mr stroke
Member
Because it makes people "feel safe"
The real question here: If guns do more harm than good(which they statistically do) then why are they so important to people ?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Blaming lax gun control in the US is sweeping the real issues under the rug
- Thread starter walking fiend
- Start date
- Status
Because it makes people "feel safe"
The real question here: If guns do more harm than good(which they statistically do) then why are they so important to people ?
Yeah but imagine there are a couple of kids playing pokemon outside your house.
If you had to wait six months to get your hands on a gun would you still be intent on chasing them down and shooting up their car?
LordRaptor
Member
Vested interest groups have spent millions of dollars to turn a fairly obvious open and shut issue of public safety regulations into one of constitutional law and personal liberty
Truth is this, large corporate businesses are going to take advantage of anything to sell anything. This is like cigarette, it's clear it's bad for you, lots of science papers have said it, victims have testified to it, govt have tried to curb it yet cigarette companies still sell bucket loads. It's the same with high heels and tie in the fashion business. The better excuse that exist, the better for business, it doesn't matter what your reason for owning a gun, these businesses just want to make money so the more you make up reasons like self defence, hunting, sports etc the better it is for business, your welfare is irrelevant to corporate entities
The Hamburglar
Banned
Isn't just race that's the issue, America is a violent country and Americans first response to situations is to react with violence.
How do you explain all the whites killing whites or blacks killing blacks to race issues?
Guy sees people parked near his house playing Pokemon. Any sane person would ignore it or ask them politely to move. Instead he shoots some shots.
Guy shoots and kills brother over a cheese burger. Police shoot first and talk lies later etc.
How do you explain all the whites killing whites or blacks killing blacks to race issues?
Guy sees people parked near his house playing Pokemon. Any sane person would ignore it or ask them politely to move. Instead he shoots some shots.
Guy shoots and kills brother over a cheese burger. Police shoot first and talk lies later etc.
It's still not passed, but in its current from, it wouldn't be about any types of weapon but a blanket ban on magazines with a higher capapcity than 20. The ones already here can be registered and grandfathered in though.
As you said sport shooters will also be exempt from these restrictions, and a solid guess would be that about 95% of all AR-15 are used for sport in Europe the the last bit being used for hunting.
But all of this still isn't EU law yet, it's still got its rounds to do.
There is no correlation between number of guns and homicides. There just isn't. America's problems have nothing to do with the number of guns available.
And they definitely wont be solved by things some on the left propose like magazine bans.
And I say this as somebody living in a country with a near total gun ban.
And they definitely wont be solved by things some on the left propose like magazine bans.
And I say this as somebody living in a country with a near total gun ban.
As an American that lived in Australia for about 3 years (awhile back, cronulla race riots days), I always thought Australia was much more openly racist than in the USA.
I don't live in either country now but I visited the USA in March and after watching TV and seeing all the Trump shit, plus all the police murders of minorities and the reaction from the public at large, I've changed my tune. America is definitely more racist than Australia, we just used to be better at hiding it. Not anymore.
America, like all countries, has more than one social problem.
They don't have to be solved one by one.
Gun culture (both for civilians and criminals) is one of them.
I agree that to solve gun culture will likely require inroads into a few other aspects of the society too.
Assuming a majority want to change of course.
It may be the majority are willing to accept higher percentage of deaths aligned to perception of greater individual freedom and responsibility.
I'd hope not but you never know.
They don't have to be solved one by one.
Gun culture (both for civilians and criminals) is one of them.
I agree that to solve gun culture will likely require inroads into a few other aspects of the society too.
Assuming a majority want to change of course.
It may be the majority are willing to accept higher percentage of deaths aligned to perception of greater individual freedom and responsibility.
I'd hope not but you never know.
tearsintherain
Member
The absolute single greatest thing we could do to reduce gun violence is halt the war on drugs. It is the catalyst for much of the current system from police militarization, high incarceration rates among African Americans, single parent children, the odious private prison industry complex, and so much more.
Ironically its Bill Clinton who proposed and championed most of the laws and industry partnerships that created the current system, like his 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill that created 3 strikes law or his federal employee reduction plans that grew the private prison industry complex from a small system before 1994 to a multi billion dollar industry by the time he left office.
Unfortunately its not an easy topic to discuss, since anytime a politician starts talking about it people will think you are soft on crime.
Ironically its Bill Clinton who proposed and championed most of the laws and industry partnerships that created the current system, like his 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill that created 3 strikes law or his federal employee reduction plans that grew the private prison industry complex from a small system before 1994 to a multi billion dollar industry by the time he left office.
Unfortunately its not an easy topic to discuss, since anytime a politician starts talking about it people will think you are soft on crime.
As much as racism is still a huge problem in pretty much every country in existence, it's still more common that the perpetrator is of the same race as the one at the receiving end of the violence. There might be a bit more white on black violence than there is black on white crime, maybe (I'm not sure about that), but all in all black people still kill the most black people and white people kill the most white people. At least that's the statistics I keep seeing.
So no, the real issue hasn't been swept under the rug. It's mostly about the amount of guns and how many of those guns are with irresponsible people or people who just should not have that easy of an access to guns. Gun ownership should be much like a driver's license. You have to first prove that you are equipped with the know-how of how to handle a gun & all the responsibility that gun ownership entails.
So no, the real issue hasn't been swept under the rug. It's mostly about the amount of guns and how many of those guns are with irresponsible people or people who just should not have that easy of an access to guns. Gun ownership should be much like a driver's license. You have to first prove that you are equipped with the know-how of how to handle a gun & all the responsibility that gun ownership entails.
KarneeKarnay
Member
Gun control is a problem. One of the bigger problems is that while it is difficult to buy a gun from most stores these days, there is little or no responsibility in some states for the purchase of guns second hand.
There was some report last year that indicated the majority of guns related deaths were caused through guns that were bought second hand.
I'll see if I can find the link.
There was some report last year that indicated the majority of guns related deaths were caused through guns that were bought second hand.
I'll see if I can find the link.
You can't really compare Australia with the USA due to the population differences
Australia ~24Million
USA ~324Million
Fallout-NL
Member
Even if banning guns would be the best solution objectively, you wouldn't want to be the first guy handing your weapons in.
Even though that too, statistically, might actually make you safer.
The problem is really not that complex:
Coming up with a way on how to implement the evident solution is more difficult, but it can be done once people stop using excuses to not address the cause of the problem.
- It´s easy to get guns in USA and a lot of people get killed every year with them.
- It´s more difficult to get guns in other countries and much less people get killed by guns in those countries.
Coming up with a way on how to implement the evident solution is more difficult, but it can be done once people stop using excuses to not address the cause of the problem.
You are so literally wrong I cannot even properly express this. You are literally saying "2 + 2 = 3" to me.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
UnemployedVillain
Member
I don't think anyone was even making this argument. Gun control has little to do with the underlying tensions causing issues. It just means less people who shouldn't be fit to carry firearms will have access to them. It's just common sense
Pantaghana
Member
This is sarcasm, right?
Broken Hope
Member
Or you know make it harder to buy and own a gun?
That would definitely reduce gun violence.
This is what I don't understand. People claim we shouldn't have tough gun control because "criminals dont follow the laws". But with that logic why do we have ANY laws?
"No speed limits, sorry criminals don't watch their speed"
"No red lights, sorry criminals don't like to stop"
We have laws in order to (in theory) support a society. They, along with taxes, are your general admittance to live in said society. Prison is where you go if you don't want to live in society.
So if we made guns harder to own, or even 100% not legal to own, the crime would go down simply put.
To add to that, people who throw out the factoid 'it's super easy to get guns on the black market in countries where guns are banned' are being completely misguided.
Because no, that isn't true at all. Shit gets real expensive and mostly encircles higher-up criminal organisations and gangs. Your average two-bit criminal isn't suddenly going to figure out where to purchase a clean 1000 handgun from the black market.
Interesting. This stands at odds with reports into the aftermath of Australia's gun ban which showed no impact on gun homicides.
Pantaghana
Member
I would really like to know where you got that, because as this graphs shows, there's a sudden drop in 1996 when the Port Arthur massacre happened and there was a large reform of gun control laws.
archangelmorph
Gold Member
Kenshin001
Member
There are more guns in Australia now than before the ban. It has more to do with strict and comprehensive gun laws than the number of guns.
The problems in the US have little to do with racism as Famassu said. In the US homicides run along racial lines, blacks kill blacks, whites kill whites, Hispanics kill Hispanics. It has everything to do with terrible gun laws and a glorification of violence.
Except the actual studies find that the drop in homicides wasn't statistically significant, nor out of line with the historical trend.
But you know, why let details get in the way of a narrative.
LordRaptor
Member
LMFAO.
"Letting facts get in the way of a narrative" indeed.
"No impact" becomes "statistically insignificant" impact becomes "was happening anyway" amirite?
Uh yes. That's exactly what that means. If there was no change in the trend, let alone one of statistical significance, then it doesn't have an impact pretty much by definition. The falls in homicide rates are all attributable to factors outside the gun ban.
NZ, the closest country to Australia culturally, saw greater falls in gun homicides without any bans whatsoever. Why is that if gun control had such an amazing impact in Australia?
There's evidence gun control had an impact on suicides and mass shootings. There is no evidence it had an impact on homicides.
LordRaptor
Member
So this study specifically showing accelerated change as a result of legislation is suddenly of 'no impact' and entirely 'attributable to factors other than legislation', and I'm the one ignoring data to support a narrative.
Okay.
darkace: "I can't read".
Yup (for the 100th time). Even if there are deeper roots to what's going on, trying to save some lives before ending racism seems worthwhile.
I should have been clearer, I was ignoring the study you were quoting as the Guardian is a publication that repeatedly pushes a narrative for its audience. It's generally left-wing nonsense that ignores facts in lieu of a feel-good narrative. The study it links is at odds with the rest of the research in this area.
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...d-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/GunLawsSudden DeathBJC.pdf
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1359178916300258?via=sd&cc=y
That last one, while probably paywalled, is a meta-study of five separate studies into the effects of the Australia gun buyback. It's conclusion: 'none of the studies examined found evidence for a statistically significant impact of Australia's 1996 legislative changes on firearm homicide rates'.
I ignore the Guardian for the same reason I don't listen to the Von Mises Institute when I want a robust look at the intricacies of taxation.
LordRaptor
Member
There's no evidence that what I say isn't true.
Okay, there's some evidence that what I say isn't true, but it's statistically insignificant.
Okay, it turns out it isn't statistically insignificant, but there's no evidence it wouldn't have just happened like that anyway.
Okay, so it turns out that that evidence actually specifically looks at trends, and suggests that it wouldn't have turned out like that anyway, so I'm just going to ignore the bulk of the evidence and focus on the one specific part that I think actually matters.
Fine, your evidence also specifically deals with that one part I am now focussing on, but it is well known that data that contradicts my pre-conceived world view is basically propaganda for an agenda, so I will choose to ignore any evidence that does not support my firmly entrenched hypothesis.
You know what? Screw evidence. I'm gonna invent my own evidence. With blackjack. And hookers.
Thoughts & Prayers in advance to all those who will die that there is literally nothing that can be done to prevent those deaths.
Okay, there's some evidence that what I say isn't true, but it's statistically insignificant.
Okay, it turns out it isn't statistically insignificant, but there's no evidence it wouldn't have just happened like that anyway.
Okay, so it turns out that that evidence actually specifically looks at trends, and suggests that it wouldn't have turned out like that anyway, so I'm just going to ignore the bulk of the evidence and focus on the one specific part that I think actually matters.
Fine, your evidence also specifically deals with that one part I am now focussing on, but it is well known that data that contradicts my pre-conceived world view is basically propaganda for an agenda, so I will choose to ignore any evidence that does not support my firmly entrenched hypothesis.
You know what? Screw evidence. I'm gonna invent my own evidence. With blackjack. And hookers.
Thoughts & Prayers in advance to all those who will die that there is literally nothing that can be done to prevent those deaths.
If you want to actually look at these things the studies are right there.
But being on the left you're much more interested in feel good legislation rather than practical outcomes.
I've linked seven studies showing no impact on Australia's homicide rates as a direct result of the gun ban. Clearly that one that agrees with you is better for some reason though.
I'd also point out that the non-firearm homicide rate and the firearm homicide rate have dropped the exact same amount in that period. Good to see that the gun buyback was so effective it stopped people killing with knives as well.
LordRaptor
Member
Okay, I'll try and muster up the power of my barely functional brain to simply ask you a question; why do you discount a survey from independent statistical scientists working at an independent university in Melbourne because the source telling you about the survey, not the author of the study nor the source of the data used, is the Guardian, but then cite a study made by a lawyer - not a statistician - and specifically a lawyer who is not exactly coming from an unbiased perspective:
as holding more weight than scientists whose actual day job is data analysis?
Other than realities well known liberal bias, obviously.
I've argued against John Lott elsewhere because his articles are usually trash, but this one is just using easily source-able data from the AIC. Hell you can ignore him entirely and just look at what the AIC say if you want.
The weight of evidence is that this didn't have an impact. If you want to say otherwise then you might need more than a single study fighting the majority findings. Especially when meta-studies on the impact disagree with you.
That people genuinely believe this never fails to crack me up.
Pantaghana
Member
LordRaptor
Member
So - even though you know the article you cite is from an, in your own words, trash source - you still choose to believe it over an independent study that was not commissioned by, funded, nor influenced by The Guardian, because you believe The Guardian is biased.
Reality check bro.
Because preventing gays from having equal rights, not driving for equality of sexes, putting any & all drug users into prisons (or otherwise making them into citizens with a criminal record), having a society with a minority of selfish assholes that grab all the money to themselves while the rest of the society struggles, not preventing big companies from totally fucking up Earth etc. would work so well for the world?
The world DOES have a liberal bias. Some of the most liberal places in the world are also the ones that are the most equal, best places to live in the world while others with the most conservative ways of living are usually the worst. We are on this planet together and the kind of ultra selfish-ass behaviour of right-wing morons is damaging societies all over Earth.
If it had come from some right-wing source you may have had a point. I got it from the ABC, hardly a biased publication. The study itself isn't bad, although the author throws it into disrepute.
But since you've descended into this sort of nonsense rather than pushing a point, I'll take it as a concession. You tried.
Yes we get it you like the policies the left puts forward. Next time I need the left to tell me the left is good I'll go back to uni.
therealist
Member
The Australia gun ban is inconclusive and if there was an effect it was minor. It's not really something that I blame gun lovers for refusing to acknowledge.
KarneeKarnay
Member
My thoughts on reading these last posts.
LordRaptor
Member
The source is the author, not a news outlet reporting an authors work.
Like... do you not understand the difference or something?
Reputable media reporting the existence of disreputable research doesn't make that research reputable by the sole fact of reporting on it.
e:
Because jesus christ, the BBC reports on scientology, that doesn't make scientologys beliefs verifably accurate based on the transitive property
Best first post strikes again.
It's highly inaccurate and misleading to say it's the only issue, just as it is to say it should not be considered because it's not the only issue.
- Status