Ridiculous U.S. gun laws.

Sparhafoc said:

"...magnitude higher numbers of gun related deaths in the US than you do knife related deaths in the UK."

UK:
Pop 66.5m -
Knife deaths per year - let's say 300.

US: 328m
Gun related deaths per year - let's say 30,000

There are roughly 5 times more people in the US, but the number of gun-related deaths is 100 times greater than knife related deaths in the UK.

People really aren't being stabbed willy nilly in the UK, which isn't to say it isn't terrible or desperately in need of checking - but it just simply is not remotely comparable to the danger the proliferation of guns represent in the US.

Click to expand...

Ah but we have greater magnitudes of crime regardless of method. Also 2/3 of our gun deaths aren't criminal they are suicides.

You only focus on the negatives pertaining to firearms though. You are highly tainted when it comes to comparing the two WITHOUT considering the pros and cons. 500k-2.5m self defense uses of firearms in the U.S. according to the CDC under the Obama ordered study on gun violence. The massive range is due to how one defines defensive use of firearm. Vast majority of the time guns are not fired when used in defense they are used to dissuade or halt crimes in progress. This means 0 people are hurt via gun and the crime is halted. Which is very positive considering the real life logistics of law enforcement.

Greg the Grouper said:

1. I don't claim to know much about guns or gun laws. It was never my intention to discuss those topics, beyond possibly a cursory idea of whether or not people should have them, and we are more likely than not to have similar ideas in that regard.

2. I've argued with multiple people before. Even with a written record, it gets hard to keep track of multiple different variations of the same conversation. I'd rather just make things simpler for you.

If you have general questions about this forum, though, I'm happy to try and answer them.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind I am a professional when it comes to firearms as I do work in the firearms industry as a firearms salesman, instructor, range safety officer as well as teach more niche things such as defensive use of firearms both handguns and long guns. It might be more interesting to ask more specifically to those ends rather than a general argument.

I foresee your position is:
Yes have guns.
Heavily Restricted.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

You only focus on the negatives pertaining to firearms though. You are highly tainted when it comes to comparing the two WITHOUT considering the pros and cons. 500k-2.5m self defense uses of firearms in the U.S. according to the CDC under the Obama ordered study on gun violence. The massive range is due to how one defines defensive use of firearm. Vast majority of the time guns are not fired when used in defense they are used to dissuade or halt crimes in progress. This means 0 people are hurt via gun and the crime is halted. Which is very positive considering the real life logistics of law enforcement.

Click to expand...

Prof David Hemenway disagrees

Greg the Grouper said:

I'm curious about how Bogan will react to this when he gets back.

Click to expand...

Easy. Like a Bogan.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

Interesting. I recently had to draw and hold a knife wielder at gun point and ran around my car. Without my firearm and my car things would be entirely different. I most likely would have been stabbed without a barrier for him to gain distance. Also the handgun was used to make him hesitate which didn't last long. This person I believe wanted to die as he was toothless and tells me he is a hopeless abuser of meth. I was in the total legal right to shoot the attacker and chose not to because getting arrested at roughly 3am and being investigated on top of legal fees is something I don't want on the condition that I had a barrier in between me and him and basically could infinitely run away from him under those conditions. Drove a block away and filed a police report and even the police said nothing is going to be done about it.

Click to expand...

You seem to be in shape, running was the best option. Word of advice, next time try running away and scream for the police. Only works if the other guy does not have a gun though.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

No firearms generally are not for killing people even in the U.S. as a majority. The vast majority of the time American gun owners shoot nothing but clay, paper, steel and/or dirt. For your claim to be accurate for a generality like that a majority has to be established. Firearms ownership isn't even related to gun crime proportionally as 39m nics checks last year - record setting - and yet the number of gun homicides haven't increased. The rate of violent crime has increased 3 fold in my city comparing pre to post covid. Economic and Social problems continue what a surprise.

Click to expand...

You got more guns in the US than people, of course a couple more do nothing to increase the crime rate. Everyone is already armed. If one was to completly give up on a future were nobody needed a gun, it really would not matter if people got 3, 5 or 50 guns .. But really, at some point even the US has to move on from the wild west. Hopefully.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

I believe I am missing context but knives, blunt instruments and killings involving a beat down are far more common here compared to where you live. Digest this:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

ucr.fbi.gov

View attachment 339
Knives, blunt instruments or no weapon at all out paces the use of rifles or shotguns in crime by any one singular category. In other words the things you guy don't like for civilians to own are less likely to be used to kill compared to something that you guys wank with and/or use to prepare food with if you like my somewhat volatile comparison.

Click to expand...

Uhm, doesnt your statistic say that 4 times more people get shot than killed by other means?

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

Yea but you can scream and be a panty waist all you like just like all the other stupid protestors think anything will change. Politicians will only do what puts them in a positive light immediately as actually solving the problem with crime in America would take much profit and incentive out of being a politician. You'd the rest of the useless people such as BLM, ANTIFA, ACAB and the rest. A lot of good they accomplished. They didn't do shit besides make 2b in damages. Yes how useful and productive these protestors are.

Click to expand...

BLM actually did produce some results, though its a far cry from what they set out to do. ANTIFA does not exist(Anyone can call himself an anti-facist, there is no leadership, no organisation, no infrastructure) and ACAB is just a slur, not an organisation.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

I try my best to supply people with firearms. I am an FFL clerk after all and firearms instructor. As well as a certified range safety officer. Is it a virtue to sit back and not be allowed to defend yourself or is it a virtue to take responsibility in your own defense? Consider also that police have NO DUTY to protect an individual as declared by the Supreme Court. They have no duty to protect YOU. Police response times here for a critical incident are laughably slow. The country is massive and the number of police are thinning not getting better times are worse and many police quit for good reason making the issue of crime WORSE.

Click to expand...

Ever thought about applying at Ratheon and selling proper weapons? You seem to be overqualified for being a sales clerk.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

Considering the number of problems that follow immigrants into the country from their third world sources I would think it is civilized considering the number of illegals, organized crime, people gaming the system, politicians not actually achieving anything to address this problems in the majority, or generally increasing the social or economic reasons for crime yes the U.S. is very civilized.

Click to expand...

Immigrants are always a net gain to society. They are also less likely to commit crime(Keep your head down and mouth shut, is a basic survival tactic). Also, the US is not letting anyone from 3rd world countries in. In addition, immigrants actually pay more taxes and take less money out of the budget, than natives. Illegal residents in the US pay even more in taxes than US citizens(cant file for tax returns).

Speaking of immigration, here is some fun news.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

Interesting how "developed nations" is always used and that standard conveniently is more in control with the U.K.. That is sort of a conflict of interest isn't it?

Also crime seems to be concentrated in specific areas. If one looks up crime rates by locale in the U.S. the most violent cities make up the most violence for the state. Increases in homicide only mostly reflect the capitol of a state and not the outlying regions. If one were to discount the top 5 in the U.S. prior to Corona our violent crime rate and murder rates would be very similar to the rest of the EU. That repeat business in crime in the same areas even though the authorities know exactly who is committing the crimes and who is committing the same or similar crimes repeatedly is very telling.

Click to expand...

Uhm yeah, if you leave out the big cities, which houses a big chunk of the population, your crime statistics look much better. Wasnt that Trumps idea?

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

I foresee your position is:
Yes have guns.
Heavily Restricted.

Click to expand...

Greg the Grouper said:

Personally, I'm in support of firearm ownership. This may only apply to the US, but like any good American, I look at a world map and everywhere else in my mind just says "Here There Be Dragons".

I believe that your average person of economic means similar to my own (as an example, someone who can purchase a house along with anyone that has less economic means), in our current system, can only manifest their own agency, their own capacity to change their society, through physical means (ranging anywhere from voting, to protesting, to violence). Being a firearm, I'd think this pertains more to violence, but simply put, I'd view an attempt by higher authority to remove firearms as a means by which said authority reduces the agency of the common man in society, which I am wholeheartedly against.

While I understand that this inevitably leads to conflict, as well as the loss of innocent life, I feel that reducing our agency in society is a far worse outcome. For similar reasons, I'd think of any action impeding a person's right to vote, such as redlining, shutting down voting booths, identification cards for voting, and removing a felon's right to vote, are all borderline treasonous actions.

I'd have no problem with a population willingly disarming themselves, though, and I would hope that someone could find themselves living in a society where firearms are completely unnecessary.

EDIT: For greater clarification, I would differentiate between 'physical means' and 'economic means', essentially individual action and individual purchasing power.

Click to expand...

Spanish Inquisition said:

You seem to be in shape, running was the best option. Word of advice, next time try running away and scream for the police. Only works if the other guy does not have a gun though.

You got more guns in the US than people, of course a couple more do nothing to increase the crime rate. Everyone is already armed. If one was to completly give up on a future were nobody needed a gun, it really would not matter if people got 3, 5 or 50 guns .. But really, at some point even the US has to move on from the wild west. Hopefully.

Uhm, doesnt your statistic say that 4 times more people get shot than killed by other means?

BLM actually did produce some results, though its a far cry from what they set out to do. ANTIFA does not exist(Anyone can call himself an anti-facist, there is no leadership, no organisation, no infrastructure) and ACAB is just a slur, not an organisation.

Ever thought about applying at Ratheon and selling proper weapons? You seem to be overqualified for being a sales clerk.

Immigrants are always a net gain to society. They are also less likely to commit crime(Keep your head down and mouth shut, is a basic survival tactic). Also, the US is not letting anyone from 3rd world countries in. In addition, immigrants actually pay more taxes and take less money out of the budget, than natives. Illegal residents in the US pay even more in taxes than US citizens(cant file for tax returns).

Speaking of immigration, here is some fun news.

Uhm yeah, if you leave out the big cities, which houses a big chunk of the population, your crime statistics look much better. Wasnt that Trumps idea?

Click to expand...

Ah the irony here is that my attacker did NOT have a gun ironically in a country flooded with guns. this goes against your principle argument that the more guns the more they will be used against you. There is no guarantee that criminals will or won't have firearms. Even if they do they are notoriously bad shots. Wearing body armor against spike and lvl 3a is also useful even assuming he did have a pistol and/or knife he wouldn't gain any penetration against me assuming he went in for a stab or cut in the torso.

Ah the wild west argument. I am tired of this argument it isn't accurate and it is tiresome. In the wild west cities generally didn't allow the carriage of firearms and yet there were high rates of violence regardless. It was ILLEGAL in the majority of towns to carry in the township. Ironically this is where the notion of the wild west is notoriously inaccurate noting the high murder rates claimed during that era with the added fact that firearms were NOT readily carried by citizens.

The statistic I showed was noting how much more common fists/hands/feet, edged weapons, and blunt weapons were used far more likely compared to ANY type of rifle - so called assault rifles or assault weapons included. The people on this thread would like to ban such firearms but I point out that generally they are not used more commonly to kill people compared to having no weapon at all. We don't see similar numbers for killing others at nearly the same scope or severity when methods other than firearms are considered. This is what I am addressing.

You haven't mentioned any results gained from BLM or compared positive to negative results from BLM. So far all I see is 2b in needless and ineffective rioting with innocents getting caught in the middle for basically moral grandstanding.

While I do have experience operating crew served weapons I still don't think I am qualified for Ratheon and really my interest is giving philosophy and training for small arms for citizens or any that wish to carry firearms for defense in public.

Illegal immigrants by their nature are law breakers. They are indeed breaking the law simply for being here against the will of the citizenry and against law. Also sanctuary states, cities and counties make it impossible to enforce federal border controls negating the argument of keeping your head down. There is no such requirement to keep your head down when the local governments refuse to enforce the law in regards to immigration. It is also telling that even when specifically notified of legal status the federal government chooses to do nothing even when they know the law has been broken. More infuriating to me is downplaying crimes committed by illegals when they have no right to be here to begin with. The amount of funds generated by immigrants pales in comparison to what programs are available even to illegal immigrants noting that identification, insurance, cell phones etc are all in one form or another are available depending on the state to people who aren't allowed to be here according to federal law. That is NOT of benefit that is parasitism.

Uhm good? Again illegals have no right to be here and basically I would support very radical actions against those attempting to enter the country illegally especially when the government chooses to routinely ignore enforcing the law. The private individual is paying to enforce current federal law. That is all that has occurred here - I see no problem.

Big cities are also typically run by the left and ran by the left for decades. Majority of crime, majority of population, majority of the issues highlighted by other people. They are woefully unprepared and don't seem to be improving the status of the people that live there - in fact they seem to throw citizen intent and will out the window over illegal immigrant intent and incentives.

For some reason it is not letting me use the quote feature therefore:

Grouper: "For similar reasons, I'd think of any action impeding a person's right to vote, such as redlining, shutting down voting booths, identification cards for voting, and removing a felon's right to vote, are all borderline treasonous actions."

I don't understand why I.D. cards hinder anyone. They are obtained at no cost and verify who you are. They are required to purchase ammunition and required to purchase various other items as well. Does this mean you shouldn't have to present identification when buying a vehicle, booze, cigarettes, or voting when the integrity of elections are always in question? Notice the trend of events in U.S. elections went from: No evidence of voter fraud. No evidence of widespread election fraud. No evidence of widespread purposeful election voting etc. There is definitely evidence of voting records being inaccurate and being off in the number of thousands. It is also ironic considering the U.S. is the least restrictive in terms of voting requirements and yet outsiders grant criticism to voting in the U.S. but not in their own country.

I think it is more important which persons autonomy is threatened. Obviously with me carrying a firearm that intent is aimed at reducing the autonomy of evil doers not the law abiding or productive members of society. Mal intent should always be restricted. Gun controls however when I analyze them don't reduce the amount of mal intent from evil doers from a look at American gun laws. Overwhelmingly it is security theatre or outright ignorance for what politicians are attempting to regulate. Labeling a weapon more effective because it has a pistol grip is borderline retarded and has no actual effect on crime.

I see no reason to give the opportunity to vote for felon's unless that felony record has been challenged and dismissed at some point. My brother is a felon and he is a felon for stupid reasons and not for reasons of mal intent or being an attacker. Still I don't think such convicted persons should have a say in what happens in society when they are such fuck ups. They don't have any say in order to have criminal influence in what happens in society. Address your own record, challenge it and have it dismissed. I am in favor of redress of the criminal justice system in regards to specifics and matters of degree.

Grouper: "I'd have no problem with a population willingly disarming themselves, though, and I would hope that someone could find themselves living in a society where firearms are completely unnecessary."

That is hopelessly gullible. That has been attempted multiple times with buybacks and it only concerns the law abiding. Criminals are going to keep them regardless. We have wasted millions of dollars on this and in the safest time in human history there is still great need for lethal force in the U.S.. We aim to use firearms against any who bring threat of serious bodily harm, death or forcible felonies.

Logistically speaking I don't think it would even be possible to narrow down and disarm everyone not supposed to be armed. There will always be those competent and incompetent, criminal and law abiding. The only thing that changes is the ratio.

Spanish Inquisition said:

@BoganUSAFFLClerk I am curious though ... is there anything you are against selling to civilians? Grenade launchers, hard mounted gatling guns, chemical weapons, guns disguised as stuffed animals?

Click to expand...

Not really. Ask yourself this before asking me:

Do we have a current problem with x item? If so to what degree? Would it violate the second amendment in order to defend self or defend the citizenry against the government? Would economic restrictions pretty much negate ownership? Would the government show competence in regulating x item? Is anything more restrictive than the NFA reasonable to an American (No)?

Spanish Inquisition said:

Simply because you asked "Whats the problem?" and I thought, it might be a good idea to actually outline that.

Click to expand...

/confused

Did I?

Where did I ask you "what's the problem"?

Spanish Inquisition said:

Not trusting strangers is highly recommended.
As far as freedom goes .. I go by "your freedom ends were my freedom begins" and "human rights trump freedom". The later should be self evident.

Click to expand...

Again, if it's 'my' version - it's expressly NOT self-evident, as I said. What I factually said is that it's open for discussion.

Spanish Inquisition said:

Depends on if you look at it from a micro or macro perspective.

Sure, one guy having a gun for whatever reason, is highly unlikely to cause someone harm. There is no way to argue against the right for 1 person to have a gun. Problem is, thats from a micro perspective.
Since we are talking public safety, we have to look at it from a macro perspective and thats were statistics come in. 1 person is unlikely to cause harm, 10 are unlikely to cause harm, even with 100 you might get away without incident, but after 1000 people, accidents become a certainty. Depends strongly on the country and the rules and regulations though.

Which is why I do not have a problem with police, military, hunters and maybe sportsmen having guns, but I do have a giant problem with guns in the hands of the general public.
I might sound somewhat idealistic, but not to the point of being completly impractical.

Click to expand...

I would say that it's not impracticality that's the problem, but that you're not setting out your thoughts clearly, or perhaps that your thoughts are not clear on this at all.

For example, the above capitulation is not what you've argued in this/other threads - in fact, you've argued against it by contending there's no legitimate reason for gun ownership at all.

It was other people who pointed out all the remainder, but you've not acknowledged that to them, but argued it with them.

Spanish Inquisition said:

For me it comes down to, if the justification outweights the cost to society. And looking at the US, we are talking about a momumental cost in human lives(Even if we only look at mass shootings, which are inarguably only possible thanks to their liberal gun laws).
If we were talking Switzerland or Japan for example, I wouldnt even bother .... guns are simply not a problem there.

Interesting enough, cars are an example for a similiar discussion and the conclusion was that the benefit of mobility outweights the costs of human lives. Now thats a conondrum.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem: calling something self-evident is just another way of saying "I'm right". That's not how this can work. We need to find ways to rationally accommodate each other in society so that people can have both their security and as much liberty as possible.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

For some reason it is not letting me use the quote feature therefore:

Click to expand...

Difficulties with using quote functions is a well known phenomenon!

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

Interesting. I recently had to draw and hold a knife wielder at gun point and ran around my car. Without my firearm and my car things would be entirely different.

Click to expand...

Had your assailant been holding a gun when he attacked you, it would also have been entirely different regardless of what you had holstered.

Do I need to cue the woooo-eee-ooo-eee-ooo music for cowboys in preparation for your response about being the fastest shooter in the West? I expect so.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

Ah but we have greater magnitudes of crime regardless of method. Also 2/3 of our gun deaths aren't criminal they are suicides.

You only focus on the negatives pertaining to firearms though. You are highly tainted when it comes to comparing the two WITHOUT considering the pros and cons. 500k-2.5m self defense uses of firearms in the U.S. according to the CDC under the Obama ordered study on gun violence. The massive range is due to how one defines defensive use of firearm. Vast majority of the time guns are not fired when used in defense they are used to dissuade or halt crimes in progress. This means 0 people are hurt via gun and the crime is halted. Which is very positive considering the real life logistics of law enforcement.

Click to expand...

/point and laugh

I find it contemptible when people try to argue away empirical data. I first look at data then form opinions, not form opinions then only allow in data that comfortingly corroborates what I already believe.

That is hopelessly gullible. That has been attempted multiple times with buybacks and it only concerns the law abiding. Criminals are going to keep them regardless.

Click to expand...

Yeah, what's the point with fucking laws when criminals will just ignore them... amirite?

By the way world, despite successfully living in societies where public gun ownership is illegal and only occurs by criminals, you're hopelessly naive as well as living lives absent fear of being gunned down by dicks with guns.

Y'all can listen to this while reading the thread.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

The statistic I showed was noting how much more common fists/hands/feet, edged weapons, and blunt weapons were used far more likely compared to ANY type of rifle - so called assault rifles or assault weapons included. The people on this thread would like to ban such firearms but I point out that generally they are not used more commonly to kill people compared to having no weapon at all.

Click to expand...

Besides Spanish Inquisition, who are these people you speak of?

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

There is definitely evidence of voting records being inaccurate and being off in the number of thousands.

Click to expand...

Citation needed.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

Illegal immigrants by their nature are law breakers. They are indeed breaking the law simply for being here against the will of the citizenry and against law. Also sanctuary states, cities and counties make it impossible to enforce federal border controls negating the argument of keeping your head down. There is no such requirement to keep your head down when the local governments refuse to enforce the law in regards to immigration. It is also telling that even when specifically notified of legal status the federal government chooses to do nothing even when they know the law has been broken. More infuriating to me is downplaying crimes committed by illegals when they have no right to be here to begin with. The amount of funds generated by immigrants pales in comparison to what programs are available even to illegal immigrants noting that identification, insurance, cell phones etc are all in one form or another are available depending on the state to people who aren't allowed to be here according to federal law. That is NOT of benefit that is parasitism

Click to expand...

You do realize, that not all immigration to the US is illegal? And no, simply entering the US is not breaking the law. Under international law, everyone has the right to enter the US to request asylum or refuge. You are only illegally in the US, after a judge heard your case and decided to deport you. And that does not make you a criminal, but just someone being in the wrong place. Which is why they call the concentration camps at the border "Detention Facilities" rather than prisons.
As to, who has a right to be in the US ... thats pretty loaded, considering the US is build on an indian graveyard and only exists thanks to immigration, I would argue, that either anyone has the right to be there, or no one, except native americans.
Pray tell though, who exactly is handing out cell phones, insurance and all those marvelous things to "illegals"? And who is downplaying the few crimes actually commited by "illegals"? Certainly not Fox, they scream for weeks if a south American gets caught stealing soap.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

Uhm good? Again illegals have no right to be here and basically I would support very radical actions against those attempting to enter the country illegally especially when the government chooses to routinely ignore enforcing the law. The private individual is paying to enforce current federal law. That is all that has occurred here - I see no problem.

Click to expand...

Uhm .. that would be a breach of international law and basic human rights. And yes, they do have the right to request asylum and refuge in the US. They also have the right to get it.

he_who_is_nobody said:

Besides Spanish Inquisition, who are these people you speak of?

Click to expand...

Oi, I hope everyone would get rid of all weapons if he got to be divine tyrant, ruler of the world. Would start with nukes though and work my way down.

he_who_is_nobody said:

Besides Spanish Inquisition, who are these people you speak of?

Click to expand...

The preconceptions QAnonGuy brought with him.