What types of "gun control" would actually be effective? What sort of "gun control" would I actually support?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mollymultiple160 said:
I believe the aim of gun control laws are primarily to reduce GUN violence. Obviously, that HAS worked. In order to address other forms of violent crime, other measures must be taken. I think that blaming gun legislation (that HAS proven effective in reducing gun violence) for the incidence of other forms of violent crime is nonsensical. As far as I know, there is no causal relationship between gun legislation and incidents or even increase of other forms of violent crime, but if you can provide some solid research that suggests that there is, I would be interested in reading it.

Also, the overly emotional tone of your post and odd suggestion that I would “feel better” because those crimes didn’t involve guns suggests to me that you would be better served by doing something relaxing rather than arguing at me, since apparently you’re too high strung to discuss this in a more easygoing fashion. Best wishes, though. 🙂
Click to expand...
has it worked? in australia 14 mass killings on both sides of the ban. if it worked you would see a drastic reduction not the same numbers.

http://extranosalley.com/a-report-from-england-where-guns-are-banned/

this link above is specific to the guns in england but the site has a lot of data from around the states and world. he claims england has a violent crime rate of 2800 per 100,000; whereas the us has a rate of 400 per 100,000 if tallied the same way. the obvious difference is the gun as a deterrent to violent crime. from this graph their violent crime rate rocketed after the ban.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

reread your post, you come across as quite angry and as if the facts are settled. australia’s gun ban is used by the left as the cure-all to the gun problem; but, it isn’t.

there is no overly emotional tone it is just the harsh reality that you are as dead being killed by a gun as being burned alive in an arson fire. your post to me prioritized the gun deaths over any other forms of violence with the same result. YMMV!

many can learn a lot from this older gentleman. just a word that his spell check doesn’t work so well.

http://extranosalley.com

God Bless ✝️
 
Mollymultiple160 said:
Certainly, gun control laws are not responsible for it.
Click to expand...
the left thinks gun control laws will control gun violence; i don’t

in Australia and elsewhere, the only thing gun control does is provide a safer working environment for the criminal who will arm themselves on the black market: as evident in melbourne.
 
Mollymultiple160 said:
If you think 14 in 20 years is a lot
Click to expand...
i didn’t say it was a lot. it is a norm for their country but it didn’t change with the advent of gun control.

your link is fakenews. it list mass shootings and talks like they are mass killings as defined by the fbi. a big difference. but 200+ sounds better than 30+ which is horrendous enough on its own.

we have a problem but inflating it is just a political tool. we need to enforce the laws on the books. lock up those convicted of using a gun in a crime and throw away the key. why is the left soft on gun crime?
 
Mollymultiple160 said:
You ignored everything else I said, yet again. You are simply determined to feel right.
Click to expand...
@Mollymultiple160, you have surely fought the good fight here in this thread. Thanks for posting. I am very pleased, and a little surprised, to read your positive accounts of Chinese society and culture. Via the media we see a lot of what’s wrong, but in the future I will try to look for the good as well.
 
Mollymultiple160 said:
I believe the aim of gun control laws are primarily to reduce GUN violence.
Click to expand...
I don’t. I believe gun control – like abortion, and a small handful of other issues are wedge issues used by politicians to divide people and to corral and herd voters. “Gun control” cannot reduce gun-related violent crime. It simply cannot – there is hard proof on this matter.
 
upant said:
has it worked? in australia 14 mass killings on both sides of the ban. if it worked you would see a drastic reduction not the same numbers.
Click to expand...
As has already been noted, the purpose of the gun ban was to reduce gun violence, and it did reduce gun violence.
the obvious difference is the gun as a deterrent to violent crime. from this graph their violent crime rate rocketed after the ban.
Click to expand...
As has already been noted, the rise in crime was concurrent with a sudden change in demographics - a much more likely cause of crime.
australia’s gun ban is used by the left as the cure-all to the gun problem…
Click to expand...
…not a cure all, but of enough benefit to make it worth while.
there is no overly emotional tone it is just the harsh reality that you are as dead being killed by a gun as being burned alive in an arson fire. your post to me prioritized the gun deaths over any other forms of violence with the same result.
Click to expand...
It is not as if these various problems are vying for solutions from some common resource, where it might make sense to speak of them as being in competition. Addressing gun violence in no way prevents addressing arson violence. They can both be addressed at once by separate means.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As has already been noted, the purpose of the gun ban was to reduce gun violence, and it did reduce gun violence.
Click to expand...
I don’t think victims of terror attacks particularly care if they were shot or hit by a truck. If the gun ban did not reduce the number of mass killings, then it failed.
 
Last edited:
Take a look at the mental state of our killers.

That is the key.

Why do people in the inner cities kill more readily than other people?
 
Guns sales only through registered sellers and all gun sales checked against a national database of those convicted of assaults, domestic abuse, robbery, and any other violent crime, as well as a history history of mental illness. Most of this is already in place.

Making person to person sales illegal without obtaining a transfer of ownership first, which would involve the above background check.

A limit on how many shots can be fired from an semi-automatic rifle. Call this an assault rifle ban, or whatever. I do not buy the appeal that there is no such thing as an “assault rifle”. It can be defined well enough, or a weapon by weapon ban can be impose, like is done on drugs. We do not let the fluid drug situation keep us from making drugs illegal.

An end to the sale of all clips and magazines to the public and placing them in the category of a prohibitive weapon.
 
Last edited:
All of this relies on people to abide by the law.

People inclined to criminal activity are not going to pay any attention to the law and will make their own weapons and magazines and clips; it’s not rocket science.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
All of this relies on people to abide by the law.

People inclined to criminal activity are not going to pay any attention and will make their own weapons; it’s not rocket science.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. That’s how laws work.
 
Last edited:
Automatic weapons are already banned in the United States, at least all made after 1986. And then it’s a pain in the neck to acquire.

Banning all magazines? If magazines were banned in the United States, then Stephen Willeford wouldn’t have been able to stop the Sutherland Springs shooter. (He took five or six shots to do it.)
 
And criminals don’t follow them because they’re criminals.

That’s how laws work.

There are YouTube tutorials for how to build your own gun magazine. If you’ve ever seen a gun magazine, it’s literally a little box with a spring at the bottom. All you have to do to increase its capacity is make it taller.
 
XndrK said:
I don’t think victims of terror attacks particularly care if they were shot or hit by a truck. If the gun ban did not reduce the number of mass killings, then it failed.
Click to expand...
That is like saying the measles vaccine failed because it did not prevent polio.
 
No, because laws against murder, say, are on the books because murder is objectively bad and deserving of punishment, and laws against the possession of post-1986 machine guns are on the books because these things are insanely dangerous and pose as much a danger to the user as to anyone else. These do objectively good things because we have a police force that enforces them and they are good laws.

Laws against twenty-round magazines, on the other hand, are bad laws because those people who have bad intentions break the law anyway because it’s unenforceable and those who are of good intent don’t break the law, so they’re stuck with fewer bullets to defend themselves and others with.
 
The rate of death by infectious disease went down after the introduction of the measles vaccine, so it succeeded.

The rate of mass killing apparently did not go down after the introduction of gun bans in Australia, so it failed.
 
XndrK said:
Laws against twenty-round magazines, on the other hand, are bad laws because those people who have bad intentions break the law anyway because it’s unenforceable and those who are of good intent don’t break the law, so they’re stuck with fewer bullets to defend themselves and others with.
Click to expand...
Such is the nature of opinions. I find your argument weak, for example, as fewer bullets are needed to defend and retreat, unless the situation is crowded. In that case, the fewer bullets fired wildly, the better.

Likewise I find the whole “criminals do not obey the law” argument absurd. I really do not think any one but gun owners believe it legitimate. Like most bumper sticker mentality, it plays to like-minded people and does nothing to forward debate.
 
No.

Some laws are effective because the punishment is enough to deter the majority of people. Or the punishment is enough to get chronic offenders off the street.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top