Gun Control/Rights Thread

[classicrawker]

Its still enough, my point is these things are there to be addressed, not marginalised.

I have no issue with Shades offering his opinion, even if I disagree with most of what he says, I only have issue with his need to insult people to try to get his point across. It is useless trying to have a debate with someone who can't be mature about it.

Listen you and I have our differences on various subjects but was can agree to disagree like mature adults yes?

[Len Cnut]

Its still enough, my point is these things are there to be addressed, not marginalised.

I have no issue with Shades offering his opinion, even if I disagree with most of what he says, I only have issue with his need to insult people to try to get his point across. It is useless trying to have a debate with someone who can't be mature about it.

Listen you and I have our differences on various subjects but was can agree to disagree like mature adults yes?

I didnt mean shades specifically, i just mean that kinda opinion, Im led to believe theres a great many in America that have that view just as there's an equivalent perspective over here, i just think it deserves an airing.

[classicrawker]

Its still enough, my point is these things are there to be addressed, not marginalised.

I have no issue with Shades offering his opinion, even if I disagree with most of what he says, I only have issue with his need to insult people to try to get his point across. It is useless trying to have a debate with someone who can't be mature about it.

Listen you and I have our differences on various subjects but was can agree to disagree like mature adults yes?

I didnt mean shades specifically, i just mean that kinda opinion, Im led to believe theres a great many in America that have that view just as there's an equivalent perspective over here, i just think it deserves an airing.

No doubt Lenny and I respect any conservatives right to air their opinion and challenge what I say as long as they are respectful. If not it is useless to even try to discuss anything with them.

As dysfunctional as our political system has become I am glad there are at least two parties who have different viewpoints on issues to keep things in balance. The problem IMHO is that the two parties are no longer willing to work together to come up with compromises for the good of the American people. Each party is guilty of this so I am not blaming only republicans.

Our political system is FUBAR'd and controlled by big business interests and I don't see a solution in sight which makes me afraid for my daughters future.

[classicrawker]

There you go Lenny he proves my point. There is no point in trying to have a mature debate about anything with immature individuals like him so I just let him rant on and ignore him.

Edited October 16, 2015 by classicrawker

[Apollo]

Its still enough, my point is these things are there to be addressed, not marginalised.

I have no issue with Shades offering his opinion, even if I disagree with most of what he says, I only have issue with his need to insult people to try to get his point across. It is useless trying to have a debate with someone who can't be mature about it.

Listen you and I have our differences on various subjects but was can agree to disagree like mature adults yes?

I 100% agree with your overall point.

But it's almost impossible to happen, because usually both parties feel the "other" guy is throwing out insults and they are not.

Look at your response to Shade. While not as straight forward of an insult as his, you completely insulted him as a person.

"""He could be a Tr0ll who gets his jollies out of insulting everyone to try to get a rise out of us, as it is hard to believe anyone could be so bitter and angry all the time, but sadly, for him, I think he is for real.............. :shrugs:""""

That's not a compliment. You are saying that he is probably a cupcake, as nobody could be as "bitter and angry" as he is.

So why is it OK for you to make a statement like that about him? The guy clearly isn't angry at all. Certainly he is a smart-ass, but I picture him sitting back and laughing as he is typing his responses. I agree he goes overboard on the insults. But he clearly isn't a cupcake, he is just stating his honest opinion on politics - just like you and Dowzny does. Just because he isn't obsessed with the left and with hating republicans doesn't mean he is a cupcake. It just means he disagrees with you.

NOT TRYING to start an argument, as like I said. I agree with the actual point you are making. I'm just curious why you bash one guy for using insults - but then follow that up by insulting the guy back.

[Len Cnut]

Also, as an impartial, learn to recieve insult, get over the insult and address the point behind, learn to call each other cunts people, its liberating

[classicrawker]

Its still enough, my point is these things are there to be addressed, not marginalised.

I have no issue with Shades offering his opinion, even if I disagree with most of what he says, I only have issue with his need to insult people to try to get his point across. It is useless trying to have a debate with someone who can't be mature about it.

Listen you and I have our differences on various subjects but was can agree to disagree like mature adults yes?

I 100% agree with your overall point.

But it's almost impossible to happen, because usually both parties feel the "other" guy is throwing out insults and they are not.

Look at your response to Shade. While not as straight forward of an insult as his, you completely insulted him as a person.

"""He could be a Tr0ll who gets his jollies out of insulting everyone to try to get a rise out of us, as it is hard to believe anyone could be so bitter and angry all the time, but sadly, for him, I think he is for real.............. :shrugs:""""

That's not a compliment. You are saying that he is probably a cupcake, as nobody could be as "bitter and angry" as he is.

So why is it OK for you to make a statement like that about him? The guy clearly isn't angry at all. Certainly he is a smart-ass, but I picture him sitting back and laughing as he is typing his responses. I agree he goes overboard on the insults. But he clearly isn't a cupcake, he is just stating his honest opinion on politics - just like you and Dowzny does. Just because he isn't obsessed with the left and with hating republicans doesn't mean he is a cupcake. It just means he disagrees with you.

NOT TRYING to start an argument, as like I said. I agree with the actual point you are making. I'm just curious why you bash one guy for using insults - but then follow that up by insulting the guy back.

Let be honest Apollo the only time I "insult" shades is related to his inability to discuss things like a mature adult. Do you disagree that he can't post with out insulting the person he is responding to?

You and I rarely agree on politics but I think we are reasonably civil to each other. I have no issue if he wants to insult the candidates or even liberals in general but why the need to insult poster in general?

I am guilty of throwing an insult out about the GOP in general but I think I do not go out of my way to insult individuals on there views. Is that too much to expect?

And Apollo I am not calling him a tr0ll as I think he is he serious with his insults as I think that is the only way he is capable of expressing himself...........not meant as an insult just stating my opinion based on his posting habits.

Edited October 17, 2015 by classicrawker

[classicrawker]

Also, as an impartial, learn to recieve insult, get over the insult and address the point behind, learn to call each other cunts people, its liberating

Sorry you cunt but I disagree. there is no need for Shades to constantly attack those who post their opinion here. also he rarely addresses the point the other person makes but instead thinks his insult are going to make his point more valid.

[AxlisOld]

Its still enough, my point is these things are there to be addressed, not marginalised.

I have no issue with Shades offering his opinion, even if I disagree with most of what he says, I only have issue with his need to insult people to try to get his point across. It is useless trying to have a debate with someone who can't be mature about it.

0mg what a whiny little girl,

Every post you make is insulting

how about just go away, you're quite easy to ignore so I'll try that.

and on topic Obama decided to divide the country,

liberals speak of the "republicans" as if that simply means the 54 in the Senate and the 247 in the house, not realizing half the country sent them there and we all feel the same way they do.

Obama cant get his way through the democratic process he executive orders it, even when popular opinion of all of America is against his policy he does it anyway.

That's not a leader, that's a dictator

Any time Republicans win a majority, it's because of gerrymandering, not because Democrats are pissing people off.

That being said, GOP choices this election are particularly ass. Haven't looked really in depth at everyone, but from everyone I've seen and their positions, I don't fucking care anymore. It comes down to if you want to be fisted or fucked with a baseball bat, you get screwed in the same way, but different.

[bran]

Its still enough, my point is these things are there to be addressed, not marginalised.

I have no issue with Shades offering his opinion, even if I disagree with most of what he says, I only have issue with his need to insult people to try to get his point across. It is useless trying to have a debate with someone who can't be mature about it.

0mg what a whiny little girl,

Every post you make is insulting

how about just go away, you're quite easy to ignore so I'll try that.

and on topic Obama decided to divide the country,

liberals speak of the "republicans" as if that simply means the 54 in the Senate and the 247 in the house, not realizing half the country sent them there and we all feel the same way they do.

Obama cant get his way through the democratic process he executive orders it, even when popular opinion of all of America is against his policy he does it anyway.

That's not a leader, that's a dictator

Any time Republicans win a majority, it's because of gerrymandering, not because Democrats are pissing people off.

That being said, GOP choices this election are particularly ass. Haven't looked really in depth at everyone, but from everyone I've seen and their positions, I don't fucking care anymore. It comes down to if you want to be fisted or fucked with a baseball bat, you get screwed in the same way, but different.

when you have a party as amazing and enlightening as the united states democrat party, why would you need another one? i get tingles all over my body and i truly see god every time i vote for the big D. how this country has had anything but democrat presidents and congress men and women only shows how evil republicans are and how they cheat every time to take away the gift to humanity that is the democrat party!

on a serious note, both parties fucking suck and both can go fuck themselves as far as im concerned, like you said we get fucked either way it may be different but it really doesnt matter.

[classicrawker]

Its still enough, my point is these things are there to be addressed, not marginalised.

I have no issue with Shades offering his opinion, even if I disagree with most of what he says, I only have issue with his need to insult people to try to get his point across. It is useless trying to have a debate with someone who can't be mature about it.

0mg what a whiny little girl,

Every post you make is insulting

how about just go away, you're quite easy to ignore so I'll try that.

and on topic Obama decided to divide the country,

liberals speak of the "republicans" as if that simply means the 54 in the Senate and the 247 in the house, not realizing half the country sent them there and we all feel the same way they do.

Obama cant get his way through the democratic process he executive orders it, even when popular opinion of all of America is against his policy he does it anyway.

That's not a leader, that's a dictator

Any time Republicans win a majority, it's because of gerrymandering, not because Democrats are pissing people off.

That being said, GOP choices this election are particularly ass. Haven't looked really in depth at everyone, but from everyone I've seen and their positions, I don't fucking care anymore. It comes down to if you want to be fisted or fucked with a baseball bat, you get screwed in the same way, but different.

Both sides do dirty trick to win I think not just the GOP.

Personally I would love if Sanders would win but don't see it happening. On the GOP side I kind of like Kasich but don't think he will win the nomination either.

I agree our political system sucks.

Its still enough, my point is these things are there to be addressed, not marginalised.

I have no issue with Shades offering his opinion, even if I disagree with most of what he says, I only have issue with his need to insult people to try to get his point across. It is useless trying to have a debate with someone who can't be mature about it.

0mg what a whiny little girl,

Every post you make is insulting

how about just go away, you're quite easy to ignore so I'll try that.

and on topic Obama decided to divide the country,

liberals speak of the "republicans" as if that simply means the 54 in the Senate and the 247 in the house, not realizing half the country sent them there and we all feel the same way they do.

Obama cant get his way through the democratic process he executive orders it, even when popular opinion of all of America is against his policy he does it anyway.

That's not a leader, that's a dictator

Any time Republicans win a majority, it's because of gerrymandering, not because Democrats are pissing people off.

That being said, GOP choices this election are particularly ass. Haven't looked really in depth at everyone, but from everyone I've seen and their positions, I don't fucking care anymore. It comes down to if you want to be fisted or fucked with a baseball bat, you get screwed in the same way, but different.

when you have a party as amazing and enlightening as the united states democrat party, why would you need another one? i get tingles all over my body and i truly see god every time i vote for the big D. how this country has had anything but democrat presidents and congress men and women only shows how evil republicans are and how they cheat every time to take away the gift to humanity that is the democrat party!

on a serious note, both parties fucking suck and both can go fuck themselves as far as im concerned, like you said we get fucked either way it may be different but it really doesnt matter.

Yes both parties suck but these are the cards we are dealt so we have to play them.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Everyone talks about Sanders having no chance to win, but I think he has a pretty damn good chance. He got a lot of exposure after the Democratic Debate, his campaign has been earning millions in donations and without Super Pacs and to think a few months ago he was considered a long shot, now he is a big player. He is determined to win. He doesn't just want Democrats and Independents voting for him, he wants Republicans too.

To go from a fantasy to reality in a span of months is something. I think he has a pretty good chance.

[bran]

Everyone talks about Sanders having no chance to win, but I think he has a pretty damn good chance. He got a lot of exposure after the Democratic Debate, his campaign has been earning millions in donations and without Super Pacs and to think a few months ago he was considered a long shot, now he is a big player. He is determined to win. He doesn't just want Democrats and Independents voting for him, he wants Republicans too.

To go from a fantasy to reality in a span of months is something. I think he has a pretty good chance.

even though im not a huge fan, sanders gives me some kind of hope that in the future a relative unknown that doesnt have millions and millions of dollars, dont get me wrong sanders live comfortably but its not like he is worth millions nor does he have backers worth crazy amounts of money, it really is a grass roots campaign for the most part, and he has a legit shot to win(especially if biden sits out)

[Georgy Zhukov]

Big money goes to television ads anyway. Bernie has a lot of people in Hollywood and the music industry backing him. He's got The Red Hot Chili Peppers. It also looks like Bill Maher is going to back him though he says "If you can't get the fish, there's always the chicken" meaning it doesn't matter who wins, the Democrats have this election the bag.

Fuck me, I thought this was the politics thread.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that these shooters all have one thing in common. They are virgins. Let's not blame this on women for not sleeping with them, they have very right to be repulsed by them, but maybe for those of us who have been able to get laid, we can help them out. Be their wing men. Teach them manners and that women are not bad. Most of all, keep the fucking guns away from them.

[downzy]

Bump for gun control debates/discussions.   

All subsequent discussion/debates relating to gun-control should be made in this thread.  We'd like to keep mass-shooting threads clear from the reoccurring debates.  

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Which translates as "I have my opinion and don't believe that discussing facts which may contradict that opinion is something that I wish to do".

Absolutely, which is why it is naive and disingenuous to state that the sole cause of America's murder rates being relatively high is down to guns and guns alone and that reducing guns in the US will automatically mean that murder rates will fall.

The major criticism of studies that conclude that less guns don't lead to less gun violence because we have examples in other countries, or in past times, when more guns were around and there weren't more gun violence, is that these studies do not take into account all the other mitigating factors that differ from region to region and from decade to decade. For instance, high gun accessibility in Norway but low gun violence does not mean that the theory is wrong, because Norway has a completely different gun mentality than USA, other types of guns, better caring for the mentally ill, more equality, etc etc., that will affect the data. And there are so many other possible mitigating factors. You simply can't conclude based on looking at gun frequency and gun violence statistics alone. You have to know the whole picture to make the kind of reasoning you attempt. That is why I refuse to accept your argument. You present facts, but facts that alone don't say what you argue they do. This is also why more studies on gun control is badly needed - good studies that take all factors into account to give results that can actually help us make valuable conclusions - but unfortunately this has been hard to get in the US due to Congress' enforced restrictions on gun research (!). Read more about that here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/gun-control-laws-research/424956/ So yeah, I have an opinion and I am also happy to discuss your facts but unless you can argue that all other factors have remained stable you cannot jump to the conclusion you did.

I have also not said that "guns alone" is the "sole reason" for America's high murder rates. In fact we both agreed it is a complex issue with many components. What I have said is that less guns will lead to less gun violence.

10 hours ago, PappyTron said:

@Len B'stard Yes, but the point that SoulMonster was trying to make is that he doesn't want to discuss the fact that guns were much more easily available in the past than they are today because he doesn't want to discuss about different times.

...because in different times things were different in other ways than just more guns being around

[PappyTron]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

The major criticism of studies that conclude that less guns don't lead to less gun violence because we have examples in other countries, or in past times, when more guns were around and there weren't more gun violence, is that these studies do not take into account all the other mitigating factors that differ from region to region and from decade to decade. For instance, high gun accessibility in Norway but low gun violence does not mean that the theory is wrong, because Norway has a completely different gun mentality than USA, other types of guns, better caring for the mentally ill, more equality, etc etc., that will affect the data. And there are so many other possible mitigating factors. You simply can't conclude based on looking at gun frequency and gun violence statistics alone. You have to know the whole picture to make the kind of reasoning you attempt. That is why I refuse to accept your argument. You present facts, but facts that alone don't say what you argue they do. This is also why more studies on gun control is badly needed - good studies that take all factors into account to give results that can actually help us make valuable conclusions - but unfortunately this has been hard to get in the US due to Congress' enforced restrictions on gun research (!). Read more about that here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/gun-control-laws-research/424956/ So yeah, I have an opinion and I am also happy to discuss your facts but unless you can argue that all other factors have remained stable you cannot jump to the conclusion you did.

I have also not said that "guns alone" is the "sole reason" for America's high murder rates. In fact we both agreed it is a complex issue with many components. What I have said is that less guns will lead to less gun violence.

...because in different times things were different in other ways than just more guns being around

Let's deal in facts, shall we?

1 - There are more guns in America, per head of population, than ever before.

2 - Gun violence is currently lower than it was in previous decades

3 - In the 1920s and 1930s, you could order automatic submachine guns and military rifles through mailing lists and have them delivered to your door, no questions asked.

You simply can't conclude based on looking at gun frequency and gun violence statistics alone

Which is exactly the point that I have made. It is incorrect to state that "less guns will equal less gun violence" with any conviction because it is far too large a subject to look at without also taking into account hundreds of other factors.

but unless you can argue that all other factors have remained stable you cannot jump to the conclusion you did.

Absolutely, which is why, every single time these discussions come up, I state that we need to look at the wider issues in America such as a failing society with mental health, gang and family issues, yet the same group of people all shout that all we need to do is reduce the guns to reduce the gun murders, and it simply does not work that way. You are agreeing with me in that it is impossible to draw any hard conclusions based on the data that we have as there are simply too many various factors, making it impossible to pin anything down with certainty, but then you happily draw a final conclusion - that less guns will equal less gun crime - which is where you are going wrong.

[Axl owns dexter]

On 10/18/2015 at 9:33 PM, Georgy Zhukov said:

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that these shooters all have one thing in common. They are virgins. Let's not blame this on women for not sleeping with them, they have very right to be repulsed by them, but maybe for those of us who have been able to get laid, we can help them out. Be their wing men. Teach them manners and that women are not bad. Most of all, keep the fucking guns away from them.

Yes, that's exactly what I want to do. Wing for Mohammed. So when he goes home empty handed he shoots me the next day.

[downzy]

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

Let's deal in facts, shall we?

2 - Gun violence is currently lower than it was in previous decades

 

Not true:

According to the most recent survey data available from the CDC, the rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries has risen about 20 percent since 2001, from 22 incidents per 100,000 people to 27 incidents in 2013. Even more striking is that the rate of gunshot wounds that require hospitalization (rather than treatment and release from an emergency center), has gone up by more than 50 percent since 2001. In other words, people are now surviving from many of the more dangerous wounds that would have killed them in previous years. There were roughly 9.4 hospitalizations per 100,000 people for nonfatal gun injuries in 2001, compared to more than 14 per 100,000 in 2013, according to the CDC.

... 

Experts say there are several possible explanations for the rise in gunshot victims survival rates, the mostly likely being that trauma care has dramatically improved in recent years. For one thing, there are more trauma centers than ever before, allowing first responders to quickly reach victims and bring them to emergency rooms. And once patients get to a trauma center, the likelihood that they survive is also far greater due to improved emergency medicine and triage services.

https://news.vice.com/article/gun-deaths-have-plummeted-in-the-us-but-that-doesnt-mean-theres-less-gun-violence?utm_source=vicenewsfb

[downzy]

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Which is exactly the point that I have made. It is incorrect to state that "less guns will equal less gun violence" with any conviction because it is far too large a subject to look at without also taking into account hundreds of other factors.

Absolutely, which is why, every single time these discussions come up, I state that we need to look at the wider issues in America such as a failing society with mental health, gang and family issues, yet the same group of people all shout that all we need to do is reduce the guns to reduce the gun murders, and it simply does not work that way. You are agreeing with me in that it is impossible to draw any hard conclusions based on the data that we have as there are simply too many various factors, making it impossible to pin anything down with certainty, but then you happily draw a final conclusion - that less guns will equal less gun crime - which is where you are going wrong.

I believe it is equally incorrect to conclude that reducing the number of guns will NOT lead to less gun violence. We simply don't know. Which is why Obama has pushed for more research into the field, while pro-gun groups are against said research.

I hope you don't count me as part of the group of people who think that "all" we need to do is to reduce the number of guns? I wrote a post about all the things I think needs to be done in USA to reduce the number og violence, including gun violence. Did you agree with that list?

I certainly believe that less guns will lead to less gun violence. I understand that we lack evidence to conclude in any direction, hence I can't say it has been proven. I think it is highly plausible, though. It makes sense. Just like taking away breadtoasters will result in less breadtoaster accidents. It is simplified, yes, and it is only one of many factors that lead to gun violence, yes, but I believe it is an important one.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Not true:

According to the most recent survey data available from the CDC, the rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries has risen about 20 percent since 2001, from 22 incidents per 100,000 people to 27 incidents in 2013. Even more striking is that the rate of gunshot wounds that require hospitalization (rather than treatment and release from an emergency center), has gone up by more than 50 percent since 2001. In other words, people are now surviving from many of the more dangerous wounds that would have killed them in previous years. There were roughly 9.4 hospitalizations per 100,000 people for nonfatal gun injuries in 2001, compared to more than 14 per 100,000 in 2013, according to the CDC.

... 

Experts say there are several possible explanations for the rise in gunshot victims survival rates, the mostly likely being that trauma care has dramatically improved in recent years. For one thing, there are more trauma centers than ever before, allowing first responders to quickly reach victims and bring them to emergency rooms. And once patients get to a trauma center, the likelihood that they survive is also far greater due to improved emergency medicine and triage services.

https://news.vice.com/article/gun-deaths-have-plummeted-in-the-us-but-that-doesnt-mean-theres-less-gun-violence?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Here's another interesting article: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

But yes, the causality is not clear at all, and you can find review papers that conccude more guns leads to less violence (http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/03/review_strongest_research_shows_no_link_between_gun_ownership_rates_and_higher_crime.html)  and papers that conclude the opposite (http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140). The jury is out on this one, which is again why more reearch is needed. This is also interesting: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control

One problem with the methodologies of many of these studies is that they look at "gun control" and whether that leads to less gun violence, not "less guns" and whether that leads to less gun violence. And "gun control" can be so many things, including background checks, no transport across state borders laws, prohibition of certain types of guns and ammo, the requirement to belong to gun clubs, be of a certain age, etc, which doesn't necesarrily lead to less guns.

Personally I am confident that if USA introduced more gun control where certain guns were made illegal (e.g. semi-automatic rifles) and much better background checks, that the country would experience less gun violence. But, as stated earlier, such measures should go in tandem with other measures that seek to aid the mentally ill, reduce poverty and equality, etc.

[PappyTron]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

Not true:

According to the most recent survey data available from the CDC, the rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries has risen about 20 percent since 2001, from 22 incidents per 100,000 people to 27 incidents in 2013. Even more striking is that the rate of gunshot wounds that require hospitalization (rather than treatment and release from an emergency center), has gone up by more than 50 percent since 2001. In other words, people are now surviving from many of the more dangerous wounds that would have killed them in previous years. There were roughly 9.4 hospitalizations per 100,000 people for nonfatal gun injuries in 2001, compared to more than 14 per 100,000 in 2013, according to the CDC.

... 

Experts say there are several possible explanations for the rise in gunshot victims survival rates, the mostly likely being that trauma care has dramatically improved in recent years. For one thing, there are more trauma centers than ever before, allowing first responders to quickly reach victims and bring them to emergency rooms. And once patients get to a trauma center, the likelihood that they survive is also far greater due to improved emergency medicine and triage services.

https://news.vice.com/article/gun-deaths-have-plummeted-in-the-us-but-that-doesnt-mean-theres-less-gun-violence?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Homicide rates are down which is what I am assuming Soul Monster is talking about, given that this conversation started off in a thread about a mass shooting. Besides which, all violent crime rates are down over the last decade, so it's incorrect to assume that only better surgical care is what is being shown up in the declining firearms murder rates:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls#overview

Edited June 13, 2016 by PappyTron

[PappyTron]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I believe it is equally incorrect to conclude that reducing the number of guns will NOT lead to less gun violence. We simply don't know. Which is why Obama has pushed for more research into the field, while pro-gun groups are against said research.

I hope you don't count me as part of the group of people who think that "all" we need to do is to reduce the number of guns? I wrote a post about all the things I think needs to be done in USA to reduce the number og violence, including gun violence. Did you agree with that list?

I certainly believe that less guns will lead to less gun violence. I understand that we lack evidence to conclude in any direction, hence I can't say it has been proven. I think it is highly plausible, though. It makes sense. Just like taking away breadtoasters will result in less breadtoaster accidents. It is simplified, yes, and it is only one of many factors that lead to gun violence, yes, but I believe it is an important one.

I believe it is equally incorrect to conclude that reducing the number of guns will NOT lead to less gun violence.

Nobody is making that conclusion.

I hope you don't count me as part of the group of people who think that "all" we need to do is to reduce the number of guns?

No, I do not. I am very aware of your position in looking at how other societal issues could be fixed which in turn lower gun violence, because I share the same position.

I certainly believe that less guns will lead to less gun violence.

Given that most people who own guns own more than one it is not the number of guns that needs to be reduced, but the access of guns to those who wish to use them for harm. However, given that it is usually very near impossible to tell who is about to go on a killing spree, for example, what proposals do you make that would have an effect? The shooter in Florida had no criminal record that would have prevented him from purchasing any available firearm (those these types of killings make up a ridiculously small percentage).