. Any purchases online have to be shipped through a FFL, and when picked up, the buyer has to submit to a background check. I would bet a fair portion of your 90% have no idea about the current background check laws in the country.

 

 

 

The only are background checks are not required is in person to person sales, which are nearly impossible to regulate. Even then, there are serious laws regarding who and how you are allowed to sell those guns to.

 

Even in Canada, we are supposed to be reasonably certain the other person has a firearms license to sell to them. For the most part this is like a quick flash of your drivers license. "ok, looks good.". However, if i was the shady sort, there is no hand of god coming down to prevent me from just selling a gun to anybody and obviously not running a background check on them. Same in the states, even if there was a mandate, there would be no effective way to enforce it.

 

The USA actually has a very large number of gun restrictions and especially once you start looking at the state level. A lot more laws than most people who like to talk on the subject assume. It isnt exactly international waters.

 

But to be honest Dairy, I think you should do some more research on this subject before making yet another post about it. You dont know very much about the laws in place in the USA, and you certainly don't about the ones in Canada and many other countries(other than soundbite "they r bettur"). And maybe it is just me, but you should really have to know what the current laws are and how they apply before anyone should take you seriously when you say "The laws need to be stricter".

 

Which laws? Stricter how? Chances are, many of the things you want already exist, that is common when i talk to people advocating for more laws up north.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Jesus_lol

[dairygirl4u2c]

so murder by a gun is worse than any other murder ?

 

if I have to choose between getting my toe cut off with a rusty saw versus a new saw, does it really matter ?

 

To try an infer that someone would not commit a crime because one does not have access of a fire arm is a big farce, and just because someone commits a crime with out a fire arm, does not make the crime any better or any safer for anyone involved.

 

well, i'd contend empirical data and common sense disagees with you. the more likely an individual, state, or nation is to have guns, the more likely they are to have more murders in general. this isn't the same as getting killed through a gun v a knife. it's about getting killed period. as said, if one is intent to kill, they can kill. but having a gun increases the liklihood that you will. i also witness this first hand. unstable people who don't talk about killing, but once they've got a gun or potneital for a gun, suddenly talk about it increases, an i owuldn't put past them actually doing anything about it. or that jerry springer hypotherical. if htey were fighting on their lawn, and had a gun in the house, you can bet they'd be more prone to getting it, than running to get a knife or a bat or something. the psychology is different with guns. people who are so gun friendly should know this stuff.
 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm already pretty familiar with our laws and canada's. no one has really informed me of anything different. i don't claim to be an expert of all laws in all counties i talk about or anything like that, but i'm a hella more informed than most people.

[Jesus_lol]

i'm already pretty familiar with our laws and canada's. no one has really informed me of anything different. i don't claim to be an expert of all laws in all counties i talk about or anything like that, but i'm a hella more informed than most people.

 

 

Sorry, no you arent. I have had many conversations with you on this topic and you have never shown much past a passing familiarity with the laws in the USA and not that in canada. I would bet good money that if i asked you for advice regarding canadian gun laws you would inadvertently tell me stuff that would land me in jail for years. The stuff isnt simple, and it certainly isnt all there on a quick glance through wikipedia.

 

You definitely dont know enough about the history or application of laws to determine that our laws have done X (which laws, how and when?).

Otherwise you might wonder to yourself why canada was never violent back when it had buttloads of guns, virtually no gun laws, full autos, kids carrying guns to highschool casually, etc a few decades back.

 

Read through the study I posted.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Jesus_lol

[dairygirl4u2c]

not even a passing familiarity? maybe i don't express everything i know well enough, but i have at least a passing familiarity. nothing you've said has been new to me. so how does that prove that you know so much more than i do?

you obviously over inflate yourself.

 

i'm tons more knowledgeable than almost everyone on this board, though perhaps there's a decent number who are better informed. this should at least entitled me to talk about it as if i'm at least decently informed. when compared to the average person, i'm miles ahead of em. what more could you ask for?

 

it's not even like i'm able to debate this all that effectively, cause most of the time it is me teaching other people about stuff. it isn't the other way around. we can't even get off the ground cause there's too much foundation to lay first

[superblue]

well, i'd contend empirical data and common sense disagees with you. the more likely an individual, state, or nation is to have guns, the more likely they are to have more murders in general. this isn't the same as getting killed through a gun v a knife. it's about getting killed period. as said, if one is intent to kill, they can kill. but having a gun increases the liklihood that you will. i also witness this first hand. unstable people who don't talk about killing, but once they've got a gun or potneital for a gun, suddenly talk about it increases, an i owuldn't put past them actually doing anything about it. or that jerry springer hypotherical. if htey were fighting on their lawn, and had a gun in the house, you can bet they'd be more prone to getting it, than running to get a knife or a bat or something. the psychology is different with guns. people who are so gun friendly should know this stuff.
 

 

 

Common sense and empirical data is like saying water and electricity do mix.

 

Your analogy for the lawn fight and someone having a gun would thus in turn go back an get the gun an use said gun is merely a hypothetical, nothing more.  An if you think in the heat of the moment that someone doesn't in that same lawn fight, turn around and run in to grab a bat or a knife that is a joke too, try living in the back woods of Alabama for a few. The psychology you are talking about with guns is nonsense, people are not walking around in fear of who has a gun or doesn't, Americans just does not want the government knowing who has how many guns and what kind , it isn't theirs to know.

 

Having a gun does not increase the chances of one using it, that would be like saying because someone is fat and likes candy, there is a chance that person on any given day will steal candy if candy is in front of him or her.

 

But you are talking about  " Chance and Psychology " the two don't always go together,  the same for Free Will, Just because God gave everyone Free Will, doesn't mean that there is a good chance that someone with " common sense and empirical data " is going to oh okay, by looking at these reports and because someone told me they have common sense I should believe in Christ and join the Catholic Church.

 

You want gun safety, ya got it, ya don't want those with sever mental impairments to be allowed access to weapons, fine, ya want better background checks sure why not, but if ya want me to believe reports and statics not a chance.  There is too much biasness that goes into any statistic or report. And nix to letting the government know what citizen has a gun and where they live. Unless the government agrees to let citizens know where their agents with guns live at and how many they have.

 

plus how come there are no studies done on those gun owners who have been in fights or confrontations in their front lawn or else where, and did not use their fire arm ? How come there is no study being done on that ?

[dairygirl4u2c]

well i take that back, i was not aware of the details of that study you gave about canada. but, i have plenty of other studies and information, that i can guarantee that if it doesn't corroborate what is alreayd established, it'd be an outlier.

 

i can look into it if you want. but one countries detials isn't the end all be all of anything

[superblue]

well i take that back, i was not aware of the details of that study you gave about canada. but, i have plenty of other studies and information, that i can guarantee that if it doesn't corroborate what is alreayd established, it'd be an outlier.

 

i can look into it if you want. but one countries detials isn't the end all be all of anything

 

 

 

If ya want someone to pay attention to your top notch education on guns and statistics you could try any democratic website on the internet, they could probably benefit from your knowledge more than anyone else here, and would probably appreciate it more.