How To Argue For Gun Control.

More law abiding people having guns, yes. Why don't we have mass shootings at police stations, gun shops, shows, and ranges?

 

The difference here is that I'm talking about mostly harmless idiots troping around in bed sheets, not uniformed soldiers committing war crimes and murder.

No one is happy with the numbers. We just think that your proposals are either ineffective or overkill compared to how many people died.

Like yourself?

 

Yes it is, the growing vitriol i've been seeing towards "the left" in recent years is geuinely scary

And it's a bit rich for the NRA to refer to the "clenched fist of truth" when they're some of the biggest propaganda pedelers around

 

Everybody is a good driver until they crash. Therefore, we should ban high speed cars.

If more guns equal more crime then we should have mass shootings mostly at the places I've listed.

 

Except for the last part. II'm not requiring anything. It's ridiculous to ban something that (1) hasn't been used in a lot of crimes, (2) higly impractical, and (3) can be easily replicated by household items or even natural items like sticks. And again, this guy was rich. Had he wanted to obtained an automatic firearm, he would've either gone through the legal process of getting a pre 1986 automatic firearm or paid someo e to illegally convert a firearm into an automatic one.

 

What I don't understand is why fo people believe that gun laws will prevent murder, assault, home invasion, burglary, etc...

Statistics show that the states with the strictest gun laws have a much higher number of crimes!

Look at Washington, D.C. Vs. Arlington Virginia. They are pretty much attached, but divided by a state line. Va has laxed laws while Washington, D.C. Has the strictest laws in the country and is a very dangerous places to live. Why? Might it be Because people can not defend themselves and the potential for victims is there, without a risk to the criminal.

In Washington, D.C. you are not allowed to have a handgun in your home and it has been like this since 1975 yet crimes committed with guns are very high. Over 4700 rapes per 100 000 each year. That is shocking to me.

Crimes committed with guns are not committed by guns obtained legally.

 

That's how wars are won.

 

Here is a firearm deaths by state map AND a gun laws by state map.

Now lets see... I'm betting that there are more deaths by firearm in states with looser gun laws, but I haven't looked at the data yet.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/Firearm.htm
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

You can see the correlations. For the firearm death rate map the highest is Louisiana. The lowest is Hawaii. The NRAs data has gun law data for both. In Louisiana there is no requirement for a permit to purchase, or requirement to register, or permit to carry shotguns or rifles (there is a law requiring a permit to carry handguns). In Hawaii there is a requirement of permit to purchase and register, but you don't need a permit to carry shotguns and rifles. You do for handguns.

Very different in terms of permit to purchase and requirement to register. And very different in terms of firearm death rate. We can go state to state making these comparisons. Those are the two at opposite ends of the death rate spectrum.

 

Legally purchased guns is not the problem. You believe that gun laws will stop criminals from obtaining guns?

Maybe louisianna is a better shot. They have better aim. Deaths and crimes committed with guns are two different things.

Less that 3 percent of shootings were done by guns legally obtained. 97 percent were illegally obtained and bought on the street. Not a registered firearm.

How many crimes were committed with a gun..? How many rape victims had a gun put to their head? How many burglaries were carried out and the criminal had a gun. Dying is easy, surviving a rape, assault, being robbed at gun point is ork to get past. But let's ensure victims can not have the option to protect themselves.

Studies show that in states without strict gun laws p, criminals are less likely to burglarize homes or businesses because the potential victims have guns too.

 

I don't like the argument that it's the criminals that you have to worry about. I think that fewer guns in the hands of fewer people will lower the homicide rate. If you look at the data for gun laws that I provided you see that people who can easily get guns tend to shoot each other. It's not just "the criminals".

There is data to answer your questions about crimes committed with guns. As for rape victims I don't doubt that that is often the case. Burglaries where the criminal had a gun is harder to know because some of the time the person committing the crime does not get caught, or if they do, it may be after the fact such that whether they had a weapon or not is not clearly apparent.

You should go through that data from the CDC website. It shows 18.5 firearm death rate in 2005 and 20.4 in 2015. That means it's getting worse. I honestly don't know why, but it may be that they have loosened the reigns.

We can speculate all we want. The limited data that we have, though, correlates rates gun death to rates of gun ownership.

 

Here is a great article about gun control. It talks about facts. http://www.armedwithreason.com/less-guns-less-crime-debunking-the-self-defense-myth/

 

Niether is the saying "everybody is a lsw abiding citizen until they're not. Thereforewe should ban so called assault weapons and bump stocks."

There's all sorts of guns at gun shows yet there hasnt been a mass shooting there.

 

Nuclear weapons requires special permission and security clearances to opeerate them. No one person has full control of them. I've stated that I'm for the private ownership of any weapon the average soldier has access to that doesn't require special security clearance to operate.

As stated, to provide suppressive fire.

Bump fire can be easily replicated as I've shown. In fact, you don't even need to bump fire in to shoot fast. You can pull a trigger on a semi automatic at roughly 5 rounds a second. Giving you roughly 300 rounds per minute. The slower automatic weapons fire at roughly a hundred rounds more than what you can do with your hand. And 30mm chain guns fire less than that.

Probably because of his ignorance of firearms and for the latter question, the Second Amendment prohibits the complete ban on weapons. Therefore that's why we have taxed items.

Murder is also illegal. If he was willing to commit murder then I doubt illegally altering a firearm would've been much of a barrier. Not only that but the police were able to track his firearm purchases.

Again, for suppressive fire.