Gun violence in the USA

[chrisp65]

On 20/05/2018 at 13:56, Xela said:

Sorry. I always think of this though

not forgetting, the right to arm bears

[Dom_Wren]

On 21/05/2018 at 05:17, Stevo985 said:

I wouldn't be so personal as to say YOU are part of the problem.

But the fact that you are law abiding, and are still allowed to own a gun, absolutely is part of the problem.

At least your nicer stevo! Still disagree. 

[Dom_Wren]

On 21/05/2018 at 07:58, bobzy said:

What do you need your guns for?  Genuinely curious why you're so against giving them up/banning guns etc.

I’ve covered that in many many posts. 

[lapal_fan]

The protection angle is bullshit really.  If guns were illegal, that would minimise that risk to extremely few numbers. The people who make threats with guns would very rarely pull the trigger on unarmed victims, but a few deaths would still happen, just a lot less. 

If you made it illegal to have guns away from a range, that would be great. Or maybe even a dedicated weapons storage facility. 

It all boils down to (for most) 2 things;

1. "It's mah right", the hick version used by people who do not possess the intelligence to actually explain why they need guns.

Or

2. People for some reason enjoy owning guns. Which is weird if you think about it.

Very few people need weapons for protection.  That said, I've spoken to people who live in forests surrounded by brown bears who by nature enjoy checking bins near houses, but would that person need anything more than a single action rifle to scare or kill a bear? Or 1 handgun? No.

No-one needs a 45. Revolver, or a 21 round handgun or a 31 round semi automatic rifle. And until these **** muffins admit that, then we'll continue to see thousands of innocent people die every year.

But as long as they have their guns, who gives a shit?

 

[Stevo985]

5 hours ago, Dom_Wren said:

At least your nicer stevo! Still disagree. 

I guess my point is that a law abiding citizen can be a psychopath. 

You don't have to have any criminal record to suddenly kill a load of people.

Giving law abiding citizens access to weapons capable of murder on a mass scale is arming that tiny minority with the weapon they need to do so much damage.

[bobzy]

5 hours ago, Dom_Wren said:

I’ve covered that in many many posts. 

I remember one about protection maybe? But if all the guns were gone, why would you need a gun for protection?

....and thus, why are you against them being banned if it’s only a protection thing? Not having a go, I just don’t understand wanting guns at all so trying to see that side of things. 

[Stevo985]

Just now, bobzy said:

I remember one about protection maybe? But if all the guns were gone, why would you need a gun for protection?

....and thus, why are you against them being banned if it’s only a protection thing? Not having a go, I just don’t understand wanting guns at all so trying to see that side of things. 

Also it's been cited time and time again that having a gun in the house makes you MORE likely to be shot by it. So it doesn't really protect you at all.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Also it's been cited time and time again that having a gun in the house makes you MORE likely to be shot by it. So it doesn't really protect you at all.

Is there something about suicide and guns in the house also ?

WIth suicide in certain demographics more suseptable than others as everywhere,  its a guess but it's probalby the case that this demographic is the most into guns as well.

Imagine what a country the US would be if they didn't do the gun thing,  it would truly be the greatest country & place on earth. 

Currently they are worried about the existance of bump stock's and why kids keep killing kids in schools 

(imagine the money wasted on guns and ammo that are never needed or all the crimes and deaths created by guns in the last 50 years,  it's weird,  it's like the whole nation are the butt of a joke but they don't know it.  Instead of stopping for a minute and thinking,  "if we all have guns then what?" they just carry on defending the ammedment or whatever the piece of paper is becasue that is what they are told to do.)

 

[Genie]

Maybe the state should give everybody a gun on their 18th birthday, it would be safest place on earth.

[bickster]

As an aside, I briefly owned guns when my father passed away. He had three shotguns as he used to enjoy going clay pigeon shooting. Literally the first thing I did after he passed was phone the police so they could dispose of them for me, I absolutely wanted nothing to do with them.

Up until that point I’d always been in gun owning households as my Grandfather also had shotguns (for shooting birds and rabbits in his case). Not once have I ever felt safer with guns in the house, quite the bloody opposite. I was always worried someone would break in and use them on us

[lapal_fan]

Holy shit! 

So from the past few posts I've deducted the following;

- it's less safe having one in the house

- you're more likely to kill yourself with a gun if you have one

- you're more like TO KILL with one in the house

 

ergo; where there are guns, there are more deaths -

ISN'T THIS INCREDIBLE?! 

Someone should tell all the dumb asses in America these stats.. 

"YUR BUT MAH RAAAAATESSS"

**** em' 

[fightoffyour]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I guess my point is that a law abiding citizen can be a psychopath. 

You don't have to have any criminal record to suddenly kill a load of people.

Giving law abiding citizens access to weapons capable of murder on a mass scale is arming that tiny minority with the weapon they need to do so much damage.

[Davkaus]

Look, it's in the constitution, and you can't just go around changing that. A 28th amendment would be ridiculous.

[Rob182]

I always read this thread title to the tune of Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA.

[Straggler]

NRA blocks gun research

Quote

The research that spurred the NRA's 1996 campaign underscores what the organization thought was at stake. Conducted by a team headed by Arthur L. Kellermann, then at the University of Tennessee, the study investigated the consequence of firearms in the home. Drawing from statistics in the Memphis, Seattle and Cleveland metropolitan areas, Kellermann found that "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide … by a family member or intimate acquaintance." Even after controlling for such factors as illicit drug use, criminal records or a history of domestic violence, the risk was found to be almost three times higher than in homes without firearms.

This was a blow to the NRA because "it saw that would not help them sell more guns," Rosenberg observed. Kellermann's paper, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993, noted that "protection from crime" was the most commonly cited rationale for having guns in the home. Forced entry by an intruder accounted for a tiny subgroup of real cases, though it loomed large in the fears of homeowners. "A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense," Kellermann wrote. "In the light of … our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes."

The NRA attacked the Kellermann study for its methodology and findings, but the impact on research funding was far more effective and long-lived. A generation of researchers was discouraged from entering a field in which grants were hard to come by and the political push-back intense.

The suppression of research into gun violence of course was started in a time when there was a genuine worry that people might pay attention to experts using scientifically rigorous methods to prove their conclusions.  I fear the next generation of researchers will be put off by being called fake news and discarded without a second thought then harassed for all eternity as unconstitutional America hating traitors.  I guess the point I'm making is, whilst it seems obvious that guns are the problem, they are not really having the debate inside the USA so the average person is still just hearing the NRA talking points, or at the very least are having the NRA view presented as valid and as scientific as the opposition.  The real answer to this is the same as it is with most American politics.  Get the money out of politics. 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Look, it's in the constitution, and you can't just go around changing that. A 28th amendment would be ridiculous.

In that case, cut it down to 26. Problem solved

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, Rob182 said:

I always read this thread title to the tune of Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA.

Same. it doesn't scan, but still!

[il_serpente]

Most people don't realize that the NRA didn't even push the idea that the 2nd Amendment provided absolute right to all individuals to own guns for whatever purpose suited (entertained?) them until the extremists took it over in the mid-70's.   Prior to that, it was mostly an organization of hunting and sport shooting enthusiasts.  The caveat of the well regulated militia in the amendment's wording seems to have been generally accepted to signal that the real intent of the amendment was to leave some recourse in case the new government turned out to be equally as big assholes as the previous bunch.

[El Zen]

8 hours ago, il_serpente said:

Most people don't realize that the NRA didn't even push the idea that the 2nd Amendment provided absolute right to all individuals to own guns for whatever purpose suited (entertained?) them until the extremists took it over in the mid-70's.   Prior to that, it was mostly an organization of hunting and sport shooting enthusiasts.  The caveat of the well regulated militia in the amendment's wording seems to have been generally accepted to signal that the real intent of the amendment was to leave some recourse in case the new government turned out to be equally as big assholes as the previous bunch.

The right to harm bears? 

[mjmooney]

25 minutes ago, Michelsen said:

The right to harm bears? 

  Very good.