Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[DukeNukeEm]

Hey, I finally found this article randomly today. I kept wanting to find this, because I think it's a fascinating statistic. It's quite well established that crime in general has been dropping in this country since about 1990, even in places like Chicago that are quite messy these days. At the same time, homicides by guns have been dropping, and the number of guns owned by people have been increasing.

 

The increasing gun ownership and decreasing homicides might well have been something people would argue is a sign that more guns = a safer country.

 

Turns out there's one more element buried in there; emergency care. The number of people shot in this country, per year, has skyrocketed by 50% as the number of guns has gone up. Basically, more guns and more people carrying them = more people getting shot, and the fewer deaths has been almost entirely due to improved emergency health care. Of course, it's hard to track the numbers exactly since the government has banned anyone from tracking them, so they had to go to hospital stats to get those numbers (ridiculous again), but 10,000 more people hospitalized from gunshots per year is a huge signal.

 

Found that to be fairly startling.

Earlier in the thread you were complaining about how deadly guns are, now you're backtracking? I dont get it. What happened to 5.56 rounds being the bringers of doom to anything they touch?

[StrangeSox]

It's not that he survived getting shot 5 times. It's that he survived getting shot in the head and neck five times and was able to walk out of the house and drive for a bit. Massive brain trauma, a severed spinal cord, a destroyed trachea or a severed carotid artery can't be covered up by some PCP or meth.

[StrangeSox]

Mom of the year. How did she miss on the 6th?

 

It's actually pretty remarkable that she hit him 5/6 times. In an adrenaline-filled situation like that, a lot of people would struggle to hit the broad side of a barn from a few feet away.

[DukeNukeEm]

Honestly, I'm not going to get into this talking about what weapons are suitable for home defense when I'm dealing with people who use words like "clips" and "assault rifles" over, and over, and over, and over.

[bigruss]

Earlier in the thread you were complaining about how deadly guns are, now you're backtracking? I dont get it. What happened to 5.56 rounds being the bringers of doom to anything they touch?

Not really sure how you view that as backtracking.

[bmags]

Honestly, I'm not going to get into this talking about what weapons are suitable for home defense when I'm dealing with people who use words like "clips" and "assault rifles" over, and over, and over, and over.

 

Oh please don't threaten to leave the thread!

[bigruss]

It's not that he survived getting shot 5 times. It's that he survived getting shot in the head and neck five times and was able to walk out of the house and drive for a bit. Massive brain trauma, a severed spinal cord, a destroyed trachea or a severed carotid artery can't be covered up by some PCP or meth.

They must have been mostly grazes, it would be just crazy otherwise.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not interested in some dumb technical discussion over what guns are the "best" for any given scenario. But I wouldn't place good odds in someone surviving 5 shots to the head and neck at very close range from a .22, let alone a .38.

Edited January 7, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Not really sure how you view that as backtracking.

 

Yeah, guns are very deadly but, thanks to modern medical advances, the chances of surviving some gun shot wounds is increased. I guess in a strictly technical sense medical advances made guns "less deadly" in the same way that penicillin made bacterial infections "less deadly."

[Balta1701]

Earlier in the thread you were complaining about how deadly guns are, now you're backtracking? I dont get it. What happened to 5.56 rounds being the bringers of doom to anything they touch?

~75% of shootings use handguns.

[DukeNukeEm]

~75% of shootings use handguns.

Ban those too then, right?

[Balta1701]

Ban those too then, right?

Can we please?

 

Or at least allow major cities to do so?

[DukeNukeEm]

Can we please?

 

Or at least allow major cities to do so?

Sure, then every city in the country can be just like Chicago with 500+ homicides a year (got over 800 more than a couple times during the AWB even!) and your dream will be complete.

[Balta1701]

Sure, then every city in the country can be just like Chicago with 500+ homicides a year (got over 800 more than a couple times during the AWB even!) and your dream will be complete.

But Chicago's handgun ban was struck down over 2 years ago.

 

By now it should be just as safe as any other city.

[StrangeSox]

City-level bans aren't effective because its far too easy to get a gun in the immediate area, but it's much more ridiculous to conclude that Chicago has 500 homicides because of handgun bans.

[bigruss]

City-level bans aren't effective because its far too easy to get a gun in the immediate area, but it's much more ridiculous to conclude that Chicago has 500 homicides because of handgun bans.

I agree with this.

[DukeNukeEm]

But Chicago's handgun ban was struck down over 2 years ago.

 

By now it should be just as safe as any other city.

Try jumping through the necessary hoops with the CPD to get on their database. Better yet, trying getting a CC in IL (last state in the USA where you cannot). Chicago, even after the courts shot down some of the laws, is still has by far the nation's toughest gun laws.

 

City-level bans aren't effective because its far too easy to get a gun in the immediate area, but it's much more ridiculous to conclude that Chicago has 500 homicides because of handgun bans.

This line of though will graduate from "City bans aren't enough, we need state bans!", "State bans aren't enough now, we need a nationwide ban!", "The nationwide ban isn't working, we need a global ban!", "The global ban isn't working!! We need to ban guns on Mars and the Moon!"... forever and ever and even as nothing gets solved we'll keep thinking legislation will fix all of our problems.

 

Face it, Chicago has the nation's toughest gun laws and also the nation's most homicides. Which proves that (1) Nobody gives a f*** if you ban guns, except law abiding citizens (2) Fewer guns do not make people safer. I'm sure you're going to run and grab your statistics about Europe, but I'm taking a glaring example in THIS country where Americans kill other Americans on average more than once a day.

[Balta1701]

Try jumping through the necessary hoops with the CPD to get on their database. Better yet, trying getting a CC in IL (last state in the USA where you cannot). Chicago, even after the courts shot down some of the laws, is still has by far the nation's toughest gun laws.

 

 

This line of though will graduate from "City bans aren't enough, we need state bans!", "State bans aren't enough now, we need a nationwide ban!", "The nationwide ban isn't working, we need a global ban!", "The global ban isn't working!! We need to ban guns on Mars and the Moon!"... forever and ever and even as nothing gets solved we'll keep thinking legislation will fix all of our problems.

 

Face it, Chicago has the nation's toughest gun laws and also the nation's most homicides. Which proves that (1) Nobody gives a f*** if you ban guns, except law abiding citizens (2) Fewer guns do not make people safer. I'm sure you're going to run and grab your statistics about Europe, but I'm taking a glaring example in THIS country where Americans kill other Americans on average more than once a day.

Acutally I'll just run and grab statistics from the U.S., where on average, the gun-riddled south blows the rest of the country away in homicides.

[DukeNukeEm]

f*** it, let's just say it because it needs to be said (from your same source):

 

[StrangeSox]

This line of though will graduate from "City bans aren't enough, we need state bans!", "State bans aren't enough now, we need a nationwide ban!", "The nationwide ban isn't working, we need a global ban!", "The global ban isn't working!! We need to ban guns on Mars and the Moon!"... forever and ever and even as nothing gets solved we'll keep thinking legislation will fix all of our problems.

 

Nah, I'm perfectly fine with much stronger national policy. You only need to get to your absurd levels if you've assumed your conclusion that gun controls don't work.

 

Face it, Chicago has the nation's toughest gun laws and also the nation's most homicides. Which proves that (1) Nobody gives a f*** if you ban guns, except law abiding citizens (2) Fewer guns do not make people safer. I'm sure you're going to run and grab your statistics about Europe, but I'm taking a glaring example in THIS country where Americans kill other Americans on average more than once a day.

 

Face it, there are numerous factors to play into any (city/state/nation)'s crime rates. The fact that Chicago has very tight handgun laws yet still sees a lot of gun violence does not prove that all attempts at gun control are doomed to failure. I've readily acknowledged that a city-level ban is not going to be very effective, so pointing out instances of city-level bans not working particularly well doesn't really do anything.

[StrangeSox]

f*** it, let's just say it because it needs to be said (from your same source):

 

 

What needs to be said?

[bigruss]

f*** it, let's just say it because it needs to be said (from your same source):

 

I don't think we need to fully ban guns, but stricter regulations on them (including registering, selling, permits and background checks, etc) need to be put in place.

 

I understand and respect the right to legal gun ownership, but we need to attack the issue of the amount of guns available to people in multiple directions. That means trying to minimize the legal purchased guns that are used for illegal activities, whether it's because they are stolen (from store or individual), lost, or inadequate background checks.

[Balta1701]

Face it, there are numerous factors to play into any (city/state/nation)'s crime rates. The fact that Chicago has very tight handgun laws yet still sees a lot of gun violence does not prove that all attempts at gun control are doomed to failure. I've readily acknowledged that a city-level ban is not going to be very effective, so pointing out instances of city-level bans not working particularly well doesn't really do anything.

Let's be more clear...a city level ban is ineffective when there are other states and the federal government preventing it from being effective. When you can't even trace guns back to dealers to see if certain dealers are providing large fractions of the weapons used in crimes because the FBI is forbidden from keeping those statistics by Congress...then nothing is going to be effective. That is Congress literally making sure it undermines any such ban.

[DukeNukeEm]

What needs to be said?

Stupid image didn't work.

 

I know I was b****ing about race being brought into this earlier, but blacks die from guns at 5 times the rate of whites.

[Balta1701]

Stupid image didn't work.

 

I know I was b****ing about race being brought into this earlier, but blacks die from guns at 5 times the rate of whites.

And if you'd care to suggest policies to ameliorate those problems, we'd be happy to listen. So far, your only answer, as far as I can tell, is more guns.