Gun Control: For it or against it.

This poll is kinda black and white.

But my choice falls closer to the latter rather than the former. The Democrats are going on about this issue in the wrong way.

To be more specific about my stance.

• Stand your ground laws everywhere.
• Nothing too excessive. Like Nukes.
• Provide basic education on gun usage and safety to avoid accidents.

I didn't want to add any bias in this poll. Also considering usual justification for gun control is deterring crime and justification for no gun control is it won't deter crime, I figured it would go fine.

However this truly comes down to what you define as crime. Or at-least that is what the major echo-chambers say.

For.

Gun control is one of the many reasons why I'm glad I live in Canada.

That too, but its been drowned out by rhetoric.

I'm for gun control.

Far too broad a topic to limit to such black and white choices. Perhaps a question about the amount of control, something like: Current levels are fine/we need more/we need much more/we need less/open the flood gates/ban'em all!

That is usually the justification.

There is no evidence that gun control deters crime. But there is evidence that the arms industry provides jobs.

Gun control doesn't work. Plain and simple. If it did work, that would be another (far more layered and interesting) discussion.

Gun control is not going to stop the wrong persons from getting guns.

Yeah, this is one of those issues that all but screams for a shade of gray.

What do you think of this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds

What do you think of this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds

Well... last time I updated my opinion on this topic was in 2015 or so.

And damn, I worded poorly there. I should have said that evidence is very mixed on the issue of its effect on reducing crime. With some sources saying gun control decrease gun crimes and others increasing. In order for you to convince me, you will have to send me more data. That said, you pushed me a bit on the side of gun control.

Anyways, props on using a recent source. I have said it multiple times. But anything that is over 5 year old carries no merit to me.

The thing is you can find evidence for both sides of the argument in multiple cities, countries, counties etc.

Which is why I poorly worded the poll. Should've been ideology based since this argument can be applied on both sides. Ah whatever.

If you are anti-gun control, f*ck you, honestly. We don't need guns. The right to bear arms is complete bullshit in 2017, and the US should follow Australia and just take them all away. To you redneck morons:

"Hey guys, look at how much I love America! I have a confederate flag which is a symbol of secession, and don't take my guns because I need them to rise up against my own government because I love America THAT much." <--- If you are one of these, you are a disgraceful loser

Both parties like guns too much. Hugely embarrassing and dangerous.

@raugutcon: It will eventually will if the governments plans a trade in program for gun owners into cash or other valuables like cell phones and such. I am for gun control all the way to completely ban them in the U.S. The reason there so much gun deaths in the U.S is because on how easily available and obtainable guns are. If we completely banned with an effective program to trade in your gun for cash it will speed up the process.

As others have said it's just not that simple.

I understand both sides of the argument and find it hard to place myself on one side or the other. I guess I lean more towards control.

Strange post considering this forum has taken a sharp turn to the right since Trump announced he was running.

Normally I would be for gun control. But as it is now in US, gun control wouldn't seem to help much with the crime rate.

Like someone here said, it's not that the ones upping the crime rate are purchasing guns legally. If in some case it will save your skin it might be a good thing.

BUT

As I am a person who doesn't own a gun, I wouldn't feel very comfortable with idiots that do not realize the consequences of a gunshot carrying guns.

"Of course no military tanks etc. or anything too crazy."

what do you define as too crazy?

I'm for it of course. Look at the great job strict gun control is doing in Chicago.

Yeah. This forum is actually pretty balanced in terms of left vs right wing.

Granted more prominent users are left wing, but overall, it is still fairly balanced.

60% of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago are coming from states with weaker gun laws.

Between 2009 and 2013, almost 60 percent of guns used to commit crimes in Chicago were first purchased outside of Illinois. That is a slight uptick from analysis published in 2012, when 58 5 percent were first purchased out of state. All 50 states supplied at least one gun that was eventually used to commit a crime in Chicago. Illinois, like nearly every other state, is the single largest source of guns recovered in Chicago and supplies 40 percent of the total guns recovered in the City. Nationally, on average, each state supplies about 70 percent of guns recovered in crimes in that state and other states supply the remaining 30 percent.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/Assets/downloads/20151102-Tracing-Guns.pdf

Conversely, there have been studies that say right-to-carry gun laws increase violent crime.

http://news.stanford.edu/2014/11/14/donohue-guns-study-111414/

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(15)00072-0/abstract

.... Uhh I think every one, even the most pro gun right advocates, are for gun control of some kind..

You make a compelling argument there. An academic article too?

You pushed me to the fence. Now, you just need a bit more till I fall over into your camp. Maybe I was wrong on this. Cant even remember all those pro-gun rights sources now.

One area that I don't see highlighted often, both in the media and politics, is gun ownership and suicide. Refer to these links:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518361/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

Also, here's a bonus article as to why gun crime isn't studied more in the US because of something called the Dickey Amendment: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289

I am both for and against guns now. I say distribute small caliber weaponry with each purchase of a Happy Meal, but teach proper gun use in school.

Interesting. Now that I think of it. The pro-gun articles were always blogs. You ahve shown me plenty of articles from academic journals. And the media too.

Yeah. I guess you were right then.

But I must say... that Dickey Amendment sure as hell seems disturbing. Now, why would such an amendment be enacted in the first place?

NRA shenanigans and supposed "faulty" research. The guy that made it, Republican rep Jay Dickey himself regrets it.

As I stated many times in the past, crime and violence are symptoms of larger societal issues (like education, poverty and drugs). You don't cure AIDS by taking cold medicine. People wanting gun control to reduce the problems caused by those larger issues are willfully ignorant and shortsighted. Those are the ones politicians target when introducing gun control measures, since victory is declared as soon as those measure passed. The assumption is that more gun control automatically results in reduction in crimes and murder rate. It's narrative their constituents have always taken for granted and never really questioned.

I am against further gun control measures as they do not work. Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive shows that with more firearms, there is a lower murder rate.

I am also of the mind that if a person has passed multiple background checks and has a Department of Homeland Security issued ID card (TWIC), said person should be able to show that and buy a firearm on the spot, no waiting or additional background checks to the same agency that did said background check for that ID.

Pro Gun articles seem to be from Harvard as well, thoughts?:

"It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates."

I'm okay with gun ownership but some gun control measures might work. You know, like background checks, limiting sales only to licensed stores, and limited clips.

Other than that, like subzero said, there are too many factors that lead to high crime rates.

That being said, the NRA is a terrible organization that peddles false information and the second amendment's intentions are debatable and laughable.

Every time I get into one of these threads and read the arguments for the right to own a gun. E.g. Protecting your family, safety issues etc. I can't help but wonder how on earth I have survived my 4(so fare!) vacations in the USA without a gun.... not really sure your country is so dangerous guys!!

Here is the rest that you left out:

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Gun Control Legislation, a study from Congress shows that violent crimes have decreased as gun ownership increased.

For guns. Seen so much. Frankly, the little truth holds true. Rather have and not need than need and not have.

That is the problem with this issue. Evidence exists supporting both sides.

However, as of this thread. There is more evidence in favor gun control being a good thing than gun rights. Another issue with your article. Is its age. In the scientific world, anything older than 5 years should be taken with a grain of salt.

Likewise another issue is their reasoning as described by the ACRU in the article. Using their flawed methodology, I came to the conclusion that countries with MODERATE gun rights/control policies fare better. Which would tell me that if anything, there is an ideal balance. As opposed to the ideal being either extreme.

From what we saw of the ACRU page there. While it does add some weight, that is not enough to convince me back. But I am sure, the actual methodology used was much better than the ACRU described. I would sure as hell hope so.

@WhiteKnight77 said:

@perfect_blue said:

"It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates."

Here is the rest that you left out:

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Gun Control Legislation, a study from Congress shows that violent crimes have decreased as gun ownership increased.

He tends to leave out facts that disprove his confirmation bias

@WhiteKnight77 said:

Here is the rest that you left out:

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Gun Control Legislation, a study from Congress shows that violent crimes have decreased as gun ownership increased.

But it is not clear at all looking at the overall picture and I've proven that in this thread.

For the record I'm not advocating for guns to be banned entirely just that gun control works, and it does.

Which is a very good point. In the scientific world we tend to avoid outside variables. Which with Gun control, is very hard to do.

This is of course, a problem with both pro-gun and pro-control data.

Exactly! I live in a city that has very strict gun laws, but yet, 300+ people where killed in 2016. 85% of those death where crime related, so gun control did nothing for my city, in fact, gun control works against the best interest of honest, hard working tax payers.

Pal, I live in Mexico, one country with the toughest gun control laws, the regular, ordinary, everyday citizen can´t access guns like if it were popcorn, but criminlas do get all sorts of weapons. Gun control only allows the wrong people ( criminals ) to own guns.

In the gun control debate, people often make the mistake of confusing correlation with causation. Gun ownership might correlate with gun violence but it's too easy to jump to the mistaken conclusion that limiting former would reduce the latter.

On the other hand, there are plenty of academic studies that highlight the ineffectiveness of gun control.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016816670457

http://www.socialmedicine.info/index.php/socialmedicine/article/view/852/1649