Why is an "Assault Weapons" Ban even on the table?

[Fenixgoon]

First of all you're quite likely wrong. People who own pools probably are better swimmers and are less likely to drown.

Here's the point about the gun statistics. There are people who think owning a gun makes them safer.

The statistics show that isn't the case. Having a gun around significantly increases the chances a person will die by suicide or homicide.

If guns made people safer that wouldn't be true.

children in homes with a pool or access to water are very much at increased risk of drowning. that's why in many cases a pool can decrease the value of a home rather than increase it.

did the statistical study on firearm-homicide/suicide relations account for location and socio-economic factors? you could own a firearm in a high-crime area and be shot by someone else. you own a gun, but you're already at risk due to other circumstances (correlation does not equal causation).

i say this because the vast majority of firearm homicides involve an illegally owned handgun, as opposed to a legally owned semi-automatic rifle (the latter of which an "assault weapons ban" would target).

as far as guns making people safer- the average number of deaths in a shooting where police stop the killer: 14. the average number of deaths in a shooting where a civilian stops the killer: 2.5 (ripped from a blog post someone linked here).

also consider the number of instances where a firearm was legally used to defend life/property versus homicide/suicide rate

 

[Farmer]

Owning a gun increases the chances of dying by homicide or suicide. Pretty simple.

Are you willing to listen ?

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Essentially what this study finds is that people who own guns are more likely to commit suicide by gun than by other means. You cannot conclude from this that they would not have committed suicide had they not owned a gun, or that gun ownership is what caused them to commit suicide. As such, suicide, while "illegal" (probably the dumbest law I've ever heard of), is unrelated to gun control.

The gun control debate has always been about violent crime reduction, as in, anti-gunners believe that ownership of guns is somehow positively correlated to violent crime, where violent crime are crimes committed with the use of violence from one individual on another. It does not include suicide. The gun control debate has never been about (nor should it be about) suicide prevention.

In the end, why is this surprising, and why is the suicide statistic relevant to the gun control debate?

 

[Tom]

Essentially what this study finds is that people who own guns are more likely to commit suicide by gun than by other means. You cannot conclude from this that they would not have committed suicide had they not owned a gun, or that gun ownership is what caused them to commit suicide. As such, suicide, while "illegal" (probably the dumbest law I've ever heard of), is unrelated to gun control.

The gun control debate has always been about violent crime reduction, as in, anti-gunners believe that ownership of guns is somehow positively correlated to violent crime, where violent crime are crimes committed with the use of violence from one individual on another. It does not include suicide. The gun control debate has never been about (nor should it be about) suicide prevention.

In the end, why is this surprising, and why is the suicide statistic relevant to the gun control debate?

You can compare the rate of suicide, and the rate of homicide, for people who live in homes with guns and witohut guns.

The rates for both are higher in homes with guns.

So the myth that guns make a person safer is a myth.

Death by gun is relevant to a discussion of gun control.

And I'm not particularly advocating gun control, I'm trying to present some info, which may or not be correct, for discussion.

 

[BudAshes]

The biggest problems with guns is that people lose their minds all the time and that people that break into your house will steal your guns and then use them to shoot other people. The reason criminals have guns is because they stole them from someone who got them legitimately. For instance in my town a couple teenagers broke into someones house and stole several semi auto rifles and handguns. The police busted them but when they showed the police where they had hid them all the guns were gone. Now we have several powerful weapons in the hands of criminals. Maybe we need to put high tech tracking devices in every gun.

I also feel guns should be very expensive. If your weapon cost several thousand dollars you will be much more likely to secure it properly and to be sure you are responsible enough to purchase it.

 

[TallBill]

The biggest problems with guns is that people lose their minds all the time and that people that break into your house will steal your guns and then use them to shoot other people. The reason criminals have guns is because they stole them from someone who got them legitimately. For instance in my town a couple teenagers broke into someones house and stole several semi auto rifles and handguns. The police busted them but when they showed the police where they had hid them all the guns were gone. Now we have several powerful weapons in the hands of criminals. Maybe we need to put high tech tracking devices in every gun.

I also feel guns should be very expensive. If your weapon cost several thousand dollars you will be much more likely to secure it properly and to be sure you are responsible enough to purchase it.

And once again, when rifles are stolen it's a money thing. They are simply not the weapon of choice for street criminals.

 

[BudAshes]

And once again, when rifles are stolen it's a money thing. They are simply not the weapon of choice for street criminals.

They aren't the weapon of choice but they are still used by criminals. Who are they going to sell stolen weapons too?

 

[corwin]

They aren't the weapon of choice but they are still used by criminals. Who are they going to sell stolen weapons too?

Many are sold at gun shows, since a private buyer can't really check the serial number (even if the person it was stolen from had the brains to record the serial number for the police report) there's no way for them to know if it was stolen. Criminals rarely want rifles but they'll take cash for them to buy stolen handguns from their hommies...

 

[TallBill]

You can compare the rate of suicide, and the rate of homicide, for people who live in homes with guns and witohut guns.

The rates for both are higher in homes with guns.

So the myth that guns make a person safer is a myth.

Death by gun is relevant to a discussion of gun control.

And I'm not particularly advocating gun control, I'm trying to present some info, which may or not be correct, for discussion.

76% of murderers knew their victim. So yes, living with a murderer will raise your odds. Also, in their polling, they called next of kin for dead people, and asked if firearms were in or around the victims home in the last year. So were getting heresay, that doesn't actually show if the person owned a firearm, and absolutely doesn't show the legality of said firearm. They touched on it themselves by mentioning that criminals caught up in crime are more likely to have a firearm in their house and also more likely to have their home invaded for violent purposes. And by more likely, I mean way more likely.

Drug use within the last year or alcohol use within the last 4 hours was a larger factor although who knows how they found that out.

As far as the last finding, I bet that death by baseball bat is higher in homes that own baseball bats.

Hell after reading the whole bottom disclaimer section they pretty much say that their findings only show that a firearm is the weapon of choice for suicides.

 

[schneiderguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

There is no logical fallacy in my post.

 

[TallBill]

They aren't the weapon of choice but they are still used by criminals. Who are they going to sell stolen weapons too?

Barely. There were 6,000 handgun murders last year, 323 rifle murders. If we look at other violent crimes it'd be a larger disparity. People aint getting robbed and raped with rifles.

Like corwin said, they are being resold to people thinking that they're getting a legal gun.

 

[BladeVenom]

 

[TallBill]

Lol i read about that yesterday.

 

[BudAshes]

Barely. There were 6,000 handgun murders last year, 323 rifle murders. If we look at other violent crimes it'd be a larger disparity. People aint getting robbed and raped with rifles.

Like corwin said, they are being resold to people thinking that they're getting a legal gun.

323 isn't nothing. That doesn't count non fatal injuries or people being threatened/robbed/raped either. I'm not sure what your point is anyway. My point was that guns should be expensive and tracked.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Guns are somewhat expensive and I've had to pass a criminal back ground check to purchase each and every one I own.

 

[corwin]

323 isn't nothing. That doesn't count non fatal injuries or people being threatened/robbed/raped either. I'm not sure what your point is anyway. My point was that guns should be expensive and tracked.

Because only the rich should be able to protect themselves and it should be easy to confiscate every last gun if the government decides it's in their "best interest" right?

Oh and good luck tracking the hundreds of thousands of legal guns already in private hands, let alone the illegal ones

 

[OverVolt]

The biggest problems with guns is that people lose their minds all the time and that people that break into your house will steal your guns and then use them to shoot other people. The reason criminals have guns is because they stole them from someone who got them legitimately. For instance in my town a couple teenagers broke into someones house and stole several semi auto rifles and handguns. The police busted them but when they showed the police where they had hid them all the guns were gone. Now we have several powerful weapons in the hands of criminals. Maybe we need to put high tech tracking devices in every gun.

I also feel guns should be very expensive. If your weapon cost several thousand dollars you will be much more likely to secure it properly and to be sure you are responsible enough to purchase it.

I do agree with this, but the good still outweights the bad. The good guys need to be able to purchase legal guns if they are interested.

 

[TallBill]

323 isn't nothing. That doesn't count non fatal injuries or people being threatened/robbed/raped either. I'm not sure what your point is anyway. My point was that guns should be expensive and tracked.

Ummm that rifles are a tiny fraction of gun crimes. More people are killed with bare hands every year. Duh?

 

[Farmer]

323 isn't nothing. That doesn't count non fatal injuries or people being threatened/robbed/raped either. I'm not sure what your point is anyway. My point was that guns should be expensive and tracked.

Perhaps you should look at the number of defensive gun use cases per year. The possibility that guns might be used to defend people from criminals might be shocking to someone like you, but is nevertheless the norm and the major reason people need to have ready access to guns.

 

[Farmer]

You can compare the rate of suicide, and the rate of homicide, for people who live in homes with guns and witohut guns.

The rates for both are higher in homes with guns.

So the myth that guns make a person safer is a myth.

Uh, no.

First off, there is inherent bias in that households with guns are often times in areas where crime and murder is inherently more frequent (hence motivating the purchase of a gun).

Second off, of those deaths, how many were due to an accidental discharge? Obviously, in a household with a gun, there is a higher chance of dying due to accidental gun discharge than in a house without a gun, where that probability is 0. But just because people die of car accidents, knife accidents, frying pan accidents, gun accidents, does not negate the inherent benefit of a car, a knife, a frying pan, a gun, and is no reason to ban any of those items. In other words, when a person purchases a gun, he knowingly accepts this risk, considering the benefit to be worth it. It is not the role of the government to make that decision for everyone.

Third off, common sense. You can tell me that, according to someone's statistical analysis, in the face of an armed intruder, you are safer if you just let him take what he wishes instead of confronting him with a firearm. You can tell me that, , according to someone's statistical analysis, when faced with a rapist, you are better off getting raped instead of attempting to defend yourself. It does not matter: some (I'd like to think most) people just will not just lie there and take it, despite making them statistically more likely to die. This is a matter of dignity.

I am not religious at all. In my opinion, personal choice trumps government mandate, freedom trumps control, every time, every place.

 

[blankslate]

An assault weapons ban is on the table because it increases sales of certain firearms and extra magazines and ammo for them.

Gun manufacturers are very happy.

 

[RampantAndroid]

323 isn't nothing. That doesn't count non fatal injuries or people being threatened/robbed/raped either. I'm not sure what your point is anyway. My point was that guns should be expensive and tracked.

As pointed out, you buy a gun there is an immediate background check and in some states a waiting period.

Also, will you be one of the first people in line to say "All the rich people, they're oppressing us, they have all the guns!"?

Good job...

 

[shadow9d9]

> Why is an "Assault Weapons" Ban even on the table?

Because sheep get scared and are willing to give up their rights for a false sense of security. See: the TSA and HSA. Eeek! Toothpaste! Shampoo!

The 2nd amendment applied to muskets. To compare them to modern day weaponry is ludicrous.

 

[TallBill]

The 2nd amendment applied to muskets. To compare them to modern day weaponry is ludicrous.

 

[Tom]

Uh, no.

First off, there is inherent bias in that households with guns are often times in areas where crime and murder is inherently more frequent (hence motivating the purchase of a gun).

Second off, of those deaths, how many were due to an accidental discharge? Obviously, in a household with a gun, there is a higher chance of dying due to accidental gun discharge than in a house without a gun, where that probability is 0. But just because people die of car accidents, knife accidents, frying pan accidents, gun accidents, does not negate the inherent benefit of a car, a knife, a frying pan, a gun, and is no reason to ban any of those items. In other words, when a person purchases a gun, he knowingly accepts this risk, considering the benefit to be worth it. It is not the role of the government to make that decision for everyone.

Third off, common sense. You can tell me that, according to someone's statistical analysis, in the face of an armed intruder, you are safer if you just let him take what he wishes instead of confronting him with a firearm. You can tell me that, , according to someone's statistical analysis, when faced with a rapist, you are better off getting raped instead of attempting to defend yourself. It does not matter: some (I'd like to think most) people just will not just lie there and take it, despite making them statistically more likely to die. This is a matter of dignity.

I am not religious at all. In my opinion, personal choice trumps government mandate, freedom trumps control, every time, every place.

I said more or less the same thing, that guns are about control, more so than safety.

 

[Farmer]

The 2nd amendment applied to muskets. To compare them to modern day weaponry is ludicrous.

Where is the word "musket" ever mentioned in the 2nd amendment? I mean, because the framers of the Constitution had no foresight at all, right? We should treat the entire Constitution as if society never developed from the 1780s?

Of all arguments, this one is the most ridiculous.