Mass shootings

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: You can try to ban guns all you want but at the end of the day, people will still get their hands on them through the black market and by other means and continue to commit crimes. There were two people at work debating about gun control the other day (I know...kill me, right?) and one of the guys finally said "Well if you want to make guns illegal then they should just make murder illegal, then no one would ever do it."

That comment actually stuck with me. I think at times a lot of us forget that the bigger crime committed during these shootings is the actual act of murder. People are breaking the law when it comes to murder so its more than likely they will break the law when it comes to gun possession. Gun laws wont fix it.

Firearms make the act of homicide or suicide easier. Can it still be done? Yes. Is there anything else one can legally possess that can do so with the efficiency and effectiveness of a firearm? I don't believe so.

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: There is an interesting chapter in the book Freakonomics that uses mass metadata so answer the question if gun regulation actually works, and the straight up answer is NO, it does not work. In the book it mentions Switzerland and how it has one of the highest gun per person capitas in the world yet they are one of the safest countries in the world with some of the least amount of gun violence.

I've read this book, and have done my own research on this. There are firearm regulations that can reduce gun violence. These include universal background checks and waiting periods. Waiting periods are most effective when it comes to suicides. Universal background checks are most effective when performed at the local level. There is data out there that points to this. Missouri is a wonderful case study on the effectiveness of universal background checks since they repealed a decades old permit-to-purchase system. Gun violence increased at a higher rate in Missouri after the repeal than in neighboring states, and there was an increase in firearms used in crimes in Illinois and other states in the area that had been legally purchased in Missouri.

The folks at Freakonomics also make the mistake of ignoring other factors when looking solely at gun ownership in Switzerland. Other factors like, for instance, the extremely high tax on ammunition in Switzerland. There are also strict regulations on purchasing not only firearms, but the ammunition for them. You have to have a permit to purchase either one. Many firearms in homes in Switzerland are militia issued, but they aren't allowed to have ammunition for them. That is all kept at central armories. Ammunition for target shooting often is purchased at the gun club and doesn't leave those premises. Ammunition for hunting is highly expensive and only purchasable in small quantities. Unless you are transporting your firearm to or from a training, a gun club, or to go hunting, then carrying your firearm around in Switzerland is illegal.

Anyway, this is all to say that the conclusion that gun regulation does not work being pulled from that data in Freakonomics is just bad interpretation of the data.

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: In no way am I saying that we need to give everyone out there a gun or am I for banning guns completely, but I am for passing legislation or laws making guns impossible for those who shouldn't have them from getting them.

That's what the vast majority are also saying.

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: My biggest issue with everyone is that they are so far right or left on the issue. Ban them completely or give them to everyone. One of the first steps in trying to make this better (because there really is no solution to COMPLETELY eliminate it) is to meet in the middle and come up with a plan that makes sense.

I don't think you're correct that those are to two positions. That is a false dichotomy that people tend to use rhetorically, and there are surely some people that see it that way, but that is not the majority viewpoint on either side of the conversation.