More idiotic blather based on your complete lack of knowledge.
The FBI estimates that only 10% of guns used for crimes are legally obtained, so stopping the illegal unregulated gun trade should stop arming 90% of viloent criminals. Stopping the flow of 90% of guns used for crime is nothing? Derp.

Sure, keeping criminals in prison longer might help some after the fact, but 1) they have to commit at least one violent gun crime first and 2) our prisons are already so bursting full of them… so much that many states cannot put non violent criminals in prison without first releasing violent criminals, so longer sentences are impossible.
BTW- speaking of harsher sentences, a Vietnamese businesswoman was just sentenced to death for a fraud scheme extremely similar to Trumps real estate/bank/tax fraud scheme. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/12/1244509024/a-woman-has-received-a-death-sentence-in-the-largest-fraud-trial-in-vietnams-his#:~:text=The%20largest%20fra
ud%20case%20in,to%20be%20a%20turning%20point.
Is that what you suggest, harsher sentencing all around, or only for crimes you wrongly believe are committed mostly by minorities?

This won’t stop every illegal gun sale, but it closes 3 major methods of easily “legally” selling unregistered guns to people who are barred from owning guns. That is a good thing to anyone who isn’t a criminal looking to buy a gun for crimes….and braying morons.

If it does nothing, why has the right been fighting tooth and nail to keep the loopholes open for so long? A: because so many are felons (just like their leadership) and they still want to buy more guns.

Republicans are perpetrators of near 100% of election fraud….and claim to be the only ones who care about it….what improvements to election systems or increased punishments for those committing vote fraud have they made to curb this anti democracy anti America issue with their party?

*crickets*

A: none, they’ve blocked any legislation proposed to secure elections and made them less secure by installing crazed partisan criminals as clerks who tamper with and steal voting machines making them invalid for use, costing millions and compromising what little election security existed.

Edit: The Republicans ACTUALLY control all three branches in multiple states, but haven’t done a thing to secure the election system (vote ID doesn’t address any of the fraud actually found, eliminating vote by mail might, but for the few (all Republican) fraudulent vote attempts it might stop it disenfranchises exponentially more legal voters…literally millions of legal voters.). No Republican state legislature has put a paper trail in place for electronic voting, nor have they increased the punishment for vote fraud. Why is that Bob?

*crickets*

Democrats have taken steps to curb mass shootings…limiting clip size, ammo purchasing, private gun sales, testing requirements to concealed carry, barring violent felons and violent mentally ill people and (temporarily) people with active restraining orders against them from gun ownership, etc on state levels, the only place Republicans can’t just block any attempted legislation without even reading it first.

Why must every word you write be an intentional bold faced lie?

Bob…can you list the three branches of government ?

Democrats control 1 branch, Republicans (including Senema and Manchin) control the other 2 (one outright, one by overused veto power and filibuster) and they block any Democratic legislation out of spite whether or not it’s good for the country, just to deny Democrats any “wins”. It takes a >60/40 majority for Democrats to get anything passed because Republicans do not want anything to be bipartisan…voting WITH democrats is a career ender, no matter what the bill is.

Democrats have tried dozens of times to make improvements, like background checks for EVERY gun sale, clip size limits, red flag laws, trying to raise the purchase age to 21, temporary seizure if someone gets a restraining order against you, and much more….Republicans blocked every single effort because they need NRA money and support.

Republicans made it legal for any criminal or nut job to not only buy as many guns and ammunition as they wish, but also to concealed carry them anywhere except where Republicans gather (like the NRA convention, once again held days after a mass shooting, or the capitol building).

They voted against giving babies formula, they voted against working to release political prisoners, they voted against supporting Ukraine, they voted against removing gun registration loopholes, mental health gun laws, clip size limits, etc., they voted against investigating Jan 6, Republicans are so anti Democrat they went full anti democracy.

Here’s your negative attention, since I know that’s what you really want. I’ll keep it light in honor of your father, unless you don’t, and just say you are a total liar. I would say consummate liar, but you’re really just awful at it and just make yourself look so incredibly stupid and dishonest at every opportunity.

You’ve never changed a single mind with your nonsensical lies.

Cage’s one good movie. He should have retired afterwards.

Ok, watched it. I think he should be gleeful that it’s so incredibly bad. If it were just the basic registration requirements for all gun sales (and now ammo I think) like California has, it might pass, but full of the nonsense, doxing and theft materials, and ignorant bans as it is it stands no chance, it would doom the democrats, couldn’t be enforced, and almost certainly wouldn’t pass the Supreme Court.

This is like Republicans trying to ban windmills because they cause cancer. Just moronic, and a pure appeal to the most extreme of their base. Proof republicans don’t have a monopoly on stupidity.

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

I am. You are becoming too funny. What happened to Dimitri? He was never that clever to just say 'black is white' and sit back. What's your handle, comrade?

A chronically ill informed fear mongering right winger claiming the left is the fear mongering and hoaxing party is just so over the top hilariously ludicrous...the left's leaders aren't convicted criminal frauds who's entire platform is "they're coming to get you and only I can save you by protecting unregulated gun sales, banning im'grants, saving Christmas, and fixing some fence....i mean getting Mecxico to build that wall.", it just wouldn't work on the left, only the right celebrates known lies.
Before Obama, I might have agreed about the left being the snowflakes, but absolutely not now. You babies are so thin skinned, snowflake seems too adult, you melt over nothings daily.

If I thought for a pico second you honestly meant it and weren't just angrily projecting and trolling I would suggest an immediate brain scan, because that's so incredibly irrational that non professionals are simply not qualified to deal with that level of clinical dementia.

Funny you didn't contradict the neo-nazi right wing terrorism issue....I guess you must agree the right is now, by their own standards, a violent terrorist organization, and a more pressing issue for the U.S. than other terrorist organizations as the most active by far, outpacing to the point of replacing Islamic terrorism.

Ha! Even sifty knows to not listen to you, Bob. ;-)

The kid was a nut...he supports Trump, that's proof positive.

What's funny is lies could be appropriate, since the NRA spokeswoman was lying through her teeth, claiming they support a strong useful national registry and screening system. They do nothing but lobby to obstruct it at every turn. She's a bold faced liar. I used to be a member decades ago.

Nothing he did, even if it had been investigated fully, would have bared him from buying his guns. Blame police and the FBI, but they're powerless to stop known dangers from buying weapons because the NRA ensured they would be, because they exist only to lobby for manufacturers right to sell guns.

The leftist solution is to 1) ban guns from people diagnosed or
being investigated for criminal instability 2) regulate certain guns, modifications, and magazines much more stringently and 3) make private gun sales go through background checks. Without the latter, the rest is moot.

Really? funny, I recall Trump saying the buck stops with him, and blaming Obama when it happened under his watch, don't you? (He also likely claimed mass school shootings were fake news leftist propaganda, his buddy Jones told him so) Now, he blames the investigation of his campaign for the FBI not investigating his internet postings, knowing they aren't connected at all.

How is the cop responsible, specifically?

The NRA successfully lobbied to make sure states didn't have to report people to the national registry, and also successfully lobbied to make the system underfunded and not searchable, so nearly useless, so it's just a lie that the NRA supports strengthening the federal registry, they have been at the forefront insisting it remain lax, useless, and toothless for decades.

The insane are not convicted of being insane, it's a medical diagnosis not a conviction (except the convicted criminally insane), so subject to stringent privacy laws with severe consequences if a Dr tells anyone improperly, and they know it and fear being sued and sanctioned. That means most aren't reported at all.

In many states, private gun sales have zero background checks, so no list stops the insane from buying guns privately and legally.

This would come in handy for the zombie apocalypse.

Or when the next president gets elected (no matter who it is, gun sales will go up).

" At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes."

Per year. You don't cite your source, but this is looks to me to be an underestimate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey there are half about half a million people claiming to be victim of a gun related crime over the course of a year. I remember being a victim of a gun crime in America (the perp was an British-born and educated woman) where the police said that they weren't going to follow things up because they were too busy with more serious crimes and they weren't confident of successful prosecution, they didn't even bother to look at the bullets or interview the perpetrator. I'd be surprised if it was even officially reported for crime statistic purposes.

"So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least."

You didn't discuss the confounding variables.

But nevertheless, nobody is saying that owning guns makes you intrinsically more criminal. The argument here seems to be that criminals or those with criminal intent will find it much easier to acquire firearms when there are hundreds of millions of them distributed in various degrees of security across the US.

And those that have firearms, who are basically normal and moral people, may find themselves in a situation where their firearm is used, even in error, and causes harm - a situation obviously avoided in the absence of firearms and something that isn't necessarily included in crime statistics.

"In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home"

Yes, but here's a fun fact. I've been burgled a few times, all but one of those times I was at home when it happened. You know what the burglar was armed with? Nothing. Do you know what happened when I confronted him with a wooden weapon? He pretended he knew someone that lived there and when that fell through he ran away. When the police apprehended him, there wasn't any consideration that he might be armed with a gun and the police merely put handcuffs on him and he walked to the police car. He swore and made some idle and non-specific threats, according to the police, but that's it. In any event, this isn't extraordinary. There are still too many burglaries that do involve violence, of course.
Many burglaries in Britain are actually vehicle crimes, with opportunity thrown in. That is: The primary purpose of the burglary is to acquire car keys (this is often the easiest way to steal modern vehicles), but they may grab whatever else is valuable and easy too.

"The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings."

What impact did it have on gun prevalence? Not really enough to stop the sentence 'guns are prevalent in the US' from being true....

" So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed."

I missed the part where you provided the reasoning that connects your evidence to this conclusion.

"Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. "

This is silly. Guns don't get manufactured and then 32% of them get stolen from the manufacturers warehouse. They get bought and some get subsequently stolen. If there were less guns made and sold there would be less guns available for felons to acquire them privately, less places to steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market, less opportunity for renting or purchasing from a retailer. Thus - less felons with guns.

If times got tough, and I thought robbing a convenience store was a way out of a situation I was in - I would not be able to acquire a firearm without putting myself in considerable danger that outweighs the benefits to the degree that pretending to have a gun is a better strategy. I have 'black market contacts' so I might be able to work my way to someone with a gun, but I really don't want to get into business with someone that deals guns because they are near universally bad news.

" states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate."

Almost all States have such laws, making the comparison pretty meaningless.

"In fact, it's {number of mass shootings} declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. "

I think 'most dead in one incident' is a poor measure. I think total dead over a reasonable time period is probably better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres
The UK appears once. It is approx. 1/5 the population of the US. The US manages to have five incidents in the top 10.

Statistics can be fun, though, huh?

" In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens"

You've done a lot of hard work to show that most gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent. As such, the police won't go door to door, citizens will go to the police.

"How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns?"

The same way they remove contraband from other recalcitrants. I expect most of them will ask, demand, threaten and then use force - but as usual there will be examples where it won't be pretty.

"Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns?"

That's how it typically goes down here in the UK, yes.

"Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else?"

The military has had access to weapons the citizenry is not permitted to for some considerable time. Banning most handguns etc., would just be adding to the list.

"Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?"

No, but on the other hand, can the same unreliable, dishonest, immoral and unvirtuous government ensure that allowing general access to firearms will go exactly as planned?

You see, you talk the talk of sociological examination, but you seem to have neglected any form of critical reflection.

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary"

On the other hand, I've been mugged erm, 6 times? I've been violently assaulted without attempts to rob another half dozen or so. I don't tend to hang around in the sorts of places middle class WASPs would loiter, shall we say. I'm glad most of the people that cross my path are not armed, and have little to no idea how to get a gun.

You don't source this assertion as far as I saw - but you'll have to do better than 'it's interesting' in your analysis, I'm afraid.

No formatting, because too much typing already.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

@Yogi Way to miss the point. I wasn't comparing cars and guns, I was comparing laws regulating cars and guns. That's all I'm going to say to you. You've already told me in another discussion that you're going to refuse any evidence that doesn't agree with your narrow minded beliefs, so having a discussion with you is pointless.

@RedSky

1) I'm not implying that the US is more violent. I already pointed out that the US has lower violent crime rates than the US and UK despite the higher murder rate.


2) I'd say people in rural areas are most likely own guns for hunting and also self defense as there are no police patrols out in the country.

I also wouldn't blame the availability of guns to criminals on gun enthusiasts. Criminals generally don't legally buy their guns. One way to cut down on illegall gun sales is to charge the sellers as accomplices to the crimes committed with the weapons they sell illegally.


3) Maybe punishment was not the right word I should have chosen. My point is that to cut down on driving fatalities, the laws enacted didn't put any inconveniences on responsible drivers.

Your back of the envelope calculation isn't quite so clear cut. Sam Harris discusses this in his article.

It is also worth noting that relatively gun-free countries are not as peaceful as many think. Here are some recent crime data comparing the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Sweden. Although the U.S. has a higher rate of homicide, the problem of assaults in these other countries is much worse...

So, while the U.S. has many more murders, the U.K., Australia, and Sweden have much higher levels of assault. One might think that having a few more murders per 100,000 persons each year is still much worse than having many hundreds more assaults. Perhaps it is. (One could also argue, as several readers have, that differences in proportion are all we should care about.) But there should be no doubt that the term “assault” often conceals some extraordinary instances of physical and psychological suffering.

It's possible that the reason the US has lower assault, robbery and rape is that armed citizens are able to defend themselves from such crimes.

I'm seeing a lot of people saying the US should look to the UK and Australia on how to handle gun control. Both UK and Australia already had low murder and violent crime rates at the time of their "bans." After Australia's National Firearms Act and forced gun buyback, homicide fell by 9%, but assault went up 40% and rape went up 20%. In the years before the NFA, homicides had been on a steady decline, and a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found the NFA's impact on homicide was "relatively small."

After the UK's "gun ban" in 1997, gun crime actually increased [1] [2]. Gun crimes in 1997-1998 were 2,648. The Office for National Statistics shows that 5,507 firearm offenses were reported 2011-2012.


4) Yes cars do provide a benefit to society. Their regulation and restrictions are reasonable, and I already said I'm not opposed to any reasonable gun laws. But cars are the leading cause of accidental death each year. There are lots of things that can be done to make cars and drivers safer. Cars could be limited to 70 MPH. The national speed limit on highways is 70 MPH, why do you need a car capable of going faster? Cars can be fitted with a GPS and a "black box" that records your driving activities. Each year when you renew your inspection, the black box data is downloaded and analyzed. If it's discovered you've broken any traffic laws, you will be fined, and if it's determined you aren't a safe driver, your license is revoked. Prohibit personal sales of vehicles between individuals, because you can't know if the person your selling to is a safe driver or if their license is valid (see below about the "gun show exemption"). Sounds crazy, but those aren't nearly as bad as some of the things being proposed for new gun laws.

I doubt any of those would be acceptable to the majority of drivers, but it would make driving safer and save lives.

As for your suggestions "not yet tried."

- We already have rigorous background checks for purchasing firearms. They're done by the FBI's NICS, I don't know how it can be more rigorous.
- There is no "gun show exemption" or "loophole," that is more media buzzword BS. Private sale and transfer of anything (not just firearms) can not regulated by congress. It's another constitutional issue dealing with the regulation of commerce. It is still illegal for a person to sell a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe may not be legally able to own one. This is another issue that I'm not opposed to fixing though. It could be as simple as requiring the transaction to be witnessed by a licensed gun dealer and perform a background check.
- Assault weapons are already restricted. Real assault weapons that is, not what the media and lawmakers keep calling assault weapons. Once again I ask, why such fuss over the weapon type least used in crime? These "assault weapons" are expensive to acquire, and most criminals go for cheap, small caliber, concealable pistols and revolvers. [source] For more on what an assault weapon is and their use in crime, just head on over to this Wikipedia page.
- Restricting ammunition would be something that would effect responsible gun owners and likely have little effect on crime. Responsible gun owners are the ones that buy more ammo, go to gun ranges and practice.


5) You mean the steadily high murder rate that has been steadily declining for over two decades, by 50% since 1992? [source]

I don't care if you're pro or anti gun regulation. I don't care if you have hundreds of guns

I welcome ANY honest discussion over the roles of firearms in America, Which is precisely why you cannot invite the NRA to the discussion. They're obviously biased. They are a lobby organization. They profit when guns profit. You can't be objective when your livelihood is determined by gun sales.

It's another case where effective government is hampered by private money.

In any case, the problem with what happened during Katrina depicted in this video has nothing to do with gun confiscation, it has everything to do with shitty cops making bad decisions. The video conflates these idiot cops beating up grandma with gun confiscation. two completely separate issues.

I am pro gun regulation, but yeah unless someone can explain to me a really good reason WHY they were confiscated (which I'm obviously not going to get from THIS biased video), I would be against gun confiscation in this situation as well.

The problem isn't gun regulation, the problem is appropriate enforcement of said regulation. This was a failure of New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass for giving that order to confiscate weapons. This was a failure of enforcement, not of regulation.

Are we going to hear about that from this video? nah, it goes against the NRA's profit motive. The only message of this video is play off your fears, not to inform.

It's really funny that part of the title of this video is "The Untold Story" because it seems they're not telling the rest of the story.

Lower taxation? Much like people who say it's against their so-called privacy to run red lights without a camera taking their picture? Because I'm pretty sure spending 20k is cheaper than 50k it'd cost to hire just 1 officer to stand at an intersection and chase people down.

Cameras aren't some big evil. It's improper use of the cameras that's evil. It's illegal wire tapping that's evil. It's the recording of all text messages without any safe guards in place that's evil. You're worried about a camera? Seriously, what are you doing that makes you so terrified of a little camera?

Why do police cars have cameras? I doubt it's so they can be all big brother on you. It's to keep the officer honest. It's a non-biased witness to a crime. In most cases a camera isn't going to prevent a crime, but it certainly helps when it's a he-said/she-said incident.

I think I vaguely recall some discussion about guns not killing people. Or something along those lines. If guns are perfectly okay despite the massive evidence of the rampant gun use and rampant gun sales to foreign entities that use them to suppress and murder, I don't see the same argument being applied to CCTV. Why is the gun ok but the owner bad, but the camera bad and the owner is never talked about?

Maybe instead of cheering on the destruction of tax payer property we should discuss the rules and regulations of handling the data from these cameras. After all, I for some reason see tons of idiot criminals on here due to these things. Obviously that benefit outweighs any lame excuses listed above.

1. CCTV is a lot cheaper than an armed guard at every intersection, every school blah blah. Not to mention, armed security hasn't really been all that effective. Hell, someone just shot a few cops the other day. I'm pretty sure the cops had guns. But who's counting.

2. First they make us drive on roads. Next they're going to make us get LICENSED! OMG! Pretty soon they're going to require us not to run over babies, or run red lights, or shoot people who are going too slow! Jesus we're becoming such a nanny state! Why can't I just hire a doctor who went to Joe Bob's School or 3 Day Medical Training?

3. Aside from all the evidence pointing to the fact that CCTV does deter crime. If 1 out of 5 crimes don't take place because of a camera, that's called a Deterrent. But I could be thinking of statistics and not emotion. The reason why these cameras catch idiots is because they're stupid enough to do them in the first place. Locks don't stop criminals. Locks determine your level of honesty. If you're determined enough, you will get in no matter what. If I reaaaaally want in your car, I will find a way, even if you lock it. So why bother locking it? Oh, right, because 1 out of 10 will be super desperate while 9 out of 10 will be ok with just opening the unlocked door.

4. Yeeeeaaaaaaaaah. That's such a good reason. Hey, I don't really like these whole murder laws. I say I should dissent. Or I don't like financial regulation, let's just crash the entire countries economy . . . or sell futures for a product that doesn't exist. See your number 2. Slippery slope here . . . so while I agree with you that some laws should be broken, ignored, fought etc, it's not exactly a "one good reason".

Usually no one reads comments this far down, but I'd like for the pro-gun people to weigh in on these six specific policies, and see if maybe they still sound like reasonable policies to you guys. (Borrowing entirely from here)

1. Ban people on the terrorist watch list from legally buying guns.
   
2. Require background checks on every gun sale.
   
3. Ratify the UN Arms Treaty to tamp down on gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico.
   
4. Allow the public to access the FBI's database of guns used in Federal crimes.
   
5. Ban guns in bars.
   
6. Allow any business to legally bar people from bringing in firearms.
   

To add a couple of my own, how about we also set a maximum legal muzzle velocity, maximum rate of fire, and maximum magazine capacity on civilian firearms.