Would tougher gun laws prevent criminals from getting and using firearms in the United States

[rDigital]

Privately Owned Firearms
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

270 Million! That's a lot of guns. I think that horse is already out of the barn.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

8.775 murders by firearms in 2010 compared with 270 million guns in the United States.

That means that of the total civilian guns in circulation only 0.00325% are ever used to murder another person. That's a little over 3/1000's of 1%. Thats a whole lot of guns doing a whole lot of nothing. If guns are ONLY designed to kill, It sounds like most guns are defective.

Let's touch that up a little there are about 80 million gun owners in the US. That means only 0.01096875% of gun owners murder another human being in the US. A little over a 1/100 of 1%. That is exceedingly small, especially when you consider that the majority of murders are ultra-concentrated in gang riddled urban centers like Chicago, NYC and DC.

What say you?

40 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, tougher gun laws would prevent criminals from getting and using guns to murder people
	3 (8%)
	No, tougher gun laws would not prevent criminals from getting and using guns.
	37 (93%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DanTex]

1. If you repeat an NRA talking point 100 times, will it suddenly become true?

[rDigital]

2. The numbers speak for themselves, sweetie.

You have to obfuscate and have award winning BSers to "prove" the contrary. I admire your vigor, but not your candor or intellectual dishonesty.

[Reasonable_Argument]

3. I thought the entire point

Of being on the left is that we base our beliefs in fact. You seem to cling to emotion on this issue, I wonder why.

[spayneuter]

5. Facts are facts regardless of who points them out.

It's not a sign of high intellect to dismiss everything said by someone you don't like just because you don't like them. It's ad hominem at its worst.

[CokeMachine]

6. If you repeat 100 times that everything you don't agree with is an NRA Talking point

will it magically become true? Just curious.

[Remmah2]

8. How do you know those are NRA "talking points"

Maybe the NRA looks at the Gungeon.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. I'm sure a member of the NRA leadership...

...would know as many talking points as he does.

[Remmah2]

15. What's the big deal with "talking points" as long as they're valid.

When my union gets together for contract talks they hand out talking points so we can discuss them with management. Some people say "talking points" like it's a bad thing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Hold it! Stop.

Truth is no longer true if spoken by the wrong person.

[rDigital]

56. I'm starting to see a pattern here. My spidey sense is tingling. nt

[ellisonz]

9. You can't argue with "truthiness." n/t

[gejohnston]

10. Are you saying the FBI and ATF are

doctoring their statistics as part of a vast NRA conspiracy?
Do you seriously think gunpolicy.org is a pro NRA site? I suggest you check it out first. Blurting out some knee jerk sentence is often embarrassing, just ask Hoyt and armed robbery.

GunPolicy.org is hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health, the University of Sydney. The School provides internationally recognised leadership in public health by advancing and disseminating knowledge — in this case, supporting global efforts to prevent gun injury.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/about

[ellisonz]

23. Do you really think the rest of us...

...have reduced the social factors surrounding the amount of bloodshed in this country from bloodshed to a simplistic rationalization?

[DanTex]

24. As you noted a while back, gun nuts don't do multivariate analysis.

[Clames]

64. Neither do you.

As you have continuously proven your willingness to dismiss factors that you consider inconvenient when pushing your Brady/MAIG/VPC talking points. We get it already, you only like your facts...

[gejohnston]

25. many if not most do. nt.

[DanTex]

19. According to gunzzzz.com 7 out of every 5 gun owners have disrupted a child trafficking ring!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. New math??? n/t

[gejohnston]

11. NRA talking points brought to you by

the FBI and the Sydney School of Public Health. I didn't think Australia has so many Ted Nugent fans.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Calling something a "talking point" is not a rebuttal.

He listed some facts, then drew a conclusion from those facts. Your job is to either prove the facts are wrong, or that the conclusion is improperly drawn. You can't do that by running away from debate.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. In practice...

...when a pro-control poster characterizes any facts, statistics or policies as "NRA talking points" that's their excuse to not have to discuss/argue with logic and just ignore the information posted. Generally, the idea is to also portray the other poster a negative light.

Most reasonable third parties observing the exchange will see the truth. I mean really who is fooled be the argument "It's got to be lie because the NRA said it's true."?

control

[GreenStormCloud]

26. True. I ran into the same problem with this post, different anti.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=65070

Their refusal to debate is why we are winning.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. +1 :) n/t

[Eleanors38]

68. It is if the "point" can be labeled with the "N" word...

"National" Rifle Association.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. No, absolutely not.

It's been true all along so it won't "become" true.

[rl6214]

48. If you ignore what is actually fact, will it suddenly stop being true?

[spayneuter]

4. Well, Jamaica (less than 500 miles from the US) has what amounts to a total gun ban and is awash

in gun violence and crime. It is a thousand times worse than pre-ban times.

[rDigital]

17. According to the Gun-Prohibitionists countries like Jamaica don't count

because they don't make airplanes or have a Starbucks on every corner.

[spayneuter]

29. Oh, well I figured there must be -some- mitigating factor. Arrgh.

[petronius]

7. "Prevent" is the wrong word here - no level of stringency will prevent

criminals from getting and/or using guns (100% isn't possible anywhere). But it seems obvious that we all agree that gun laws can impede criminal access - otherwise, why would we support background checks, for example?

So the question is: are there stricter laws possible that would meaningfully impede criminal access/use, without unduly infringing on the rights of others? I'd say probably yes - requiring/enabling background checks on every transfer is one possibility, or at least taking steps to improve NICS even further...

[spin]

18. I support such ideas such as you suggest ...

It is reasonable to better enforce existing laws and tweak them so they are more effective.

I feel many if not most gun owners would agree. Unfortunately those who are on the opposite side of the issue push for gun bans, bans on magazine size or requiring all firearms to be registered. They enjoy the support of the media which is willing is distort the facts or lie in order to support the agenda of disarming American citizens which will be accomplished in small incremental steps.

While gun violence has decreased significantly in recent years we can always try to reduce it further.

One sad fact is that much of the gun violence in our nation is caused by turf warfare between competing drug gangs. The rising death toll in Chicago is largely a result of such gang fights. Even if a magic spell was conjured that would cause every gun owner in this nation to willing turn in his firearms, drug gangs who are capable of smuggling tons of drugs into our nation would have no problem smuggling firearms. The solution to this problem has be far stronger law enforcement activity to combat drug gangs. It is my view that such gangs should be treated as terrorist organizations (which they are). Of course we also need to admit that our War on Drugs was lost years ago and legalize some drugs.

[samsingh]

27. i believe you're asked the right question here and i believe there should be other helpful things

that can be done. It seems like most people agree that a background check is helpful. there must be others.

[Eleanors38]

69. This makes more sense, and is a regular topic of discussion here.

[ManiacJoe]

20. The problem is a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.

Straw purchasers are almost never prosecuted.
Gun charges are usually the first ones plea bargained away.

[samsingh]

28. would law enforcement have stopped the gun massacre in Co?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. control is a myth

it's time to accept reality

[samsingh]

34. the benefits of guns is a myth and the rest of us are subjected to pseudo arguments

[rl6214]

35. Yeah, I see your point. I think you should tell that to these people.

Man with firearm stops man on stabbing spree.

http://www.justicearticles.com/gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-salt-lake-grocery-store/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117265760

[samsingh]

37. i'm sure i can find more examples where someone shot people who were armed and couldn't

draw their guns fast enough.

other examples of unarmed people getting slaughtered.

and still more examples of armed people shooting back and hitting the wrong targets.

[rl6214]

39. I'll wait...

i'm sure i can find more examples where someone shot people who were armed and couldn't


draw their guns fast enough.

and still more examples of armed people shooting back and hitting the wrong targets.

[rDigital]

57. I'm still waiting for Sam's examples... All I hear is crickets. nt

[DWC]

58. The Silence of No Response is deafening. n/t

[PavePusher]

62. Are we still waiting...

or have we given up?

[GreenStormCloud]

43. CCWers shooting back and hitting the wrong target is rare.

It does happen some, but is exceptionally rare, and CCWers NEVER mow down nine innocent bystanders like the so-called "professional" NYPD cops.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. "...pseudo arguments"

Like the this which you've written.

[samsingh]

38. the one's i'm getting back

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. Characterizing an argument...

...as irrelevant by using an the same means of that argument, has such a flavor of self-defeating irony. I believe I'll just savor this a bit.

[samsingh]

41. savor away.

[ManiacJoe]

33. Probably, if they had been there.

Was that really the question you intended to ask?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. where there is a will there is a way.

[wolfman24]

42. Good Question

Hello

First I would like to say something about myself. I am not a liberal but a moderate. I have been hunting since I was 8 years old and have been around guns my whole life. The only guns I have ever owned were legitimate hunting guns like shotguns and 22 rifles. I believe that there are people in this country who should have the right to own guns. Hunters who are willing to use only shotguns and certain types of single action rifles are one. The next group would be people who live in remote areas and need to hunt to live. The next group would be people who live in states which have very large counties with few law enforcement (ex. theres a county in Montana the size of Conneticut that only has 4 county sheriffs.) Those people who live in these types of counties who want to have guns for protection should be evaluated given basic police training and then allowed to have specific types of guns. Police officers and law enforcement agents would be another. There might be others but I can't think of any.

The idea of "if we outlaw guns only outlaws would have guns" seems on the surface a ridiculous idea. But if all we do is outlaw guns (specifically hand guns and semi or automatics) we will not keep outlaws from having guns. If you have ever watched "Lord of War" you know what I am talking about. But if we stop producing weapons like the ones I have mentioned and inflict severe penalties on the importation of such weapons and perhaps on the countries that do it that would help. This would include making it a capital offense to import or aide in the import of such weapons that would help. However there would still be a large black market out there. So in reality there will always be a way to get guns if you really want. But my point is the less available we can make guns the fewer (ever if its just a little) there would be.

The other reality is that this is all really academic The NRA and its brainwashed mobs will never change their minds and the conservative religious and political types will never abandon a large portion of their base. The only way anything like this would happen is if the Supreme Court got some backbone and ruled in favor of gun control in a high profile case. That could be a crack in the dam especially if this case included testimony from a high ranking member of the NRA like in the tobacco case. Then the gun control lawyers could go to work chipping at the brick wall we are all now facing. But I do not expect that in my lifetime.

The whole idea of gun ownership using the 2nd Amendment as a guide is based on the collectivism (if there is such a word) aspect of citizenship. Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country". That is the essence of collectivism. We are all citizens. We have a vested interest in what happens in this country and how. The 2nd Amendment gives citizens collectively the chance to do something for their country by being part of a citizen militia. Switzerland has such a militia today. The NRA would have us believe we are still in the wild west and it is the duty of every citizen to take the law into their own hands (individualistic approach to the 2nd Amendment).

I realize that I am unlikely to get seriously flamed in this website as I have on others but if your going to for God's sake use facts and not hyperboly

Thanks

Wolfman24

[DanTex]

44. Welcome to DU. I wouldn't be surprised if you do get flamed, though...

Among regular DUers, you'd be fine, but the gungeon is a different, much more right-wing crowd -- the NRA and its brainwashed mobs, as you put it.

Of course, you are absolutely right that the less available guns are, the fewer there would be, and the less gun violence there would be also. The NRA crowd lives in a black-and-white world where unless you can make it absolutely impossible for a criminal to get a gun, it's makes no difference. But, the reality is, in places like the UK, where it is difficult but not impossible for a criminal to get a gun, there are far fewer armed criminals and far less shootings.

[gejohnston]

47. Falsely accusing those who disagree with you on one thing

of being "right wing nuts" is not flaming, but respectfully disagreeing and explaining why is flaming in your view?
Yeah.

[rl6214]

49. My type of guns are OK but yours aren't.

"inflict severe penalties on the importation of such weapons and perhaps on the countries that do it that would help. This would include making it a capital offense to import or aide in the import of such weapons that would help."

One of the more extreme views on guns seen here.

[oneshooter]

50. Question for you.

What are "certain types of single action rifles"?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. Maybe some like these:

Of course, the poster who is "not a liberal but a moderate" and who has "been around guns" his whole life may have a different view.

[DWC]

60. Welcome to the Gungeon

I have huge respect for moderation and common sense. I think you may find that vulgarity and "flaming" around here comes almost exclusively from a few far, far, far, left elitists / extremists.

I do not agree or disagree with all of your opinions but I do appreciate the logical approach you seem to have taken in developing them.

Semper Fi,

[Simo 1939_1940]

45. Award-winning lifelong liberal Dem criminologist seems to agree with you.

Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed the the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.

-- Dr. Gary Kleck, "Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America"*

* Kleck won the Michael Hindelang Award for this book - the highest honor bestowed by the American Society of Criminology

[spin]

46. The results of the poll are fascinating. ...

I am surprised that they were so lopsided even here in the Gungeon.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. Well that guy from Canada hasn't posted yet.

[upaloopa]

51. This is not a zero sum game. It is not all one way or

the other. Some gun restrictions will work some of the time. We don't sit on our hands because there isn't 100% success. If that were the case we wouldn't do most of what we attempt.

[rDigital]

59. It seem you're part of the "passsomethingnowwegottadosomethingrightnowomfg" crowd. The world

doesn't work that way.

[TheKentuckian]

54. Some actual difference but probably statistically null over any foreseeable time frame.

Prohibitionist cannot attempt to account for generation after generation of proliferation nor ingrained culture that cannot reasonably be compared to western Europe or Japan nor will they reconcile the piss poor and largely counter-productive history of any sort of prohibition in this country.

Of course neither side will push politicians seriously on things that can really reduce violence of all sorts like ending the failed prohibition pogrom we call the War on Drugs, easy access to mental health care, and getting money into people's pockets instead of funneling resources to the wealthy few because too much need, especially over enough time creates desperation and desperation leads too often to terrible choices and all the "getting tough" in the world won't fix much at all.

Fucking cough drop, agenda driven society. Folks will run around and around jabbing their eardrums and poking out their own eyes to avoid dealing with root cause instead of focusing on symptoms.

[rDigital]

55. This poll speaks for itself. : ) read em' n weep

[rDigital]

61. *bump*

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. wow. where did all the voters come from. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

65. No, of course not. The question itself is ridiculous.

It's like asking "Would a new group therapy session help?" when the inmates have already taken over the asylum.

[rDigital]

66. The poll is a puff piece for sure, but the numbers are surely interesting for the

"sky is falling" types.

[Starboard Tack]

67. It demonstrates that they are a small minority.

Extremes on either side contribute little, if anything, to solving problems.
Most of us are caught up somewhere in the middle.

[rDigital]

70. I agree. : ) nt