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

[dairygirl4u2c]

more guns means more overall homicides

the evidence is overwhelming

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

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

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/abstract

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stlpl12&div=18&id=&page=

[Peace]

more guns means more overall homicides

the evidence is overwhelming

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

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

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/abstract

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stlpl12&div=18&id=&page=

But do more restrictive gun laws mean more deaths (or other crimes)? I think this is the question most of us are interested in. If we lived on a secluded island where it was possible to keep all guns out that would be one story, but what happens in a county like the USA with huge borders? Do you end up with a situation where criminals can still get them easily but law abing citizens cannot access them for their own defense?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont know the magical gun control, but over ninety percent of gun researchers say more gun control is better than none. 

i would expect if we banned and confiscated weopons that gun murders would go down as that's what the evidence indicates. i'm sure with the open borders etc that there would still be some murder, and defenseless people, just not as much. the main reason people need a gun for self defense is because there's so many guns to begin with. ive never seen someone acknowledge "yes we get more murder with gun rights, but that's the way it is for self defense". but it seems that's what the situation is. getting rid of guns should be taken seriously, i just dont know the exact numbers for what would happen. 

i know australia banned and confiscated a bunch of more serious guns and they knocked their rate in half. and they went from one mass shooting per year to none, that's not a statistical anomaly. that's not bad, if it was more serious confiscating, i could see it knocking say eighty percent of the murders. is that worth it while leaving people defenseless? i suppose it's not unreasonable to think otherwise than what im pushing, but yhou should at least acknowledge the deaths you're allowing for and openly consider both sides. 

as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense. 

i acknowledge it would be a messy transition to get rid of guns. and political reality is it aint gonna happen in this lifetimes or anytime soon relative to that. plus the USA has search and seizure laws to keep it harder to deal with. not that i'm complaining, just pointing out what some other countries dont deal with as much.

Edited November 10, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i reluctantly would probably support bans and confiscation on a nationwide scale. this view doesn't make me popular and i dont like taking people's guns away. and i am open to evidence to contradict my main premises and cause me more caution in my view. i am just openly considering the idea, which is what i think should be expected from everyone. 

it's also important to note. most people who have guns for self defense are just people. who may or may not turn into criminals. it's not like there's a magic line between criminal or not. so reducing guns would reduce the number of people with guns and thus reduce murders. 

[little2add]

[Socrates]

Wow!  Shocking news:  Guns are dangerous!  (And all this time we dumb conservatives thought they were just harmless fluffy toys great for leaving in babies' cribs and such.)

But while we're in this mania for demanding that the almighty, all-wise Nanny-State keep dangerous things out of the hands of Little People, why not focus on banning swimming pools or motor vehicles, which kill more than guns in the U.S.?  (Well actually, at least one popular leftist blogger has demanded that gubmint ban the latter.)

The left's anti-gun obsession is a bit weird.

 

(Or better still, why not focus on abortion clinics?  Oh, but unlike keeping arms, that's a woman's constitutional right!  Or so the all-knowing men in the black robes tell us.)

[Winchester]

more guns means more overall homicides

the evidence is overwhelming

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

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

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/abstract

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stlpl12&div=18&id=&page=

If A is attacking B and B ends up killing A in self defense, that's homicide.

You're moving from correlation to causation. In the UK, for instance, homicide rates were lower than in the US (I think it's a mistake to consider the US as a single entity, but it is what it is) prior to their increased gun restrictions.

 

Later you state that you would be for gun confiscation. It appears then that you approve of some forms of violence. So maybe parse out suicides, self defense, and murder. I would suggest also considering the effects of the drug war.

[dairygirl4u2c]

we have umpteen more murders for every defensive homicide, so i dont think making this point changes anything because it's all proportional still. 

the only counter i can think of per correlation and causation is the countires and areas happen to be more violent, so people get more guns. not so much that people have guns so it gets more violent. i think the common sense understanding is though that one person is more  dangerous with a gun, imagine all the more lots of people with guns. so i think gun presence is causative. 

i dont know how local gun bans without confiscation or various gun control politces will play out. citing one example is anecdotal at best. at in reality the point isn't about x non ban nonconfiscation gun control policy, but that gun and murders are proporitional so maybe bans and confiscation might do something. 

yes i am in favor of some violence, such as gun confiscation. and i think the president should have plenty of guns at his disposal. i dont think this makes me a hypocrite, i think he's an important man who people want to speciiclaly kill, so he gets special attention. and the people he has guard him aren't prone to using their guns to murder, so the problem as it might sit here is moot. 

comparing guns to car wrecks and pool deaths is ridiculous. the later are things that people choose to participate in and they are not designed to kill. guns murders are non voluntary and guns are designed to kill. 

Edited November 11, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[little2add]

 When you see things that happened in France yesterday     Gun ownership for the individual to protect themselves makes a lot more sense 

[Socrates]

yes i am in favor of some violence, such as gun confiscation. and i think the president should have plenty of guns at his disposal. i dont think this makes me a hypocrite, i think he's an important man who people want to speciiclaly kill, so he gets special attention.  

 

So the right to personal protection should belong only to Important People like Dear Leader Barack Hussein Hillary Rodham Obama, and not to us lowly commoners.  Got it.

 

comparing guns to car wrecks and pool deaths is ridiculous. the later are things that people choose to participate in and they are not designed to kill. guns murders are non voluntary and guns are designed to kill.

The vast majority of gun-owners are not murderers, nor do they have intent to murder.

[Socrates]

 When you see things that happened in France yesterday     Gun ownership for the individual to protect themselves makes a lot more sense 

But mass killings don't happen in places with strict gun-control laws, like France!

. . . Oh, wait . . . 

[Peace]

But mass killings don't happen in places with strict gun-control laws, like France!

. . . Oh, wait . . . 

Did anyone actually say that?

[Socrates]

Did anyone actually say that?

I thought the alleged rationale for "gun-control" laws was to prevent murder, especially mass murders such as those Dear Leader insisted "don't happen in other countries."

[Peace]

I thought the alleged rationale for "gun-control" laws was to prevent murder, especially mass murders such as those Dear Leader insisted "don't happen in other countries."

I don't see why you must refer to the president with such an antagonizing tone that you would invoke a title used by Kim-Jong Il. I think we can respectfully disagree with our leaders without being insulting (and the same would apply to people who disrespected President Bush - I think that they were wrong too).

But apparently President Obama did say that - I would agree that it is wrong.

[Winchester]

Did anyone actually say that?

Some people do, but usually only in soundbites meant to garner support for central planning of gun ownership.