Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[CaptainCrunch]

All you need to know (This kills me everytime)

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I'm not advocating for guns, but I find your post to be highly unrealistic. The number of gun owners in the states is staggering. Assuming the government could clear the constitutional hurdles and actually ban guns. The black market for guns would keep them in circulation indefinitely.

Once you remove the gun support network, no ammunition being produced and sold etc, add a reletively lengthy sentance for illegal possesion and an amnesty procedure for owners to bring in guns what would happen is in the first few years millions of guns would be picked up very quickly, the vast majority of guns in the US sit in cupboards never being used, those owners, not being hardcore NRA or criminals prepared to risk jail would just bring them in to the cops right of the bat, they did this in the UK after the war when people in the UK had as many guns as those in the US.
.
As the supply got smaller the relative value of guns would get higher, this alone would virtually eliminate most of the US's deaths as even those that had guns would be very carefull not to have them found.

All of this presupposes the the american public supported the law due to some dreadfull massacre or the like, I don't think it will happen as the average US citizen really believes their gun keeps them safe even though every rational study says otherwise.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Once you remove the gun support network, no ammunition being produced and sold etc, add a reletively lengthy sentance for illegal possesion and an amnesty procedure for owners to bring in guns what would happen is in the first few years millions of guns would be picked up very quickly, the vast majority of guns in the US sit in cupboards never being used, those owners, not being hardcore NRA or criminals prepared to risk jail would just bring them in to the cops right of the bat, they did this in the UK after the war when people in the UK had as many guns as those in the US.
.
As the supply got smaller the relative value of guns would get higher, this alone would virtually eliminate most of the US's deaths as even those that had guns would be very carefull not to have them found.

All of this presupposes the the american public supported the law due to some dreadfull massacre or the like, I don't think it will happen as the average US citizen really believes their gun keeps them safe even though every rational study says otherwise.

Because that stops the current gun laws from being broken now...

[nik-]

Originally Posted by tussery

Because that stops the current gun laws from being broken now...

Stop punishing for murder then too.

[Senator Clay Davis]

But enacting strict gun laws now is too late because obviously the black market would become totally flooded. Even though Chris Rock suggested it as a joke, bullet control might be the most effective way to lower gun violence. If bullets cost an inordinate amount of money (say $1,000 for a clip), I'm guessing people might just think twice about indiscriminate gun fire.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by tussery

Shows how much you know about military bases.

Edit:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56558
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-fo...085,full.story

I don't see how that changes anything about my post, the base had well armed MP's on it, a reletively easy and quick access to guns for all of the personel and the soldiers themselves were all likely gun owners themselves (military personel in the US tending to be gun owners and supporters), my point was unless you have your gun on you and preferably in your hand when the shooting starts owning a gun does nothing to protect you.

The only way owning a gun protects you is if it is on you 24 hours a day, which is impractical for most, even then you have to be a better shot than the other guy and no one really believes the world would be safer if every body had a gun on their hip, what Mickey the redneck thinks is he will be safer if he has a gun and the other guy probably doesn't which is generally the case right now, but if you keep making it easier and more likely that every one is wandering around with a gun then the average bit of road rage, or two guys getting into a row in a bar becomes the shoot out at the OK corral.

The point of gun control is not to stop criminals from killing us, they generally have no reason to kill anyone, the point of gun control is to stop the average joe schmoe who just lost his job or broke up from his girlfriend from killing people, that is who is doing the killing in the US.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by tussery

Because that stops the current gun laws from being broken now...

And where do these lengthy sentences for gun possession exist exactly?

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'll try my hand at this:

Fact: In 1998 12 women used a handgun in self defense and 1209 were killed by a handgun.

Fact: States with higher gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide.

Fact: Using a gun in self defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than many non lethal forms of protective action

Fact: After Washington DC enacted a handgun ban, the homicide rate declined by 25%

Fact: The National Academy of Sciences found that states that enacted right-to-carry laws did not in fact have lower crime rates once corrected for other factors

Fact: Having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of fatal/nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self defense

Fact: The US has the highest rate of firearm death in the 25 high income nations

Fact: Firearm death in children aged 5 to 14 is 11 times higher than the other 25 highest income nations

Fact: People with a gun in their home are almost twice as likely to die in gun related violence than those who do not



so yeah, more guns, not less. Great idea.

Though I doubt you would see those numbers on your NRA supported websites you visit mikey

All extremely valid points, however it falls on deaf ears with gun owners.

Trying to take away their guns is like trying to take the pipe away from a crack head, or an X-box from a spoiled child.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But enacting strict gun laws now is too late because obviously the black market would become totally flooded. Even though Chris Rock suggested it as a joke, bullet control might be the most effective way to lower gun violence. If bullets cost an inordinate amount of money (say $1,000 for a clip), I'm guessing people might just think twice about indiscriminate gun fire.

That would just lead to a black market for bullets

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But enacting strict gun laws now is too late because obviously the black market would become totally flooded. Even though Chris Rock suggested it as a joke, bullet control might be the most effective way to lower gun violence. If bullets cost an inordinate amount of money (say $1,000 for a clip), I'm guessing people might just think twice about indiscriminate gun fire.

But then how our the few people with actual legitimate requirements for gun supposed to become skilled at using it?

It's rare, but some people are in situations where carrying a personal firearm is a logical tool to have. I don't know how good I'd feel about just handing them a gun and making it to difficult to practice.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But enacting strict gun laws now is too late because obviously the black market would become totally flooded. Even though Chris Rock suggested it as a joke, bullet control might be the most effective way to lower gun violence. If bullets cost an inordinate amount of money (say $1,000 for a clip), I'm guessing people might just think twice about indiscriminate gun fire.

Actually if you enacted strict gun control with heavy penalties, add in an amnesty and a buy back program and you would, over the course of a few years, rapidly at first, more slowely in the end bring in most guns, even before you got them all they would become very expensive, as they are in Canada, and therefore unlikely to be used against the 'general public'.
We have a crap load of illegal guns up here and a deadly gang war going on in Vancouver, but I, as a non criminal, am completely safe.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Realistically as I mentioned before the number one cause of excessive gun violence is social conditions. Until those change you can enact gun control, bullet control whatever you'd like but it won't have much impact. When people feel down, desperate and scared they are obviously more much liable to want/need a gun.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Realistically as I mentioned before the number one cause of excessive gun violence is social conditions. Until those change you can enact gun control, bullet control whatever you'd like but it won't have much impact. When people feel down, desperate and scared they are obviously more much liable to want/need a gun.

They are not acting in a bubble. People in many nations feel down, desperate and scared too and do not reach for a gun as often. The ubiquitous nature of handguns in the US is a unique differentiator. Make no mistake, the number of guns in the US is a very real and very large contributor to this mess.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Realistically as I mentioned before the number one cause of excessive gun violence is social conditions. Until those change you can enact gun control, bullet control whatever you'd like but it won't have much impact. When people feel down, desperate and scared they are obviously more much liable to want/need a gun.

People are just as desperate up here but an ilegal gun is ungodly expensive so no one bothers, trust me, this is where I live, it is poorer and as effed up as any where in the US

[tussery]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Realistically as I mentioned before the number one cause of excessive gun violence is social conditions. Until those change you can enact gun control, bullet control whatever you'd like but it won't have much impact. When people feel down, desperate and scared they are obviously more much liable to want/need a gun.

Nope you are wrong everyone on Calgarypuck told us so. Your point is invalid.

[Canuck-Hater]

Another senseless death...
A 68 year old White Plains NY war veteran was killed by police who were sent to his apartment after he accidentally set off his medic alert bracelet. Anyways this killing could arguably be because of his race.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...led-police.cnn

[Senator Clay Davis]

But as has been mentioned, if you put gun control in and everything goes underground, its not gonna help anything. If people want a gun, just like if they want cocaine, heroin or other illicit things, they're going to find a way to get one. And of course on a black market it is substantially more difficult to trace weapons.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But as has been mentioned, if you put gun control in and everything goes underground, its not gonna help anything. If people want a gun, just like if they want cocaine, heroin or other illicit things, they're going to find a way to get one. And of course on a black market it is substantially more difficult to trace weapons.

It would likely make a large difference. Less guns being produced and distributed will decrease the gun supply. Many illegal guns come from stolen legal ones.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You know both those numbers were from polls, right? You know that logic casts serious doubts on those numbers? The 2.5 million is due to a poll of 222 people extrapolated on the whole population. There are police reports for far less than 1% of those. And yes, not all will be reported, but in all these thwarted rapes and assaults, far less than 1 in 1000 report them? Come on mikey.


Edit: And while you seem to know my news watching habits, the reason that number isn't used is because it is bunk

Every single study done on gun defense points to millions of instances where civilians use their guns to deter a crime.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

"Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year."

"Other studies give similar results. “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year. A 1986 study by Hart Research Associates puts the upper limit at 3.2 million."

So all these organizations are presenting "bunk" numbers?
People don't use their guns for defense at all?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp


According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year


"Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home."

[Senator Clay Davis]

But the elephant in the room for the US is how do you actually decrease the total number of guns out there? Producing less is nice, but that just prevents new guns from getting to market. What about the existing guns out there? I'm guessing but its not unrealistic to believe gun owners in the US have somewhere around 35-40 million guns. How exactly do you get rid of all those? This is where this discussion gets tricky, because as has been mentioned, people who have guns will not give them up unless they are of course "Out of their cold dead hands"