Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Gun Control Gun Control Forum - For topics and discussions about gun laws, gun policies, and gun rights


Thanks Tree4Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 19th, 2016, 07:08 AM   #1
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
What liberals don’t want to admit about gun control

Quote:
Following the fatal shooting of nine people at a community college in southern Oregon last week, President Obama renewed his call for "sufficient, common-sense gun-safety laws." Yet there is only limited evidence that piecemeal regulation of the kind that policymakers in Washington and in state houses around the country are considering would substantially reduce gun fatalities.

Take a prohibition on assault weapons, one of the most common proposals. The ban might make mass shootings less deadly, but most homicides are committed with handguns. A rule that owners must store their guns under lock and key -- if it were followed -- would help keep guns away from suicidal adolescents, but wouldn't protect adults in a violent domestic dispute. Requiring background checks for private sales and transfers would make it harder for convicted felons to buy guns secondhand, but some would still buy guns as a favor to brothers or boyfriends who wouldn't qualify themselves.

Civilians in the United States already own more than enough guns to arm every American man, woman and child. Each of those weapons could end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. As a result, experts say, the main reason that guns cause the deaths of so many Americans is just that America has so many guns. And while most gun-control proposals aim to keep guns out of the wrong hands -- measures that could certainly save lives -- they do not generally address the sheer quantity of guns in this country.

"The big problem is the guns," said David Hemenway, a professor of public health at Harvard University.

"Guns are incredibly lethal," he said. "It's easy to kill with a gun." There aren't other ways to take a life that are equally effective. A knife wound is about eight times less likely, for instance, to take a life than a gunshot wound.

A mandatory buy-back program, along the lines of Australia's highly successful ban on shotguns and semiautomatic and automatic rifles, could be effective in reducing the number of firearms. In Australia's case, a mass shooting at a tourist destination on the island of Tasmania led the country's conservative prime minister to require owners to sell their guns to the government in 1996. The government seized at least 650,000 guns -- about one in five guns in civilian hands at the time. The result was a reduction of nearly 80 percent in the rate of suicides by firearm. And the data suggest that Australians didn't simply use other methods besides guns to commit suicide. The policy likely saved hundreds of lives a year.

[Read more: Did gun control work in Australia?]

Homicides by firearm also declined sharply, although since there were so few homicides in Australia before the ban, it is hard to know what to make of the data. Yet such broad programs aren't discussed in the current political climate in the United States.

On Monday, Hillary Rodham Clinton laid out a plan to require buyers at gun shows to pass background checks. And Obama is considering similar measures, The Washington Post reported -- bypassing Congress through his executive authority as president to expand background checks into what are currently considered private sales.

There is reason to believe that requiring background checks for all purchases -- not just for transactions at licensed retailers, as current law requires -- could prevent some firearms deaths, though it is not clear how many.

"The best we can do is say, 'The evidence is very suggestive, and it seems to make sense,' " Hemenway said.

Researchers have studied laws in Connecticut and Missouri requiring a purchaser to pass a background check and get a permit in order to buy guns privately. These laws prevented about a few dozen homicides a year, according to those studies. In the case of Connecticut, the law appeared to cause a substantial, 40 percent decline in the gun homicide rate, but again, in a small state with relatively few homicides to begin with, researchers need more information to determine whether the background checks would have a similar effect elsewhere. In Missouri's case, the change in the gun homicide rate was smaller, and it is unclear whether background checks reduce the rate of suicide.

And shootings such as the one last week show that background checks sometimes aren't enough to avert violence.

Authorities say Chris Harper Mercer had 13 guns and took six with him on his rampage at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore. He or members of his family reportedly acquired all of the weapons from retailers, meaning that they passed background checks. Adam Lanza, who authorities say shot and killed 26 at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. in 2012, is said to have killed his mother before taking guns she had purchased.

Maybe more thorough background checks, involving more than just a review of a buyer's criminal and medical records, could have prevented these killings, but it's hard to say. Dylann Roof, the young man who allegedly killed 9 people at a church in Charleston, S.C. in June, passed a background check despite his arrest on a narcotics charge. The arrest should have barred him from purchasing a weapon.

No system of background checks will be perfect at capturing the rare person who sets out to kill many. That said, most gun related deaths a year aren't mass killings, but disputes involving one or two people that go wrong. So far this year, there have been fewer than 400 deaths in shootings in which four or more people were killed or wounded, and about 10,000 firearm homicides in total, according to organizations that monitor gun violence in the United States.

Clinton's plan also calls for revoking the licenses of dealers who "knowingly supply" guns to the black market. It's difficult, though, for law enforcement to prove that a dealer knows who is buying his wares and to what end, said Jay Wachtel, a former agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who spent much of his career on the trail of gun traffickers in Los Angeles.

[Read more: So far in 2015, we’ve had 274 days and 294 mass shootings]

Wonkbook newsletter

Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.

It is true that there are far fewer deaths involving guns in states with more restrictive rules on firearms, according to Hemenway and his colleagues, who thoroughly examined the issue in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2013. At the same time, there are also far fewer guns in those states to begin with. So it's hard to know what to make of the connection.

The study noted that deaths involving firearms (including both suicides and homicides) were more than twice as common in the states with the most lax laws on guns compared to the states with the most stringent laws. Yet when adjusting for the number of guns -- along with demographic variables and the rate of violent deaths not involving firearms -- these two groups of states had identical rates of gun fatalities.

It could be that where fewer people own firearms, more people are willing to support gun-control legislation. That legislation itself might not reduce the rate of fatalities, but because there are fewer guns, there are fewer deaths.

In any case, as long as guns remain so prevalent in American life, it appears that violent shooting deaths will continue. Another shooting, this time on the campus of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, wounded three people and killed another Friday morning.

"The availability of firearms feeds this problem, but then, what the hell are you going to do about it?" asked Wachtel, who now teaches criminal justice at California State University, Fullerton. Meaningful changes to the nation's firearms policy aren't politically feasible, he said: "We're screwed. This is America."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-gun-control/
coke is offline  
Old October 19th, 2016, 02:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,133
lets do some math.

lets say there is one gun per person in america. thats 350 million guns. thats an underestimate

a gun buy back scheme similar to australias will mean 1 in 5 get bought by the federal government. given the kind of guns available in america, this is definitely an under estimate.

thats 70 million semiautomatic firearms, bought at commercial prices. lets underestimate again and say thats $500 per firearm

thats $35 billion. and thats way underestimating.
hot dragon is offline  
Old October 19th, 2016, 03:32 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
lets do some math.

lets say there is one gun per person in america. thats 350 million guns. thats an underestimate

a gun buy back scheme similar to australias will mean 1 in 5 get bought by the federal government. given the kind of guns available in america, this is definitely an under estimate.

thats 70 million semiautomatic firearms, bought at commercial prices. lets underestimate again and say thats $500 per firearm

thats $35 billion. and thats way underestimating.
IOW, it ain't happening.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 19th, 2016, 03:49 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,828
Regulating guns so that criminals and the insane can't get them because background checks is done with EVERY sale isn't taking away your guns....unless your are going to admit here you are a criminal and/or insane.
Thanks from tristanrobin
LongWinded is offline  
Old October 19th, 2016, 05:56 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
IOW, it ain't happening.
exactly. imagine a president saying "we will not take your guns by force, we will buy back guns from those of you who voluntarily surrender them".

then asking congress for $35 billion to do it.
hot dragon is offline  
Old October 19th, 2016, 09:04 PM   #6
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
lets do some math.

lets say there is one gun per person in america. thats 350 million guns. thats an underestimate

a gun buy back scheme similar to australias will mean 1 in 5 get bought by the federal government. given the kind of guns available in america, this is definitely an under estimate.

thats 70 million semiautomatic firearms, bought at commercial prices. lets underestimate again and say thats $500 per firearm

thats $35 billion. and thats way underestimating.
Quote:
ALBANY, N.Y. — About 44,500 assault weapons have been registered in New York since a new gun-control law was enacted in 2013, records released by State Police to a gun-rights group this week showed.

The Shooters Committee on Public Education, a gun-rights group based in western New York, successfully sued after the state declined to release the details. Now the group claims that the statistics showed what it suspected: Few gun owners are complying with the SAFE Act adopted by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state Legislature in January 2013.

The total number of applications to register assault-style weapons — some applications involved more than one gun — in New York was 25,536.

"The majority of gun owners and sportsmen in New York have absolutely no respect for this law," said Stephen Aldstadt, SCOPE's president.

USA TODAY

Charleston shooting renews gun control debate

The group said that estimates have shown that there are about 1 million assault-style weapons in New York, so if that's the case, about 4% were registered as required under the SAFE Act. But gun-control advocates said there is no way of knowing how many assault-style weapons exist in New York.

About 43% of the registered weapons were in New York City and its suburbs, including the Hudson Valley, the records showed.

By county the most registrations by far were in Suffolk County on Long Island, at 7,300.

Upstate, 2,476 weapons were registered in Erie County as of earlier this month. In Monroe County, there were 2,201 assault-style weapons registered under the law.

The SAFE Act has been widely panned by gun-rights groups, particularly upstate, after it was enacted following the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012.

Paloma Capanna, a Rochester-area lawyer who represented the gun-rights group,noted that about 50,000 assault-style weapons were registered in Connecticut in 2013 after its assault-weapons law was enacted. New York's population is more than five times as large as Connecticut's.

The lawsuit seeking the data was filed on behalf of Bill Robinson, a Penfield gun-rights activist.

USA TODAY

Mourning Charleston, Obama calls for stricter gun laws

Cuomo has hailed the SAFE ACT, saying it has limited the availability of illegal guns and required mental-health officials to report any suspicious activity of gun owners in their care. Gun owners are also required to re-register their weapons every five years, starting in 2018.

Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, praised the 45,000 registrations that have occurred and implored more gun owners to do the same.

"I don't know how SCOPE measures a handful, but I would think it would be difficult to hold 45,000 assault weapons in one hand," she said in a statement. "This is only evidence of how long overdue the SAFE Act was. The fact is, we don't know how many of these weapons are out there. The law does not require individuals to surrender their assault weapons, merely to register them."

A Siena College poll last month found that 62% of voters supported the SAFE Act.

The Republican-led Senate approved changes to the SAFE Act on June 8, such as repealing a requirement that every purchaser of ammunition undergo a background check.

But Cuomo and Assembly Democrats did not agree to any changes to the law as part of a final legislative package set for approval this week.
Gun group cites low compliance with N.Y. law

Quote:
On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called “assault rifles,” they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.

Police had received 47,916 applications for “assault weapons certificates” and 21,000 incomplete applications as of Dec. 31, Lt. Paul Vance told The Courant.

At roughly 50,000 applications, officials estimate that as little as 15 percent of the covered semi-automatic rifles have actually been registered with the state. “No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” the report states.

Needless to say, officials and some lawmakers are stunned.

Due to the new gun control bill passed in April, likely at least 20,000 individual people — possibly as many as 100,000 — are now in direct violation of the law for refusing to register their guns. As we noted above, that act is now a Class D Felony.

Mike Lawlor, “the state’s top official in criminal justice,” suggested maybe the firearms unit in Connecticut could “sent them a letter.” However, he said an aggressive push to prosecute gun owners in the state is not going to happen at this point.

Lawlor, the undersecretary for criminal justice policy in the state Office of Policy and Management, also suggested that the legislature should reopen the registration period to encourage more gun owners to register their firearms.

You may recall the viral photo of Connecticut gun owners waiting in line to register their guns in December, which one person said reminded them of the “Weimar Germany.”

Holy Crap. Looks like Weimar Germany @chipwoods @MaxCUA CT men waiting in line to register guns with the govt pic.twitter.com/L74YQxkICy

— Legal Immigrant (@votermom) December 31, 2013

Republican state Sen. Tony Guglielmo told The Courant he recently spoke to a constituent at a meeting in Ashford, who informed him that some of his friends with semi-automatic rifles are intentionally taking a stand.

“He made the analogy to prohibition,” the lawmaker recalled. “I said, ‘You’re talking about civil disobedience, and he said ‘Yes.’”

Guglielmo said he really thought the “vast majority would register.”

Other officials think the low registration numbers are due to ignorance on behalf of gun owners who aren’t aware of the new law. It’s impossible to know the main reason why gun owners aren’t showing up to register their guns without hearing from them directly, though Guglielmo’s constituent indicates at least some are practicing “civil disobedience.”

“Sorting out the number of potential new felons is a guessing game. State police have not added up the total number of people who registered the 50,000 firearms, Vance said. So even if we knew the number of illegal guns in the state, we’d have a hard time knowing how many owners they had,” the report concludes.
Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ?Civil Disobedience? by Gun Owners | TheBlaze.com
coke is offline  
Old October 19th, 2016, 09:16 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,893
What's your point?
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 19th, 2016, 09:21 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
lets do some math.

lets say there is one gun per person in america. thats 350 million guns. thats an underestimate

a gun buy back scheme similar to australias will mean 1 in 5 get bought by the federal government. given the kind of guns available in america, this is definitely an under estimate.

thats 70 million semiautomatic firearms, bought at commercial prices. lets underestimate again and say thats $500 per firearm

thats $35 billion. and thats way underestimating.
By using semi-automatic firearms I assume you mean assault rifles and not a semi-auto pistol with a seven round magazine. $500 will not buy a legal or illegal assault rifle. Probably at least four times that amount so that would be at least 140 billion for a buy back program. Who is going to pay for that?
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old October 20th, 2016, 03:17 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
By using semi-automatic firearms I assume you mean assault rifles and not a semi-auto pistol with a seven round magazine. $500 will not buy a legal or illegal assault rifle. Probably at least four times that amount so that would be at least 140 billion for a buy back program. Who is going to pay for that?
i know i underestimated, that was deliberate so the figures could not be challenged as inflated. your figure is probably closer to home. which underlines the point i was making - american liberal gun control fans need to stop thinking about australia as a good example of a gun buy back program: its just too expensive. forget the morality, forget the lives saved, its too expensive.
hot dragon is offline  
Old October 20th, 2016, 04:59 PM   #10
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,964
Sabcat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Tags
admit, control, don’t, don’t, gun, liberals



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
You HAVE to admit- even if you're a Trumpeteer - this is funny! tristanrobin Current Events 0 October 13th, 2016 09:19 AM
It's Time To Admit: Nobody Knows Anything About The 2016 Campaign LongWinded Political Talk 9 October 18th, 2015 05:47 PM
Liberals & Gun Control: The Hurdle congo Current Events 49 October 16th, 2015 06:21 AM
Many disability recipients admit they could work Uncle Han Current Events 0 July 31st, 2013 06:03 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.