Summations Only

Ok ok ok
By gun control what do you actually mean. We do not have this law in my country or there is not an actual debate over this issue over there. If by control you mean that only weapons such as handguns, hunting rifles and shot guns would be permitted then I agree but if its more strict then I dont. I will not read this whole thread so it would be nice if I had knowledge of the point of view of both parties.

It has to do with the means to actually get the guns. Who can and cannot own a gun. Background checks. Mental stability. Age limits. Closing off loopholes that currently exist with the gun laws, like what happens at gun shows (you can google that). Right, but who gets to own those weapons is very important. As it is there is no universal gun law in the US, it's all broken down into state laws. So that's one main focus.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

That's not fear of car insurance. That's the actual reality that you can no longer afford to continue a pattern of behavior because your car insurance is too costly. I note that slowing down and driving carefully would not be a knee jerk response, but is actually the rational thing to do.

Yeah, yeah, yeah,... but you fail to list the holes and refuse to see that murders decline when death sentences are carry out timely and often.And, you protect the children of Single Mothers who are the actual killers who use stolen or blackmarket guns to kill people by no acknowledging that Stats which bear this out.

Do you realize that hald as many people are killed by autos since Drunk Drivers have een taken off the road, fined, imprisoned, and punished????Can't you loigically connect the dots and apply this to gun users who kill people?

Are you truly unable to see any of the missing items needed to make an actual argument leading to your conclusion?1. It turns out that we actually do punish murderers already. It's also the case that the punishment for those so convicted begins much earlier when they are not sentenced to death.2. You cannot use the MADD data to prove that execution is a deterrent because we don't execute people for drunk driving even when they kill innocent people.3. Are you on some kind of crusade to be wrong about every topic? You are about most of the way there. About seven topics left and you are done.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you going to support this or not?I mean I would hate to think you would post something you can't support.

Um, there are countries where The People are not permitted to have guns. Are you just quibbling over the word "confiscate"?Regardless of whether or not registration actually does lead to confiscation, confiscation would require registration so preventing registration would actually prevent confiscation.

So I've gotten around to looking into this claim that "having a gun in the house makes you less safe, not more safe".From the study you sited:

quote:

---

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4)

​

...

​

Although an estimated 40 percent of adults in the United States report keeping a gun in the home for recreational or protective purposes (3), the risks and benefits of this practice are widely disputed in the literature (4, 5). Ecologic analyses have suggested a link between the prevalence of gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide (6—8) and between regulations restricting access to firearms and rates of homicide and suicide (9—12). Although these studies are useful in demonstrating an association between access to firearms and rates of homicide and suicide at the aggregate level, it is not possible with this methodology to adequately assess whether access to a gun increases the risk of a violent death at the individual level.

---

So, I go to look into the literature. #3 and #4 are dead links. Some of the other ones say they're blocked. I finally get to #16 #14 and get to look at it. GUN OWNERSHIP AS A RISK FACTOR FOR HOMICIDE IN THE HOME

quote:

---

During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

---

They used 388 homicide from only three counties. They "controlled them for characteristics" and then finally found an association.Is that really something we can expect to be representative of "everyone"? Is the data for this really strong enough to state as a matter of fact that a gun in your house does makes you less safe?If this was something that you didn't want to believe, wouldn't you have gone through it and torn it apart to see how good the data actually is?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo corrected: wrote #16 instead of #14.

Quibble? That is the whole basis of his argument. Show examples of government confiscation of guns. Lets look at them and analyze them. I keep hearing this argument, but it seems the people that bring it up never want to discuss it. Lets look at the governments that confiscated guns and analyze the circumstances and see how they pertain to the US. Is that really too fucking much to ask from the people making the argument? Now that is just plain stupid. The government confiscates all the marijuana it can but marijuana isn't registered. You do realize that in order for there to be gun confiscation, laws would have to be passed. We cannot even get a gun registration passed how the fuck is there going to be legislation passed to confiscate?Or is there going to be a freaking black helicopter, extrajudicial confiscation?

What links are you a talking about? The references?

What, exactly, do you think the argument is? Right now, it is literally easier for me to buy marijuana than it is for me to buy 9mm bullets. The government has failed to confiscate marijuana. I thought that was the point; If we don't allow registration then there's no way they can confiscate.

Yeah. For example, #4 is titled "Does owning a firearm increase or decrease the risk of death?" and there's a link to the "FREE Full Text", but it doesn't work.

Are you even reading what you responded to? Go back to what Jon posted. It is really that easy. How is this an argument for you? This is a complete non-sequitor and a strawman. Bullshit. Random stops. Listen for gunfire. Reports from people. The same way they confiscate drugs.

I already did before I posted. I'm not seeing much of an argument. That's why I asked what you think it is. I'd rather be on the same page. The governments "confiscation" of marijuana has done nothing to prevent me from getting it. I thought we were talking about the government getting guns out of the hands of people. Oh, okay. I was under the impression that you wanted confiscation that actually prevented people from getting guns.If you're willing to accept a complete failure of a confiscation, then I'd argue that you're wasting time and money rather than being leery of actually loosing my gun.