The Usa Should Have More Gun Restrictions

[dairygirl4u2c]

you sound at best to be saying that scientific studies mean nothing. i admit, often they don't. but that's why you have to sift thorugh the bad stuff and find the good stuff.

 

those links i cited were from professional places, respected places, oxford, harvard etc. the studies on individual being more likley to engage in violence etc were considered so scinetifically unanimous that it almost went without saying. incontrovertible type stuff. no one can be taken seriously who would disagree. and a lot of it has to do with teh methodology. it takes things that are easy to measure, and draws defining conclusions about them. more guns, more overall murder.... individual, state, or country. that's the bottomline.

 

i don't know what to say about the psychology anecdotes, yours v mine, but i've got just as much experience as yours. and in the world i've seen, if you have a gun around, it can be the difference between life and death.
at best i could give you a stale mate on experience, but i still have the science backing me up as far as i can see.

Edited July 14, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i probably was too generous with anecdotal evidence being not that supportive. i mean, if i can say that i see that having a gun changes everything, it in fact means something. soemone else might not see that, but if i do, it has got to mean something for when it's true.

 

and on that jerry springer point, even if they were as likely to go to get a bat or a knife, which i don't think it as likely to happen cause guns do in fact change things, they aren't as likely to kill someone. it's as simple as guns automatically kill, but other weaopons dont.

 

much like that example, recently, were in the USA there were over twenty deaths with a gun, but in a very gun restricted country on the same day, there were over twenty mere injuries.

 

and those other common sense points seem to be true 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?

 

and the bottomline is still the more likely a person, state, or country is to have guns the more likely there will be murder.

 

and all that stuff that not all are black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun

Edited July 14, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[fides' Jack]

[...] it's as simple as guns automatically kill, but other weaopons dont.[...]

 

 

This seems to be fundamental to your argument.  Even overlooking the absurdity of the statement, "guns automatically kill", since this is your thread, can you provide legitimate stats showing this is the case?

 

I remember reading a story a few years ago about a soldier in the middle of a battle who kept using his automatic rifle on his enemy but it wasn't effective because the rounds were too small.  It took a lot of rounds to actually kill the person he was trained, and intending, to kill.  And that was with a military rifle.

 

I really don't think "it's as simple as guns automatically kill, but other weapons don't."  And I think not only is that false, but it's also dangerous to think that way.  

 

I don't have very much experience at all personally with guns, but even I know that they don't work like the movies show - where one bullet anywhere on the body is enough to take down almost any bad guy.

[Socrates]

Ah, the Never-ending Gun Debate:  Round 537.

 

Seems every few months or so, there's a new identical dairy thread calling for more government "gun-control," every time his/her same tired arguments get thoroughly shot to pieces (pun intended) with facts, then the process repeats anew.

 

A newbie can be forgiven for starting a thread on a topic already long argued to death, but this is ridiculous.

[Jesus_lol]

It would be interesting if Dairy actually responded to any of the numerous points i made in response to her, but instead she took the easy way out, focused on one paragraph saying she needs to learn more on the topic and decided to go off about how knowledgeable she is on the topic.

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't know what i haven't responded to.

 

i admit i didn't respond to the idea that forty percent of sales don't have check, point, that it is an old study. but still, not many new laws were passed since then that i know of, and while it wasn't as comprehensive as it could be, it was comprehensive enough. i doubt forty percent is far off. even if it was ten percent as some gun nuts argue, it's still not insignicant. and at least my source isn't as biased as those who cite the ten percent stat.

plus ten percent is tough to justify, cause private sales are so common given a person to another person is a private sale, not just gun shows are private sales.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[...] it's as simple as guns automatically kill, but other weaopons dont.[...]

 

no i wouldn't sumarize my whole argument on that. that point is about the jerry springer hypothetical specifically.

 

if i were to summarize in two sentences it would be. the more likely a person, state, or country is to have a gun, the more likely they are to have not just gun murders, but murders in general. and, not all are black hoodies (most are just regular people w a little background) who will stop at nothing to get a gun if denied one.... and all those other common sense points i mentioned, thus it is next to indisputable that more checks will result in fewer murders.

[Jesus_lol]

i don't know what i haven't responded to.

 

i admit i didn't respond to the idea that forty percent of sales don't have check, point, that it is an old study. but still, not many new laws were passed since then that i know of, and while it wasn't as comprehensive as it could be, it was comprehensive enough. i doubt forty percent is far off. even if it was ten percent as some gun nuts argue, it's still not insignicant. and at least my source isn't as biased as those who cite the ten percent stat.

plus ten percent is tough to justify, cause private sales are so common given a person to another person is a private sale, not just gun shows are private sales.

 

 

"Not many new laws that I know of since then"

 

Just a little thing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

 

You know, the entire current background check system in the USA. Just a small, nothing bill.

[Jesus_lol]

Also, should point out that the "gun show" loop hole is also false. There is no such thing, any dealer at a gun show has to go through the same background check system as any FFL dealer anywhere else, otherwise they are committing a felony.

 

The fact that private sales are exempt from this is hardly a loophole as that was the original intent of the law. These sometimes take place at gun shows, much like cars and parts are sometimes sold at enthusiast gatherings, but this has nothing to do with gun shows specifically. it could just as easily, and falsely, be called the "walmart parking lot loophole" or the "backyard loophole" or the "classified ads loophole" or the "transferring a possession to your friends or family loophole" or the "trading currency for goods and services in private loophole"

Edited July 17, 2014 by Jesus_lol

[dairygirl4u2c]

so yeah i was taught something.

 

but there are still a lot of sales that do not involve checks, that should.

[Jesus_lol]

And many gun owners agree with that, they would like to be able to make sure they arent selling to felons, but they arent going to settle for overbearing garbage like Manchin Toomey.

 

Which is why there was the Coburn Proposal, which didnt have many of the problematic areas of the other failed bill. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/

 

It actually had wide support from gun owners, unlike the completely panned Manchin Toomey. It would have passed but was scuttled by gun control advocates and democrats, i guess because it didnt have the pseudo registry requirement that they kept trying to downplay in M.T.

 

So when it comes down to it, a legit compromise gets scuttled because it isnt good enough. And we all know that even if Toomey was voted in, within a year they would be back at it, demanding it to be ratcheted even tighter, and adding new bans.

[Winchester]

One side of this debate is making a claim of ownership over the other.

 

I really don't think you can reason with people who believe they may own other people. You're spinning your wheels.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so yeah i was taught something.

 

but there are still a lot of sales that do not involve checks, that should.

 

i for once, rarely, concede to not having known something, but it appears it may have been premature.

 

i looked into the dates, and the 40% study was after the brady bill. the study was 1997, the brady bill was 1993.

 

http://www.nij.gov/publications/pages/publication-detail.aspx?ncjnumber=165476

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

 

what were you basing your argument on, that the brady bill came after the study?

 

i just took your word for it, that it did. clearly that was a mistake.

[Credo in Deum]

http://youtu.be/zJCJhdEPsOE

[dairygirl4u2c]

this fellow, who argued that the brady bill didn't have much effect on violent crime, notes the obvious. that it does effect crime at least to some degree.

"Of course this doesn't mean all persons denied purchases were prevented from obtaining a firearm by other means, or that they were stopped from committing a crime with a different or no weapon. However, surely a number of crimes were averted due to the under-motivation of some potential criminals. Even though the evidence suggests waiting periods and instant background checks are not statistically significant factors in reducing violent crime, they do appear to have merit since they will thwart some crime, and in most cases involve no practical infringement of law-abiding gun owners' rights."

 

and i'd add, even if it's not statistitically significant, which looks debateable on a google search... it is still significant in that 'some' murders are no longer happening.

 

even the above quoted pro gun rights fellow, couldn't deny the common sense, that so many here wish to ignore.