Support NeoGAF

[GremlinFool]

Alcohol, like guns, cause many deaths in this country. I simply turned something that gets people killed (alcohol) applied a national limit to it (4% content) that would have a meaningful effect on DUI deaths.

People asking questions like "why do you need more than 10 round clips" is like asking someone "why do you need more then 4% alcohol content". You don't fucking "need" it either way.

Of course, the alcohol limit wouldn't be supported solely on the fact that people like to get drunk, when for some reason that is a good enough reason when it's something they care about. Guns? Fuck those people, right?

Just about every economist in the world would fully support an alcohol content limit (or an equivalent tax increase). Alcohol prices are far too low for the totality of its societal externalities.

Political expedience has NOTHING to do with the practicality of a law. Placing a limit on alcohol content is a normatively correct policy, just like controlling guns.

 

[GungHo]

If that was the case, it would be sensible. If they were doing anything to reduce 10 round capacity magazines then a seven round limit might be an arguable point. There are already thousands of these magazines in circulation, both for legal owners and illegal owners. This law only stipulates that a ten round magazine is still legal, but you are not permitted to put more than seven cartridges in the magazine.

It's basically a "gotcha" law. We "gotcha" when we did one of our random feel-ups, found you had a gun, and you had 8 rounds loaded instead of 7.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

a criminal can get a gun if they can convince any private individual to sell to them the gun they own (or more likely they just steal it.)

Less likely

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Mass shootings may not actually be on the rise, but that just makes the status quo even worse.

Pretty much. Also, OT, when did you get demodded?

I have not made an argument for continued escalation. I have made an argument against one sided de-escalation and arbitrary legislation being placed and enforced on those that do not commit crimes or endanger others.

Point 1 is exactly the point I was making: that of course this legislation is arbitrary, as there's no way to exactly quantify how many bullets would be necessary to defend oneself in a given situation (though once again, I would love to talk to ANYONE who has any empirical studies on such a topic). But recent events suggest that random gun violence has gotten out of hand, and I've seen far more convincing arguments that suggest that this will curb said incidents than otherwise.

Point 2, people need to stop using the "law abiding citizen argument." Fact is law abiding citizens do not live in a bubble. Just because you, the law abiding citizen, has justified access doesn't mean that there aren't others with more nefarious purposes with that same access (or others who might steal said equipment from you, unwittingly, despite not themselves being qualified to own it).

Let me say this: No one is specifically after you. There is no Snidley Whiplash supervillain contingent out to spite the shit out of legal gun owners for funsies. There is a desire to do whatever we reasonably can to curb gun violence for the betterment of society. If we can at least agree that we're all trying to do the right thing here instead of resorting to personal attacks then I think negotiations and debate would be that much smoother.

Sadly, the only course of action by reasonable accounts involves restrictions on gun use which affect both legal and potential illegal gun owners alike, but that's the nature of law. Ideally we shouldn't need restrictions (or even guns period) at all, but society as a whole is not at a point where that can be a reality.

Not to mention that for those cases argued where more firepower might be needed, it's those situations in which trained professional law enforcement needs to come into play, not vigilante heroism. Admittedly, this is a grey area and the potential for police intervention varies wildly on a case by case basis, and sometimes there isn't enough time to wait (in which case I blame law enforcement for not patrolling more effectively and then 2nd amendment rights come into justifiable play), but I know I sure as hell would feel a lot more comfortable with finding cover and waiting until police arrive than have an admitted inexperienced and inaccurate shooter, either someone else or even myself, attempting to do the police's job and risk killing more in the process, only using the weapon when immediately necessary and effective.

All this being said, of course we need increased background checks and improvement to our mental health system, you'd be hard pressed to find any rational person in this country who's against that.

 

[commedieu]

I am not a member of the NRA. They do not represent me. What is their membership versus the actual amount of gun owners? Sure they have the largest influence at this time - but that probably speaks to Washington's overall affinity to being corrupt and letting lobbyists run the show in general.

The issue isn't that they're ineffective, it is that they are misguided. That's my issue. Yes, let's make an AWB ban when they account for a minute percentage of actual crimes! Let's not focus on the core issues that may be causing people to act out in the first place! Sure you won't curb all crime no matter what you do, but at least make legislation that addresses core issues and not things because they look scary to some and are great for fanservice in wake of tragedy.

There certainly should be changes. But I guess I'm a gun-toting nut simply because I don't agree with the method.

I focus on the NRA, as they are the only people that matter in the Gun debate. The NRA is disgusting. I'm glad they don't represent you, but they are the face of gun rights, and not guys like you. You have no voice, and no influence. This is why its not a broad brush, as the people that actually matter in this debate, are insane, and control law.

Sure, Washington is corrupt. We all know this. Except many gun owners of the thread.

Washington doesn't work in effective ways, and gun legislation will be no different. Hell, there might be a chance it works too. As its to try to prevent tragedies, thats all. Its a multi-faceted problem. Gun control needs to start being clamped down on, this is an effort to do so, in Washington style. All the things your'e saying can be applied to any number of laws about reacting one way because something, or someone, looks a certain way.

Its solely guns that we decide to question how Washington creates laws in an ineffective way when thats been their status quo since inception. People want to take on the way things have been running forever, now, because SOME of their guns are at stake. Its an excuse to not change any gun laws, and continue to debate about the status-quo of the world. Much like trying to place a blame on healthcare is, in a nation where a large number of voters claim healthcare is for freeloaders and communists.

Effective has nothing to do with washington. Never has.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Also, do I hear the argument, that criminals would get those type of weapons anyway, quite often. Yet, will you rarely find any criminals using full automatic weapons, since those are buried under lots of restrictions. Doesn't that prove that laws can actually keep criminals from getting certain weapons?

Actually, you will find criminals using even perfectly-legal so-called "assault rifles" in crimes is pretty statistically rare too.

Check out this 2009 breakdown of California gun crime from the CA DOJ...the short bar is the amount of weapons California classes as "assault weapons":

In 2009, according to the report that image comes from, three of the eight weapons classed as "assault weapons" used in those crimes were full-auto, or full-auto conversions.

So 37.5% of all "assault" weapons used in crimes in California were full-auto.

It's more the rarity of use of guns of this type, than the rarity of full-autos.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

might be because assault weapons are banned in California

 

[dionysus]

How are they defining assault weapon? I find that shit confusing. Doesn't the New York law talk about shit like pistol grips being a "warlike attachment" or some shit. What a useless way to determine the lethality of a weapon.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Limiting usage of assault weapons, mag sizes and what not could be effective... if all existing hardware is banned. But they won't be. So these restrictions seem kind of useless to me. They might become more effective in the future when the hardware slowly, very slowly begins breaking down. But how long is this going to take?

How are they defining assault weapon? I find that shit confusing. Doesn't the New York law talk about shit like pistol grips being a "warlike attachment" or some shit. What a useless way to determine the lethality of a weapon.

Confusing indeed. Is there anything stopping manufacturers from producing more 'civilian' semi auto weapon types?

 

[Pristine_Condition]

might be because assault weapons are banned in California

Nope. Statistically, they are used in about 1% of gun crimes nationwide.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

might be because assault weapons are banned in California

And why the similar percentage for other parts of the country when they are not under California law?

 

[NullPointer]

Rather than banning individual models or components of guns, I'd rather we had a scoring mechanism that tried to define the lethality of a firearm, and its multiplicative effects and then legislate against thresholds in that score. How many targets could you shoot within a period of time, how easy it is to conceal, to use, to modify, etc.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Actually, you will find criminals using even perfectly-legal so-called "assault rifles" in crimes is pretty statistically rare too.

Ok fine, so what if it's a small percentage? They still use them anyway, and if not to kill than at least to threaten which is one case which is NOT included on your graph EDIT: I misread the graph, but it still doesn't say how many deaths there were in the course of said crimes, and the remainder of my argument still stands. Are we supposed to say that those 7-8 lives don't matter just because some people like their guns too much? Because the numbers are too small? Even if one somehow proved it absolutely vitally necessary to one's very being to have assault weapons for recreational use, why do you need to personally own one at home if there's one readily available and far more secure at your local gun range (or even customize one to one's heart's desire and have them safely keep it there)? If increased regulation of something so wholly unnecessary as assault weapons means the saving of even one more life per year than I am wholeheartedly of the opinion that it is worth it.

 

[diehard]

Nope. Statistically, they are used in about 1% of gun crimes nationwide.

Get out of here with your logic and numbers.

 

[NullPointer]

I care more about the lethality of incidents rather than a strict count. That's where firearms make a real difference.

 

[Yoritomo]

Rather than banning individual models or components of guns, I'd rather we had a scoring mechanism that tried to define the lethality of a firearm, and its multiplicative effects and then legislate against thresholds in that score. How many targets could you shoot within a period of time, how easy it is to conceal, to use, to modify, etc.

The problem is that semi-automatic handguns would score at the very top of this list. You know the duty weapon of law enforcement.

Well let me rephrase that. It is the most common type of gun in the US. If you think this assault weapons ban/magazine restriction proposal backlash is insane, watch what happens if you go to ban the most popular guns in the US.

I could probably be convinced that a handgun ban was a good thing. An assault weapon ban is just silly. The only world in which an assault weapon ban is a good thing is if that ban led to a semi-automatic ban, then a full handgun ban. Without those last two items an assault weapons ban doesn't pass statistical muster to be an effective deterrent of anything.

 

[Anticitizen One]

I have never been more proud of Obama in my life. He did the right thing today

 

[Oppo]

Rather than banning individual models or components of guns, I'd rather we had a scoring mechanism that tried to define the lethality of a firearm, and its multiplicative effects and then legislate against thresholds in that score. How many targets could you shoot within a period of time, how easy it is to conceal, to use, to modify, etc.

Yeah, that was my idea as well.

The reason there is agreement on things like bombs and rocket launchers and the like is that most people can agree, they are weapons meant for wars, they cause too much damage too fast.

So since there is already a line in the sand, a kills-per-minute rate essentially (several of the above being "near instant"), then what really needs to be discussed, since the death toll in the US is so astronomical from gun violence, is where to re-position that line that already exists.

So if we define a pistol as being able to, in a controlled test, fire X number of rounds in a given minute, with reloading, you stick a number on that. Test other weapons appropriately and assign numbers to those. Then set the limit.

The thing I don't get about the counter-arguments that say "well this won't do anything" is that we hear no other proposals other than the vague complaints about mental health checks. I want to hear more concrete limits from the NRA crowd, or alternatively why they think that 32,000+ gun deaths a year is "ok".

 

[Darias]

Point 1 is exactly the point I was making: that of course this legislation is arbitrary, as there's no way to exactly quantify how many bullets would be necessary to defend oneself in a given situation (though once again, I would love to talk to ANYONE who has any empirical studies on such a topic). But recent events suggest that random gun violence has gotten out of hand, and I've seen far more convincing arguments that suggest that this will curb said incidents than otherwise.

Point 2, people need to stop using the "law abiding citizen argument." Fact is law abiding citizens do not live in a bubble. Just because you, the law abiding citizen, has justified access doesn't mean that there aren't others with more nefarious purposes with that same access (or others who might steal said equipment from you, unwittingly, despite not themselves being qualified to own it).

Let me say this: No one is specifically after you. There is no Snidley Whiplash supervillain contingent out to spite the shit out of legal gun owners for funsies. There is a desire to do whatever we reasonably can to curb gun violence for the betterment of society. If we can at least agree that we're all trying to do the right thing here instead of resorting to personal attacks then I think negotiations and debate would be that much smoother.

Sadly, the only course of action by reasonable accounts involves restrictions on gun use which affect both legal and potential illegal gun owners alike, but that's the nature of law. Ideally we shouldn't need restrictions (or even guns period) at all, but society as a whole is not at a point where that can be a reality.

Not to mention that for those cases argued where more firepower might be needed, it's those situations in which trained professional law enforcement needs to come into play, not vigilante heroism. Admittedly, this is a grey area and the potential for police intervention varies wildly on a case by case basis, and sometimes there isn't enough time to wait (in which case I blame law enforcement for not patrolling more effectively and then 2nd amendment rights come into justifiable play), but I know I sure as hell would feel a lot more comfortable with finding cover and waiting until police arrive than have an admitted inexperienced and inaccurate shooter, either someone else or even myself, attempting to do the police's job and risk killing more in the process, only using the weapon when immediately necessary and effective.

All this being said, of course we need increased background checks and improvement to our mental health system, you'd be hard pressed to find any rational person in this country who's against that.

CrunchyFrog, I like this reply. I appreciate the concisely formulated argument presented almost in its entirety.

I would like to point out to you however, that it is incorrect to assert that the police exist to protect individuals. I believe Warren vs. DC (If I am remembering correctly) decided that the body of police is not responsible to provide service to individuals.

I would like to see more legislation that did something pointedly effective to counter illegal firearm possession and use while at the same time not diminishing the rights of those that behave in a responsible manner.

(Speaking from NY here - local differences occur throughout the country)

Make the penalties for illegal possession or use such that the unlawful will not touch a gun.

Have ideas to encourage more responsible safety and ownership. Owners should be making the guns very difficult to access.

-----

but I know I sure as hell would feel a lot more comfortable with finding cover and waiting until police arrive than have an admitted inexperienced and inaccurate shooter,

I think a lot of the pro gun activists are very off the mark in their narrative here. It should be universally understood that loss of life is almost the worst possible outcome in any criminal act, and there is a very good argument for duty to retreat.

My feeling though is that this recent legislation will only reduce the survival chances of the lawful in the absolute worst case scenario. It rarely happens, but there are occasions of use of Justified lethal force. (Link)

I have been unarmed in situations previously in my life where I would have been justified in firing. I really hope that I never am in such a situation like that again.

 

[NullPointer]

Well let me rephrase that. It is the most common type of gun in the US. If you think this assault weapons ban/magazine restriction proposal backlash is insane, watch what happens if you go to ban the most popular guns in the US.

It would at least provide some consistency. As it is we end up legislating against "Scary" weapons and other arbitrary bullshit. Lets be serious and try to get a balanced measure.

Obviously we restrict how much of arsenal the citizenry can own, but lets set a specific score limit in lethality - and that's the kind of thing that can provide some guidance long term while also being something that be re-examined over time.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Sorry for the double-post

 

[Yoritomo]

Yeah, that was my idea as well.

The reason there is agreement on things like bombs and rocket launchers and the like is that most people can agree, they are weapons meant for wars, they cause too much damage too fast.

So since there is already a line in the sand, a kills-per-minute rate essentially (several of the above being "near instant"), then what really needs to be discussed, since the death toll in the US is so astronomical from gun violence, is where to re-position that line that already exists.

So if we define a pistol as being able to, in a controlled test, fire X number of rounds in a given minute, with reloading, you stick a number on that. Test other weapons appropriately and assign numbers to those. Then set the limit.

The thing I don't get about the counter-arguments that say "well this won't do anything" is that we hear no other proposals other than the vague complaints about mental health checks. I want to hear more concrete limits from the NRA crowd, or alternatively why they think that 32,000+ gun deaths a year is "ok".

Lets say you can ban Semi-Auto Rifles, Handguns, OR Fully-automatic rifles from civilian ownership. Which ban would be the most effective at lowering the rate of firearm deaths in the US? (in this example if you ban handguns then both Semi-auto rifles, and full auto rifles would be legal. So one becomes illegal and the other two are legal)

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Statistically, according to the FBI, there are more murders committed by shotgun than ALL RIFLES (including so-called "assault rifles" hunting rifles, ect.) combined.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

And nobody is talking about banning shotguns, as they are primarily a hunting gun.

 

[dionysus]

Confusing indeed. Is there anything stopping manufacturers from producing more 'civilian' semi auto weapon types?

What I am getting at is in this debate the pro-gun control supporters, or at least the politicians who pander, focus on unimportant details that really have nothing to do with lethality.

The fact that an AR-15 has a custumizable foregrip and a pistol group doesn't make it anymore lethal than a semi-auto hunting rifle that accepts external magazines.

Nor is the AR-15 the most lethal weapon in a whole range of situations. Shotguns are a lot more lethal in a most cases.

Heck, if I was a student I would WANT a school shooter to be using a fully auto weapon because then it would be more likely he would miss.

I don't want to help out the gun control side of the debate but if the goal was to actually limit lethality you would go about it in a completely different way.

 

[jamesinclair]

How do people not realize that cosmetic differences between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle have nothing to do with lethalness. I know AR-15s look like something you'd see in Call of Duty, but its no more lethal than that supposedly innocent hunting rifle.

What do deranged maniacs gravitate towards?

If all guns were bright pink, there's be less shooting because this country has too many idiots that would be scared of looking "gay"....especially gang bangers

 

[Pristine_Condition]

What do deranged maniacs gravitate towards?

Statistically, pistols. By far. Specifically, those shooting the .9mm round.

 

[Yoritomo]

What do deranged maniacs gravitate towards?

If all guns were bright pink, there's be less shooting because this country has too many idiots that would be scared of looking "gay"....especially gang bangers

They use the guns that are available. The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in the US, probably because it is the civilian version of the duty weapon used by our armed forces.

 

[User 100115]

Because giving untrained people firearms and asking them to protect crowds of tiny humans is a bad idea. They're teachers, not security specialists.


I see where you're coming from here. To clarify, the inconcenience for me is mostly on the procurement side than it is on the usage side. If it's anything like the original AWB, I'm still going to be able to get one if I want one. I'm just going to pay more for it and look around a little longer. There's no one going back and redesigning guns to only be able to fit the 10 round magazines (unless you're Ruger under Bill Ruger or you're HK trying to get a new gun into the country).

I do stand by my statement that it is a step in the correct direction if they're concerned about function over about strict appearance. I'm honestly not sure what you could do, however, as long as you have detachable magazines. Now, if all magazines are internal or cylindrical, or all guns have to be single-shot, by law, then I'd say, yeah... you've slowed people the fuck down unless you have a superstar with a Lee Enfield.

Thank you for answering in an honest manner. I know not every gun owner is running around in circles screaming about the sky falling right now, but it's nice to have some confirmation of that fact.

 

[xxracerxx]

Gun shops must be so giddy, their sales are going to go through the roof with all the doom and gloom put out there by the extreme pro-gun crowd.

 

[Oppo]

Lets say you can ban Semi-Auto Rifles, Handguns, OR Fully-automatic rifles from civilian ownership. Which ban would be the most effective at lowering the rate of firearm deaths in the US? (in this example if you ban handguns then both Semi-auto rifles, and full auto rifles would be legal. So one becomes illegal and the other two are legal)

I would start with emulating Canada's laws, which basically prohibit anything but hunting rifles and handguns, and the latter being extremely controlled and monitored (mandatory safety courses, very low tolerance for those with criminal records etc). Cause let me tell you we have a LOT of gun enthusiasts up here, Ontario is rife with hunters, and so we must be doing something right.

I've never had a gun pulled on me after living for decades in Toronto. It's shocking when there's a shooting here. So not living in fear of one's life or feeling the need for a self defence gun probably helps a lot too.

 

[Yoritomo]

Gun shops must be so giddy, their sales are going to go through the roof with all the doom and gloom put out there by the extreme pro-gun crowd.

It'd be great for their sales if they had a PR group that spouted rhetoric that caused fear and panic amongst the pro-gun crowd.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Gun shops must be so giddy, their sales are going to go through the roof with all the doom and gloom put out there by the extreme pro-gun crowd.

It has been happening already for months. Well before the Sandy Hook shooting. And the sales are going far beyond the "extreme" pro-gun crowd...

 

[Darias]

Gun shops must be so giddy, their sales are going to go through the roof with all the doom and gloom put out there by the extreme pro-gun crowd.

From what I have heard and read, everything is basically sold out now, no back-order available. Gander mountain near me has sold half a year or more's worth of everything, and has sold almost all of it's ammunition, across the board. I doubt I'll be able to find anything for target shooting for months except a $200 sardine can, and then I'll have to to have some manner of aggravating and unnecessary duplicate background check to purchase the thing.

 

[Hawkian]

Could you please elaborate?

*sigh* I guess.

I'm going to take this moment to first thank your friend for citing his or her sources. Too often this cutesy-infographic style accompanies an absolute lack of citation and it made me actually pay attention to the premise rather than write it off; it also helped me considerably in my own research.

Now, to the bullshit.

First off, it should be pretty obvious how misleading this is. To anyone. I mean I would LOVE to believe that anyone could look at this and immediately realize how disingenuous it is.

The left column is "gun ownership rate" with the US at the top (the actual top).
The right column is "highest intentional homicide rate" with the US at the "bottom" (nowhere close to the actual bottom).

First of all, this is a sort of irrelevant comparison in the first place if the idea is that very high gun ownership deters gun crime. Your friend compares ownership of one method of committing homicide with the rates of all kinds of homicide. The relevant factoid would be gun ownership rates versus rates of gun violence or to really get at what we're all talking about, gun homicides.

Why doesn't he or she include that? Because the facts don't come close to supporting the case if you do.

This is sorted by gun-related homicides. We're not #103 or #100 or #50 or #30, we're #15. Fifteen. (note: edited for more accurate/recent data)

You have to go down to #26 to find your first European country, and it's Luxembourg, which has a population of like 9. 4 homicides per year is probably considered a spike in violence for them. Actually, fuck it. I'll check.

In Luxembourg, annual firearm homicides total

2008: 2
2007: 1
2006: 1
2005: 1
2003: 1
2002: 1
2001: 2
2000: 6
1999: 2
1998: 3
1997: 1

Yep. How terrifying a year 2000 must have been for them.

Furthermore, that #103 in terms of regular old intentional homicide rate, which sounds so dramatically low, puts us WAY higher than the majority of developed nations in the world and in some seriously shitty company on the list. We're nowhere close to the UK, for example, which your friend goes on to take a big shit all over in the next section. I'll get to that after this.

Lower is better just so we're clear on this.

So now we're on a topic that doesn't explicitly have anything to do with guns. Okay.. sure.

First of all, "violent crime rate" is not a statistic that can be adequately compared between countries. At all. I know that's not satisfying, but the legislation of the various countries of the world don't all include the same things under the umbrella of "violent crime" as they do "homicide."

But, I am your humble servant, and I do what I can. Since there are so many different metrics, I'm going to rely on your friend's own source, the Daily Mail (heh).

So first things first, semantics of what violent crime is aside, there's no doubt about it: the UK has a very high rate of violent crime for a western developed nation. They beat the United States somewhat significantly with regard to some specific crimes like assault and carjacking per capita (although as I spelled out above we still "win" in terms of intentional homicide, and kick the absolute SHIT out of the rest of the western world in terms of gun homicide).

However, your friend absolutely, completely, unforgivably fails to put any of this in a broader context. The UK is the most violent country in the EU, yes- and has a higher violent crime rate than the US. But if this is really supposed to be about guns and regulation being a CAUSAL FACTOR in violent crime:

1) So does Canada (what the hell Canada? )
2) Australia, which has some of the most draconian, stringent gun laws in the world, absolutely eviscerates, absolutely makes a fucking joke out of the rest of the countries in this conversation when it comes to violent crime. It's not even worth doing the embarrassing math to be like "5x less than the US, 8x less than Canada, 14x less than the UK" or whatever, because it is just so hilariously out of our depth. Btw... That is a really fucking impressive rate by anyone's metric. Good on ya, mates.

I want to stress that this is the source your friend actually used to make this point.

I refer you to this post as to why these statistics are incredibly misleading, especially the end which touches on why that 11% error rate amongst police is not a good reason for more people to carry guns. Also, the "2% error rate" among civilians, cited by your friend, isn't defined in the infographic- what it means according to the article is "an innocent person shot when mistaken for a criminal." Thus it doesn't include the bulk of the 20,000+ annual accidental firearm injuries or 500-600 accidental gun deaths per year.

That same daily beast source your friend uses to find the 2% also includes maybe the most potentially relevant stat to this entire discussion, and he leaves it out: In 98% of instances where a victim used a gun for self-defense, those citizens did not shoot their assailants. I have really no issue with increasing advocacy for the effectiveness of unloaded guns in self-defense, but we'll live to fight another day.

It isn't a new or recent study, it's a review of the literature by two criminologists who are quite keenly exercising a bit of the same selection bias that your friend is. Here is one quote:

Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates.

Borderline conpsiracy-theorist level of paranoia here aside... what industralized nations are there that these two intrepid shysters would call our attention to?

...Russia. Also,

Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and various other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R

Outstanding. Cuba too, if you were wondering. Also Pakistan. If you ask me, if they wanted to make this totally disingenuous point in the first place, the Cayman Islands and Costa Rica would make better examples. They're gorgeous.

Of course, the vast majority (or entirety of what most people would consider) the industrialized world is well below us on that list. And on the much more relevant list of firearm-related homicide, the United States is safely and securely at the very tippy-top of industrialized nations. None of those "hey, maybe this is what they mean" examples even apply.

One more note about this lit review piece: these guys didn't miss an opporunity to shit on Luxembourg.

For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

You know what they're absolutely right. Luxembourg had a murder rate in 2002 nine times higher than Germany's in 2003 (that's how they compared it in the review). It accomplished this feat with an astonishingly high total of one fucking murder with a gun that year. One. Good lord.

There's more stuff. But I've spent a bit of time on this (I don't think I relied on any stats from memory, even those I was sure about, I made sure to find it somewhere) so I'll just leave you with this one last excerpt:

Listen to the felons, people.

 

[xxracerxx]

It has been happening already for months. Well before the Sandy Hook shooting. And the sales are going far beyond the "extreme" pro-gun crowd...

I know that gun sales are booming right now, this is just another log on the fire. And I never said that only the extreme pro-gun crowd is buying guns, I am saying that they are the ones putting out there that Obama is out to take away your rights and confiscate your guns so defend yourself blah blah blah.

 

[kaching]

I don't want to help out the gun control side of the debate but if the goal was to actually limit lethality you would go about it in a completely different way.

The "gun control side of the debate" is actually more of a "less gun violence side of the debate" so if you've got proposals that could definitively achieve that end without necessarily requiring gun "control" then you'd think you'd want to share them rather than hold back because of an inaccurate us vs them generalization.

 

[Hawkian]

Just gonna throw in my two cents and I agree with the comment that there is a ton of intellectually dishonest shit in there. The gun ownership vs crime infographic they show is rather neat as they don't show the data sets for all the country. Only both the united states gun ownership rate and homicide rate is posted (and "intentional" homicide rate at that). Why don't they show the lowest intentional homicide rate and that ownership rate? Why don't they post what the negative correlation value actually is (I'd be surprised if it was higher than 0.8).

"Nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not in general." What is substantially? Canada has a lower rate than america with stricter gun control laws.

Oh man, this case study on the U.K. Their crime rate peaked in 1995 and has decreased year over year for the subsequent years. The claim about the 77% increase after the banning of handguns is false. It's actually an outright lie. In fact they sharply declined post 1997.

I don't know if I want to waste more time with this nonsense. My bullshit detector went off and I caught a bold faced lie. Do I really want to waste more of my time with this stupid bullshit?

I wasted all my time for you. :'( Enjoy!

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Statistically, according to the FBI, there are more murders committed by shotgun than ALL RIFLES (including so-called "assault rifles" hunting rifles, ect.) combined.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

And nobody is talking about banning shotguns, as they are primarily a hunting gun.

You've already partly answered your own question. The fact that there are more deaths from shotguns suggests an argument for either more restrictions on shotgun use (which may in fact be prudent/possible/effective) or more mental health/background checks (which I believe to be the more effective of the two in this instance), but what it cannot be used for is a case for NOT banning "assault weapons." Technology is advancing all the time as is weapons manufacture, so there is no way any sort of blanket ban is going to work. I'll be the first to admit that the "assault weapons" rhetoric is just that, vague and nebulous. I'm all for establishing some kind of empirical system to determine the lethality versus utility of certain weapons. But I think most agree that when talking about "assault weapons" we're talking about those with the highest lethality potential, which includes such weapons as AR-15's. We must define a system and threshold of lethality that can at least rudimentarily be compared across weaponry, and that's the threshold on which we should define legislation. Unfortunately no such system exists yet, nor do I have the firearms knowledge to create such a system, so like many myself and legislators have to base debate and ultimately legislation on admittedly partially arbitrary points, but at least they lie on the side of the spectrum meant to save lives. Give me more precise data and I'll be willing to discuss, but until then I don't see any acceptable alternative.

Because giving untrained people firearms and asking them to protect crowds of tiny humans is a bad idea. They're teachers, not security specialists.

Also partially agree here, but it could be mitigated by a mandatory firearms training course.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm honestly curious as to why, for honest gun owners, this is a problem. Is it just the annoyance of having to reload more? Do you feel less safe with 3 fewer bullets? If you don't feel like it will do anything to curb violence ("reloading is easy and fast"), then why would it affect your shooting?

Because it doesn't do anything to address the issue with violence and guns. It's an arbitrary restriction crafted by people that don't like guns and would prefer the number to rounds in a magazine to be zero but concedes that's not possible so any reduction would be better than leaving it at 10.

It's not like NYS has people buying 30 round magazines and we went to 7. We kept the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and kept the magazine limit at 10 bullets per magazine.

It's an unenforceable restriction that won't reduce crime in the slightest. Keep in mind. FIVE people were killed in NYS with semi-automatic "assault" rifles last year. Please name ONE that would be here now if magazines had just 3 less rounds in it?

I don't use a semi-automatic for defense. My magazines are locked up when they're in the house.

I oppose it because it won't change anything in the slightest and I'm not a big fan of "just cause I don't like it!" from my politicians.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

First of all, this is a sort of irrelevant comparison in the first place if the idea is that very high gun ownership deters gun crime. Your friend compares ownership of one method of committing homicide with the rates of all kinds of homicide. The relevant factoid would be gun ownership rates versus rates of gun violence or to really get at what we're all talking about, gun homicides.

I thought we were talking about preventing violent gun crime?

The "gun homicide" statistic is misleading if that's what we are talking about, because that includes both justifiable homicides (self defense, foiling crime, police shootings) and gun suicides.

Nobody here is saying the police shouldn't be able to shoot people committing violent crimes.

And gun suicides represent approx. 60% of "gun homicides," skewing that number GREATLY.

As far as I know here, most of the gun-control advocates are advocating gun control to curb murder, not suicides.

 

[gutter_trash]

wanna quel violance? deal with poverty iniquality. Corrolation between poverty and crime is a reality

 

[Pristine_Condition]

I see a lot of goalpost-movoing here. Now you guys are saying we should look at controlling shotguns? Not even Obama is suggesting that...

 

[besada]

Regarding the clip issue. One of the benefits comes from charging. If Joe Criminal gets caught with three clips of fifteen rounds, he's going to get three charges of violating the law, rather than none. That's three extra charges he wouldn't be taking if there wasn't a limit on clip size.

That's a decreased chance of a useful plea or more years off the streets.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

wanna quel violance? deal with poverty iniquality. Corrolation between poverty and crime is a reality

Violent crime is down statistically. It's been going down for years.

 

[NullPointer]

I oppose it because it won't change anything in the slightest and I'm not a big fan of "just cause I don't like it!" from my politicians.

Same. What do you think of the idea of scoring weapons by lethality like I mentioned earlier?

Rather than banning individual models or components of guns, I'd rather we had a scoring mechanism that tried to define the lethality of a firearm, and its multiplicative effects and then legislate against thresholds in that score. How many targets could you shoot within a period of time, how easy it is to conceal, to use, to modify, etc.

 

[User 100115]

*sigh* I guess.

I'm going to take this moment to first thank your friend for citing his or her sources. Too often this cutesy infograhic-style accompanies an absolute lack of citation and it made me actually pay attention to the premise rather than write it off; it also helped me considerably in my own research.

...

I really, really want to bookmark this post and use it future debates. Can I?

 

[Hawkian]

I thought we were talking about preventing violent gun crime?

The "gun homicide" statistic is misleading if that's what we are talking about, because that includes both justifiable homicides (self defense, foiling crime, police shootings) and gun suicides.

Nobody here is saying the police shouldn't be able to shoot people committing violent crimes.

Um. The average annual number of justifiable homicides per year is appromixated at 400. That changes the total for gun homicides in 2010 from 11,078 to 10,678. What point did you think you were making?

And gun suicides represent approx. 60% of "gun homicides," skewing that number GREATLY.

As far as I know here, most of the gun-control advocates are advocating gun control to curb murder, not suicides.

Gun suicides are not gun homicides because suicide is not homicide. You are confused.

I really, really want to bookmark this post and use it future debates. Can I?

Of course, all that combing through PDFs has to have had some kind of merit

edit: And thanks for letting me notice a typo! sheesh, come on Hawk.

 

[xxracerxx]

I thought we were talking about preventing violent gun crime?

The "gun homicide" statistic is misleading if that's what we are talking about, because that includes both justifiable homicides (self defense, foiling crime, police shootings) and gun suicides.

Nobody here is saying the police shouldn't be able to shoot people committing violent crimes.

And gun suicides represent approx. 60% of "gun homicides," skewing that number GREATLY.

As far as I know here, most of the gun-control advocates are advocating gun control to curb murder, not suicides.

What? Suicides do not count as homicides so there would be no skewing of the numbers on gun homicides.

 

[Flo_Evans]

My only question is this going to make it harder or easier to find ammo on the shelves... I am going to go with harder.

 

[Hawkian]

I thought we were talking about preventing violent gun crime?

Also... the comparison I'm talking about doesn't consider violent gun crime, regardless of what we are or should be talking about. It's a comparison of gun ownership rates with intentional homicide rates (all kinds, not just guns).