1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest! Are you any good at cooking? Got a favourite recipe that you love to cook or bring out to impress that special someone? Why not share it! A new forum called The Burrow has opened and it's all about homemaking!

2nd amendment / gun discussion thread: Keep it in here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LogrusMage, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. CheddarTrek

    CheddarTrek Set Phasers to Melt Moderator DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    5,954
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Protip newageofpower - If you're on the losing side of an argument, where most everyone else disagrees with you, keep the emotion / vitriol / idiocy out of it. It just makes it that much easier for everyone to dismiss you as a fool.

    Example:
    Now that's just fine so long as everyone is laughing along with you, or nodding along, or agreeing with you... but if you want to be taken seriously as a point of opposition you might want to rephrase.

    Instead:
    Notice that my phrasing says the exact same thing yours is, but I'm not trying to make it sound like the other side is stupid.

    Drop the ! and the trolling. Not because they don't have a place on DLP, they do. They definitely do. And the other side will bandwagon to a point and do it to you. But if you are trying to hold up your end of the argument almost entirely by yourself, stop giving them ammo to use against you by coming off poorly. Rephrase, make it harder for them to dismiss you.

    I am personally offering no opinion on this at all, because I fully intend to stay the fuck out the politics sub-section. I always have before. But this came up in IRC so I ended up clicking, damnit.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  2. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,329
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    Familiarize yourself with the game of golf, it's a good game ;)

    It's actually the only part of his post where he's citing Gunpolicy.org. Hence why your little tirade was totally unnecessary, plus you were trying to tie the two together. Something which you may have done in anger and have apologized for, but it's still a bad faith argument strategy.

    Joe also didn't link gun deaths to a specific racial group, whereas you did. That's where the accusations of racism come in, since statistics presented in a vacuum without any additional details are pretty inherently flawed. I believe you agree with this assessment based on your arguments about why it's bad to compare the US to Japan. Got all that bad faith and existential angst, but none of the Philosophy major in undergrad pussy -- it's like the worst of both worlds.

    Okay, you're not racist. You have black friends. Here's a rundown for why that's a fucking dumb argument.

    * * *

    Also, double and triple posting while people are responding to your initial post is in pretty poor form. As for the Bloomberg/not Bloomberg stuff, I'm observing a flaw in your reasoning and your overall argument about Joe's sources. There's actually no discussion necessary, since we're dealing with your lazy attempt at generalized character assassination.

    EDIT: Ninja'd by @Ched because it's a Friday night and I have other shit to be doing. Until next month :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  3. newageofpower

    newageofpower Professor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2015
    Messages:
    477
    Glad to see you back. Have you reconsidered pink for Johnny's sake?

    I dislike golf. I don't understand why others enjoy it so much.

    Er. Gunpolicy & University of Sydney are not the only sources in doubt. I'm fairly certain I've said this.

    For example, Duke University & Violence Policy Center are difficult to describe as unbiased in either case. VPC, especially, has a history like Philip Alpers.

    Did you want me to go into more detail?

    The first part was more of an add-on to my arguments about why Murica can't be compared with Finland, the way Fish & Chip eaters are not the same as Sushi eaters.

    This part of the argument is indeed incomplete, but it was not the critical point of my post, imho.

    Ah. I was plenty soaked in... female attention as an Engineering major. The jealousy (80% male school) was even more delicious.

    That's... not my point. It was a reflexive (if admittedly retarded) statement.

    ---------- Post automerged at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

    Is it now? I keep coming up with more stuff as people reply to me. What should I do instead?

    You're insisting I have balls to claim that 'Bloomberg is biased against guns but even that source supports my position.'

    I'm not going to argue the first point, but you're avoiding my reasoning. Am I correct or incorrect about Bloomberg and that dataset/conclusion pair?

    Joe, I love your stories (esp Lord of Kobol & Wastelands, very Bond-esque).

    Again, I was out of line with some of my statements. I believe I've already apologized, but let me make this clear, I am not here to 'Assassinate your character'.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  4. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    5,060
    Location:
    Hbg., Germany
    A s general rule, the quality of any debate is inversely proportional to the number of quotes per post. Consider which stage you've reached here.

    Personally, I think this round of Guns vs. No Guns has run its course (until the next occasion ...), but then this is the official discussion thread, so if you still find someone to debate the issue with you ... (HINT)


    Edit: Article. TL;DR:
     
  5. Perspicacity

    Perspicacity High Score: 3,994 Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    High Score:
    3,994
    Off topic: I suspect few of us in pink are bothering to participate in the race to mod. While I would like to think that I've added (and donated) enough to DLP over the years to warrant consideration, that's neither here nor there. My posting rate of 4k posts over 8 years isn't nearly up to being competitive for the auto-qualifier. (I leave this to the worthy hands of E. C. Scrubb and Republic, who are running away with this thing.)

    Back on topic, I think the registry thing is a non-issue, practically. There's no way an effective system will be in place before advances in additive manufacturing render the point entirely moot. When anyone and his sister Stella can print a firearm on demand in a matter of days (or hours), then what's the point in trying to regulate?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  6. Russano

    Russano Disappeared

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    One for two is good enough, I guess.
     
  7. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,822
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Quality shit post right here. Doesn't add anything, attacks the author (even if he is oh so attackable).
     
  8. Russano

    Russano Disappeared

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    You're right, better off not posting that. What I originally had wasn't even 10 characters and I struggled to come up with something else. Didn't intend for something to sound "attacking." Intention was to point out that he wasn't the author of that fic, albeit apparently very poorly.
     
  9. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    958
    High Score:
    2,058
    Supposedly, technically, it's illegal to print one. How they'll regulate it is an entirely different issue. And, frankly, it's something that scares me. Because the people printing them will be the cartels and drug gangs that are running them from Mexico right up through my city.

    ----------
    Off topic - posting. Dissertation Avoidance Issues not withstanding, there's a 50/50 chance I'd donate it to charity, anyway.

    ---------- Post automerged at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

    Just got home. Too tired to sift through numbers. I'll get to this tomorrow when I can focus better on what your presenting and arguing.

    Maybe it's just me, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading a post of an annoyed CheddarTrek!Mod. I think it was the tone, the education provided, and the placement of both swearing and italics.
     
  10. Joe

    Joe The Reminiscent Exile Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    499
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    High Score:
    1,800
    newageofpower - don't be overly concerned, mate. I'm not. You performed on cue. Based on your contributions in this thread, could've put good money on the fact you'd attack credibility/post author over providing a genuine rebuttal to the individualistic vs. society argument that was being debated.

    If you had any salient points in your post, they were lost in the vitriol wash.

    I'm still keen to hear your thoughts on what benefits are provided by firearms, when for every legal shooting there are 44 illegal ones? The net gain for society just doesn't add up, even when you account for self-defense behaviour (DGU's). I'll even take the high end of the figures provided by you and Scrubb, 300,000 DGU's a year. Compared to the average over five years provided by the Bureau of Justice, a source which you accepted, of 29,000,000 violent crimes (and that's violent crime holistically, not just violent crimes where both victim and perpetrator had a gun).

    300,000 x 5 years = 1.5 million DGU's

    1.5 million of 29,000,000 recorded attempted/completed violent crimes is...

    5.17%

    Still not seeing the benefit there, but I'm sure as shit seeing the fallout in terms of gun violence.

    Which is why my position is fewer guns = good benefit to society. I don't want to take your guns off you, far from it, I want to limit the amount available flowing from legal to illegal means.

    If the stats were the other way, 44 legal shootings to 1 illegal shooting, I'd see guns as a benefit. Hell, if it was as low as 2 legal shootings for every 1 illegal shooting, I'd still see that as a net gain to society. But it isn't.

    The statistics/raw data/reality just does not reflect a benefit - even accounting for DGU.

    So... you're saying we need greater restrictions on firearms, Scrubb? :p

    The printed firearm issue is something rising to precedence, yes. I don't have much in the way of a position on this one - something I'm not too well-read in - but I imagine similar security features could be built into the printers. Like how you can't scan/photocopy bank notes. That's a fragile example, but perhaps something inherent to the software on the machines?

    Here's an article discussing just that, actually. It won't stop the motivated, of course, but a trickle instead of a flood is far more manageable from a regulation/law enforcement perspective.

    Cool - eager to read your thoughts.

    Edit: I'd like to thumbs up some responses in this thread, namely Giovanni and CheddarTrek, but I'm a pasty pink bastard who don't have no thumbs yet.
     
  11. newageofpower

    newageofpower Professor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2015
    Messages:
    477
    This is going to be a little short; I've got a hot date this afternoon. If I'm back early (...or at all today), you'll know it didn't go well.

    Joe

    44 illegal shootings per legal shooting is completely incompatible with even 100,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year (I've expressed doubt in the 370,000 number in my previous posts). Let's analyze your other sources.

    I've also expressed doubt in both VPC and Duke University numbers, although not to the same extent as the University of Sydney/Philip Alpers.

    The closest (reputable) source I can identify for giving those kinds of numbers is the FBI Uniform Crime Reports; there are immediately multiple issues with said data source.

    Most importantly, by the FBI UCR Guide; they have a very limited definition of justifiable homicide. (Link to handbook, Page 25) A direct quote from the book (bold emphasis mine):

    NOTE: Justifiable homicide, by definition, occurs in conjunction with other offenses. Therefore, the crime being committed when the justifiable homicide took place must be reported as a separate offense. Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify a killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court.

    Yes. Even if the court rules your homicide is justified, the FBI will probably not relist it as such; as such trials may take months or years; over 80% of homicides are taken to court (As they should be, given the weight of taking a human life)

    Fuck, according to the National Institute of Health, we don't even have accurate numbers for killings by police each year.

    Secondly, the not all states contribute to the UCR, and especially not regularly.

    Okay. Hopefully, I've demonstrated you can't just pull out Violence Policy Center numbers and assume they're unbiased. Even FBI UCR data is not indicative of actual 'conditions on the ground'.

    Instead, let's take a look at the CDC Report on Firearms Violence ordered by President Obama (who, I think we will agree, is not a pro-gun shill).

    Although most of the key figures involved in pushing for this report are antigun and it faced severe NRA opposition, the actual CDC Committee was remarkably bipartisan, although I cannot say the same about the Reviewers.

    One of the most interesting findings the CDC report generated was that armed citizens tend to get injured at a much lower rate!

    A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actualdefensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies
    (Direct quote, page 15-16)

    Other key points of the research I found interesting were that it found [paraphrasing here, running out of time] gun buybacks do not lower gun violence, and the effectiveness of anti-gun legislation tends to be mixed.

    Fascinating.

    RE your "I'm not here to take your guns away statement", disclosure: I reside in the People's Republic of NYC, and do not own any firearms.

    I do not foresee NYC making firearms ownership less restrictive within the next decade, and I'll have moved before then.

    Moving on to your thoughts on additive manufacturing...

    Erm. I don't think you realize how much simpler a firearm is than a banknote.

    You do realize it's possible to build guns from like, pipes & sheet metal, right? I don't mean like crude 12ga single-shot shotguns, but magazine-fed automatic weaponry...

    This fascinating design was created by a British pro-gun activist and uses minimal tools. He is known to have created several more; a simple search of Expedient Homemade Firearms has immediately turned up 3 more documents.

    A 3D printer that could not print any of those parts would be an expensive paperweight.

    I wanted to thumbs-up Pers, but ran out while browsing the WBA.

    And I just missed 2 text messages. Gotta run, wish me luck y'all!
     
  12. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    958
    High Score:
    2,058
    But, again, that comparison is grossly onesided. The average citizen with a gun does not want to shoot. So, comparisons between justified and non-justified homicide is like comparing apples and oranges. The comparison that I suggest is DGU (meaning brandishing a weapon in face of a felony) vs. crime with a weapon. So, first . . .

    FBI Stats 2013 (2014 is actually a tad bit lower)-
    Murder - 14196. 69 percent were by gun, so, 9765 (estimate based on percentages.
    Aggravated assaults - 72149. 21.6 were by gun, so, 15584 (est.)
    Robbery - 345093. 40 percent by gun, so 138037 (est.)

    That means, 163,386 felonies by gun (not including rape. For some reason, the FBI doesn't gather those numbers. I doubt it'd be that high, however, as a rape is an (anti-)intimate crime which doesn't lend itself to gun use (no data to support that, just reasoning it out).

    SO, using the above numbers, 163,386 crimes by gun (as designated above). The lowest, most conservative estimates that are considered legitimate for DGU use hover between 100-300k. It would be wrong to assume crimes confronted with DGUs are not counted in the felonies listed above. It would also be wrong to assume that all crimes are counted in the above numbers as well.

    On the other hand, DGU begins when someone threatens your life or limb, enters your house, or attempts to carjack you. That means many felonies that might have been listed above, were probably stopped by DGU before they reached the level of felony. So, what can we take away from this stat, then?

    What I take away from it is that using conservative numbers for DGUs, it suggests guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens help stop as much or more crime that crime committed with guns in the hands of criminals.

    So, is there any hard data to prove that fact? Yes and no, as you well know, data is always up for interpretation. But, I think we can control for a pretty good amount of variance. The way to do that is to compare crime numbers of areas before and after major gun legislation. So . . .

    Arizona, 2010 moved to concealed carry without permit.

    Murder per 100k
    05 7.5
    06 7.5
    07 7.4
    08 7.0
    09 5.8
    10 Gun went into effect six months into year: 6.4
    11 6.1
    12 5.5
    13 5.4
    14 4.7
    I don't want to make this post unnecessarily long so: rape saw a very modest increase, robbery saw a drastic drop starting in 2009, assault saw a drop in 2009 and except for 2012, has remained the same, Burglary has seen a drastic drop throughout the years, but after a modest increase in 2011, has resumed its drop.

    Results: more access to carrying guns on the streets resulted in either no change, or positive change depending on intervening variables and interpretation of trends.

    New York. 2013 NY Safe Act - (the only real relevant part of the act in our conversation concerning number of crimes committed is the background checks on ammo buyers). Instead of wasting time listing the numbers, the summary is, there's no real change. Like in Arizona, numbers were dropping, and continued to drop overall at about the same rate.

    At this rate, I'll be at it all day. So, instead, I'll go big picture. All following data from here.

    UK. In 1998, they passed their big gun law. Change in intentional homicides? Per 100k, 1 intentional homicide in 1995-1998. 1999 it was still 1. Starting in 2000, it doubled until 2005, when it went back down to pre-ban levels.

    Conclusion: UK gun laws passed in 1998 either negatively, or neutrally affected overall homicides, depending on other factors.

    Canada and Australia: Gun law passed in 1995 and 6, respectively. Intentional homicides before gun law per 100k: both at 2. Intentional homicides after gun law through 2004, both at 2.

    Conclusion: Gun laws had no overall effect on intentional homicides in either country after passing them.

    United states: Brady Bill and Assault weapon law went into effect in 94-95. Homicides by 100k went from 8, down one point every two years until 2000 at 6. Blipped up in 2001, then back down to 6. Note, both bills are now expired around 2004 (Brady bill waiting period expired in 1998 with NICS in place. Note, NICS was part of Brady Bill). Yet, since the bills expired (waiting period for Brady Bill), homicide rates remained at 6 through 2007, then down to 5 in 2008-12.

    Conclusion: The background check looks to be effective, as it is the only part of the legislation still in place. All other pieces of legislation from these changes have ended. Yet, homicide rates continue to slowly decline. It should also be noted that state laws were loosening over the last 4 years as listed above as well. This very well might be the combination of NICS stopping criminals from getting weapons, and law abiding citizens still have access to them in their daily lives.

    Within the US, concerning gun laws, 75 percent of the top 11 states (and territories) with the toughest gun laws, are also in the top 26 states (and territories) for highest percent of gun murders compared to all murders in that state. On the other hand, 55 percent of the 11 states with loosest gun laws are also in the bottom 26 states and territories for murders with guns compared to overall murder.

    Edit: There's a plethora of other studies putting DGUs somewhere between 100-300k. Look at one of the previous posts for that source, which then lists a number of other sources a well. If I have time, I'll link it here as well.

    2nd Edit: It wasn't as robust as I remembered, but here's the article posted earlier. What I do remember is low-ball number based on a study being 100k. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
    -----------------------------
    Overall conclusion:

    In every case where gun laws were tightened except the US, there was no overall affect on homicide rates. In the US, NICS most likely affected it (depending on what you do with outside factors like economics, which seems to have played a part in all rates before and after as well, something I didn't touch on), but after dropping gun bans, waiting periods, and loosening gun laws in many of the states, there's still an overall decrease in homicides per 100k.

    Within the US, however, 75 percent of the top 11 states with tough laws are also in the top half for gun murders compared to all murders, and the reverse is true (at 55percent) for loosest gun laws.

    What that suggests to me, is, you're more likely to be murdered by a gun in a state that restricts guns, than you are in a state that doesn't restrict them. And, that would follow the data above about DGUs.




    The problem is, what I just showed above tends to argue against that. In fact, tighter gun control has done little to nothing to reduce overall homicides. (I'd throw in other crimes, but didn't do the stats on it). What that tells me is the problem in the US isn't guns. It's a larger societal issue.
    My numbers above would disagree. Here's the soures for those numbers:

    (Note, I'm including Kleck and Gertz just to be complete).

    Kleck, Gary, and Marc Gertz. "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology vol. 86, no. 1 (Fall 95): 150-187. Access this study here

    For a response to this study from (at the time) one of the foremost criminologists and gun control advocates, check out this article in the same journal. Though completely opposed to the use of guns for self defense, he praises the above study for it's methodological soundness.

    Wolfgang, Marvin. "A Tribute to a View I have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology vol. 86. no 1 (Fall, 1986): 188-192. Access this article here.

    As for DGUs without shooting or in some cases, even brandishing, an older article: Wright, James D., and Peter H. Rossi. Armed and Considered Dangerous, a Survey of Felons and their Firearms. Aldine de Gruyter: New York, 1986. (in it, it is found 60 percent of the felons surveyed said they avoided committed crimes when they knew the victim was armed, 40 percent also avoided it when they thought he was armed. (this was referenced on a website, but I'm providing the source documentation for it).
    -----------------------

    If we really want to do something about the problem of murder, we should go to the source, and it's not guns. It's gangs, according to the FBI. Highlights below are mine.
    And those weapons do not come from legal owners. The come from Mexico through the drug cartels.

    Thus, my belief that in the US, gun control is the worst way to go about lowering crime in the US, especially homicides. Passing stricter laws only shackles the lawful gun owners, when the problem is criminals getting guns illegally and then using them illegaly (and usually, on each other, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994).
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
  13. Russano

    Russano Disappeared

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    I'm always a little leary of any statistic that seems to cutoff Top "whatever number" at a weird uneven number. Top 11 of the top 26 seems like you are cutting off numbers at whatever helps make the case of a certain position.
     
  14. Jon

    Jon The Demon Mayor Admin DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,357
    Location:
    Australia
  15. newageofpower

    newageofpower Professor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2015
    Messages:
    477
    Ugh. Today has been shit.

    @Scrubb

    Do you really accept the 1:44 ratio? If even 1% of DGUs end in shots fired, we'd exceed the FBI UCR 'justified homicides' by five-fold.

    There are studies by Kleck and others (admittedly, very old studies) with estimates that anywhere between 5.6% to 13% of DGUs end with an attacker shot; which would imply a minimum ratio of of nearly 1:3 (assuming we remove suicides from the equation) and a maximum ratio closer to 5:1 (which, seems unlikely, as crime would become ludicrously hazardous and we'd be seeing a dramatic decrease in crime).

    Awaiting your input on this.


    Jon

    IIRC, Obama was called Gun Salesman of the Year when he was first elected. There was not only a record increase in Gun sales, but people who always wanted to 'one day shoot a gun' and decided to do it now.

    Years down the line, these new entries to the firearms culture keep buying weapons, ammo, and introducing recreational shooting or self-defense carry to their friends, which feeds yet another cycle of growth...

    It could be said Obama had revitalized shooting culture more than the NRA could have ever hoped to.
     
  16. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    958
    High Score:
    2,058
    No, because I'd guess (and just a guess, with no stats to back up) that not even that many DGUs end in shots fired. ON top of that, based on one of the studies I provided, there's the preventative element "I thought they had a gun, so I didn't even attempt it" element as well. While not technically a DGU, being prepared for DGU prevented a crime the gun owner according to those criminals.

    I said a few times (tongue firmly in cheek) that I wanted an investigation into Obama's financial holdings, expecting he had tremendous amounts of stock in different gun manufacturers and ammunition companies.

    ---------- Post automerged at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

    I was actually going for the top and bottom 10, but realized I counted Washington DC. So I went with 11 on both sides.

    Either that, or I was getting a spinal tap.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Edit: Hmm, How about DSU? Defensive Sword Use. I guess that guy picked the wrong house.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
  17. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    So, Scrubb, if you have identified NICS as the only successful (in your opinion) component of US gun control legislation that simultaneously keeps people you don't want buying guns from buying them while retaining your ability to buy as a law-abiding owner, do you not think that that alone warrants its strengthening, as we discussed earlier?

    By the way, I entirely agree with you on the subject of gangs, although you should also include the narcotics trade. They are tangentially connected, of course, but still largely separate problems.
     
  18. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    958
    High Score:
    2,058
    I brushed by the narcotics trade, but it's well documented in the link. You're exactly right, and is a big deal in that they're responsible for pushing a lot of guns into the US illegally.

    As for NICS, I would like to see it expanded, but probably not in the same ways you might. For instance, I'd like to see it opened up so private citizens can voluntarily use it when selling a gun. Currently, it's illegal for them to use it. Furthermore, if a private citizen is buying a gun from another private citizen, they can't even do it at a gun store and ask for help with NICS, as it puts the dealer at risk to lose his license.

    I'd like to see all of that change before there's any mandating going on.
     
  19. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    So, for example, if we were to require all private sales to go through a licensed dealer, who could perform that check and account for the sale, while simultaneously extending them legal protection so they can keep their dealers license (I'm assuming you mean against a tort claim?), you would support it?
     
  20. Gwyll

    Gwyll Sixth Year

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    177
    Location:
    Berkshire, UK
    One thing I have been thinking of, and don't know if it has been brought up yet. Pro-gun side argues that having guns available lowers the amount of crimes committed.
    This should mean the opposite should also be true, and now I don't know any statistics/specifics, in countries where they implemented strict gun controls, do we have details on how the overall crime statistics changed after gun control?