• 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!

Why Gun Control Doesn't Work In The USA

If we really want to deal with gun violence, we have to look analytically, rather than emotionally at the roots of gun violence. Is it the possession of a gun? millions of Americans own one or more guns yet less than 0.003% of them participate in a murder. Is it because there are no back ground checks? No, far from it a huge percentage of all gun sales are background checked. The FBI's NCIC processes hundreds of thousands of checks every year. Is it because of some mysterious "loophole" so far the answer, at least for the high profile mass shootings the answer is no; every weapons was legally purchased from a licensed firearms dealer.

Ther
So, if background checks aren't catching these guys what do we do? A background check is only as good as the data it searches. IF a person who's had several run-ins with the law for exhibiting bizarre behavior isn't AT LEAST evaluated for danger to himself or others - he'll never pop on a BC. This is a common theme for most of shooters in these incidents - they past the BC because info was never submitted to NCIC.


So, IMHO, we can either find better ways to get data into NCIC or we can keep pissing into the wind with more "grab the guns" nonsense. Guess which one would work.
I think removing all guns, or all guns of a type ("assault weapons", which is nearly as vague as "gun control") appeals to those who are upset that people are getting wounded/maimed for life/killed by firearms in mass shootings and terrorist attacks, and who want a rapid answer.

Because if it could be implemented, it would unquestionably make gun deaths less likely.

It's the "if it could be implemented" that is the stopping point, IMO.

Because it probably couldn't be.
 
And I repeat, what, by your reckoning, determines whether those kinds of gun control work?

For any undertaking to be declared to have worked or be working, or work in general, there must be basis against which performance is measured and the undertaking thus determined to have worked. I'm simply asking you to identify what be that/those performance measure(s) that show, in your mind, that those types of gun control undertakings work.

I don't even understand why you are unable/reticent to express what be the unequivocal, clear and precise measure of what "works" means as you've used it. I mean really, it's a simple, straightforward question.

You've lost me.
 
I think removing all guns, or all guns of a type ("assault weapons", which is nearly as vague as "gun control") appeals to those who are upset that people are getting wounded/maimed for life/killed by firearms in mass shootings and terrorist attacks, and who want a rapid answer.

Because if it could be implemented, it would unquestionably make gun deaths less likely.

It's the "if it could be implemented" that is the stopping point, IMO.

Because it probably couldn't be.
Problem is people confuse appearance with actuality. Rifles of all types account for a very small percentage of all gun murders. The idea of impounding AR-15s, for instance, sounds great and brings some people to orgasmic delight but it would reduce gun deaths by less than 1%.
 
And I repeat, what, by your reckoning, determines whether those kinds of gun control work?


For any undertaking to be declared to have worked or be working, or work in general, there must be basis against which performance is measured and the undertaking thus determined to have worked. I'm simply asking you to identify what be that/those performance measure(s) that show, in your mind, that those types of gun control undertakings work.


I don't even understand why you are unable/reticent to express what be the unequivocal, clear and precise measure of what "works" means as you've used it. I mean really, it's a simple, straightforward question.
You've lost me.....Because you're not speaking my language.

As you can see, I even explained in "blue" above the rationale for why asked the question I did: "what do you mean by "works?"

I even refined the question for you: "Do you have an unequivocal, identifiable and precisely measurable definition of what you mean by 'works?' If so, what is it?", do you not understand?

That's as much "'splainin'" as I'm going to do for if that doesn't adequately clarify the question for you and I need not attempt to have a conversation.

Aside:
You are surely the first adult I've ever encountered who apparently doesn't understand the notion that for something to "work," it's performance must be measured and measurable against some or several clear, unequivocal and measurable standards and who, when asked what be his/her standard(s) for declaring that a given "thing" works, cannot do so.
 
Last edited:
Problem is people confuse appearance with actuality. Rifles of all types account for a very small percentage of all gun murders. The idea of impounding AR-15s, for instance, sounds great and brings some people to orgasmic delight but it would reduce gun deaths by less than 1%.

One of the problems is we haven't had good scientific studies on the issue, because politicians are resisting funding such.
 
One of the problems is we haven't had good scientific studies on the issue, because politicians are resisting funding such.

the studies you are talking about are anti gun propaganda by the CDC. nothing more
 
One of the problems is we haven't had good scientific studies on the issue, because politicians are resisting funding such.
Exactly. It's easy to sound sincere shouting about how horrible guns are, but telling people - watch your family and friends for bizarre behavior and report them won't get vote.
 
the studies you are talking about are anti gun propaganda by the CDC. nothing more
I expect that is the reason given for not funding them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have good scientific studies on the issue.
 
I expect that is the reason given for not funding them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have good scientific studies on the issue.

we do-all sorts of organizations-including the DOJ and the FBI study gun violence and crime. Why should doctors who have no training in criminology but who have a hard on for gun ownership use our tax dollars to argue for gun bans?
 
we do-all sorts of organizations-including the DOJ and the FBI study gun violence and crime. Why should doctors who have no training in criminology but who have a hard on for gun ownership use our tax dollars to argue for gun bans?
I don't recall saying we should do that, I just said scientific studies of the issue.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against, but it isn't me.
 
I don't recall saying we should do that, I just said scientific studies of the issue.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against, but it isn't me.

OK fair enough-the fact is, we have plenty of studies. many are funded by anti gun organizations that work backwards after starting with the premise that gun ownership by honest people needs to be restricted substantially. Examples include stuff from the Harvard/Hemenway (who is an economist , not a medical doctor) which is funded by the virulently anti gun rights Joyce Foundation
 
OK fair enough-the fact is, we have plenty of studies. many are funded by anti gun organizations that work backwards after starting with the premise that gun ownership by honest people needs to be restricted substantially. Examples include stuff from the Harvard/Hemenway (who is an economist , not a medical doctor) which is funded by the virulently anti gun rights Joyce Foundation
I want a scientific study to examine questions like "what are the causes of gun violence", and "how can we reduce gun violence", among other things.

Now, quite obviously, "eliminate all the guns" could be the answer to the second, but that's like saying "eliminate all nukes" is the solution to MAD.
It's true, but implementation is damn near impossible.

Any reasonable study would have to take into account feasibility and implementation issues as well.
 
I want a scientific study to examine questions like "what are the causes of gun violence", and "how can we reduce gun violence", among other things.

Now, quite obviously, "eliminate all the guns" could be the answer to the second, but that's like saying "eliminate all nukes" is the solution to MAD.
It's true, but implementation is damn near impossible.

Any reasonable study would have to take into account feasibility and implementation issues as well.

anti gun doctors tend to work this way

they see someone suffering a gunshot wound

they see someone suffering from a pathogen

in one case a (person with a) gun caused the damage
in the second case, the pathogen did

so they approach the solution the same way-get rid of the gun/pathogen

there is no real good for having a pathogen around

that is the difference.

their thinking doesn't work with the fact that guns also save lots of lives.
 
anti gun doctors tend to work this way

they see someone suffering a gunshot wound

they see someone suffering from a pathogen

in one case a (person with a) gun caused the damage
in the second case, the pathogen did

so they approach the solution the same way-get rid of the gun/pathogen

there is no real good for having a pathogen around

that is the difference.

their thinking doesn't work with the fact that guns also save lots of lives.
I'm frankly more interested in the causes - why people commit violence at this level.

I think if we address the issues with mental health we clearly have, it may reduce instances of this kind of thing.

But there are both cultural and economic push back against doing so, because it's expensive and there's still a stigma against people who are "crazy", have "mental issues", are "retarded", or, now, "autistic/on the spectrum".

I don't know if it's possible to get away from our societies tendency to grab mental health terms and use them as derogatory clubs against people we dislike.
 
I think gun control does not work in the US because the populace is pretty much afraid of everything. They are also afraid that everyone is going to take the pittance they have. They fear shadows and darkness. They fear everyone who is not like them. When a people have been governed by fear for more than half a century protection is what you desire.
 
left wing gun control plans aren't intended to control crime-despite the claims by its supporters. the purpose of gun control is to harass lawful gun owners and ownership, and in that area, those laws certainly do work
First they have got to have absolute gun control to have people control.
 
First they have got to have absolute gun control to have people control.

truth-armed people are far less likely to willing cede rights to the government in trade for ephemeral promises of increased "Safety"
 
I think gun control does not work in the US because the populace is pretty much afraid of everything. They are also afraid that everyone is going to take the pittance they have. They fear shadows and darkness. They fear everyone who is not like them. When a people have been governed by fear for more than half a century protection is what you desire.

credible proof required for this theory. btw what country do you reside in?
 
If we really want to deal with gun violence, we have to look analytically, rather than emotionally at the roots of gun violence. Is it the possession of a gun? millions of Americans own one or more guns yet less than 0.003% of them participate in a murder. Is it because there are no back ground checks? No, far from it a huge percentage of all gun sales are background checked. The FBI's NCIC processes hundreds of thousands of checks every year. Is it because of some mysterious "loophole" so far the answer, at least for the high profile mass shootings the answer is no; every weapons was legally purchased from a licensed firearms dealer.

Ther
So, if background checks aren't catching these guys what do we do? A background check is only as good as the data it searches. IF a person who's had several run-ins with the law for exhibiting bizarre behavior isn't AT LEAST evaluated for danger to himself or others - he'll never pop on a BC. This is a common theme for most of shooters in these incidents - they past the BC because info was never submitted to NCIC.


So, IMHO, we can either find better ways to get data into NCIC or we can keep pissing into the wind with more "grab the guns" nonsense. Guess which one would work.

Disclosure: There is NO 100% effective law in existence. Another word for criminal is "outlaw". There's a reason for that.
Bullseye you just went and pissed into the wind because these grabbers won't listen. Everything you said here is fact (also post 24) but sadly they listen only to each other and back-slap and high-five and go on their merry way.
 
Problem is people confuse appearance with actuality. Rifles of all types account for a very small percentage of all gun murders. The idea of impounding AR-15s, for instance, sounds great and brings some people to orgasmic delight but it would reduce gun deaths by less than 1%.
1% ? I would have thought more like .05%
 
Here is why the kind of gun control that you find in much of the rest of the developed world doesn't work in the USA. The USA is isolated in its gun culture. Just how some people like to say how Japan is isolated in its suicide culture and that's why its got such a higher rate of suicide than the USA despite having such strict gun control, and as a matter of fact there are other countries that have much higher suicide rates than the USA, developed ones too, but that is a different discussion, the USA is isolated in its number of guns and in its gun culture.

Really strict gun control works in Japan because there are hardly any guns in Japan. It works in most of Europe for much the same reason, there are hardly any guns in Europe. Any other developed country that has strict gun control you can say the same thing, no country, developed or not with perhaps the exception of western Pakistan has a gun culture and the number of privately owned guns that the USA has. In the USA there are roughly 300 million privately owned guns or roughly one gun per person if they were all equally distributed and the number is only going up. In the USA you've got the NRA which aside from the ARP is the strongest grassroots organization there is. I can think of no country that has such a strong gun rights organization and aside from the NRA there is also the GOA, NAGR, and JPFO, other very strong gun rights organizations. So people who want the kind of gun control in the USA that they've got in Japan, Australia, or Cyprus are living in a pipe dream.

I've come to learn that a lot of people are under the misconception that all guns are banned in Australia. They're not. In fact, there are more guns there now than before the last mass shooting. The U.S. has a deep problem people aren't willing to discuss...mental health.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360

So, I agree. These things will not work. We need to tackle the real issue.
 
1% ? I would have thought more like .05%

If even that high. With an average yearly death toll of 17 victims in mass shootings since 2004, and the ability to substitute other firearms for those shootings, it's possible that there wouldn't be a material reduction at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom