Question for the Gun law experts.

[vorticityDawg]

Those words all have meanings.

Do you really not understand why you're wrong? Or do you understand and that's why you're not trying to explain anything and instead are just throwing out words?

My apologies...sincerely. I was too flippant because I did not want to type on my phone. I don't think we disagree on the larger issue, but I am frustrated by your flimsy/non-existent argument. You actually hurt your cause with that junk. Let me try an analogy.

If I am found dead after jumping, without a parachute, from a plane at 10,000', that COULD mean any of the following:
1. the impact with the ground caused my death (this is most PROBABLE for many reasons, but it cannot be ascertained from my single example)
2. the fear of impact caused my heart to stop, and I died before impact (means practically the same as #1, but is technically different)
3. I died from blunt-force trauma in the plane due to turbulence and my corpse fell to the ground (this is plausible, and should be considered)
4. Nothing. It was a freak outlier that should not be seriously considered in a debate.

None of this is CONSISTENT (i.e., in agreement) with the claim that it is safe to skydive without parachutes. Rather, it is quite contradictory even if not definitive.

To be clear: my death = the likely effect = lower gun violence; impact with ground from high altitude = the likely cause = stricter gun laws
Lower gun violence associated with stricter gun laws SUGGESTS that gun laws work, but it is far from definitive with a single example. It could be that gun violence in that location was already low/decreasing when the gun laws were tightened, and I think this is the point you were trying to make, but you blew it by being unwilling to apply actual logic or common sense. With such a contentious topic, even a single error as large as yours has the power to convince the undecided of the opposite argument. Please be careful in the future.

 

[johnson86-1]

My apologies...sincerely. I was too flippant because I did not want to type on my phone. I don't think we disagree on the larger issue, but I am frustrated by your flimsy/non-existent argument. You actually hurt your cause with that junk. Let me try an analogy.

If I am found dead after jumping, without a parachute, from a plane at 10,000', that COULD mean any of the following:
1. the impact with the ground caused my death (this is most PROBABLE for many reasons, but it cannot be ascertained from my single example)
2. the fear of impact caused my heart to stop, and I died before impact (means practically the same as #1, but is technically different)
3. I died from blunt-force trauma in the plane due to turbulence and my corpse fell to the ground (this is plausible, and should be considered)
4. Nothing. It was a freak outlier that should not be seriously considered in a debate.

None of this is CONSISTENT (i.e., in agreement) with the claim that it is safe to skydive without parachutes. Rather, it is quite contradictory even if not definitive.

To be clear: my death = the likely effect = lower gun violence; impact with ground from high altitude = the likely cause = stricter gun laws
Lower gun violence associated with stricter gun laws SUGGESTS that gun laws work, but it is far from definitive with a single example. It could be that gun violence in that location was already low/decreasing when the gun laws were tightened, and I think this is the point you were trying to make, but you blew it by being unwilling to apply actual logic or common sense. With such a contentious topic, even a single error as large as yours has the power to convince the undecided of the opposite argument. Please be careful in the future.

The only point I made was that the poster who was sarcastically repeating the phrase that nobody could find one example of a country with tighter gun control and lower didn't understand his point wasn't valid. I wasn't being flippant when I pointed out that you could find countries with tighter gun control laws with lower and higher rates of gun violence than the us and countries with looser gun control laws with lower and higher ratesof fuyn violence. That's what the data shows. There's basically no correlation between gun control laws and rates of gun violence.

So for your analogy to work, jumping from an airplane would have to sometimes be followed by death, and sometimes be followed by longer life spans and sometimes be followed by no change in life son at all. And then it would be equally wrong to claim that one person dying after jumping from proves that jumping from an airplane causes death. Sure, it seems plausible when you look at it, but then seeing data where there doesn't seem to be any correlation, you have to at least acknowledge that one death doesn't prove that jumping from an airplane causes death, no matter what your priors led you to believe.

 

[Philly Dawg]

I don't know how we can draw anything but the most general conclusions regarding gun violence based upon the patchwork of laws in the USA. Even in areas with the strictest laws, guns are much more available than in other counties with advanced economies.

 

[BELdog]

Bingo. Other than multiple handgun sale reports or NFA items, there is no federal system for registering a purchase. A trace begins with a call to the manufacturer based on serial number and works down the chain from there.

 

[KurtRambis4]

We need to do

something about pressure cookers, too!**

 

[archdog]

I have zero ideas why gun enthusiast do not lobby for more effective and transparent gun laws that protects everyone's rights to legally own any firearm they choose.

I am a gun lover, but I wish everyday they can have a badass system that links mental health insurance claims, unemployment, law enforcement records, etc into the buying process.

Also, make the firearm linked to you forever once purchased. If it is used in a violent crime because you sold it to some crazy *******, well good luck in the pokie buddy. With that, there should be a licensed certified dealer that sells it on consignment for you to transfer said responsibility. Original purchasers of guns need to realize the responsibility they have for controlling the control and safety of their gun. Mine are in a safe with trigger locks. To steal the safe, someone would have to disassemble an entire wall or unbolt the safe from the inside.

The system has to change. I along with a lot of other people are tired of hearing about shootings. Sandyhook was the last straw for me. If passing the rules and regulations could possibly have an impact on just 1 mass shooting, then it is our responsibility to make sure we are doing our duty.

I remember when I was 9 and doing my hunters safety course. The discussions about personal responsibility with firearms seems to get lost. That is why I am for gun enthusiast coming up with new laws and check systems.

 

[ShrubDog]

The mental health issue is something I have spoken about in past threads on this topic. They never want to get to the root cause of the problem just like a doctor.

Adding more laws wouldn't do anything to help but a ban of some sort would in some eyes. They dont use the system and checks in a proficient way as they are right now (i.e. Mateen). The system in place is set up to fail to bring about more restrictions it seems.

I agree something has to change but crazy people are going to do crazy things.