Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

SockMarket (87.07)

Gun Control: Looser, Tighter, or The Same?

Recs

6

July 23, 2012 – Comments (26)

It has been quite some time since I was active on CAPS, but the last time I was here people were very into politics, and political debates. So here is one that has been on my mind recently, after a theater about an hour away from me was shot up on Thursday: Does stricter gun control make sense?

Here are some thoughts on the subject:

The Second Amendment states that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (note: this is the wording ratified by the states, not the original). 

Going against the constitution is, to me, something that we should not ever do. The spirit of the document, and its power, should not be eroded, and significant gun controls are the equivalent of a one finger salute to the document. Not my style and not something I can support.

Just as the 8th amendment states that excessive bail shall not be required but the government can require some high bails in some cases to keep bad people behind bars, one can make changes to gun control laws to make for a few denials that can help limit these shootings. What those changes should be is where my question lies. 

What changes would you make? 

26 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 24, 2012 at 2:18 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Well I guess this plays to what happened in Colorado.  I don't view Holmes as an insane person.  I view him as an evil person.  There is a strong difference.  An insane person is unaware of the "morality" of his actions.  An evil person is fully cognizant of his actions.  Holmes clearly planned his actions over a period of months and as such was clearly aware.

With the foregoing said, I still believe people have a right to bear arms.  I have no problem with requiring a license process.  But the license process won't  prevent "evil" people from getting weapons to then use randomly to kill people.  That can happen with people using simple knives but with less degree of harm.  I can only but view these horrific events as tantamount to being comparable to natural events like earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.  Evil people exist and will always exist, sadly.

Report this comment
#2) On July 24, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

Gun control makes little sense to me.  Four types of people kill people (for the most part): 1) psychos with knives, homemade weapons, etc. 2) lunatics like this guy and others, who are perfectly aware that they are going to get caught, and usually just wind up killing themselves first anyway 3) criminals, who dont bother to register weapons illegaly, and get them on the black market, which is impossible to eliminate 4) cops, who are allowed to do with their gun what they wish.

Gun control stops none of those.  It prevents people from being able to protect themselves from mass murderers.  

 

I have read studies of the places with the most laxed gun controls having the lowest gun violence (switzerland, new hampshire, etc) but I am no expert, and wont pretend to be, so I could be wrong on this. 

Report this comment
#3) On July 24, 2012 at 9:17 AM, ryanalexanderson (< 20) wrote:

I think rifles and shotguns are enough to fulfill the intent of the second amendment.  Plus, hunting and rural vermin control are both legitimate and necessary activities.

-Nobody- needs an automatic weapon.   

I am against the removal of civil liberties by people such as the TSA. Their 'casus belli' is the possibility that an individual has a handgun. 

And handguns are just an example of the worst kind of game theory/prisoner's dilemma. "Other people have handguns? Well, I better have one too." Then everyone's got one, and suddenly the TSA is legitimized. 

Report this comment
#4) On July 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Rujikin (< 20) wrote:

If that shooter brought molotov cocktails, grenades, and homemade mustard gas you would have had a lot more than just 12 people dead. Should we ban gasoline, nails, ammonia, and bleach because they can be used in weapons?

 

No, just put a bullet in this guy's head and call it a day.

Report this comment
#5) On July 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Schmacko (92.75) wrote:

@3 

I agree with you except that I would include handguns in with shotguns and rifles.  Handguns are the most effecient type of gun for home defense and I believe defending your home from criminals is one of the mainstays of the right to bear arms.

Report this comment
#6) On July 24, 2012 at 10:30 AM, ryanalexanderson (< 20) wrote:

Schmacko, 

Fair enough. I disagree, but only mildly. I've heard people say that the purpose of a handgun is to empower someone to get to their long gun. But I wouldn't know. 

But I wouldn't argue with you because I'm only really interested in what happens on public property. The permit to carry concealed makes absolutely no sense to me. Handguns on public property - no sense, unless they're in a locked box separate from ammuntion.  

Having said that, if the second amendment grants you the right to go down the street with a shotgun strapped across your back - well, it's a bit odd in a city, but okay. At least people can see that you are potentially dangerous and can choose to bar you entry from their establishments, buses, subways, etc.

Report this comment
#7) On July 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM, zzlangerhans (99.78) wrote:

The vast majority of mass murders that have occurred in this country in recent memory have employed legally purchased guns. Studies have shown over and over that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against residents of the home than against a home invader.

The standard responses to these factual assertions are:

1. Mass murderers are committed to mass murder and will ultimately accomplish this by obtaining black market weapons or using bombs. There is no evidence to support this and mass murders in European countries where guns are difficult to legally obtain are extremely rare. Every time someone in Europe or Asia stabs six people, killing one, the gun advocates trot this out as evidence that gun control does not stop mass murder. Lame.

2. If enough people carried guns then mass murderers would be rapidly killed before accumulating a body count. Please. Can anyone remember a case where a mass murderer was interrupted mid-spree due to being shot by a civilian? Also, refer to previous point regarding the ultimate fate of a gun in the home.

3. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. The second amendment is ambiguous on many levels. Ultimately, it's our responsibility as a society to identify the factors that harm us collectively and remediate them for the greater good.

4. Gun ownership protects us from dictatorship. I think in 2012 Facebook and Twitter have proven themselves to be more effective. Failing that, you have your gasoline, nails, ammonia, and bleach.

5. The overall number of innocent people killed by guns is very low. Many more people are killed every year by  auto accidents, physician errors, zombie attacks, whatever. The damage created by mass murder extends beyond the body count. These events affect the population's general sense of security and confidence in society. Our response to them defines our attitude regarding the sanctity of human life. Every year improvements are made in auto safety and medical care in response to systemic flaws that have resulted in injury and death. The process of remediation and improvement mitigates the damage from the lives lost and exemplifies the altruistic nature of our species and our society. When the same instincts for improvement regarding mass murder are met with a shrug, it cheapens the uniqueness and value of every human life.

Report this comment
#8) On July 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

#7 well said. I think I already declared you honorary European ...

Report this comment
#9) On July 24, 2012 at 1:59 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

German official statistics (according to wikipedia) list 365 victims of murder in 2009 (720 in 1996). 86 of the murders (2009: 299 cases) or attempted murders (2009: 404 cases) that found their way into official 2009 statistics were committed using firearms.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mord_%28Deutschland%29#Statistik.

Germany's population (2010 estimate) is around 82M.
USA's population (2012 estimate) is around 314 M.

Thus in 2009 probably less than 50 people died by "murder by firearm". I think the U.S. would be quite happy with a year in which less than 200 people died by "murder by firearm".

Report this comment
#10) On July 24, 2012 at 2:03 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

less than 50 people died by "murder by firearm"

less than 50 people died by "murder by firearm" in Germany

 

definition of "murder" (German penal law §211) can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_%28German_law%29

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mord_%28Deutschland%29

Report this comment
#11) On July 24, 2012 at 2:11 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

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

Report this comment
#12) On July 24, 2012 at 2:20 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

#11 from than wikipedia entry.

intentional homicides per 100000 inhabitants for most recent year (2010 or 2011).

Honduras 87
South Africa 32
Mexico 18
Russia 12
Canada 1.62
Chile 1.33
UK 1.23
Australia 1.16
Ireland 0.96
Italy 0.87
Netherlands 0.86
Sweden 0.86
Denmark 0.85
Germany 0.81
Spain 0.72
Norway 0.68
Austria 0.56
Japan 0.35

Report this comment
#13) On July 24, 2012 at 2:20 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

... US 4.8.

Report this comment
#14) On July 24, 2012 at 2:28 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

Homicide statistics 2012 (xls)

International Homicide Statistics (IHS) methodology (pdf)

 

done. :)

Report this comment
#15) On July 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

from than

from that

Report this comment
#16) On July 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Schmacko (92.75) wrote:

World gun ownership and gun related murder data as compiled by the guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Comments from a proffessor on crimology who studies mass murders on how tightening or lessening gun control laws are unlikely to stop mass murderers:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/fox-mass-murder/index.html

I don't think zzlangerherhans arguments for gun control should be based around reducing "mass" murder.  The goal should be to reduce murder period.

If every gun in the world suddenly dissappeared it wouldn't stop mass murder they'd just switch to bombs or flying planes into buildings.

I think the gun show loophole/secondary gun market is one of the biggest problems in terms of gun proliferation, but I don't see that being solved anytime soon.

Report this comment
#17) On July 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

Report this comment
#18) On July 24, 2012 at 2:57 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

Report this comment
#19) On July 24, 2012 at 3:08 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

#18 The lower video is one of my favourite parts of that movie. And really makes you wonder why someone would want to move there. Okay, maybe from Honduras ;)

Report this comment
#20) On July 24, 2012 at 3:09 PM, portefeuille (99.75) wrote:

there

the U.S. that is, of course.

Report this comment
#21) On July 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM, leohaas (93.62) wrote:

I strongly oppose the Second Amendment. I think it is an 18th century relic. But the reality is that most of my fellow countrymen disagree with me. And so does the US Supreme Court.

Two recent landmark Supreme Court cases (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) have settled the debate about gun control: citizens have the legal right to possess fire arms for lawful purposes. No law or regulation (federal, state, or local) to restrict fire arm possession is constitutional. Sorry, zz, but there is not much ambiguity left in the Second Amendment.

For us as investors, buying stock in some of the best gun makers might be a good idea.

Report this comment
#22) On July 24, 2012 at 6:57 PM, mtf00l (48.59) wrote:

I'm glad you all have the answer to murder by gun.  Just blend it in with all your other solutions to every problem and I'm sure it will take on a life of it's own and auto-correct all the ills that assail us.

Report this comment
#23) On July 24, 2012 at 9:59 PM, ryanalexanderson (< 20) wrote:

I'm glad you all have the answer to murder by gun.  Just blend it in with all your other solutions to every problem and I'm sure it will take on a life of it's own and auto-correct all the ills that assail us.

You're welcome. Anytime. However, it might take us a bit of time blending, though, so feel free to regale us with more passive-aggressive bitterness.  

Seriously, up until your comment, it was a pretty polite discussion on a normally divisive issue.  

Report this comment
#24) On July 25, 2012 at 1:47 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

12 porte posts heheh.  The link king lives ;)

Report this comment
#25) On July 25, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Rujikin (< 20) wrote:

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

Report this comment
#26) On July 25, 2012 at 2:56 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

People are evil, guns are simply tools.  It didn't always take guns to kill.  Jim Jones and Kool-Aid anyone?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement