• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

Rucker61 said:
It certainly points out that correlation isn't causation.

"Conclusion
The issue of gun violence is extremely complicated and varied across state laws and local culture. Many states support the notion that firearm regulation is a necessary measure in preventing and reducing gun deaths; however, many other states do not take this stance.

While the facts may speak for themselves in the debate over gun violence, they don’t necessarily point toward a catch-all solution on their own. Until this solution is found, though, it’s our duty to stay knowledgeable about the issues and to practice responsible gun ownership at all times."
Click to expand...

Certainly grounds for a grand experiment
 
vegas giants said:
But not a higher per capita rate
Click to expand...

Explain this nugget to me;

20% of the population in CA owns a firearm. 54% of the population in WV owns a firearm. CA has tighter gun laws such as waiting periods etc. while WV does not. However, CA has 9x more gun related deaths than WV.

Sure, CA has more people, but that helps my argument more than anything. More people being part of a state under stricter gun laws still killing themselves and others. Waiting periods or most laws are not going to make gun related deaths magically disappear. Let me know when its ok to start discussing mental health in the U.S.
 
TaterTots said:
Explain this nugget to me;

20% of the population in CA owns a firearm. 54% of the population in WV owns a firearm. CA has tighter gun laws such as waiting periods etc. while WV does not. However, CA has 9x more gun related deaths than WV.

Sure, CA has more people, but that helps my argument more than anything. More people being part of a state under stricter gun laws still killing themselves and others. Waiting periods or most laws are not going to make gun related deaths magically disappear. Let me know when its ok to start discussing mental health in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Which one has a higher per capita gun death rate?
 
TaterTots said:
Explain this nugget to me;

20% of the population in CA owns a firearm. 54% of the population in WV owns a firearm. CA has tighter gun laws such as waiting periods etc. while WV does not. However, CA has 9x more gun related deaths than WV.

Sure, CA has more people, but that helps my argument more than anything. More people being part of a state under stricter gun laws still killing themselves and others. Waiting periods or most laws are not going to make gun related deaths magically disappear. Let me know when its ok to start discussing mental health in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Can you name a state or country that has lax gun laws and low gun deaths due to a great mental health system?
 
vegas giants said:
So your plan works nowhere then. Got it
Click to expand...

Just like your magical fix of banning certain firearms doesn't work in the U.S. either. You want to punish the majority due to the minority.

I'd like to see a lot more information show up on the NCIC. Everything from how many times and why the police were called on them to the types of medications they take. Our mental health system is just pill pushing. Pills that can create suicidal thoughts or make them worse. Those types of medications should show up on the NCIC and that person should be required to undergo a mental health screening before obtaining a firearm. It's not a popular opinion though.
 
TaterTots said:
Just like your magical fix of banning certain firearms doesn't work in the U.S. either. You want to punish the majority due to the minority.

I'd like to see a lot more information show up on the NCIC. Everything from how many times and why the police were called on them to the types of medications they take. Our mental health system is just pill pushing. Pills that can create suicidal thoughts or make them worse. Those types of medications should show up on the NCIC and that person should be required to undergo a mental health screening before obtaining a firearm. It's not a popular opinion though.
Click to expand...

It might not be popular because you can not point to a place where it works
 
vegas giants said:
It might not be popular because you can not point to a place where it works
Click to expand...

and which states within the U.S. have tried that type of approach? Sounds like you're against strengthening background checks and want to go straight to bans. No?
 
TaterTots said:
and which states within the U.S. have tried that type of approach? Sounds like you're against strengthening background checks and want to go straight to bans. No?
Click to expand...

I am actually against bans. We have far better forms of gun control available. But to suggest you can significantly reduce gun deaths without gun control you are just being silly. It has never happened because it can't happen
 
vegas giants said:
I am actually against bans. We have far better forms of gun control available. But to suggest you can significantly reduce gun deaths without gun control you are just being silly. It has never happened because it can't happen
Click to expand...

and preventing someone from purchasing a firearm with a history of run ins with law enforcement isn't gun control? Even if those calls were over domestic/spouse abuse? What exactly is your definition of gun control then?
 
TaterTots said:
and preventing someone from purchasing a firearm with a history of run ins with law enforcement isn't gun control? Even if those calls were over domestic/spouse abuse? What exactly is your definition of gun control then?
Click to expand...
If that alone could work it would be working somewhere now. It's not near enough.

Licensing of guns and ammo
Registration
Mandatory training
Waiting periods
Doctors report to nics
Mandatory locks
 
Rucker61 said:
It certainly points out that correlation isn't causation.

"Conclusion
The issue of gun violence is extremely complicated and varied across state laws and local culture. Many states support the notion that firearm regulation is a necessary measure in preventing and reducing gun deaths; however, many other states do not take this stance.

While the facts may speak for themselves in the debate over gun violence, they don’t necessarily point toward a catch-all solution on their own. Until this solution is found, though, it’s our duty to stay knowledgeable about the issues and to practice responsible gun ownership at all times."
Click to expand...

It's not complicated at all; it's too many guns.
 
vegas giants said:
If that alone could work it would be working somewhere now. It's not near enough.

Licensing of guns and ammo
Registration
Mandatory training
Waiting periods
Doctors report to nics
Mandatory locks
Click to expand...

We don't know if it works or not because no U.S. state is even trying lol. We just came off a shooting where someone had their firearms confiscated, but the authorities chose to return them to the father instead of keeping them. Or the Parkland shooter. He was clearly not stable enough to own firearms. I have no idea why he was allowed to keep them. Medical records should be reported to the NICS as well as past run ins with authorities. That I do agree with you about. As well as mandatory training. I couldn't get a hunting license without going through a 2 day hunter/gun safety course. That should be universal to make sure the idiots our there learn how to properly operate, maintain, store, and handle a firearm safely.
 
TaterTots said:
We don't know if it works or not because no U.S. state is even trying lol. We just came off a shooting where someone had their firearms confiscated, but the authorities chose to return them to the father instead of keeping them. Or the Parkland shooter. He was clearly not stable enough to own firearms. I have no idea why he was allowed to keep them. Medical records should be reported to the NICS as well as past run ins with authorities.
Click to expand...

And why do you think no state even states completely controlled by the gop will even try it. Come on man
 
vegas giants said:
And why do you think no state even states completely controlled by the gop will even try it. Come on man
Click to expand...

Well there was the spending bill that was signed that allows the CDC to further study firearms and expand/improve the NICS. However, I have no idea what the details of improving the NICS are. I've been having trouble searching for an answer.
 
TaterTots said:
Well there was the spending bill that was signed that allows the CDC to further study firearms and expand/improve the NICS. However, I have no idea what the details of improving the NICS are. I've been having trouble searching for an answer.
Click to expand...

It won't be near enough
 
vegas giants said:
It won't be near enough
Click to expand...

You're right. I was able to find out exactly what was put in the spending bill. Basically, they are requiring the state and federal agencies to add peoples criminal record into the system. Sadly, I thought that was the case before, but it wasn't mandatory I suppose. At least we can agree on 2 things. Having medical records released to the NICS and mandatory training.
 
TaterTots said:
You're right. I was able to find out exactly what was put in the spending bill. Basically, they are requiring the state and federal agencies to add peoples criminal record into the system. Sadly, I thought that was the case before, but it wasn't mandatory I suppose. At least we can agree on 2 things. Having medical records released to the NICS and mandatory training.
Click to expand...

what exactly does mandatory training do given almost all firearms deaths are suicides or intentional homicides?
 
TurtleDude said:
what exactly does mandatory training do given almost all firearms deaths are suicides or intentional homicides?
Click to expand...

At the very least? Prevent accidental shootings in the field. I was required to take a hunters/gun safety course before I could obtain a hunting license and I can tell when someone has been properly taught to handle a firearm or not. It's really uncomfortable to be at the range participating in 5 stand and have the person next to me with a pump shotgun swing their barrel towards my face after they are done shooting. I'd imagine you'd loathe people like that as well given your background.

I was also taught how to store and lock my firearm which seems a lot of people do not know how to do since children shoot their parents on accident these days. It's sad people are so dumb, but its how it is.
 
TaterTots said:
At the very least? Prevent accidental shootings in the field. I was required to take a hunters/gun safety course before I could obtain a hunting license and I can tell when someone has been properly taught to handle a firearm or not. It's really uncomfortable to be at the range participating in 5 stand and have the person next to me with a pump shotgun swing their barrel towards my face after they are done shooting. I'd imagine you'd loathe people like that as well given your background.

I was also taught how to store and lock my firearm which seems a lot of people do not know how to do since children shoot their parents on accident these days. It's sad people are so dumb, but its how it is.
Click to expand...

you do know the people most likely to cause dangers with firearms are not going to take such classes. I don't believe in tying a right to mandatory training. Now I am a huge advocate of people who buy firearms getting training. I have trained hundreds of people. I myself have had hundreds of hours of training even long after I was a certified instructor and my DOJ component's firearm instructor.

however, forcing people is both unconstitutional and won't do much, if any good
 
TurtleDude said:
you do know the people most likely to cause dangers with firearms are not going to take such classes. I don't believe in tying a right to mandatory training. Now I am a huge advocate of people who buy firearms getting training. I have trained hundreds of people. I myself have had hundreds of hours of training even long after I was a certified instructor and my DOJ component's firearm instructor.

however, forcing people is both unconstitutional and won't do much, if any good
Click to expand...

Being unconstitutional is trying to take someones right away to own a firearm altogether. That's not what I'm proposing. Nor am I proposing a ban of certain types of firearms. I'm proposing that people learn how to use a firearm before they can obtain one. Even during the process of learning they will be holding firearms so its not some far out idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom