Gun Control Debunked

1. The most essential narrative promoted by proponents of gun control is that gun homicides in the USA is a major problem that everyone must be worried about. Without this basic assumption, there would be no need to discuss the issue at all. This assumption is demonstrably false. According to the latest CDC data, there were approximately 11,008 gun homicides in 2014. The estimated population of the USA in 2014, according to the Census, was approximately 318,857,056. That translates to roughly a 0.003% chance of becoming the victim of a gun homicide. By comparison, 33,018 Americans died from falling down in 2014 according to CDC data, meaning the average American is about three times more likely to die from falling down than from a firearm homicide. If there were any sense of rationality and proportionality to this debate, then we would expect to see roughly three times as much emphasis being placed on falling deaths than on gun homicides. Yet we see precisely the opposite. Almost no attention is given to falling deaths whereas there is an inordinate amount of attention directed at gun homicides.

2. The most essential corollary to the previous narrative is that gun control is effective at dealing with this exaggerated problem. What is further implied by this corollary is that a lack of gun control is what causes, directly or indirectly, the problem of gun homicides. This is also demonstrably false. According to data compiled by The American Enterprise Institute, the number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 56% between 1993 and 2013. During that same time, the gun homicide rate decreased by 49%.



This is not intended to demonstrate that guns cause crime to go down, although that is certainly an argument one could make, rather, it is intended to demonstrate that there are other, far more significant variables that contribute to violent gun crime, variables such as poverty, drug prohibition, and psychological health. Further evidence tends to support this. UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh, did a statistical analysis comparing state gun laws with gun homicide rates and found no correlation between the two. This lack of a correlation is demonstrated amply by states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine who have some of the lowest gun homicide rates in the USA (comparable to Canada and Australia) and some of the laxest gun laws in America. IF lax gun laws were a significant cause of gun homicides, then we would expect to see the exact opposite.

3. Despite a dearth of evidence supporting the efficacy of gun control in controlling gun crime, gun control proponents nevertheless push specific forms of gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings. The only problem, as demonstrated by a study conducted by the New York Times, is that their specific solutions wouldn't have made any difference in the large majority of cases. Out of 130 mass shootings studied by the New York Times, more than 50% involved an assailant who was legally barred from owning a firearm and 64% of shootings involved at least one assailant who violated existing gun laws. Of the remaining assailants, 40% of them had no psychological or criminal history that would have prevented them from obtaining a firearm legally even in states with the strictest gun control laws. Furthermore, only 14 out of 130 shootings involved a so-called "assault rifle". Put simply, the "solutions" typically offered in the aftermath of mass shooting are not really solutions at all.

4. In the course of these debates, gun control advocates invariably make assurances that they aren't interested in coming after the guns of law abiding Americans. We don't want to ban guns, they tell us. Once again, this is demonstrably false. In observing how the primary proponents of gun control (Democrats) behave on the state and local level, where they have little to no meaningful opposition to their political agenda, we can see that banning guns is exactly what they want to do. Two of the most notable examples are Chicago and Washington DC where Democrats have a virtual political monopoly and where ALL guns were, according the Supreme Court, effectively banned by their municipal governments. And if that isn't enough to convince you they want to ban guns, simply look at the gun laws in countries that Democrats typically hold up as an example to follow: The UK, Australia, Japan, etc. These countries treat gun ownership, not as an essential right, but as a government-granted privilege that becomes more narrowly applied with each passing year. So despite their assurances to the contrary, it's exceedingly clear that the primary proponents of gun control (Democrats) intend to ban firearms or, at the very least, greatly limit access to them.

5. The last issue I will address is not so much a narrative or an argument as much as it is an observation, i.e., most proponents of gun control know very little about actual guns. Apparently, being extremely ignorant about something is not an obstacle to having a strong opinion about it for proponents of gun control.

Summary: This is not supposed to be a comprehensive rebuttal of all the arguments and narratives being pushed by gun control advocates. So feel free to add your own points. However, it seems clear that the most important and frequently cited arguments in favor of gun control are completely bunk. Knowing this, the question becomes: Why do people keep pushing these arguments when they are so obviously false? I'll let the reader come to their own conclusions.

 

That's a rather depressing view of the value of human life, if you think 11'000 deaths from gun homicides is irrelevant.

You are drawing conclusions not supported by the evidence. For one, the total number of guns owned by private citizens says nothing about who actually owns the guns, and what kind of gun control is implemented across the country.

It's not really my fault if the american police is useless. Maybe you ought to fix that?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I see no problem with depriving law abiding citizens of, for instance, automatic or burst-fire weapons. Those have no actual practical function beyond killing lots of people, so there's no need for people to have them.

 

I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said it is not a major problem. The average American has roughly a 0.003% chance of becoming the victim of a gun homicide.

Which conclusion was not supported by the evidence?

It seems you do not understand the argument being made. Try reading it again.

Those types of firearms are already prohibited or strictly limited. Anyway, Democrats are not trying to ban a certain class of guns, but all guns. That is what they do in places where they have no one to oppose them, like Chicago and DC.

 

It's important to realize that we aren't dealing with rational thinking when it comes to gun control arguments. Gun control advocates run on a mixture of emotional thinking and political ambition. They sit around like vultures just waiting for someone in our rapidly disintegrating society to snap so they can come in, feign sympathy for the victims (who they rarely, if ever, care about - like in this case. Do you really think a bunch of left-wingers care about country music fans being killed?), and then propose feel-good solutions that are intended to strip average people of their right to defend themselves and their families.

The important question that we need to ask is how many of these left-wingers actually know that these gun control solutions will not work at all, but push for them anyway because they want a more vulnerable population to exploit? How many are just naïve?

 

The rank and file are driven almost exclusively by emotion and feelings of self-righteousness. The political elites are driven almost exclusively by their tyrannical impulses. The former are the dupes of the latter.

 

11'000 dead, and twice as many injured, people isn't a major problem?

Bullshit.

We can begin with the conclusion that your data actually says anything about how strict gun control actually is.

Ah, you want to pretend like the american police authorities aren't useless? Or do you just want to hope that if you ignore that problem for long enough, everyone will forget about it?

*chuckles* So, you actually think the democrats are working towards stricter gun control than even any european nation?

 

11000 dead must be kept in perspective.

Far more than that die in automobile accidents, and far more than that have been killed by US military aggression in foreign lands.

And as long as we're doing body counts, 58000 US died in Vietnam, a war accurately described as a bright and shining lie.

The truth is that this man met all the gun control laws. The truth is that gun control really doesn't do a thing towards making life any safer.

 

Not in a country of 320,000,000 people. I mean, no one is going around saying falling down is a major problem even though falls cause three times as much death as gun homicides do.

That is addressed in Eugene Volokh's Washington Post article, which I linked to. He found no statistically significant correlation between state gun control laws and state homicide rates.

It's not the police who are useless, it is the gun laws. A study of 130 mass shootings by the New York Times demonstrates this. Apparently, you did not read it.

I think they want to ban all guns or at least greatly restrict them. I base this belief on how they behave when they have no meaningful political opposition. For example, they effectively banned all guns in cities like Chicago and Washington DC.

 

One would assume that Democrats would be lining up to refute my arguments...

 

They are here to push talking points they get in their daily email inbox, not engage in debate.

 

You don't have to know you are wrong to be wrong.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

100,000 people were killed or injured by guns in America in 2013. That;s an insane number.

And ignoring suicides is dishonest at best. VEGAS was a suicide. Unfortunately he took a lot of people with him. That can happen with any suicide and it's so much easier with semi auto weapons

 

More lies and deceit from the religion known as the NRA.

11k homicides compared to 33k accidental?

Well I suppose the comparison is valid if the woman falls down the stairs and her boyfriend drags her back up the stairs 5 times and throws her down again.

There are things we can do to reduce the numbers of gun deaths and injuries in this country but, according to the NRA religion, since we can't stop all gun deaths we should never ever try to stop even one.

Similar thinking says...

We can't stop all rapes so rape should be legal...
We can't stop all robberies so robbery should be legal...

 

We have a law against killing, or shooting people. We have laws against illegal drugs. We have laws against speeding. We have gun laws. If we pass another drug law or another killing law will that stop illegal drugs or murder? So what will another gun law do?

 

No, it's not an insane number in a country of 320,000,000 people. In fact, it's a relatively small number. As I've already shown, more people die from falling down than they do from gun homicides. Despite the emotional impact of mass shootings, they are statistically insignificant.

And what's really dishonest is the attempt by gun control advocates to include gun suicides into discussions about gun homicides. They have nothing to do with one another. One is an example of someone harming themselves and the other is an example of someone harming others. The distinction between those two types of behavior is obvious. The fact that this shooter killed himself after killing others is merely coincidental.

 

Then actually go about proving such.

How often are firearm-related offenses prosecuted in the united states?

 

Everything I said was 100% factual.

And what effective difference is there between someone who dies as the result of a homicide and someone who dies as the result of an accident? Neither of them wanted to die and both of their loved ones will be equally devastated, so why is one so much more important than the other? Can you explain that?

Lastly, the measures often floated by proponents of gun control will have little or no effect on violent gun crimes while creating an imposition on the vast majority of law abiding gun owners. Therefore, it is entirely rational to oppose such measures. It has nothing to do with "religion". In fact, the proponents of gun control have a much better claim to "religion" since there position is largely faith based nonsense that ignores facts and evidence and even basic logic.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

Liberals don't care about numbers and they don't care about what happened in Las Vegas. Many have said they're glad because they assumed people in the audience were Trump voters. They don't really care about gun violence either,the number of those killed in Las Vegas is about the average month in Chicago and what have liberals done about that? They haven't done anything about that because they don't care about that they just want your guns. Every time we exercise our rights and doesn't matter which ones, some liberal is opposed to it and wants to take it away from us. They are after they way we choose to worship, OUR free speech, the way we vote and our guns. Conversely listen to them squeal about abortion, gay marriage, the ridiculous thing about gender, illegals, muslims and open borders. Well it's really just so much noise now, remember we won because of this BS and I hope they continue to trumpet it and we can all make some pop corn and watch them commit suicide. They ought to know that the second amendment is here to stay because the more shrill their complaint the tighter we hold on.

 

You really ought to familiarize yourself with suicides. VEGAS was a suicide

 

Many have said they're glad because they assumed people in the audience were Trump voter.

Many? You might find an ******* or two (who sound a lot like you by the way) but not "many"

 

^ Thread win so massive it's scary.

 

If you're a gun nut I suppose

 

I'm goofy for Glocks!

 

Is that why everyone is so upset? Because a guy killed himself?