How can people look at statistics and be pro gu control?

i dont believe you get the point take a 65 year old cripple and a 25 year old buff thug. give them both guns then they are pretty much an equal match in a contest for life and death.
Take the same two people give them both knives and the thug still has a significant advantage.

the gun is the equalizer and allows the weak to defend against threats the otherwise could not fend off.

You don't hear of positive incidents in the us much because nothing comes of the situation. I have been in several situations where my well being maybe life was saved because of a gun. in one instance a buch of thugs approached with baseball bats and threatened me and my dad and before they got too close my dad showed his gun and the thugs scattered. There is no statistic that covers those incidents that i know happen all the time.

gun control has more to do with control than with. When looking at what is going on in the USA and looking at the road to serfdom the government is trying to make people dependent on it. banning guns would be one more step as you become dependent on the government and police for safety. I for one want to be able to defend myself against an threat and dont want to be dependant on the government

 

I've bothered to review the econometric evidence. You haven't. You should know better!

This is another attempt at spurious conclusion. I could compare areas with strict gun control and show low homicide rates compared to those with lax gun control. I wouldn't bother as it cannot derive any robust conclusion. Once we achieve 'ceteris paribus', we find that the evidence repeatedly supports the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis.

 

then how do you stop trade of guns on the black market as i said before it is just like drugs we have tight laws on that nation wide yet drugs still are at large on the black market. Loose gun control tight gun control makes no difference, its the culture that maters and in this culture i think the people should have a means to defend themself effectively no mater what their physic.

 

ok then i respect you economic knowledge, show me.

 

No. You can stop trade of guns on the black market by funding enforcement. Ironically, enforcement by the ATF has been gutted completely by the shills for the NRA over on capital hill. It was once found that 57% of guns used in crimes came from 1% of gun dealers. So all you have to do is shut down those dealers. But then republicans came along and made it illegal to track guns - so now we have no idea which dealers are part of that 1%. Republicans also came along and made it illegal for the ATF to check gun inventories for gun dealers. Gun dealers are now no longer required to even keep track of their inventory. So how easy would it be for guns to be siphoned off into the black market - very easy.

It's absolutely ridiculous. The ATF doesn't even have a director! Why? Because 6 years ago, a republican congressman stuck a small rider on a spending bill that required senate confirmation for the ATF director. And of course, the republicans have been blocking confirmation for the past 6 years. That shows you just how ridiculous the gun lobby actually is.

 

Lets clarify.... the sales that you are talking about are private sellers and not legitimate gun dealers at these gun shows. Do we need to make private sales go though background checks? Probably, but hard to monitor private sales.

 

You don't need me to do that. You need to review the literature yourself. Start with Cook and Ludwig's work; perhaps comparing it with Kleck (who derives results which are more consistent with the pro-gun position). Whatever you read, make sure you never repeat the spurious conclusion error!

 

I live in NYC, which is pretty safe, but is still a large city, and I don't own a gun, and I've never had my safety threatened. Meanwhile, a friend from the midwest, who does own a gun, moved here, and was mugged during his first week here....You don't need a gun if you have street smarts, and common sense.

And I don't understand peoples obsession with dependence on the government and self-sufficiency. I have to tell you---self sufficiency sucks! I would hate to have to walk around all the time carrying around a heavy piece of metal, just to defend myself. I dont have to defend myself because my neighborhood is safe and I am never threatened. I have no interest in growing/killing my own food. I don't really have an interest in cleaning my own apartment. I pay people to do all of these things. I have my food delivered piping hot to my own door. That leaves me free time to do things that I enjoy.

So yes, I love being dependent on the government. The government keeps me safe. It keeps me insured. It keeps me employed. And it keeps my life running smoothly. And I don't feel bad about it--I pay my fair share of taxes. I live in a nice, metropolitan city which is safe and runs well, all thanks to the government. Why would I want to stop that?

 

Why? We do it with cars...

 

There are ways to ensure that the tracking occurs - better tracking better and easier policing - fewer crimes and what crimes are committed have a better chance of being solved

think about it

 

so your argument is that if something is "hard," then we shouldn't do it---is that right?

so after 9/11, you would have said --well, gee, it's so "hard" to go after these terrorists; lets just disband the CIA.

is that right?

 

You quoted snopes but you obviously did not either read understand what they were saying - the so called statistics in that email were so cherry picked they could have supplied a chocolate factory for a year.. The Stats were cooked to look bad and since this is from about 14 years ago - woefully out of date

 

But why force other people, people who don't want to live such pampered lives, to live like that or give up their ability to be self-sufficient. I've lived in the country and I've lived in cities. I'd choose the country life any day. Having that many people around you and having that many limits, rules and regulations, being in a place that dirty and smelly was not worth the little benefits that come from cities. I'd rather have some open space, fresh air and not have everyone in my business. I like having a large back yard that I don't even need a fence to keep people from being able to see into. I like having a dozen or so friends over for a barbecue, and being able to play an impromptu game of football, followed up by everyone going in and watching the game. I like being able to walk my dogs off-lead anytime I want, and being able to so so just walking out my back door, not having to drive anywhere first. I like having space and privacy.

If you like your crowded cities, that's fine. Don't assume that everyone else is just like you and don't try to force rules on everyone else that don't impact your lifestyle but will greatly impact theirs.

 

that's fine--and the government doesnt prevent you from living that lifestyle.

but guns are the perfect example of how your lifestyle impacts mine. You may not realize it, but YOU, owning a gun, affects me, living in a big city. People who live in the country who own guns, generally don't deal with gun violence. Rural areas generally have low crime rates and certainly low homicide rates. And that's why people in rural areas support guns--there's a large benefit, and less of a downside to guns, when you live in a rural area. Big cities generally have high crime rates, and high homicide rates. And guns violence is certainly a big problem in big cities. And that's why in the city, our attitude toward guns is quite different. But where do the guns used in city crimes come from? Well, big cities generally have strict gun laws, so the guns can't come from the cities themselves. So, the guns end up coming from neighboring rural areas with lax gun laws. Criminals will go into rural areas with lax gun laws, buy up a bunch of guns, and then bring them into the big city, where they are used in crimes. So, the availability of guns in your neighborhood is causing an increase in gun violence in the big city, where I live. And that affects me.

So I have nothing against you, personally, owning a gun. I will never meet you or visit you--so why should I care whether you own a gun or not? But, unfortunately, your owning a gun affects my safety, and therefore--I now have a personal stake in whether you get to own a gun or not. The government is MY voice - a representation of my interests. So yes--I generally support the government leaving people alone--if someone wants to have an abortion--let them. If someone wants to have gay sex or get gay married--let them. Why should I care? Those things don't affect me. But once you start affecting me, now it's a different story. Because now you are affecting my lifestyle, and so I WANT the government to step in and stop what you are doing. And I am right in doing so, because I am the one who is being affected.

 

Right... Because "the weak" are always the good guys and "the strong" are always the bad guys? Amazing how conservatives never seem to support that mentality when discussing economics...

What if the gun in the hands of the weak enables "the weak" to cause damage that they would otherwise have been unable to?

 

Don't be silly. As you know, the US murder rate is sky high, whereas countries whose citizens don't sneak around like Sicilian bandits armed to the teeth have a quarter or less of your killings. Grow up!

 

Yes we live in one of the most violent nations, no gun control won't change that. Yes less people may die by guns, but more people will die by other means. People get murdered more by a lot of other things each year. Face it, the real problem here is violence, the media just has you all scared because they only talk about guns. The point is, when someone wants to kill someone, the will use whatever they can get there hands on to do so.

 

So it is ok to take away my ability to protect myself, you take away my ability to put food on the table, you take away one of my forms of entertainment - all so you might feel a little safer? Now you are trying to significantly hurt my lifestyle. And it isn't my gun that affects your safety. It isn't the guns of my family. It isn't any of the couple hundred million guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. It is the guns in the hands of criminals that are affecting you. If you don't like criminals bringing guns into your city, stop them. Don't take rights away from tens of millions of law-abiding citizens just to try to make things a bit harder for a few thousand criminals. Go after the criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. Stay in your lane and talk about things that you know for fact instead of making up random "facts" about guns.

 

"People are always going to kill each other, so let's just make it easy by ensuring everyone has the deadliest tools possible" Really?

When my kids want to beat each other, I limit them to those padded Nerf bats... I don't hand them aluminum bats.

 

Every criminal was once a law-abiding citizen.
If you make ONE mistake with a gun over the course of your life, it could end someone's life.
If you are careless or distracted ONCE and fail to secure your weapons appropriately, your gun could be the one criminals are using.

Your lifestyle ABSOLUTELY impacts on that of people who would prefer not to be shot. Let's face it, you can't make a law that only applies to "those people over there" without it being dismissed as discriminatory...

 

A simple google search would show he is right

The NRA has a lot to answer for

 

Let me stop you right there to ask - when did Americans start to believe that self defence begins and ends with a gun? To me that sort of thinking make you MORE vulnerable not less

Well, there is always road kill - sorry but WHO the !@#!@ relies on shooting for food?

Please please please never elaborate on what you do with what is acknowledge as a phallic symbol for "entertainment"

No it is Mr Average Joe Six Shooter who ends up using the gun to threaten his neighbour, or his wife or his teenage son until one day...............

 

Really? What is an FFL bound book then? Could it be the log that has incoming firearms and outgoing firearms? What about the 4473 forms that are filled out with every firearm transaction? If the 4473 forms and the bound book don't add up, FFL gets shut down because of bad book keeping and missing firearms unless there is a paper trail leading the firearm away from that FFL. Like I said, keep in your lane. If you don't know what you are talking about, then don't comment. Unless you have a credible source that says that FFL's don't need to keep a record and log of incoming and outgoing firearms, and their destination or transfer record, then what you say is just opinion, not fact.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/licensees-records-required.html

So, what does Google tell you that the ATF Q&A doesn't? What are your sources?

 

And exactly how do you plan to defend yourself from a half-ton grizzly or a 400 lb mountain lion? Yell at it? Call the cops?

I know there isn't much worth hunting in Australia, but there is a lot here. Millions of Americans hunt to stock the freezer. I only rarely ate beef growing up, and that was often just because it was given to us. Imagine how easy it is to stretch a food budget when you never have to buy meat. We'd buy a little pork, and some chicken, but we were able to eat red meat almost daily and a year's supply of it for a family of four was maybe $100 in total tags, fees, ammo and fuel.

Why not, thousands of your countrymen do the same thing and there are even several Olympic events for it?

Only a tiny percentage of gun crimes are like you describe, and baseball bats, bottles or knives are used far more often than guns in domestic violence situations. Very few perpetrators of gun crimes are first-time offenders.