Guns in the USA.

[Rhotis]

Actually if you look at it, there's a 20% drop in the murder rate over the last 10 years and a 50% decrease in the murder rate involving firearms in the last 10 years.  

 

Meanwhile your violent crime is up.  We achieved the same thing plus lowered violent crime by similar numbers.  We did it without removing firearms.  

 

I am not telling you to be pro gun.  I am only showing you that we are achieving similar results (and better as far as violent crime goes) without resorting to a massive gun grab.  

[Rhotis]

I dont mind guns what i do mind is the lack of background checks and the security on guns, it needs to be you have to pass a background check, pass a safety/handling test, and pass a check to see if you have somewhere secure to lock it up in, and anytime you carry the gun with you you need your license for it and you cant sell it with out certain contracts and what not.

 

also idk why you would need an assault rifle? a regular rifle is enough for hunting and a shotgun and pistol is enough for home safety there is no need for assault rifles. 

 

So called assault rifles account for less murders each year in this country than do murder by hands.  The assault weapon scare really is a media coined term.  

[joelthezombie15]

So called assault rifles account for less murders each year in this country than do murder by hands.  The assault weapon scare really is a media coined term.  

im not scared of them but there is no reason for them.

[Rhotis]

Christ... Can you name 3 countries that are truly 'free', then? Would you be happier if I said 'most free'? The big brother view of the government is pretty outdated and I think people shouldn't sit in front of their keyboards with their tin foil hats on, but instead go out and try to make a difference.

 

Exactly how are you the most free when you do not even have the inherent right to self defense?  That is one of the most basic of human rights.  

 

The big brother view of government is not outdated.  I really cannot see where you get that from.  Every 1st world government is proving their desire to be more restrictive on their citizenry.  

 

I have been very civil with you.  Do not tell me what I do and do not do to make a difference.  I am very politically active both on a national and community level as well I volunteer and donate to several charities.  

[Rhotis]

im not scared of them but there is no reason for them.

 

Here we go with the "reason to have them" concept again.  

 

There is no reason other than "because I want it" to have most of the things you have including many very dangerous things.  

[Lyons]

Exactly how are you the most free when you do not even have the inherent right to self defense? That is one of the most basic of human rights.

The big brother view of government is not outdated. I really cannot see where you get that from. Every 1st world government is proving their desire to be more restrictive on their citizenry.

I have been very civil with you. Do not tell me what I do and do not do to make a difference. I am very politically active both on a national and community level as well I volunteer and donate to several charities.

I shouldn't need to defend myself because humans should treat other humans with respect and be able to convene non-violently, but guess what - they can't. So we need laws. I seriously doubt anyone's ability to prove to me that stricter gun control would not result in decreased firearm related homicides. If you want to make a difference, start getting other people to start being humane. It's not a hard virtue to grasp. I'm so sorrily disappointed that I'll never live in a world without religion or violence... I also made no claims about your personal views, I made a statement, and you took it onto yourself.

I assume you heard about the child who shot and killed his sister with a rifle he got for his birthday? If there was no gun in the equation, it would not have happened. This is the kind of thing that really makes me cringe. Not any person should be able to go out a get a gun. I've never said NO ONE should have a gun. I want gun control to be a hell of a lot stricter.

[Thibaudv]

I am against guns for everyone, although I do think the police should be allowed to carry guns.

 

Reason: a girl I know killed herself with her dad's gun when she was drunk. Accidents like that shouldn't happen.

If theres somebody that wants to kill you with his gun on the streets, they will kill you no matter if you are carrying a gun or not, and if you're in your home you can always call the police (ETA 5-10 minutes in a highly populated country such as Belgium.

 

I admit that in certain situations guns can save you, but I am not persuaded that with guns for everyone gun kills will lower.

[MzCatieB]

i think people should serve in the armed forces for at least 6 months before being aloud a licence

[Rhotis]

I am against guns for everyone, although I do think the police should be allowed to carry guns.

 

Reason: a girl I know killed herself with her dad's gun when she was drunk. Accidents like that shouldn't happen.

If theres somebody that wants to kill you with his gun on the streets, they will kill you no matter if you are carrying a gun or not, and if you're in your home you can always call the police (ETA 5-10 minutes in a highly populated country such as Belgium.

 

I admit that in certain situations guns can save you, but I am not persuaded that with guns for everyone gun kills will lower.

 

When seconds matter the police are only minutes away.  

[Rhotis]

I shouldn't need to defend myself because humans should treat other humans with respect and be able to convene non-violently, but guess what - they can't. So we need laws. I seriously doubt anyone's ability to prove to me that stricter gun control would not result in decreased firearm related homicides. If you want to make a difference, start getting other people to start being humane. It's not a hard virtue to grasp. I'm so sorrily disappointed that I'll never live in a world without religion or violence... I also made no claims about your personal views, I made a statement, and you took it onto yourself.

 

Laws have never worked as an obstacle to those who wish to commit crimes.  The purpose of laws is to punish those who choose to commit crimes.  

[Hans Christian | Teri]

Not going to read 8 pages of posts just right now but I will still share my opinion. I know it's a cliché but guns don't kill people, people kill people. I am all for allowing all types of guns. Why? Because I like guns, like I like cars and computers. I enjoy shooting holes in cardboard a lot and more than anything I love the craftsmanship that goes into creating a nice gun. If I by any means had the possibility (which we don't here in Denmark) I would own a Kimber 1911. I wouldn't sleep with it under my pillow, I would keep it locked away in a gun safe. I would however love it and care for it making sure it was always in perfect condition, and now and then go and "murder" some cardboard.

 

Edit: On another note, taking guns away from the American citizens doesn't mean taking it away from the criminals. There's always a way for those who are willing to break the law, and trust me, if you're planning and committing mass homicide you ARE willing to break the law.

[Lyons]

Laws have never worked as an obstacle to those who wish to commit crimes. The purpose of laws is to punish those who choose to commit crimes.

US gun control is a lost cause. I'm so sorry for all the families who've lost loved ones at the hand of guns, but I'm SO happy that I'll never live there.

[Rhotis]

US gun control is a lost cause. I'm so sorry for all the families who've lost loved ones at the hand of guns, but I'm SO happy that I'll never live there.

 

I have empathy for any family that loses a loved one no matter how the loss came about.  

 

You are right that gun control is a lost cause in this country.  We are a very individualist nation.  The federal laws lost.  Next year you will unfortunately see democrats lose control of the senate as a result of the votes.  I say unfortunately because outside of firearm law I agree with the democrats on more items than I agree with republicans.  Supreme court, federal and state courts have routinely been ruling on the side of the 2nd amendment for many years now as well.  Most of the state laws in NY and others that passed as emotional responses to the sandy hook killings will be struck down in the courts.  So we do agree on something.  Gun control is a lost cause in the US  :D

 

I do want to cover another topic in a post you made earlier though.  You seem to believe you are "more free" in australia than I am in the US.  I would like you to please list some freedoms you have in Australia,  legal rights,  that I do not have in the US.  

[Lyons]

I have empathy for any family that loses a loved one no matter how the loss came about.

You are right that gun control is a lost cause in this country. We are a very individualist nation. The federal laws lost. Next year you will unfortunately see democrats lose control of the senate as a result of the votes. I say unfortunately because outside of firearm law I agree with the democrats on more items than I agree with republicans. Supreme court, federal and state courts have routinely been ruling on the side of the 2nd amendment for many years now as well. Most of the state laws in NY and others that passed as emotional responses to the sandy hook killings will be struck down in the courts. So we do agree on something. Gun control is a lost cause in the US :D

I do want to cover another topic in a post you made earlier though. You seem to believe you are "more free" in australia than I am in the US. I would like you to please list some freedoms you have in Australia, legal rights, that I do not have in the US.

I don't care what laws we do and and don't share. Every day I wake up and I FEEL free, happy, and proud that I live in such an incredible country. Everybody I Know shares those feelings, and it's damn good. If you lived here, you would understand. I'm glad I don't have a distrust of the government in the back of my head, and I'm glad that I'll never have it. I love my country, and I love that I'll never truly care what the next election brings, because at the end of the day, Australia is still a f**king amazing place to be. The fact that I can tell people about it feels damn good too.

Pic related, it's me.

[Rhotis]

I don't care what laws we do and and don't share. Every day I wake up and I FEEL free, happy, and proud that I live in such an incredible country. Everybody I Know shares those feelings, and it's damn good. If you lived here, you would understand. I'm glad I don't have a distrust of the government in the back of my head, and I'm glad that I'll never have it. I love my country, and I love that I'll never truly care what the next election brings, because at the end of the day, Australia is still a f**king amazing place to be. He fact that I can tell people about it feels damn good too.

 

Thats fantastic.  

 

For the record though you really only have the right to vote,  the right to "just terms" if the government wants your land and an ambigious section about economic freedom from the government which has actually been read down by your supreme court.  Also express protection of human and civil rights have been mostly read down by your supreme court.  

 

I am not trying to bash Australia.  I have nothing against australia.  I just wanted you to quantify your claim that you had more "freedom" than I do.  Legally you actually do not.  Your central government has provided little protection for human and civil rights and has been systematically centralizing its power base for a long time now.  

[Lyons]

Thats fantastic.   For the record though you really only have the right to vote,  the right to "just terms" if the government wants your land and an ambigious section about economic freedom from the government which has actually been read down by your supreme court.  Also express protection of human and civil rights have been mostly read down by your supreme court.   I am not trying to bash Australia.  I have nothing against australia.  I just wanted you to quantify your claim that you had more "freedom" than I do.  Legally you actually do not.  Your central government has provided little protection for human and civil rights and has been systematically centralizing its power base for a long time now.

That's fantastic.

But I'm still happy, and I still don't care. Feels good man.

[Keen_Interest]

Thats fantastic.  

 

For the record though you really only have the right to vote,  the right to "just terms" if the government wants your land and an ambigious section about economic freedom from the government which has actually been read down by your supreme court.  Also express protection of human and civil rights have been mostly read down by your supreme court.  

 

I am not trying to bash Australia.  I have nothing against australia.  I just wanted you to quantify your claim that you had more "freedom" than I do.  Legally you actually do not.  Your central government has provided little protection for human and civil rights and has been systematically centralizing its power base for a long time now.  

But Australia is signed up to the human rights convention, so their personal laws are subject to that. 

[Rhotis]

But Australia is signed up to the human rights convention, so their personal laws are subject to that. 

 

Not really.  That thing is symbolic.  Everything about the UN is symbolic unless the security council agrees to do something without one of the 5 majors veto'ing it.  

 

There is really nothing binding by any UN resolution or convention etc.  Every country including every first world nation "defies" some UN resolutions.  They do so because the UN despite its good intentions only has as much weight behind it as the individual major countries are willing to lend to them.  

[eshbop]

The problem with guns is that they were made readily available in the first place. Now that they are in heavy circulation in the States its hard near impossible just to pull them/restrict the laws. I live in Australia, anyone can own a gun (providing background checks, legal ages, etc are met) but the conditions are so much stricter. To the point that protecting yourself in your home with gun is essentially impossible as ammunition, firing mechanism, etc need to be stored separately by law. Totally useless in a house invasion situation. Though this is the reason that there aren't nearly as many guns in the hands of criminals here.

 

 

I realize that criminals aren't law abiding but its the availability of guns in USA that leads to their availability in Mexico for example, which has further ramifications outside of your right to own a gun and protect yourself in your home.

 

IMO it's really gone too far to turn back. I don't understand a full ban (even disregarding constitutional rights) but limits on magazine size, changing the laws in these 'gun free zones' to allow firearms and making it harder for just anyone to get a hold of gun are needed. Your never going to stop crims/gangs/whatever killing people with guns through changes in law (at least with the current state of affairs in the US, and even for a long time after any change) but at least you can stop/limit gun deaths in other demographics.

 

In saying all this the gun related homicide numbers are pretty stark between the US and any other countries that have laws like Aus. If the laws were different from the get go (which would of probably also resulted in a different gun culture) we could (/may/most likely) of had people that enjoyed their "assault style" guns without the level of gun crime. But as I said, that's been and gone, you've gotta work with what you've got and with the US, IMO, that doesn't involve bans of any kind.

[Snickerzz]

Guns are like drugs, if you ban them people will find a way to get them. If you legalize them you have more happy people and less people in jail, making them even more knowledgable of how to not get caught ect ect. And less tax to pay for them

[Rhotis]

The problem with guns is that they were made readily available in the first place. Now that they are in heavy circulation in the States its hard near impossible just to pull them/restrict the laws. I live in Australia, anyone can own a gun (providing background checks, legal ages, etc are met) but the conditions are so much stricter. To the point that protecting yourself in your home with gun is essentially impossible as ammunition, firing mechanism, etc need to be stored separately by law. Totally useless in a house invasion situation. Though this is the reason that there aren't nearly as many guns in the hands of criminals here.

 

 

I realize that criminals aren't law abiding but its the availability of guns in USA that leads to their availability in Mexico for example, which has further ramifications outside of your right to own a gun and protect yourself in your home.

 

IMO it's really gone too far to turn back. I don't understand a full ban (even disregarding constitutional rights) but limits on magazine size, changing the laws in these 'gun free zones' to allow firearms and making it harder for just anyone to get a hold of gun are needed. Your never going to stop crims/gangs/whatever killing people with guns through changes in law (at least with the current state of affairs in the US, and even for a long time after any change) but at least you can stop/limit gun deaths in other demographics.

 

In saying all this the gun related homicide numbers are pretty stark between the US and any other countries that have laws like Aus. If the laws were different from the get go (which would of probably also resulted in a different cultural view towards gun) we could (/may/most likely) of had people that enjoyed their "assault style" guns without the gun crime. But as I said, that's been and gone, you've gotta work with what you've got and with the US IMO that doesn't involve bans of any kind.

 

We had the AWB for 10 years.  With it came magazine restrictions and a host of other things.  The department of justice concluded it had no tangeable effect on gun crime thus we let it expire (it had a sunset clause built in after 10 years).  

 

The reality is outside of the rare exception like the tragedy in Sandy Hook last year the extreme majority of gun crimes are committed in the inner cities in poverty stricken areas of those inner cities.  That is what we need to concentrate on not by harsh laws but by finding a way to bring the people in those situations to better financial situations.  The simple reality is people that earn a decent living do not generally commit crimes.  

[Jack.EXE]

if EVERY SINGLE PERSON had a gun, you'd be crazy to pull yours out!

[eshbop]

We had the AWB for 10 years.  With it came magazine restrictions and a host of other things.  The department of justice concluded it had no tangeable effect on gun crime thus we let it expire (it had a sunset clause built in after 10 years).  

 

The reality is outside of the rare exception like the tragedy in Sandy Hook last year the extreme majority of gun crimes are committed in the inner cities in poverty stricken areas of those inner cities.  That is what we need to concentrate on not by harsh laws but by finding a way to bring the people in those situations to better financial situations.  The simple reality is people that earn a decent living do not generally commit crimes.  

True, but it doesn't mean tragedies like Sandy Hook should be left unchecked. I agree with you, harsh laws won't change anything/much as the presence of lax gun laws in the first place has put guns into the hands of the demographics that commit gun crime. Radical change to law now will have no immediate effect on this, period. The issue needs to be tackled from another angle, likely one that doesn't have anything to do with gun control itself.

[eshbop]

if EVERY SINGLE PERSON had a gun, you'd be crazy to pull yours out!

All well and good, but that just isn't going to happen so it's not the point of view to have.

[Rhotis]

True, but it doesn't mean tragedies like Sandy Hook should be left unchecked. I agree with you, harsh laws won't change anything/much as the presence of lax gun laws in the first place has put guns into the hands of the demographics that commit gun crime. Radical change to law now will have no immediate effect on this, period. The issue needs to be tackled from another angle, likely one that doesn't have anything to do with gun control itself.

 

Yes it should not go unchecked.  It should also not have any laws passed based on emotion.  The absolute worse thing you can do is pass any law at all just to say you "did something" in order to appease emotions of people.  That is simply not how a society is run.  

 

Instead the first thing that should be done is enforcing the laws actually on the books.  Our legal system cannot even do that and they want to pass new ones that would be 100x harder to enforce?  It just does not compute.  Change the way the ATF works and have them dealing more with FFA fraud and straw purchases than running guns to freaking mexico.  

 

We also gotta figure out a way to deal with the mentally ill.  We have a law that was passed in 1968 to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill but there is one big problem.  The problem is political correctness and the desire to save money means we now treat mentally ill people much differently than we did in 1968.  We no longer institutionalize most of them and mental health workers are not diagnosing the dangerous ones as such to where the laws in place would affect them.  That needs to change.  We need to get a better handle on the mental health aspect of this.  We need better treatment for those that are mentally ill and we need them in a database more readily for the NICS checks to actually deny them.  The guy that shot up the movie theatre in Colorado his shrink should have had him declared mentally unfit but they did not.  If they had it would have stopped that tragedy.  If anything that was the fault of the mental health workers that had contact with him because the laws are in place for them to take action,  they simply chose not too.