Gun Control Debate #3

[EuTuCroquet?]

... from handguns. From pistols. From lower-speed ammo. From smaller ammo. From lower-round firearms.

LINK: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html

Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or “yawing,” when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.

Lots of people here are saying that. The doctor that everyone refers to is saying that wounds from an AR are so much worse than from other firearms. There seems to be much disucssion of banning AR rifles.

Just putting OP's comments back in context, imo. Thanks.

 

[Bernina]

I've been looking for a study, graph, chart, *whatever*, on the numbers for "justifiable vs unjustifiable" gun deaths......ain't happening!

I want to see gun deaths in the USA that represent "innocent victims", ie, NOT criminals, gangs killing each other, police killing criminals, non-criminal citizens killing criminals. "Innocent victims" would not include people who are engaging in criminal activity, ie., drug use, prostitution, auto and other theft, organized crime, etc., etc. Gun deaths with suicides omitted, whether by cop or self inflicted.


A person (non-criminal) sitting in their living room watching TV and they get shot by an intruder.
A law abiding citizen walking down a street hit by a drive by.
School shootings.
Public gathering shootings.
Deadly armed robberies.
Domestic abuse.
THAT'S the numbers I'd like to see.

Break it down to "You live by the sword, you die by the sword". If you're involved in the criminal element, is your death considered "unjustified"? I'd say the individual put themself in a dangerous situation to begin with. It might not be "unjustified", but it surely wasn't unpredicted.

Put suicide in the same category........if you look at the warnings on the bulk of antidepressants, what does it say? "May cause suicidal thoughts or actions". Regardless if it's preventable or not.......that's a choice, whether you're in your right mind or not, I'd place that on lack of mental health care, not gun control.
Lack of gun safety/precaution. A person doesn't store their firearms properly and a gun accidentally goes off when found by a child, visitor ect. Same category. That's human stupidity.

LE shot in the line of duty.........delete their fatalities too. That's a by product of their job description.

I would really like to see how many innocent, law abiding citizens are shot and killed by no fault of their own.

I'm really getting tired of statistics that play towards the cause of whatever the group is that's putting the numbers out, ie., race, social economics, mental health, fear mongering, pro and anti firearm, etc., etc.

I'm kinda getting tired of comparisons to other countries also.........the US is unique in it's cultural melting pot, it is unlike any other country, good or bad. It's foundation was "freedom from oppression" so there's a bit of paranoia that runs through it's underbelly.

Can anyone find that info? "Google" is definitely NOT my friend on this........

 

[bluesneakers]

The majority of gun owners..yes IMO, don't own them for the purpose of harming others. To me, when someone murders or does bodily harm through use of a gun, they are either under the influence, mentally ill or just plain evil. Someone with intent will use any means available to cause harm...not just a gun. I think there is a larger and much broader issue.

What about when it's a child? Toddlers don't mean to kill people.

 

[rsd1200]

People living on low incomes can't even buy groceries without getting everyone's approval.

O/T Ain't that the truth. I'd much rather chip in a bit, to help them out, and be thankful that I don't have to use food stamps. I had to use them in the 80s, (the 80s were rough here), when they were paper, and brightly colored. I went to another county to get groceries.

 

[bobcat]

I see a slippery slope fallacy supporting an argument that does nothing to help reduce mass shootings and firearm deaths. For a debate to make progress arguments need to follow the rules of logic. Otherwise it goes in circles until it hits a wall.

I think that’s exactly what will happen, not just here on this forum, but in real life. Because banning guns is not the solution. Bump stocks might be banned, big deal, they are not the issue. Perhaps a minimum age of 21 to purchase semi-automatic rifles. That might become law, I think it’s possible. Or age of 21 to purchase any gun? Maybe, but I doubt that would pass. Hopefully the real problems will be addressed instead of simply trying to blame it on guns.

 

[rsd1200]

Trust me, a felony embezzlement crime is NOT a “penny ante”. It had to be significant and/or past history of like crimes.
Lesser crimes that could have been charges were theft or a misdemeanor.
I’ve made that clear previously.

Felons can’t legally obtain guns. Period.
We want stricter gun controls in general, right?
I know I do.

Moo

The Kentucky House voted 80 to 11 Friday for a bill that would let people convicted of Class D felonies erase their criminal records and get a second chance at jobs, housing and other opportunities sometimes denied felons.


State law allows people to petition a court to have misdemeanors and violations expunged from all public records five years after they complete their sentences.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, told reporters he didn’t know the answers to Stivers’ questions. The bill doesn’t mention voting rights, which is a state constitutional matter. An expungement makes it as if a crime was never committed, Stumbo said, but a state’s expungement doesn’t trump the federal law barring felons from owning guns.


However, on its website, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms says that federal law recognizes state expungements of felonies and permits people who receive them to legally possess firearms.

http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article54903390.html

There's many factors to embezzlement. It is not normally a violent crime. I'm using it as an example. The goal is to keep firearms away from violent offenders. Like domestic violence perpetrators.

For example, in Kentucky, embezzlement is a Class D felony if the property value is between $500 and $10,000. (A class D in Ky. is a low level).Typically, the penalties for embezzlement parallel those of theft or larceny, but it usually depends on the value of the property in question.

Embezzlement is one of those crimes that sounds familiar to most people, but few are able to define correctly. Often used by Hollywood as a convoluted plot device, it’s typically portrayed as involving large sums of money and high-profile business executives. While it certainly can encompass those things, embezzlement is also a fairly common charge against so-called “ordinary” people.

http://www.lexingtondefense.com/embezzlement/

 

[rsd1200]

The majority of gun deaths in America aren’t even homicides, let alone caused by mass shootings. Two-thirds of the more than 33,000 gun deaths that take place in the U.S. every year are suicides (click through the graphic below to see how gun deaths break down):

The historical trends for different kinds of gun deaths don’t all follow the same course. While data suggests that the number of mass shootings similar to the Las Vegas event has gone up, particularly since 2000,2 , homicide rates have fallen significantly from their 1980 peak and continued on a generally downward trajectory for most of the 21st century. Meanwhile, suicides are way up, with the biggest increases among women. The trends are different because the situations are different and the people are different. Maybe different solutions are warranted, as well.

If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work. Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.

There's more info and chart in the link too.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/

 

[K_Z]

Here’s what I guess some don’t get. You want AR-15’s banned because of their high capacity and high rate of fire. Many also want handguns banned or tightly restricted due to their concealability and the fact that handguns are the gun of choice for criminals.Then we have people talking about AR-15’s also being extraordinarily dangerous due to the damage a bullet fired from one will do, and that they’re not needed and not necessary for the average person. Then, we who own and use guns, see that reasoning as the next step to banning, or at least restricting, ALL guns. Such as the very common deer rifles that many people own. What if I told you with my deer rifle I’m capable of easily hitting a target at 1/4 mile. Do you think that capability is “needed?” Maybe deer rifles need to be banned because someone could shoot a whole lot of people a quarter mile away. Some people are capable of even further, like up to a half mile or more. Don’t you see where that this discussion is going that way, to the point of banning ALL guns?

I see a slippery slope fallacy supporting an argument that does nothing to help reduce mass shootings and firearm deaths. For a debate to make progress arguments need to follow the rules of logic. Otherwise it goes in circles until it hits a wall.

It's more insidious than "conspiracy". A lot if it is actual functional ignorance about what guns are, how they work, and how ammunition performs in various circumstances with various makes and models of guns.

Many of the prominent celebrity anti gun commentators and anti gun political activists pose as serious faced "experts", when they do not have even a basic understanding of firearms and ammunition.

Their inaccurate comments frequently make them appear to be stupid, hysterical, or willfully misleading to anyone who understands what firearms are, and how they work.

Terms like "assault weapons" are political terms that are not consistent, logical, or accurate-- but have been coined to further a specific agenda, such as "ban the AR 15". The minute anyone points out the logical and factual inconsistencies, the response is "but guns are bad and kill people" and "if you don't agree with me, you support child killers", and we are "going in circles".

A recent rather astonishing example is the CNN segment a few days ago where Gary Tuchman described these rifles as "fully semi automatic". There was a collective jaw drop of incredulous astonishment from anyone who heard that who understands both the terms "fully automatic" and "semi automatic". Did he attempt to use this made up term to fear monger, or was it out of complete ignorance? CNN doesn't care, because their agenda is anti gun (which differs from "pro safety" and "anti crime"). CNN is just fine with anything that leads their viewers in that direction, whether by accurate data or manufactured propaganda.

Whichever way you look at it, the glass is completely half full, right?

How about a "fully activated bolt action" rifle? Or a "fully pump action shotgun?" Does that make them sound scarier?

 

[rsd1200]

What about when it's a child? Toddlers don't mean to kill people.

I'm chiming back in with my vote for PSAs. Well done, PSAs, that shows stats and urges folks to lock up their firearms at home.

By September of 2017, 43 people were shot by a child, under the age of four!

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/30/toddler-shootings-guns/

 

[Bernina]

The majority of gun deaths in America aren’t even homicides, let alone caused by mass shootings. Two-thirds of the more than 33,000 gun deaths that take place in the U.S. every year are suicides (click through the graphic below to see how gun deaths break down):

The historical trends for different kinds of gun deaths don’t all follow the same course. While data suggests that the number of mass shootings similar to the Las Vegas event has gone up, particularly since 2000,2 , homicide rates have fallen significantly from their 1980 peak and continued on a generally downward trajectory for most of the 21st century. Meanwhile, suicides are way up, with the biggest increases among women. The trends are different because the situations are different and the people are different. Maybe different solutions are warranted, as well.

If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work. Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.

There's more info and chart in the link too.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/

:tyou::tyou::tyou:

 

[Elley Mae]

Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use



http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf


Number of justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers and private citizens in the United States from 2007 to 2015

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

The Kentucky House voted 80 to 11 Friday for a bill that would let people convicted of Class D felonies erase their criminal records and get a second chance at jobs, housing and other opportunities sometimes denied felons.


State law allows people to petition a court to have misdemeanors and violations expunged from all public records five years after they complete their sentences.



http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article54903390.html

There's many factors to embezzlement. It is not normally a violent crime. I'm using it as an example. The goal is to keep firearms away from violent offenders. Like domestic violence perpetrators.

For example, in Kentucky, embezzlement is a Class D felony if the property value is between $500 and $10,000. (A class D in Ky. is a low level).Typically, the penalties for embezzlement parallel those of theft or larceny, but it usually depends on the value of the property in question.



http://www.lexingtondefense.com/embezzlement/

So where do you propose to draw the line? Class A, B, C, or D?

Also, embezzlement is often more defined by the fact that the person had a specific entrustment or role. Not simply a theft.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

The majority of gun deaths in America aren’t even homicides, let alone caused by mass shootings. Two-thirds of the more than 33,000 gun deaths that take place in the U.S. every year are suicides (click through the graphic below to see how gun deaths break down):

The historical trends for different kinds of gun deaths don’t all follow the same course. While data suggests that the number of mass shootings similar to the Las Vegas event has gone up, particularly since 2000,2 , homicide rates have fallen significantly from their 1980 peak and continued on a generally downward trajectory for most of the 21st century. Meanwhile, suicides are way up, with the biggest increases among women. The trends are different because the situations are different and the people are different. Maybe different solutions are warranted, as well.

If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work. Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.

There's more info and chart in the link too.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/

^^^ Truth! ^^^

Thank you, rsd. ❤️ I agree. It’s very important we don’t lose our focus on the big picture, imo.

Domestic violence, divorce, drug and alcohol use and abuse, mental issues (short-term aka situational and DSM diagnoses), criminality — they all contribute to many forms of violence.

What makes all gun violence the most deadly form of violence, including suicide attempts, is the abundance and ease of access to such highly lethal weapons. IMO. Studies and what limited research there is available also shows this to be true.

Generally speaking:

1. There seems to be a general consensus to more consistently enforce the laws we have.

2. Maybe even create mandatory minimum terms for felons with illegal firearms. (If they’re sentenced to 10 years, they get 10. Period. No early release.)

3. Equalize purchasing age to 21.

4. Limit high-capacity magazines, primarily with semiauto rifles.

And you’re also right, rsd, the parallel discussion on how to better treat and support contributors to that violence equation — domestic violence, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse and addiction — the SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE needed for long-term change, is largely ignored or minimized with loaded language like “stop the crazies,” etc.

But it’s an essential part of the equation and should not be ignored. IMO

Thank you for your thought-provoking post. It adds *compassion* and *humanity* back into the discussion, imo.

ETA: I’m adding the recommendation a fellow poster here made, I think in the last thread, about our federal government demanding better research and data on the gun violence issue.

Until we have that data, the “ignorance” fallacy will always have a place at the table. ie: big tobacco’s decades-long argument that “not all scientists agree” that smoking causes cancer.

 

[bluesneakers]

I'm chiming back in with my vote for PSAs. Well done, PSAs, that shows stats and urges folks to lock up their firearms at home.

By September of 2017, 43 people were shot by a child, under the age of four!

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/30/toddler-shootings-guns/

There's also this:

Many of the laws have been in effect long enough to give researchers time to assess their effectiveness. A 2000 study, for example, found that Florida’s law, which carries some of the stiffest penalties for not securing a firearm in the presence of children, to be especially effective, cutting accidental child deaths from guns in half.

A 2005 study found such laws in 18 states helped decrease gun injuries among minors by about a third, and a 2013 study supported the findings that child access laws help reduce gun injuries among children. Another study from 2004 showed the laws also helped decrease teen suicides by more than 10 percent, likely saving more than 300 lives over about a decade.

There might be more studies and more legislation, but a lot of these bills go nowhere though because the NRA doesn't like them.

https://www.salon.com/2018/01/25/in-wake-of-school-shooting-a-look-at-how-kids-get-guns/

 

[K_Z]

The majority of gun deaths in America aren’t even homicides, let alone caused by mass shootings. Two-thirds of the more than 33,000 gun deaths that take place in the U.S. every year are suicides (click through the graphic below to see how gun deaths break down):

The historical trends for different kinds of gun deaths don’t all follow the same course. While data suggests that the number of mass shootings similar to the Las Vegas event has gone up, particularly since 2000,2 , homicide rates have fallen significantly from their 1980 peak and continued on a generally downward trajectory for most of the 21st century. Meanwhile, suicides are way up, with the biggest increases among women. The trends are different because the situations are different and the people are different. Maybe different solutions are warranted, as well.

If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work. Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.

There's more info and chart in the link too.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/

BBM. Way too many categories of gun deaths to make correlations in this article, IMO. Just throw everything in the sink and cherry pick your conclusions.

This is typical of an overly broad investigative report that erroneously draws specific conclusions from limited data.

Suicides are very sad, of course, but these are a very unique category of gun deaths. People who are determined to commit suicide will use available methods, whether guns are available or not. Limit access to guns, and those determined to die will find another way. Drive off a cliff or bridge, drive into a wall, overdose, hanging, etc. We aren't going to make a significant dent in suicides by restricting guns, IMO. (Except by those who promote propaganda or junk science that would write studies showing that fewer guns = fewer gun suicides.)

Removing access to guns doesn't make people magically mentally healthy, nor does it remove suicidal impulses. Again, blaming the tool used to express the underlying problem. That's a consistent theme in "gun control" discussions.

The very labeling of this thread as "gun control" has created a rather biased foundation for our discussions here, and leaves anyone who doesn't support all measures for "gun control" in a position of defensiveness. (Apologies to Tricia for the criticism, while also acknowledging that Tricia has done a very good job here allowing polite expressions of opposing opinions.) Anyway, titles of discussions like "gun control" presupposes, IMO, that all gun control is good. That leaves those of us who are not entirely "anti-gun" or "take away all the guns" in a position where we have to defend, defend, defend-- rather than categorizing crimes, brains storming and problem solving the underlying causes. It presupposes that the gun is the cause, and must be controlled.

A better title might have been "School shootings and how to prevent them", "accidental shootings of children and how to prevent them", "suicides by firearm and how to prevent them", "mass shootings and how to prevent them" etc.

 

[bobcat]

A fully semi-automatic rifle.... :laughcry:

Come on news people, if you don’t know anything about the topic of discussion, put someone on who does.

 

[Lulu_la_Nantaise]

Here’s what I guess some don’t get. You want AR-15’s banned because of their high capacity and high rate of fire. Many also want handguns banned or tightly restricted due to their concealability and the fact that handguns are the gun of choice for criminals.Then we have people talking about AR-15’s also being extraordinarily dangerous due to the damage a bullet fired from one will do, and that they’re not needed and not necessary for the average person. Then, we who own and use guns, see that reasoning as the next step to banning, or at least restricting, ALL guns. Such as the very common deer rifles that many people own. What if I told you with my deer rifle I’m capable of easily hitting a target at 1/4 mile. Do you think that capability is “needed?” Maybe deer rifles need to be banned because someone could shoot a whole lot of people a quarter mile away. Some people are capable of even further, like up to a half mile or more. Don’t you see where that this discussion is going that way, to the point of banning ALL guns?

It is perfectly possible to restrict the use of assault weapons to the army, without banning other guns. I know.

I'm kinda getting tired of comparisons to other countries also.........the US is unique in it's cultural melting pot, it is unlike any other country, good or bad.

SBM

Woops!

 

[Elley Mae]

It is perfectly possible to restrict the use of assault weapons to the army, without banning other guns. I know.



SBM

Woops!

An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon. Just sayin

 

[K_Z]

I'm chiming back in with my vote for PSAs. Well done, PSAs, that shows stats and urges folks to lock up their firearms at home.

By September of 2017, 43 people were shot by a child, under the age of four!

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/30/toddler-shootings-guns/

This is DEFINITELY something I can support! Education, education, education. As I've previoulsy posted, I support mandatory gun safety education for all kids, starting in preschool. Not shooting and firearm handling-- gun safety measures, at each developmental age. Including teaching kids about gun laws so they know when to question something, or report it to a trusted adult.

I'd love to see lots of PSA's on TV, the internet, billboards, etc promoting securing of firearms, safe storage, etc. I think they should be given free air time, as long as they are focused on SAFETY, and safe and lawful ownership, and including PSA's about who may NOT own or possess, to protect those around felons. That would be a win for everyone, IMO.

Bring on the PSA's and educational campaigns!

 

[bluesneakers]

Suicides are very sad, of course, but these are a very unique category of gun deaths. People who are determined to commit suicide will use available methods, whether guns are available or not. Limit access to guns, and those determined to die will find another way. Drive off a cliff or bridge, drive into a wall, overdose, hanging, etc. We aren't going to make a significant dent in suicides by restricting guns, IMO.

sbm

Your stats about suicide are incorrect. People will not just turn to another method if a gun is unavailable. And while people who attempt other methods are likely to survive and not make another attempt, most people who make an attempt with a firearm are successful.

Access to a gun during a period of crisis is often the difference between life and death. Approximately 90% of people who attempt suicide with a gun will die. In contrast, over 90% of those who attempt suicide by other methods will live, and they are unlikely to attempt suicide again. This is not because gun users are more suicidal, or more mentally ill. It is because guns are more lethal than any other method of self-harm.

Suicide is often an impulsive act, and those who survive a suicidal act are unlikely to try again.

Many of those who attempt suicide spend 10 minutes or less deliberating before the actual attempt.

More than 90% of people who survive suicide attempts do not later die of suicide. In fact, 70% of people who attempt suicide and survive have no further attempts.

So, contrary to myth, a person with suicidal intent is not going to kill themselves “one way or another;” if they do not have access to lethal means of self-harm, they are likely to survive the moment of crisis.

Gun users are no more suicidal, or have no greater intent to die, than those who use other methods. They simply have access to a particularly dangerous method of self-harm.

https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/