Proof That Gun Control Really Works

Double post-damn touchy laptop

This is the major disconnect between the two sides. The liberals typically say we need tougher gun laws to save lives. Conservatives say taking a gun away from a law abiding citizen (the only people who obey gun laws) does nothing to stop criminals from killing people.

If you really do want to save lives legislation is not the answer. Legislation does not change behavior. It only provides a reason to prosecute after the fact. Think about it. We made stealing illegal. It didn't stop people from stealing, it only gave us a reason to prosecute them after the crime was committed. We made speeding illegal. It didn't stop people from speeding, it only gave us a reason to prosecute them after the crime was committed. We made murder illegal. It didn't stop people from killing, it only gave us a reason to prosecute them after the crime was committed.

Clearly, if saving lives is your goal then legislation that does not intervene until after the crime has been committed is not the answer. Worse yet, we have been proving this is not the answer for decades and still refuse to accept the fact that legislation does not change behavior. Its not like it hasn't been tried and no one knows what will happen. Its been done over and over for decades, it has never worked, and it never will work. It can't.

a reply to: StallionDuck

- Man uses gun in a felony crime - Becomes convicted Felon
- Man gets released
- Man commits another crime with a gun as a convicted felon
- Man gets released
- Man commits another crime with a gun as a convicted felon
- Man gets released
- Man commits another crime with a gun as a convicted felon while holding a hostage.

Interesting... the first word in every sentence is "man" does something...

Maybe we should ban that man? Just a thought...

TheRedneck

It's too late, Pandoras box has been open a long time, you can't put the rabbit back in the hat.
Just to make it clear. The majority of gun crime is committed by criminals (now I'll put it big letters so you can see), CRIMINALS, BY THE NATURE OF BEING CRIMINAL, DO NOT OBEY ANY LAW OR RULE, SO BANNING GUNS WILL NOT MAKE THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE TO A CRIMINAL. Even the death penalty didn't stop gun crime, though it did stop re-offending.
Is THAT clear enough for you. If anybody seriously wanted a gun, even if there is a law banning them, they will always get one. It's the person that's the danger not the weapon. Answer that and you might, I say might, make a difference.

a reply to: StallionDuck

I think it's an example of all the loopholes out there.

I have been assured by many gun owners that the laws are sufficient for the situation, yet this felon gun-owner is able to obtain guns pretty freely from what I see. However, I see this as an example that the current laws are NOT working and that something that's more stringent needs to be put into place.

originally posted by: crayzeed
It's too late, Pandoras box has been open a long time, you can't put the rabbit back in the hat.
Just to make it clear. The majority of gun crime is committed by criminals (now I'll put it big letters so you can see), CRIMINALS, BY THE NATURE OF BEING CRIMINAL, DO NOT OBEY ANY LAW OR RULE, SO BANNING GUNS WILL NOT MAKE THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE TO A CRIMINAL. Even the death penalty didn't stop gun crime, though it did stop re-offending.
Is THAT clear enough for you. If anybody seriously wanted a gun, even if there is a law banning them, they will always get one. It's the person that's the danger not the weapon. Answer that and you might, I say might, make a difference.

I think that many of the criminals were NOT criminals before they committed their first crime with a gun.

For instance, men who murder their families. The kids who go on shooting rampages at school. Road Rage warriors waving guns and shooting at other cars... etc, etc.

And no, the "if anybody seriously wanted a gun, even if there is a law banning them, they will always get one" argument is very weak since it turns out that states with weaker gun laws have a higher rate of gun related deaths.

As that article I linked says:

...weaker gun laws were common among the states with higher gun death rates: “In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun,”

And sadly, gun laws are mostly state and not Federal and frankly they're a real mess.

a reply to: Byrd



How many murders a year are there in the US a year? All around? yet its illegal?

Its funny for anyone that googles it...... a year ago you could google it and it would give you a number and a simple breakdown.....now if you google it.....you have to sift through bs.....weird......

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yes, I think that the 20,000 gun control laws (are there really that many? Where does that number come from) are ineffective.

I think they're ineffective because they're not coordinated, they're not equally enforced, they're a patchwork of "stuff" and they're often at cross purposes with laws of neighboring states. Someone can buy one type of gun in one state but can't in a neighboring state because of rules and regulations. I think it needs to be coordinated at the Federal level and a lot of stuff rewritten.

Not that I think it's going to happen any time soon, mind you. I think that there'll be a lot of fights over it, too. But yes, I don't think that the current patchwork of laws that aren't even consistent work very well and I think something more uniform is needed.

Your Mileage May Vary.

All the laws ever passed against any weapons will never stop our nature.Focusing on guns seems easier than admitting people have violence inbred.The fact that more people are beat to death every year than are shot or stabbed never seems to come up on the news or in these forums.Guess its because you can`t ban fists?

a reply to: Byrd

Most of those numbers, whether 20,000 is correct or not IDK, are local, county, state, and federal laws combined. That's how many laws, most duplicated at several levels, if not all of 'em, there are--or at least in that general neighborhood...

That's why many of us are of the opinion that yet more laws will do absolutely nothing to change anything. Enforcement, now... That might actually accomplish something...good or bad, remains to be seen.

Here's a link to an article that seems fairly balanced on the issue... It mentions the handbook that ATF has discussing only Federal regulations, and it's 500+ pages long.

Link

a reply to: Byrd

And no, the "if anybody seriously wanted a gun, even if there is a law banning them, they will always get one" argument is very weak since it turns out that states with weaker gun laws have a higher rate of gun related deaths.

Therein lies the major flaw in your argument: "a higher rate of gun related deaths." The object should be to prevent all deaths, but the narrative is gun related deaths only. I'd bet locations with more traffic have more car-related deaths too.

Your own article states clearly multiple times that it is impossible to determine any kind of cause and effect between gun regulation and crime/homicide. Indeed, many of these "gun related deaths" are from less nefarious sources: suicide, law enforcement, etc. A suicidal person will use the most available method to achieve their goal, but that goal will be the same whichever method they choose. Death by overdose is just as dead as death by .357. And last I heard, there was no call for law enforcement to give up their guns.

TheRedneck

A convicted felon in Louisiana can own a firearm after ten years from the time their sentence is served, if they are a first time offender. That is a State law, not a federal law.

There are no guns here in the U.K. And guess what ? Gun crime is minuscule.

Doubt USA will ever change gun laws though not sure what to blame the gun or the people.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Byrd

Most of those numbers, whether 20,000 is correct or not IDK, are local, county, state, and federal laws combined. That's how many laws, most duplicated at several levels, if not all of 'em, there are--or at least in that general neighborhood...

That's why many of us are of the opinion that yet more laws will do absolutely nothing to change anything. Enforcement, now... That might actually accomplish something...good or bad, remains to be seen.

Here's a link to an article that seems fairly balanced on the issue... It mentions the handbook that ATF has discussing only Federal regulations, and it's 500+ pages long.

Link

An excellent article and, as I suspected, the total number of laws are overstated. As they noted, many of the pages in the ATF list a county but don't list any laws that the county has (it exists so that dealers can look up their county and state and see what applies... or look up the regulations in counties where they may be selling.) So... blank pages there. And gun laws in Michigan don't apply to gun ownership in Texas.

I suspect some of those may be outdated or no longer in effect.

So, we can all agree that the situation as pertains to law is a complete mess with some areas allowing some things that are banned in other places?

I think that laws are reasonably well enforced, but the problem is that when you take a gun into another area, the gun laws are different. So "bump stocks" might be allowed in Killeen, Texas (I have no idea if they are) and you could buy one legally there and then take it to Connecticut... but the state can't make you discard legally purchase property that you bought when you lived in Texas where it was legal.

And I'm pretty sure that the laws covering gun sales are equally byzantine. I've heard gun dealers gripe about some of the changes from state to state.

This policy mish-mash makes it hard even for the best enforcement to do anything... as far as I can see. That's why I'm in favor of ditching local laws for national gun laws.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd

And no, the "if anybody seriously wanted a gun, even if there is a law banning them, they will always get one" argument is very weak since it turns out that states with weaker gun laws have a higher rate of gun related deaths.

Therein lies the major flaw in your argument: "a higher rate of gun related deaths." The object should be to prevent all deaths, but the narrative is gun related deaths only. I'd bet locations with more traffic have more car-related deaths too.

You've taught math - so you know that rates (rather than numbers) are the leveler. And I'm afraid that the statistics on the rates of vehicular deaths don't confirm your assumption... California has a lower rate of vehicle fatalities than Alabama does Mississippi and South Carolina and other Southern states seem to have the highest rates.

Your own article states clearly multiple times that it is impossible to determine any kind of cause and effect between gun regulation and crime/homicide. Indeed, many of these "gun related deaths" are from less nefarious sources: suicide, law enforcement, etc. A suicidal person will use the most available method to achieve their goal, but that goal will be the same whichever method they choose. Death by overdose is just as dead as death by .357.

However, in areas where guns are more restricted or less easily obtained, numbers of suicides are lower. If you're suicidal, it's easy to get a gun and shoot if the state has few restrictions. If you family doesn't own a gun, yes it's absolutely possible to commit suicide... but it takes more planning and it's easier to revive someone if they haven't used a shotgun to the face as their final exit plan.

And last I heard, there was no call for law enforcement to give up their guns.

Actually, there are calls to de-militarize the police. This has been going on for some time. You may not be aware of it, because some of the groups in this dialogue are associated with Black Lives Matter and other liberal groups. Many point to Great Britain, where law enforcement do not regularly carry guns.

a reply to: Byrd

Me too, ditch all for federal law. And the the supremacy clause to the US Constitution clearly states “shall not be infringed” as the ultimate federal firearm law. Easy guidelines that anyone can understand, but that also puts full automatics back in the hands of convicted felons and mentally incompetent.

Makes it an all or nothing situation at that point. Unless you make the argument of regulation of imported firearms having restrictions such as semi automatic maximum (or even zero imported firearms) which is constitutionally acceptable policy.

a reply to: Invision123

There are no guns here in the U.K. And guess what ? Gun crime is minuscule.

Yes. Yes. We know. The U.K. is paradise, a veritable Utopia that even Milton himself could never have visualized in his wildest imaginings... We'll just ignore the other crimes that are rampant in some areas of the U.K. that have lead to calls to ban knives and such.

a reply to: Byrd

And I'm afraid that the statistics on the rates of vehicular deaths don't confirm your assumption... California has a lower rate of vehicle fatalities than Alabama does Mississippi and South Carolina and other Southern states seem to have the highest rates.

But herein lies the issue: since you found evidence that vehicle deaths per capita are lower in California than in Alabama, and it is a foregone conclusion that there are more vehicles on the roads on California than in Alabama, would you then hypothesize that more vehicles means less accidents?

I certainly hope not. I certainly wouldn't.

But that is the same kind of logic that many use to try and justify the concept that gun control means fewer gun-related deaths. You mention how suicides are lower where there is more regulation, but does that number include attempted suicides? As in, the poor shmuck who decides to take enough opiates to make a herd of elephants fly around Saturn, gets his stomach pumped, but has brain damage so he lives the rest of his life as a vegetable? I don't know how you feel, but that would be a fate much worse than a shotgun to the face as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, there are calls to de-militarize the police.

I'm one of those calling for such. But I am not calling for disarmament, because I don't like hearing about law enforcement officers getting an acute case of lead poisoning. There is an optimal balance.

The support of a sick organization like BLM does not take away from the reasoning behind a good idea, any more than the support of David Duke made Trump a Klansman.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd

And I'm afraid that the statistics on the rates of vehicular deaths don't confirm your assumption... California has a lower rate of vehicle fatalities than Alabama does Mississippi and South Carolina and other Southern states seem to have the highest rates.

But herein lies the issue: since you found evidence that vehicle deaths per capita are lower in California than in Alabama, and it is a foregone conclusion that there are more vehicles on the roads on California than in Alabama, would you then hypothesize that more vehicles means less accidents?

It means that it's harder to get a drivers' license in California and that they have a lot more restrictions than Alabama does. There's no exemptions for farm families/hardships (I'm sure we both know cases where 14 year olds drove to some extent to help out their families. Or at least I certainly do.) There's fewer long stretches of road with no enforcement in Alabama (having driven through both.)

So... more regulation is the answer in cars.

But that is the same kind of logic that many use to try and justify the concept that gun control means fewer gun-related deaths. You mention how suicides are lower where there is more regulation, but does that number include attempted suicides? As in, the poor shmuck who decides to take enough opiates to make a herd of elephants fly around Saturn, gets his stomach pumped, but has brain damage so he lives the rest of his life as a vegetable? I don't know how you feel, but that would be a fate much worse than a shotgun to the face as far as I'm concerned.

Unsuccessful gun suicides often have the same outcome - pain and extreme disability. Actually, unsuccessful gun suicides have a higher rate of disability than other types of unsuccessful suicide, I believe.

Actually, there are calls to de-militarize the police.

I'm one of those calling for such. But I am not calling for disarmament, because I don't like hearing about law enforcement officers getting an acute case of lead poisoning. There is an optimal balance.

I don' t think anyone wants them disarmed but they do want some changes.

The support of a sick organization like BLM does not take away from the reasoning behind a good idea, any more than the support of David Duke made Trump a Klansman.

I think you may have been getting your information on BLM from sources that wanted to promote fear and horror about them. See Wikipedia.

a reply to: Byrd

It means that it's harder to get a drivers' license in California and that they have a lot more restrictions than Alabama does. There's no exemptions for farm families/hardships (I'm sure we both know cases where 14 year olds drove to some extent to help out their families. Or at least I certainly do.) There's fewer long stretches of road with no enforcement in Alabama (having driven through both.)

So... more regulation is the answer in cars.

I think your information may be a bit dated. 14 year olds no longer get to help out because of a hardship; the days of police looking the other way on that issue are long gone. A few still drive farm trucks around the farm, but they are strictly forbidden from public right-of-ways.

I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I don't think many accidents happen on those long rural roads without enforcement. Most accidents happen in the more urban or at least suburban areas.

I would rather hazard to guess that required maintenance and lower speeds would be more responsible for a lack of California accidents. I also wonder what the situation there is for drivers driving intoxicated? I know it is illegal, but here it still seems to happen far too much.

Unsuccessful gun suicides often have the same outcome - pain and extreme disability. Actually, unsuccessful gun suicides have a higher rate of disability than other types of unsuccessful suicide, I believe.

Really? I would think they would have a higher rate of success.

I think you may have been getting your information on BLM from sources that wanted to promote fear and horror about them.

Possibly, but so far everything I have seen leads me to believe they are a group of activists with an agenda that includes discrimination against other races, reparations for slavery, and general anger at anyone not black. Black lives do matter, just as much as any other lives, but not moreso than other lives. It appears to me the movement had a good objective at its base, but was then hijacked by a more extreme faction.

It's really sad when something like that happens... it happened to the KKK here and turned them in a racist club.

TheRedneck