Gun control laws do they work ?

[Maverick]

If gun control is like drunk driving then thats why there are driver licenses, driver tests, driver education, RBT & targeted traffic enforcement, alcohol laws, and gaol time to try to limit the amount of idiots who drive drunk and kill people

 Tronsky

The corollary to that is this. If licenses, drivers tests, RBT and enforcement could prevent drunk driving there would be no drunks driving on the road. Yet in spite of all that, including fed, state and local emphasis on stopping the problem it is estimated that about one in 5 drivers on the road after 8 to 10PM is under the influence. On the other hand driving is not constitutionally protected and is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the state, hence the license and still cannot end the problem. It's amazing how easy it is for a drunk to get a car, even when they do not have a license, have no insurance and are legally prohibited from owning one by court order.

Gee I guess it comes back to that bit about those who are determined to break laws are not really deterred by another law that tells then "nony nonny pooh pooh, you can't do that".

[RTHolmes]

true, but those who are borderline are effected by laws and their consequences. stronger penalties for drink driving, and proper enforcement leads to fewer deaths by drink driving. the alcaholic who doesnt give a toss will still drink drive, the guy who has had a beer or 2 will be more likely to leave it at that if the consequences are long jail terms and loss of income.

[Maverick]

That sounds nice but from bitter experience, it's the guy that had a couple that causes the majority of the problems and is the majority of the folks under the influence out there. It doesn't take much to have an impact on the ability to drive and think clearly for some. Those that are dissuaded from the activity by the law wouldn't be the problem as they don't participate in the activity anyhow. We have what looks to be an "industry" geared to make sure the person who is caught doesn't have to take responsibility for their actions. The same thing when someone says, they didn't mean it, that was only the drink talking / acting, it wasn't really their fault

[zack1234]

Best gun control laws are Swiss.

Their banks put Al Capone to shame

They do very well out wars

[LilMak]

I own two fire extingushers. I keep one in the kitchen and one in the garage. It's not likely my house will ever catch fire, but if it does I'll have some defense before things get out of control.

I think of my Mossberg 500 the exact same way.

[RTHolmes]

I will likely do the same if I move to the countryside, theres no need to where I live at the moment.

(shotgun, not fire extinguishers that is )

[Tracerfi]

Were is skuzzy when you need Him   

[RTHolmes]

read more, post less

[zack1234]

RT is southern English and by nature soft

[RTHolmes]

break into my house and we'll find out how soft I am

[zack1234]

I am in your cupboard

[Chilli]

Wow . Check this out .

Professor Gary Kleck is a life long (self-avowed) liberal democrat, author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. He had expected the research involved in that writing to infer negatively on gun ownership. He discovered a vast amount of violent crimes were prevented by firearms usage. Even though this was contrary to his original premise, he had the integrity to stand by his research. Although that book was awarded the best book (of 1993) on criminology by the American Society of Criminology it was largely ignored by gun control advocates such as most medical journals and our Government's Justice Department and Center for Disease Control.


http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html


Anyone who advocates for gun control and doesn't read this is dishonest . Sorry Ardy ,TJ this guy shows how invalid the statistics you quote are .

I am not much of a scientist, although there is a B.S. somewhere in a trunk tucked away and long forgotten.  The one thing that I do know about research is that you can only prove something is true, by trying to prove that it is NOT true.  If that didn't get your head spinning think of it this way.  If I want to prove that my sky at this moment is blue, I would have to compare it to every know color or hue and say it doesn't match any of those.  Who knows, I might find that it is actually green or purple (see where I went there).

So back to honest research and gun control, there will always be "gray" areas and both sides do have very valid points.  What to do next?  Well, I would need to do more than just read a book.  I would need to look at the raw data, the sampling, his methods (say how did he randomly pick data) and a number of other things.  But in the end I would still come up with inconclusive results about gun control.

I think the big thing probably missing in his premise is that the term "violent crimes" in itself can be misleading.  What would the results be in terms of "innocent gun deaths" instead? 

My fraternity brother in college answered the door to his apartment, a group rushed in on him and his two children and wife.  He was bound, pistol whipped while his wife, baby and toddler were held at gunpoint in another room.  He was robbed of anything valuable that they could take.  That was truly a violent crime.

Point of the true story?  I would never feel safe (maybe safer).  Possibly, had he wielded a gun ready at the entrance, the best possible result would have been they would have run.  As it turned out he lost money and things, got bruised and busted up.  I don't know what would have been the result if he stood his ground, outnumbered and both parties were surprised.  At least there were no innocent deaths.

[Vudu15]

somehow I think that if you shot anybody self defense or not his family would come after you to avenge the 'family honor".   or if you proved to be a man of speed then others would come after you trying to claim the title.


semp

You and TJ have been watching too much tv again...odds are they wouldn't know the guy was dead for some time. Maybe never.

[Vudu15]

hlbly the truth about gun control, is that more or less gun laws wont stop the law abiding idiot that one day wakes up and decides to show up at some place and shoot as many people as he can.

we can only wonder if those people in new york if they had been carrying a gun and shot back what would have happened. more victims?  I mean if they police who is supposed to be highly trained can open fire and shoot 9 bystanders, what would have happened in Colorado if some of those in the theater would have had guns themselves.  how many more would have gotten shot?

I am all for the second amendment but lately it makes me wonder who should I be more concerned with,  police, law abiding citizens going postal, or criminals.



semp

Sep im gonna go out on a limb here and say you don't conceal carry and i supposed know no who does. People who conceal carry are a different sort from your run of the mill goober. They train for long hours study and are very proficient with their weapon of choice. It is not a light issue to begin to CC  and with comes a whole new way of doing anything. And these fokswho are usually on the lookout for suspicious people are sometimes enough to deter would be crime commiters.

[guncrasher]

Both of those books show statistically that you are wrong . A private citizen that employs a gun in that situation faces way heavier consequences than those police officers will . That being said . Private citizens use guns to stop crimes at the same rate that guns are used to commit crimes . The number of bystanders shot by them ? Almost nil .

you cant actually prove that first statement.  not saying is wrong but you cant prove it.  have seen this quoted in one form or another since I was in high school back in the 80's.  however I remember the newsweeks (i believe) story about people who died in one week of gunshots back in the 90's.  A good portion of those were either accidental or self inflicted.  trying to find the story but google dont want to help.

semp