• A Mathematical Model Of Gun Control
    608 replies, posted
[QUOTE=frozensoda;41643751]right your country is safer without them (presumably) but then again the US is known for taking your poor and meek and giving them a chance, unfortunately we also end up with a lot of criminals. Crime is higher here, not just gun violence but all crime. Take that into account and your gun statistics mean nothing[/QUOTE] wow it's almost like your country should have some sort of socialist measures and support for the terrible terrible poverty there is but regardless of that, how can you still argue that gun control would be bad? "people are poor therefore there are more criminals therefore people get shot". why don't you take out the "people get shot" bit? have harsher checks on guns, reduce their numbers, make them more expensive, make ammo purchasing harsher it's like there's always some "but it's america" excuse where even the most lenient gun-control would be automatically futile simply because of that fact
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643783]wow it's almost like your country should have some sort of socialist measures and support for the terrible terrible poverty there is but regardless of that, how can you still argue that gun control would be bad? "people are poor therefore there are more criminals therefore people get shot". why don't you take out the "people get shot" bit? have harsher checks on guns, reduce their numbers, make them more expensive, make ammo purchasing harsher it's like there's always some "but it's america" excuse where even the most lenient gun-control would be automatically futile simply because of that fact[/QUOTE] The only reasonable argument I've heard towards that is that the US has relatively-unprotected borders with South America, where gun smuggling is supposedly common. That'd still be a non-issue though; if they got rid of the legal supply of guns I'm fairly sure that just from the plain laziness of people, gun crimes would go down because people don't find the trouble of getting a gun to be worth it.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;41643755]So why should your convictions about the state of your country affect US? What works in your country doesn't necessarily work in ours.[/QUOTE] because it works EVERYWHERE. look at australia's statistics on their comparatively recent gun control. it works all of these arguments, again, always boil down to "nope cos it's america". sure it'd be some absolutely incredible and ridiculously huge task to crack down on guns in america, but why not try? it's such a defeatist attitude. yes i know about your borders, yes i know about your traditions and general mentality towards guns, but it's so depressing that there's just this "let's not even bother" attitude. it could take 50 years but it'd be worth it if even to phase in some rudimentary control
because gun culture has been a part of our country for a long, long time, and we border a country that just loves to bring illegal weapons to our criminals. You can't compare any other country to the us when it comes to this issue its as simple as that. I am not sure on the number but i bet if you look the vast majority of guns confiscated int he us were never legally registered anyway so making them illegal will do NOTHING to prevent these guns from getting here. [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643801]because it works EVERYWHERE. look at australia's statistics on their comparatively recent gun control. it works all of these arguments, again, always boil down to "nope cos it's america". sure it'd be some absolutely incredible and ridiculously huge task to crack down on guns in america, but why not try? it's such a defeatist attitude[/QUOTE] I think what you mean is that it has seemed to work in the time it has been going on in the places it has happened. It's not defeatist it is realist. I am not against a gun control measure that reduces my chance to be murdered BUT IN TE MEANTIME I need a way to protect my family from the very real threat that people like you love to downplay
[QUOTE=frozensoda;41643803]because gun culture has been a part of our country for a long, long time, and we border a country that just loves to bring illegal weapons to our criminals. You can't compare any other country to the us when it comes to this issue its as simple as that. I am not sure on the number but i bet if you look the vast majority of guns confiscated int he us were never legally registered anyway so making them illegal will do NOTHING to prevent these guns from getting here.[/QUOTE] I understand that problem fully, but I still think that because a lot of crimes are still committed with LEGAL firearms, that cracking down on them would at least have SOME positive effect, because if guns are only coming from one, illegal source, they'd be a bit harder/less common to obtain.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643801]because it works EVERYWHERE. look at australia's statistics on their comparatively recent gun control. it works all of these arguments, again, always boil down to "nope cos it's america". sure it'd be some absolutely incredible and ridiculously huge task to crack down on guns in america, but why not try? it's such a defeatist attitude. yes i know about your borders, yes i know about your traditions and general mentality towards guns, but it's so depressing that there's just this "let's not even bother" attitude. it could take 50 years but it'd be worth it if even to phase in some rudimentary control[/QUOTE] Because once we try it then it's GG Why would you even suggest it?
I think at this point I've given up on these arguments on facepunch. It is basically "Become further entrenched in your own views by defending them against people entrenched in their own" in a nutshell when it comes to gun control.
fine lets give up nevermind
This isn't just about whether its practical or not, its about how incorrect it is in principle [editline]29th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643825]fine lets give up nevermind[/QUOTE] But why? [i]That's such a defeatist attitude[/i]
[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;41643681]An American news source reporting on a story from the UK, not going to be twisted in any way to defend guns even more... Guns would just be a burden in the UK, they do way more harm than good, and the only people with firearms are the armed police and any special services, who are very rarely needed. Per 100,000 inhabitants, we also have a much lower murder rate than just about anywhere in the US. [B]The UK has never needed guns, and never will.[/B][/QUOTE] Totally false, it used to be considered gentlemanly to carry a pocket pistol in the UK, and I've heard the cops don't carry guns because initially it was assumed if a cop needed a gun he could ask a man of stature to assist him. There's also at least 1.8 million guns in England and Wales, and hunting and sport shooting are still quite prominent in the UK. The Bisley gun range also used to be the site of a world-renowned shoot that gun companies would build guns specifically to compete in.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;41643837]Totally false, it used to be considered gentlemanly to carry a pocket pistol in the UK, and I've heard the cops don't carry guns because initially it was assumed if a cop needed a gun he could ask a man of stature to assist him. There's also at least 1.8 million guns in England and Wales, and hunting and sport shooting are still quite prominent in the UK. The Bisley gun range also used to be the site of a world-renowned shoot that gun companies would build guns specifically to compete in.[/QUOTE] "Oh but you don't NEEEED to have gun competitions"
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;41643837]Totally false, it used to be considered gentlemanly to carry a pocket pistol in the UK, and I've heard the cops don't carry guns because initially it was assumed if a cop needed a gun he could ask a man of stature to assist him. There's also at least 1.8 million guns in England and Wales, and hunting and sport shooting are still quite prominent in the UK. The Bisley gun range also used to be the site of a world-renowned shoot that gun companies would build guns specifically to compete in.[/QUOTE] But it's also MUCH harder to obtain a firearm licence than in the US, and getting a gun itself requires a shit ton of ~other stuff~, we have a much tighter lockdown on firearms and it shows, like I said our murders/deaths from assault are much lower, because it's near impossible to ever commit one with a gun.
[QUOTE=confinedUser;41636191]yeah but you know its still needed, a criminal is going to have a gun regardless so by making it illegal would more than likely cause more damage than good[/QUOTE] It's funny how this is always said yet when Australia cracked down on gun laws the rate of gun related homicide reduced dramatically. Maybe it's just the American attitude of guns and freedom.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;41643848]"Oh but you don't NEEEED to have gun competitions"[/QUOTE] You... don't. It's purely entertainment, you could do without them as easily as you could do without your local cinema. People might be miffed but life goes on.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;41643848]"Oh but you don't NEEEED to have gun competitions"[/QUOTE] what are you even on about. we still have those and it's really easy to prove that you're interested in them and compete and get a gun for them it's almost like you believe we all despise guns and think they're evil and that the only option is 100% freedom or 100% control [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] but no obviously in the spirit of 'freedom' everyone should be able to buy assault rifles from their local mall
[QUOTE=Badballer;41643858]It's funny how this is always said yet when Australia cracked down on gun laws the rate of gun related homicide reduced dramatically. Maybe it's just the American attitude of guns and freedom.[/QUOTE] it's almost like you guys think that if guns are outlawed, every criminal with a gun will just go "oh crap" and throw them away. Right or wrong, good or bad, a firearm is the only way I can protect my family if one of these fuckers picks my house. [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643865]what are you even on about. we still have those and it's really easy to prove that you're interested in them and compete and get a gun for them it's almost like you believe we all despise guns and think they're evil and that the only option is 100% freedom or 100% control [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] but no obviously in the spirit of 'freedom' everyone should be able to buy assault rifles from their local mall[/QUOTE] I own a 9mm pistol and 40 rounds of ammo, that's it. I don't want any more than that. Quit generalizing gun owners.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643865]what are you even on about. we still have those and it's really easy to prove that you're interested in them and compete and get a gun for them it's almost like you believe we all despise guns and think they're evil and that the only option is 100% freedom or 100% control [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] but no obviously in the spirit of 'freedom' everyone should be able to buy assault rifles from their local mall[/QUOTE] Nobody can buy assault rifles from anywhere in the US without first getting approval of the ATF and then paying the monetary value of a new car [quote]it's almost like you believe we all despise guns and think they're evil and that the only option is 100% freedom or 100% control[/quote] And you sure have been acting like that.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;41643882]I own a 9mm pistol and 40 rounds of ammo, that's it. I don't want any more than that. Quit generalizing gun owners.[/QUOTE] i wasn't making that remark at you, more at bfg's sentiment that any sort of control is wholly immoral and wrong i just think you should have harsher constraints on guns
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643801]because it works EVERYWHERE. look at australia's statistics on their comparatively recent gun control. it works[/QUOTE] Wait, no. The most recent studies done surrounding the Australian Gun Control show that all the gun control has been negligible on crime rates. They would be following the same decline if they didn't have the gun control laws.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643907]i wasn't making that remark at you, more at bfg's sentiment that any sort of control is wholly immoral and wrong i just think you should have harsher constraints on guns[/QUOTE] I do, too, but all that has been tried so far has been poorly directed and a waste of time and effort. For example: Instead of banning "tacticool" gun accessories (Feinstein's Assault Weapons ban in CA), why not introduce better, more intuitive ways of handing out gun licenses?
[QUOTE=DuCT;41643912]Wait, no. The most recent studies done surrounding the Australian Gun Control show that all the gun control has been negligible on crime rates. They would be following the same decline if they didn't have the gun control laws.[/QUOTE] but in terms of what they wanted to fight, which was their knee-jerk reaction, admittedly, against mass-homicide with a firearm, that went down exponentially, did it not? i could be wrong [QUOTE=BFG9000;41643930]I do, too, but all that has been tried so far has been poorly directed and a waste of time and effort. For example: Instead of banning "tacticool" gun accessories (Feinstein's Assault Weapons ban in CA), why not introduce better, more intuitive ways of handing out gun licenses?[/QUOTE] hey i'm glad we're coming to some middleground. i guess that's the horribly depressing thing about politics, maybe american politics, but politics in general, that it's all about kneejerk responses and satisfying the loudest crowd in the media - the soccer moms
[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;41643856]But it's also MUCH harder to obtain a firearm licence than in the US, and getting a gun itself requires a shit ton of ~other stuff~, we have a much tighter lockdown on firearms and it shows, like I said our murders/deaths from assault are much lower, because it's near impossible to ever commit one with a gun.[/QUOTE] And your murder rate has been lower for over 100 years, dating back to 1910 your murder rate was actually lower, at just 0.8/100,000, than now, which is about 1.2/100,000. The US however had a murder rate of something like ~7.6/100,000 in 1910 and has a murder rate of (comparatively) only ~3.5/100,000 now. Britain, regardless of its level of gun control, has always had a lower homicide rate than the US, it's not entirely reasonable or correct to say Britain's lower rate is because of gun control, and Britain is actually at a higher rate in homicide now than it was 100 years ago, when there was practically no gun control, whereas America is at a lower rate.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;41643971]And your murder rate has been lower for over 100 years, dating back to 1910 your murder rate was actually lower, at just 0.8/100,000, than now, which is about 1.2/100,000. The US however had a murder rate of something like ~7.6/100,000 in 1910 and has a murder rate of (comparatively) only ~3.5/100,000 now. Britain, regardless of its level of gun control, has always had a lower homicide rate than the US, it's not entirely reasonable or correct to say Britain's lower rate is because of gun control, and Britain is actually at a higher rate in homicide now than it was 100 years ago, when there was practically no gun control, whereas America is at a lower rate.[/QUOTE] i think there's much bigger things than gun-control going on there though, like that 100-200 years ago there were massive parts of america that were basically lawless and controlled by vigilantism and the marshals system
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643964]but in terms of what they wanted to fight, which was their knee-jerk reaction, admittedly, against mass-homicide with a firearm, that went down exponentially, did it not? i could be wrong hey i'm glad we're coming to some middleground. i guess that's the horribly depressing thing about politics, maybe american politics, but politics in general, that it's all about kneejerk responses and satisfying the loudest crowd in the media - the soccer moms[/QUOTE] But you can't base policy on kneejerk because it leads to terrible policy. Britain banned handguns on a kneejerk, they had a mass shooting 15 years later, and before Dunblane the last shooting was about 10 years apart. Canada tried shit, we had a mass shooting in 1989, then another 1992, then didn't have another until 2006, but then we had 2 in 2012. Mass shootings are an anomaly, and unpredictable. Australia may not have had another one since 1996/7/whenever it was, but it may have 3 next year, nobody can predict these things, and making law based off an anomaly is stupid, America would have banned airplanes, skyscrapers, and Islam if they were to try and take the same kneejerk applied to gun control and apply it to other things. If you're making a law to stop something, you make it to stop the majority of something, not an anomaly. Less than 5% of gun homicides in the US each year are from mass shootings, yet they're the focus of gun control, stopping that 5%. Meanwhile, nobody in politics cares about the remaining 95%, which is a little bit of spousal homicide and a whole shitton of gang violence. You'd save more lives addressing America's gang problem than addressing mass shootings directly, and you may have indirectly positive effects on reductions in mass shootings depending on how you go about lowering gang violence rates.
Lets compare the possible ban of firearms to the current ban on "hard" drugs shall we? Fact: The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second. Source: [url]http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf[/url] This year so far, the U.S has spent $23,712,208,877 on the war on drugs. (Source: [url]http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock[/url]) *That number updates from time to time This is the attempt to prevent the transport, sale, and usage of drugs in the United States, it has been in effect since about 1970 when Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. In 1971, Nixon declared war on drugs. So, if this has been going on for over 40 years now, how effective is the War on Drugs? There have been 967,968 people arrested for drug law offenses so far this year. Source: [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr[/url] Since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year. About 25 per cent are sentenced for drug law violations. And yet you can easily call up the average middle school kid and even s/he could probably find you a weed dealer or someone that knows one. Now I know these are not the exact same things, drugs and guns, but the principal is the same. It's near impossible for this country to keep its borders secure against the smuggling of illegal materials, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, there will still be drugs, there would still be guns. How would you plan to even go about banning guns, IIRC there is an average of one gun for every four citizens in the U.S in current ownership. Gun buyback programs are terrible as well, they pay much less than the firearm is worth and often destroy the firearms, this has lead to many cases of priceless historic relics from WWI and WWII being destroyed because someone opted into the gun buyback program. Not only this, but all the guns that go missing in the U.S. are mostly because the company making the guns is corrupt, they can just as easily sell a few thousand firearms to criminals, they just "lose" an entire shipment of weapons, and they magically turn up in Mexico, ready to be used in the Cartel's operations or smuggled back across the border for illegal sale in the U.S. . Cartels will pay a lot of money for good quality American firearms, and the corporate white collars aren't above accepting dirty money. Gun control isn't black and white, banning guns isn't going to solve anything, because guns aren't 100% made in America only. If you regulate and control the companies that make guns in the U.S. more heavily, impose heavy fines and possible criminal charges for "losing" shipments of weapons, we'd easily stem the amount of weapons being produced in America that end up on the black market. Furthermore, most guns used in crimes in the U.S. are Handguns, imposing more strict rules on handguns would make more sense, it's rather hard to conceal and be able to quickly access a large rifle to rob a store, and a mugging with a hunting rifle sounds oddly cumbersome. Personally I enjoy firearms, collecting, displaying, target shooting and hunting are enjoyable to me. So, I disagree with getting rid of them, but I can see why they're a problem to have easily accessible to criminals, but banning the sale of them to law abiding citizens isn't the solution. You've got a person with a tumor and instead of removing the tumor, you decided to just kill the person when you can just remove the tumors and fix the problem. TL;DR: Gun producing corporations are the problem, as is bordering the shithole that is Mexico.
Not to mention that according to Feinstein's AWB, "assault weapons" can only be legal if they have a "bullet button" which basically forces the user to release the magazine by insertion of an object that is smaller than a human finger into an apparatus on the side of the receiver. This is utterly useless because it completely ignores the fact that anyone can design a magnetic cover or glove with a needle on it to bypass this feature EDIT: Sorry, that post was typed over a period of 30 minutes without refreshing, this should be considered part of my earlier post
Gun policy is like a fear of flying, even though flying is statistically the safest way to travel, people are scared of plane crashes because ~200 people die at once. Nobody cares about the thousands of car crashes every day because it's just a few people who die in each, they're not large enough to be a "tragedy," and isn't disastrous enough to "scare" people. With gun policy it's based off trying (and often failing) to stop mass shootings, even though they statistically account for the smallest amount of gun homicides, because lots of people die at once and that makes it a tragedy. Meanwhile nobody cares about the gangsters killing each other every day because it's only one or two people dying at a time, it's not "tragic" enough to warrant a response for each incident, nor is it "scary" enough to hit people emotionally each time.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41643964]maybe american politics, but politics in general, that it's all about kneejerk responses and satisfying the loudest crowd in the media -[b] the soccer moms[/b][/QUOTE] *the football moms :v: EDIT: Damnit automerge
[QUOTE=frozensoda;41643882]it's almost like you guys think that if guns are outlawed, every criminal with a gun will just go "oh crap" and throw them away. Right or wrong, good or bad, a firearm is the only way I can protect my family if one of these fuckers picks my house.[/QUOTE]The problem with your statement is that you assume outlawing guns will produce an instantaneous effect. I also agree that outlawing guns isn't the way to go in America because of their attitude towards firearms. There needs to be another way to go about it. [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DuCT;41643912]Wait, no. The most recent studies done surrounding the Australian Gun Control show that all the gun control has been negligible on crime rates. They would be following the same decline if they didn't have the gun control laws.[/QUOTE] crime =/= homicide Edit: What I was trying to say is that crime rates can exist while having less gun related deaths. I don't think I'm making much sense so I'll just stop now.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qFtliIT.png[/IMG] To sum it up, graph (a) represents a place where 60% of people who can legally purchase a gun and carry around with them at all times do. At the same time, it includes 20% of offenders who will illegally acquire a gun and use it during an attack. There are 11 different lines, each representing the effectiveness of a gun, with the bottom most line meaning the gun is 100% effective at stopping attacks, and reducing as you move up to each new line. Overall in case (a) a total ban (where g=0) comes out as being most effective to reducing homicide rates. Even in the case where a gun is 100% effective, [B]a total ban is most effective.[/B] Now, in case (b), all they've done is increased the variables c and h. This now includes, 90% of people who can legally purchase a gun and carry around with them at all times, and 40% of offenders who can illegally obtain a gun and use it in an attack. In this case, a [B]total ban is most effective EXCEPT[/B] for in cases in which the armed person has a 30% chance or less of being killed. Anything between a total ban or total allowance of guns is not ideal for reducing homicides. And keep in mind a total allowance means everyone who can legally own a firearm must carry it with them at all times in order for the results to match the data. But also keep in mind as the paper says, these results are not fact, but rather a starting point from which future statistical studies should move towards to enable getting more accurate data for the models presented in the paper.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.