universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence - how is this not true?

[Anomaly]

there a difference between slip and falls and car accidents and gun violence. the first ones are a natural part of life and accidental. gun violence is not natural and is not accidental. this argument is pretty ridiculous.... almost like grasphing at straws or that you will say anything to defend guns or something. 

so it's plain that you aren't in this to save the most lives.   It's not about lives, it's about guns.  Period.  

Mans you wonder why there is push back from rational thinkers.  

[little2add]

to be clear about australia, they banned most guns, not all of them, and did a buy back program to get guns off the street. in pure numbers gun violence went up slightly in years after the ban then went down. in terms of homicide rate, deaths constantly went down to around fifty percent of what it used to be. to add to this, they had a mass shooting once per year before the ban, and have had no mass shootings for the years and years after the ban. 

ive tried saying it before but i will say it again. the studies i see say that the more likely a country or state is to have guns, the more likely their homicide rate is to be higher. i can find the data if someone insists. so not its not true that more guns equals more safety.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'll put it another way. slip and falls and car accidents are a part of life and unavoidable. same can't be said for gun homicides. 

slip and falls.... people can almost all afford to install hand rails in the shower or elsewhere. otherwise it's just an unavoidabe part of life. car accidents... we could reduce speed limits and take drastic measures but it would limit the privileges we've come to expect, and to recognize if we get behind the wheel. these are all unavoidabe.
gun homicides are not unavoidabe. 

[StMichael]

Exactly as designed. Instead of talking about how Christians were slaughtered, we are talking about nonsense.

In the US we have the God given right to bear arms. This "shall not be infringed." Now of course, it has, from California to Chicago to NY.  

Lets take Chicago. Strict gun laws, in fact you can't have a gun. But somehow, through 10/7 a person is murdered every 16 hours and shot every 2 hours...

353 have been shot & killed in 2015.

2005 have been shot & wounded.

There is no law that can stop a person who is intent to kill. None. 

We talk about background checks. Did you ever attempt to buy a gun? Every gun owner goes through a background check. 

In LA, you have no chance of getting a conceal carry permit, but somehow 338 people have been gunned down http://homicide.latimes.com/cause/gunshot/year/2015

I'm sorry, it is not the gun, it is the person.

Additionally, it is up to ourselves to protect ourselves. In the US we do not have a right to have a cop protect you, they show up after the crime.

But the end result is that some person, that the media is hiding quite a bit on, including ties to islam, went into a college that one the students that went there was a hero in France (the train) and did as islam does everywhere, they slaughtered Christians on US soil, once again, and we are talking about ceding a right? 

[Nihil Obstat]

Saw this today. Somebody else can fact check if they want. I am astoundingly lazy today.

 

[Socrates]

Got some data?

It was actually something I read in books, which cited the works of historians.  Here's an article on the topic:  http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

Of course, back in the 1800s, the government didn't collect detailed data on everything like they do today, so you can't exactly pull up data and charts for frontier territories in the year 1875, or whenever, and compare it against 2015 figures.

 

Dont have time, could you provide textual data? Im sure the movie references some studies or something that you could link here.

Actually, it's a goofy comedy by Seth MacFarlane (of Family Guy fame).

I haven't watched it, but I somehow I doubt it contains any relevant historical information.

[Socrates]

Dairy,

You know better than unbiased fact?   So you dismiss what I just presented without spending 15 minutes in Google.  

That is why society doesn't fix things. Obstinate ignorance rooted in bias and fed with emotion, the hell with fact, reality, and perspective.   

We will waste time and money arguing about gun control and different sides spending millions on lobbyists, further dividing people and creating artificial animosity instead of focusing our resources on something of bigger import. 

Completely laughable if it wasn't such a tragic waste that creates unnecessary polarization. 

But food stamps caused the decline in gun violence!  There you have it.  Debate over.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i notice no one is directly tacking background checks. i might suppose cause it's too common sensiscal to be denied. it will surely have soem positive effect. 

maybe they are countering it with there anti gun control rhetoric but most of it is too vague to talk about. 

the best anyone has done is cite a graph that counters what i said the studies say. i can cite harvard and plenty of other neutral institutions. that graph is circulated a lot but doesn't have much credibility. ive seen it before. i do question a basic premise it has.... that we have a lower homicide rate. we are known for our high gun homicide rate, and our high amount of guns. 

you can fight abotu specific bans like DC or chicago and you will see a wild array or results. chicago is a bad example because they get their guns from the gun friendly states surrounding the area. or think gary indiana. but there's not much point in talking about gun bans in local cities any more cause the supreme court said no more of that. it is worth talking about guns bans generally or the proportionality of guns and homicides but aside from that uncited graph, i dont see much of that discussed. 

i know even if the wild west was less crime, it wasn't even like those days were well populated. i question whether they have good information about the number of guns and deaths. the question is what do we make of gun and homicides in well developed countires. and the USA stands out like a sore thumb. 

i admit my food stamp point wasnt a very good one. it was just random speculation. what isn't random speculation is to look at the USA compared to everyone else. when you do that, you see we do not fare well at all. 

Edited October 9, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anomaly]

Dairy,

The point that's been repeatedly made is just blaming the presence of guns is only anecdotal (minor fact).  The statistics show little to no causation vs correlation to guns and violence.   It's like treating a broken arm with aspirin.  It may make you feel a tiny better, but it isn't addressing the fundamental issue , which is to put the arm in a cast.  

Various gun restrictions do little about overall crime in an area.  Crime isn't solved with just putting people in prison. It's addressed with better schools, a good economy so people can have jobs, decent police that can help residents without overstepping their authority, reinforcing respect for law enforcement while keeping law enforcement trained and wiring laws.   

Two of the recent mass School shootings, it was people who had mental illness that were provided guns by their mothers.   

But if your emotions cause you to believe society should be investing in aspirin to deal with the hurt and think that's the main priority, don't be surprised that many reasonable people will pat your head and smile condescendingly. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

there is a reason it happens here and not elsewhere, it's just a matter of what that reason it.  and no, the united states doesn't have a monopoly on the mentally ill. 

one thing we might agree on is that our culture is one that glorifies gore and fame. video games, movies. i saw a person recently say the second most thing sought after by young folks is fame.... and going out in a blaze of glory is sure to get you there. if you want to attack something other than guns, i would attack our culture, not pin it on the mentally ill. ( i might add to it that our capitalistic culture cultivates instability as opposed to other more socialistic countries. )

but one thing i would add to it though as the primary problem is we have too many guns in this culture. yes it is the person and not the gun.... but when guns have such a proportional effect on violence it's not unfair to say the gun is the problem too. 
it's supported by science, common sense, and anecdotal evidence: the more likely you or a geographic area is to have a gun, the more likely you are to have gun deaths. 

and a mature adult shouldn't even have to question this or be informed. but the more likely you are to have a gun in your household, the less safe you are as a result. the experts all agree. everyone wants to think they will be the exception.

we have to recognize that our right to a gun comes at the cost of increased deaths, period. 

 

Edited October 9, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anomaly]

Dairy, 

You're excessively lacking in the ability to understanding what factors are symptoms and what factors are causation, and temper that with a dollop of reasonableness.

Guns are merely a tool to cause injury.  Their use is a symptom of people's desire to hurt and injure.  We do regulate their purchase, ownership, and punish misuse.  This is evidenced by the dropping number of murders despite a tremendous increase in the number of guns. 

With over 270,000,000 legal firearms in the US, foundational political documents arguably establishing a right to own guns, and a clear lack of logic establishing guns as causative, what do you think will happen?  

If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets, LOL. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont now why you keep saying gun aren't causative? i mean, sure, guns dont pull their own triggers. but the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to kill someone. it's so simple it's stupid. that's backed up by the data. 

and it's not like people will just kill with knives. the data says more guns, more overall deaths, not just gun deaths. that's because you are more likely to kill someone if you have a gun. again, so simple it's stupid. 

and did you just admit we do regulate guns and crime has gone down? then by all means, let's close the loop hole that allows forty percent of guns to be sold without a background check.  i know most of my gun rhetoric wont go no where, but by far most people agree with me. congress must be merely beholden to the gun lobby on this one. people who disagree are diehards who ignore common sense constitutionality or they just acknowledge it will help some, say it wont solve the problem, then ignore the issue. 

Edited October 9, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anomaly]

i dont now why you keep saying gun aren't causative? i mean, sure, guns dont pull their own triggers. but the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to kill someone. it's so simple it's stupid. that's backed up by the data. 

and it's not like people will just kill with knives. the data says more guns, more overall deaths, not just gun deaths. that's because you are more likely to kill someone if you have a gun. again, so simple it's stupid. 

and did you just admit we do regulate guns and crime has gone down? then by all means, let's close the loop hole that allows forty percent of guns to be sold without a background check.  i know most of my gun rhetoric wont go no where, but by far most people agree with me. congress must be merely beholden to the gun lobby on this one. people who disagree are diehards who ignore common sense constitutionality or they just

Wrong.  Facts prove otherwise.  

If more guns mean more murder, than why have the number of murders by gun gone down for 25 years while the sheer number of legal guns have gone up?   If additional gun laws are a real solution, why hasn't it worked in Chicago?   Use reason and logic.  

I support society working to reduce murders, whether by guns or marshmallows.   I just think we need to work identifying real solutions, not just what emotionally feels "right". 

[little2add]

 

 

just laws exist, one of them is the right to bear arms...

IE: thou shall not kill

the asinine idea that self defense  is some how wrong has caused most of the grief, sorrow and misery know in this world, today.

Just look at what is currently going on in Syria, Christians are being exterminated, over 9 million have fled there homes.   The Germans and their collaborators killed between 160,000 and 180,000 German Jews in the Holocaust.

the mass killings we have seen in the US, don't happen in countries like Israel and Israel  it is a far more dangerous place than the US

gun free zones are not logical or safe - law abiding citizens with guns is

 

Edited October 9, 2015 by little2add

[dairygirl4u2c]

the facts are backed by common sense and at least my own anecdotal evidence: the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to kill someone. 

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/

i can also find you studies that compares this stuff by the state. 
i would challenge you to find any reputable study that says otherwise. and not NRA fox new etc are not good sources. 

chicago like i said is a special case. they get guns from other areas where it's not illegal. it's hard to say what will happen when local areas ban stuff. you will see mixed results. you need a more concerted effort if you are going to get into the banning business. 
and perhaps the USA is an outlier and didn't follow the guns v murders trend that happens globally, but it's just that, an outlier, and the more likely you are to reduce guns, the more likely you are to have less deaths. 

australia as i said is a shining example of all that that i just linked to. 

if i could ban guns and take them back, i probably would. and just accept that some people will be left defenseless. i admit the consequences of my actions. but you should admit the consequences of yours..... with more gun rights and more guns, means more overall deaths. we'd only need more defense cause we have more guns to begin with. right now the defense to murder rate is about 1 to 30.... if we halved guns, i dont know that it'd be proportional but i'm sure it'd be a better situation, if we doubled the guns, it'd be a worse situation. 
it's not irrational to want guns for defense. just admit the consquences. 

and i'm not opposed to getting rid of gun free zones as i said. i dont know it would work out better though. i might be proven wrong. but i insist that more guns, equals more death