# So what will it take for there to be serious gun control debate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2019, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166 "2019-08-04T09:51:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/401 "2019-08-06T23:42:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Not sure if you watched the whole video. You seem confused about who didn’t disclose their data. Here on [this page](https://crimeresearch.org/2018/11/new-cprc-research-mass-public-shootings-are-much-higher-in-the-rest-of-the-world-and-increasing-much-more-quickly/) you can find a list of mass shootings by clicking on the “incidents” tab. You’ll see that they provide dates, country, and a summary for each one. There are thousands outside the US. Your link goes to John Lott’s _Crime Prevention Research Center_, a pro-gun think tank. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/402 "2019-08-06T23:43:55Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > You may have read about that 3 point plan from me. Regarding the imports, her campaign [says it…](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/kamala-harris-ban-imports-assault-weapons-1324581) > > The AR-15-style weapon was made my Sig Sauer and it think they still do import some weapons. Not sure. Anyway, it’s a typical political move. Ban imports, because that won’t piss of any voters who happen to make guns for a living in the U.S. But come out for banning guns in the country, that are made here, even temporarily? Never gonna happen. That was the point of my thread. Bring up shit that won’t address the problem, and pretend you’re actually doing something. As I said earlier, I think gun banning of certain types is the right track, but not half-assed ideas that only target imports. I read Harris .proposal they day she released it. The SIG AR is made in New Hampshire and not imported. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/403 "2019-08-06T23:44:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 18 U.S.C. section 925(d)(3) and the phrase you’re looking for is “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”, colloquially known as the “sporting purposes” test. You can find more information here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_Control\_Act\_of\_1968#Import\_restrictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968#Import_restrictions) That link says: > [@](#): > > The GCA created what is known as the “sporting purposes” standard for imported firearms, saying that they must “be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” GCA sporting purposes includes hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include “plinking” or “practical shooting” (which the ATF says is closer to police/combat-style competition and not comparable to more traditional types of sports), nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest. It appears that you are saying this effectively bans AW imports, correct? If so, how do you get that from those words alone? Or is there more to it not at that link? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/404 "2019-08-06T23:50:31Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I read Harris .proposal they day she released it. > > The SIG AR is made in New Hampshire and not imported. Okay, it seems you know a bit, or more, about import laws and such. Do you have any comment on my post just above this one? A cursory net search did find much on this. I see plenty about AWs in general, but not what specific weapon are banned (or not) from the act Ditka linked to. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/405 "2019-08-06T23:52:40Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This claim keeps getting made in this thread. [It’s bunk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXGgI2E5JUw). There are _lots_ of mass shootings in other countries. So you claim that the fact that the US is experiencing an extraordinary level of mass shootings compared to economically similar countries is “bunk”, and your cite for that is a YouTube video by John Stossel, a raving loon and total nutjob with a well-deserved [reputation for distorting and fabricating evidence](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Stossel)! [A lunatic who also claims that tobacco smoke isn’t harmful and who denies climate change.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel#Science)😃 Back in the world of the sane, an actual numerical comparison can get complicated especially involving third-world countries where good records aren’t kept, but the following Wikipedia article presents the available facts and sums up the US as follows: The United States has had many more mass shooting incidents and more resultant deaths than any other country in the post-WWII era. In one 2017 study published in Time magazine by criminologist Adam Lankford, it was estimated that 31% of public mass shootings occur in the US, although it has only 5% of the world’s population. The study concludes that “The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators.” > **[Mass shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting)** > > A mass shooting is a violent crime in which one or more attackers kill or injure multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm. There is no widely accepted definition of "mass shooting" and different organizations tracking such incidents use different definitions. Definitions of mass shootings exclude warfare and sometimes exclude instances of gang violence, armed robberies, familicides and terrorism. The perpetrator of an ongoing mass shooting may be referred to as an active shooter. > In ... > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > “Some other countries have more regulation” does not make your original claim any less wrong. No, my claim is perfectly correct when “regulation” is taken to mean, you know, actual regulation, not feel-good symbolic measures that do absolutely nothing – and actual regulation is something that the US seems chronically incapable of doing. That’s why I gave the example of gun regulations in Canada, which are actually far more lenient that in most European countries, but would be unthinkable in the US in the current political climate of Republican obstruction. Yet those are the kinds of regulations that have to be the objective of any serious discussion about gun control, which you don’t appear interested in having, and would prefer to post YouTube videos of mendacious lunatics like John Stossel. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/406 "2019-08-07T00:05:32Z")
I keep seeing these quotes ’ XXXX number of people die from automobile accidents and smoking, I guess car safety and anti-smoking regulations don’t help’. As if that’s some sort of zinger. The number of deaths from automobile accidents has fallen dramatically, both in terms of absolute number of deaths, and in terms of rate of death per vehicle miles. Cars are safer than they used to be, because - and you may want to read slowly here, this is important - people decided that lots of people dying was a Bad Thing, so lots of time and effort was put into studying the problem. Regulations were enacted, ad campaigns were devised. The result was a change in driver attitude, driver behavior, increased investment in vehicle safety technology, etc. And guess what - even though cars are vastly safer than they used to be, people are still working on making them even safer! What a concept, right? What about smoking? Deaths from smoking are less clear-cut, but what we can see is the sharp decline in percentage of smokers in the US - from almost 50% in the 1950s to the low/mid teens today. One would expect a decline in people dying from smoking-related illnesses over the coming years. Too many people die from smoking, but once again - progress is being made, because people decided that lots of people dying from a spectacularly unhealthy activity was a Bad Thing. I know this concept will be foreign to some, but when some object or activity results in lots of needless deaths, exploring ways to reduce the number of needless deaths is probably a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/407 "2019-08-07T00:29:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Your link goes to John Lott’s _Crime Prevention Research Center_, a pro-gun think tank. Yep, and it seems that the torpedo that John Lott made in an attempt to discredit the gun study was launched only to torpedo Lott himself. For starters the data of the research Lott and Stossel whine about was released and the author responded already to critics like Lott: > **[LankfordMar2019.pdf](https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1105/LankfordMar2019.pdf?mimetype=pdf)** > > 245.03 KB > [@](#): > > It might be easy to assume my disagreement with Lott and Moody is mostly about definitions. They have given that impression in their EJW comment, which contains none of the personal attacks or slanderous accusations that Lott has levied against me in other forums. > > However, I believe this is actually the case of one researcher who conducted an honest study and let the empirical results guide his conclusions being opposed by others who are primarily driven by ideological motives. > > My track record is clear: I published hundreds of thousands of words about crime and violence in two books and many articles before examining public mass shooters worldwide, but never had any interest in debating firearms or gun control. To this day, I am far more interested in studying behavior than weapons, and the latter occupies only a tiny portion of my research. There are certainly impassioned crusaders on all sides of this issue, but I am not one of them. I just followed the evidence where it led, and then was willing to speak publicly about what I found. > > By contrast, Lott has a long track record of denying any consequences of the United States’ world-leading firearm ownership rate, and this appears directly related to his repeated refrain that America’s mass shooting problem is exaggerated (Lott 2014; 2015; 2018b). Before my study was even released, Lott published an op-ed entitled “Myths of American Gun Violence” in which he insisted that “many European countries actually have higher rates of death in mass public shootings”than the United States. This is the same line of research that the fact-checking service Snopes eventually lambasted for using “inappropriate statistical methods”and creating a “false impression” (MacGuill 2018). That was not solely a matter of definitions or semantics. > > I suspect that ever since my findings were publicly reported, Lott has been looking for a way to discredit them. As a reminder, he even changed how he counted these attacks prior to posting his criticism of my work (Lott 2018a)—including nearly 500 battles over sovereignty, after claiming in his prior analysis that they should be excluded (Lott2015). Now, after looking at the video I noticed on it the same tactics creationists and climate change science deniers have used regarding what they believe are contradictions and impossibilities a researcher can get into; only that, if that was so, then counter research can be published, but what I normally see is those counter ‘researchers’ going for the public’s opinion rather than challenging research properly. So, after finding how unreliable that video was, then one should consider the source: as mentioned, the video features John Lott: > **[The GOP’s favorite gun ‘academic’ is a fraud](https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/)** > > The journalistic quest for neutrality has led to a sacrifice of intellectual integrity. > [@](#): > > But Lott’s recent successes belie a far more shadowy past. A little over a decade ago, he was disgraced and his career was in tatters. Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions. An investigation uncovered that he had almost certainly fabricated an entire survey on defensive gun use. And a blogger revealed that Mary Rosh, an online commentator claiming to be a former student of Lott’s who would frequently post about how amazing he was, was in fact John Lott himself. He was all but excommunicated from academia. And the video is coming from John Stossel. > **[Give Us a Break - FAIR](https://fair.org/extra/give-us-a-break/)** > > ABC News reporter John Stossel enjoys a special position in broadcast network news: Though not usually often identified as a commentator, Stossel is routinely allowed to use his one-hour primetime specials and his regular “Give Me A Break” features... > [@](#): > > While there is a long and honorable tradition of U.S. journalists with definite points of view who hoped that their reporting would have a political impact–from Thomas Paine to Ida Tarbell to I.F. Stone–what distinguishes Stossel is his willingness to warp reality to fit his ideological preconceptions. His reports, notable for their one-sided sourcing and rejection of inconvenient facts, are frequently marred assertions from Stossel and his favored guests that are misleading or factually incorrect. > > Stossel’s errors are often so obvious that one wonders how they could have ended up on the air. In a 20/20 report on medical research (10/11/99), Stossel complained that too much funding was going to AIDS research, claiming that spending on the disease was “25 times more than on Parkinson’s, which kills more people.” > [@](#): > > As Stossel once put it (1/9/97), “One good thing about science is that in the long run, the truth usually comes out.” Unfortunately, the same is not true of Stossel’s curious brand of journalism. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/408 "2019-08-07T00:34:17Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Okay, it seems you know a bit, or more, about import laws and such. Do you have any comment on my post just above this one? A cursory net search did find much on this. I see plenty about AWs in general, but not what specific weapon are banned (or not) from the act Ditka linked to. Well, I was only 18 at the time, but there were no specific models mentioned that I remember. There weren’t that many AWs on circulation like now either. Some notable weapons banned: Any Ak or Ak copy such as a MAADI from Egyot, Norincos from China, or even copies from Eastern Europe. Also pretty much any H&K rifle like the G3, model 94, MP5, etc. Other too I assume but again, that was a long time ago. 🙂 Manufacturers got around this ban a few ways. One was to add a thumbhole stock to existing rifles. Another, which persists today is to import parts kits with no barrel, and add them to a US made receiver. The WASR-10 that was used in El Paso was imported legally and modified with a pistol grip, and other items that would have prevented its import otherwise. Remember these were banned by their configuration not by name. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/409 "2019-08-07T01:02:27Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Someone mentioned it upthread, but we have had guns in this country since the first colonists settled in Jamestown. We have had automatic weapons for over 100 years and semi-automatic weapons just like the ones used in mass shootings, for an equivalent period of time. > > Yet is has only been in the last 20 years where these mass shooting have become an issue. > > So, if we had the guns before, and didn’t have mass shootings, but today we still have guns but now we have mass shootings, doesn’t it stand to reason that a variable other than guns is the real issue? Isn’t this Problem Solving 101? We look at what has changed as the possible source of the problem; the variable and not the constant. > > Suppose you have had a hot tub at your house for the last 5 years. Next month your electric bill skyrockets. Your spouse claims that you need to get rid of the hot tub and blames it for causing the high electric bill. Wouldn’t you conclusively know that the hot tub was not what was causing the high electric bills? > > Likewise, gun ownership is not causing these mass shootings. It is whatever has changed in the last couple of decades. Guns have changed a lot since the early days. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/410 "2019-08-07T01:08:49Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > Guns have changed a lot since the early days. If you define early days in the 1700’s sure. In the last 100 years or so? Not really, which is the issue. Yeah they look different but function exactly the same. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/411 "2019-08-07T01:21:54Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > If you define early days in the 1700’s sure. In the last 100 years or so? Not really, which is the issue. Yeah they look different but function exactly the same. Would Americas founding fathers, in their infallible wisdom, have looked around today at what they have wrought and written the second amendment just as they did, or at all? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/412 "2019-08-07T01:29:55Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Would Americas founding fathers, in their infallible wisdom, have looked around today at what they have wrought and written the second amendment just as they did, or at all? Could they envision the evolution of the firearm? Sure Would they rewrite the Second? Your guess is as good as mine. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/413 "2019-08-07T01:41:35Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Could they envision the evolution of the firearm? Sure > > Would they rewrite the Second? Your guess is as good as mine. I agree. I bet your guess is exactly as good as mine. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/414 "2019-08-07T02:21:10Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Second hand smoke which kills over 40,000 people in the US each year and the 11,000 who die from drunk driving? Yeah, definitely pedantic. > > This is, as always, a judgement call where you are arbitrarily making a value judgement on the relative value of each. If I were opposed to drinking, say, then I could say similar things about that. Or if I was opposed to smoking, the same. A gun owner could say they also derive pleasure from shooting, and also get utility from the perception of protection and control the weapon gives them. And guns ALSO ‘tend to kill only when said individual abuses them’, since, you know, guns don’t kill unless the idiot pulling the trigger points it at someone and shoots. > > That’s the thing. Relative deaths are pretty similar (well, ok, they aren’t…a hell of a lot more people, even today, die from tobacco than the other two, even if we are only talking 2nd hand smoke). They aren’t necessary to society. We choose to allow them anyway because citizens want them…and, well, one is a protected right. But still, society chooses to allow them, despite the fact that folks WILL die due to that decision. As for cars, raising the speed limit isn’t necessary. You are quite correct that the utility is there, but we don’t HAVE to allow folks to drive faster than, oh, say 35 MPH. But we do because folks want it. They don’t NEED it, however. And that decision alone costs 10’s of thousands of lives that, collectively, we are all responsible for because we decided that the cost in lives is worth the utility. Vaping is gaining popularity among smokers and I believe the second hand vape is far less dangerous, so I expect the risk is being reduced in that arena. Car technology over the past 10 years has improved so much that new cars are capable of stopping by themselves with better reaction than attentive drivers. Some of us stand a pretty good chance of seeing roads predominantly populated by self driving cars in our lifetime. Which will save lives without giving up our need for speed and to get places faster than we can at horse & buggy velocities. Now, if you told me that in our lifetime the overwhelming majority of guns will be replaced by technologically advanced weapons that would prevent people from killing other people, I’d be fucking thrilled. But let’s be honest, even if that came to be, how many people are going to hand over their current guns for something like that? Very few. Because the majority of gun owners don’t buy them to shoot at targets. They buy them for protection; From ze jermans. And the occasional wild deer when the supermarket runs out of meat. (Whatever. I don’t judge. Much.) Worst news of all however, there is no technology on the horizon that will make consumption of cheeseburgers safe at any speed. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/415 "2019-08-07T03:16:39Z")
Permits are a lazy way to ban firearms. It isn’t like a driver’s license (which is NOT a Constitutional right), it is a de facto ban in a few states already. Registration sounds reasonable, but carries the implication of making confiscation easy. > [@OldGuy](#): > > No need to get around the 2nd. You may own and carry a gun only if you are a member of the militia, and you must train and pass various tests on suitability to be a member. I realize that is not the current interpretation of the 2nd, but it is entirely consistent with what is written there. That is no more or less fiat than the current interpretation. Again: the militia is a justification, not a prerequisite. Again: you want to deprive the right to use a firearm for self-defense from all who would not qualify physically for the militia (“all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.). ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/416 "2019-08-07T09:32:03Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > Again: you want to deprive the right to use a firearm for self-defense Does the 2nd Amendment specifically refer to the right to self-defense? “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” - that seems to be discussing the State’s right to defend against a tyrannical government, not the right of the individual to kill someone trying to break into their house to steal a TV. Yes, I’m aware that’s not how SCOTUS currently views it. Anyway… Registration and licensing works for cars. Ad campaigns and taxation has worked to reduce smoking. Awareness campaigns and tougher penalties seems to have worked at reducing incidents of drunk driving. Nobody has banned smoking. Nobody has banned alcohol. But smoking is down, cars are safer, drunk driving is down. Some combination of these approaches, working together, could reduce the number of gun deaths without needing to ‘ban’ guns. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/417 "2019-08-07T12:50:38Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Your link goes to John Lott’s _Crime Prevention Research Center_, a pro-gun think tank. Jeez, I’d forgotten about ol’ Mary Rosh. How’s she doing these days? 😛 Yeah, Lott’s been found to be dishonest pretty much across the board. Maybe somebody new to the gun control debate who stumbled across his site for the first time has an excuse, but anyone who’s been in this debate for awhile who’s still citing him has no excuse. (ETA:\*\*) And **Ditka** ’s not exactly a newcomer to these discussions. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/418 "2019-08-07T13:15:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Thanks for admitting you’re part of the problem. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > But I’m glad that at least someone is finding a way to get a great deal of enjoyment out of the pain and misery of others. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Yes, yes, we all know your hatred of the First Amendment. You don’t have to make every gun debate thread about your wish to abolish 1A, though. You are both being jerks. If you want to debate, feel free to do so. If your intent is to take shots at other posters, then don’t. [/moderating] My access is a bit spotty so it will take me a bit to get back to the thread. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/419 "2019-08-07T13:41:14Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > …Nobody has banned alcohol… Self defense and Castle Doctrine is woven into common law, but not enumerated in the Second Amendment. One can not generally (in most jurisdictions I know; Texas for one appears to be different) use lethal force if someone is “trying to break into their house to steal a TV”; you have to wait until they actually get inside (or the PD shows up). I seem to recall that banning alcohol was tried several decades ago. You are listing false equivalences, also. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Drunk driving is illegal. Smoking is a health hazard for the user and those nearby, with zero positives. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/420 "2019-08-07T13:52:44Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > Smoking is a health hazard for the user and those nearby, with zero positives. There is an obvious positive to smoking; people enjoy it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166.md?page=22)