Thoughts on gun control?

[KemoKa]

Both of these are completely true, and @stconquest it has to do with people say it will stop violent crimes, but then they don't explain why places like Europe or cities in the US that have the more strict gun law have more crime.

 

 

It can take upwards of 10 minutes for them to respond to crimes though, and how is the government supposed to take away all of our guns? And how would they pay us back for all of the money we have spent on these guns? Just wondering.

Oh, I know. I understand what people are saying about gun control, but I'm not impractically-minded, this country is far too large to just regulate. Gun control is just too unrealistic a notion here. Besides, we got our rednecks 'n cowboys out here ready to kill our oppressors!

An armed citizenry in a country as large and unwieldy as the united states is the best thing we have going for us. Allows us to defend ourselves rather than wait for someone who may or may not be able to help to show up. I'm all for having guns.

[stconquest]

Both of these are completely true, and @stconquest it has to do with people say it will stop violent crimes, but then they don't explain why places like Europe or cities in the US that have the more strict gun law have more crime.

 

 

It can take upwards of 10 minutes for them to respond to crimes though, and how is the government supposed to take away all of our guns? And how would they pay us back for all of the money we have spent on these guns? Just wondering.

 

"Violent" crime was not mentioned.  Crimes can be committed with or without firearms.  The point is still off topic and can be view as unrelated.  If you are going to say something is true, it should have at the very least:  conceptual cohesion.

 

Besides relevance, when you cite statistics based on studies, a link would be a nice thing to add.  I can simply just rebut:  I have seen studies that prove that availability of firearms is directly related to the number of deaths due to gunfire.  No citation required, right?

 

@CalebTheEternal

 

Like in your response:  You say something is true.  Am I supposed to now take your word for it?  If you are wrong, would that not make the situation twice as bad as now, I would be wrong right along with you. 

[juretrn]

As a European, I simply cannot understand why all the bickering.

[stconquest]

As a European, I simply cannot understand why all the bickering.

 

Paranoia... sometimes arguably warranted.

[rcarteraz]

-snip-

 

Best post ever.

[KemoKa]

As a European, I simply cannot understand why all the bickering.

Because, my good, sensible friend, you will no doubt understand in these contexts of discourse that there can be only one explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...'Murica.

As they would say to you, "Fuck Yeah!"...

[CalebTheEternal]

Because, my good, sensible friend, you will no doubt understand in these contexts of discourse that there can be only one explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...'Murica.

america-fuck-yeah.jpg

As they would say to you, "Fuck Yeah!"...

The babes really add to the experience. 

[siddbasskumar]

i am from india and although we are not the model for a crime free nation but guns here are illegal and that helps alot. 

i regularly stumble upon some or the other news regarding mass shootings in america and its really sad how easy the solution is and how it is still practically impossible to happen.

and, whenever something like this happens mentally ill people are pointed to to take the blame or rather shift it from the pro guns community.

if american politicians could muster up something even resembling balls, fatalities would drop astoundingly.

[SansVarnic]

As mentioned in the video, by that thinking there is no point trying to combat drugs or fighting cancer because we can't prevent 100% of deaths from cancer or stop 100% of people becoming addicted to substances then we shouldn't bother? If you put into Google "kid shoots parent" you'll get a number of cases whereby if a firearm was not readily available to a child then someone wouldn't have been killed.

February 2015, New Mexico - a 3 year old boy shot his father and the bullet hit his pregnant mother. The bullet was accidentally discharged from a handgun in the mothers purse when he was looking for an iPod.

April 2015, Florida - A 14 year old boy who found a handgun in a dresser draw killed a friend when the firearm was discharged by accident.

December 2014, Idaho - A mother in Walmart died after her 2 year old son who was reaching into her handbag, accidentally discharged the weapon and thus killing his mother.

Notice that all the points I've raised are based on accidental deaths? Sure, restricting the sales of weapons won't stop mass shootings and mass murder entirely however it can do quite a bit to curve that - look at Australia. Earlier this year a man took a number of people hostage with either a bolt action or lever action weapon in Sydney and I think it two or three people died.

What correct procedures can really do is prevent these accidental deaths - not leaving firearms around the home or in handbags means that you can't have a child kill or injure someone accidentally. Sure you could show proper weapon discipline to a 14 year old boy in that circumstance however you can't really teach a 2 year old how to handle a firearm.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I was not making an argument of not trying, I am saying that the argument itself in its current form is a waste of time right now as both sides have valid arguments.

Maybe I should word my statements slightly different in the future. 

 

The thing is that removing guns from equation won't stop crime in general to the degree that a lot of people may think. Yes it will reduce gun crimes itself to a small degree at first and eventually stop them all together but for that to happen every gun that is confiscated must be destroyed and production will have to stop. This will take about 20-30 years minimum with the current projected number of firearms that currently are assumed to exist world wide. But my point is that thugs will just turn to another method that doesn't involve guns so the argument that eliminating guns will reduce/stop crime is a mute subject. Crime itself will still exist but using other means. As for mass shootings pipe bombs can be made easily to replace that and on and on. Australia in itself did a fair job of accomplishing its goal in reducing gun crimes but not completely eliminating them, I wont give the same point that the idiot in the video made as he had no idea how to counter what was said. Culture has a lot to do with how Australia accomplished it s goal and the same will be with each other country that attempts the same thing. England for example has not reduced its gun crime rate much since it tried banning guns but England has a different handle of their attempt and the cultural attitude involved makes it a lot harder to break people away from guns. England has a long history with firearms and their use, Australia has always had an issue with firearms in it history, Australia used to be a penal colony for England so there is a huge cultural indifference involving firearms. I mean the argument that works in one part of the world cannot work in another it like trying to tell somebody from America to call it a Mobile instead of a Cell phone and vice versa England to call it a Cell phone instead of a Mobile.

 

I do believe you and I are close in agreement on this subject but our wording is indifferent. There are many laws, policies, etc. on gun control e.g. classes, safety, locking them up and so forth. It is just getting around to properly enforcing what we already have and I am not in any way against enforcing what is already in place. One apparent problem is not stopping the incessant approach of making more laws and more restrictions when the laws and restrictions are already in place, whether written well or poorly (US) but is not being enforced correctly or at all.

 

I understand the amount of accidental deaths by firearms are a toll (one being to many) but the thing is what can be done, once somebody takes the required classes and passed it is assumed that the individual will be responsible, is to hold them accountable. We have all kinds of laws but no real life consequences or proper consequences to fit the more common issues that occur instead we make umbrella laws that nobody really cares for so instead are ignored.

I am all for reforming gun laws and implementing laws that work as long as they are enforceable. There nothing wrong with having accountability with gun ownership without defying the constitutional law (US) that exists. Having 20,000+ laws is outstanding, outlandish & ridiculous. The arguments we see from overzealous pro-gun people are the common misconception that surrounds the gun debate that we commonly see rise from time to time. If the more zealous types right or left of the fence would step aside for a while so the issue can be hammered out and a workable solution can most will be comfortable with can be had. Now we get into semantics but I will leave that alone as I am not a politician but a realist and a student of history so people don’t like my opinion on such matters because of it.

 

My replies are a having a tendency be some long lately, I need to figure out a way to reduce them in size.

[Jack.EXE]

education, not legislation.

 

Do not blanket all gun owners as idiots who would accidentally kill a friend, or as criminals who would do it on purpose.

what we need to do is ensure that guns get into the right hands, so that the unavoidable guns in the wrong hands have less power.

 

I'm all for removing them from the hands of the criminal, mentally unstable, and under age, but as a perfectly functioning adult, I want to keep in my posession a firearm. I hope I never have to use it, but the day I'm walking out with my best friend and some guys come to try and hurt us, I want to be able to defend her readily, and end the fight as fast as possible.

[Albatross]

As a European, I simply cannot understand why all the bickering.

 

Because for one side it infuriates them that someone could be so blind as to not see the real need for guns/cannot see the benefits (at all) of taking away guns or enforcing strict gun laws that disarm the innocent against threats and for the other side...well, I guess it infuriates them that people don't want to be apart of a repeat of history or caught with their pants down because of some crazy misused a gun.

 

That kind of thing generally causes a ruckus.

[TechnoNerd]

 

Should there be more gun control?

 

Yes - its a deadly weapon, in the wrong hands its GOING to end up with somebody being killed. No guns dont kill people on their own, but the more guns that are lying around the easier they are to get a hold of

 

Most crimes are NOT pre-meditated, but are in the heat of the moment, if there are no guns around, nobody gets shot

 

Sure if a criminal wants to get a gun, nothing will stop them, that doesn't mean everyone should have one, we are just fine in the UK without everyone having guns - heck almost anyone here can get a shotgun licence, but nobody does, because nobody needs a gun

 

 

Should there be safety training at gun ranges?

 

Yes, gun drills and safety should be number priority to gun owners, being able to shoot a gun is not enough, learning how to be safe with it is another

 

Should it be required that you lock up ALL guns inside your own house? 

 

YES - while you may have the best intentions, somebody could break into your house and find it, a kid could find it, etc, imagine your kids friends coming over and finding a loaded gun and accidentally firing it at your kids or something

 

+1

[Kalle Hänninen]

The first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

I would like to point out that the U.K. has 3 times as much crime per capita as the U.S. despite almost all firearms being banned.

mmmmmm, nope.

[Kalle Hänninen]

People are getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis this year

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

[Thunderpup]

 Sure, but that doesn't stop them from actually acquiring the gun, depending on the state.  In California, my understanding is you purchase the gun, and at a later date you come back and pick it up after the background check is complete. In Nevada, the background check is done after, which negates the purpose of doing the check to begin with. Don't ask me why it works this way, I didn't write these laws, nor do I live in Nevada. 

 

If that were the case i would join you in requesting additional gun control, but under federal law that is not how it works.  All licensed dealers, under federal law, are mandated to perform the background check BEFORE the purchaser can take possession of the firearm.  The only exceptions to this are:

 

1.  The purchaser is also a licensed dealer which in lieu of the background check a copy of their license (FFL) has to be obtained and authenticated by the ATF(those who issue FFLs)

2.  The firearm is an antique muzzle loading weapon, or a period authentic reproduction; at which point no background check is required as they aren't classified as actual firearms under federal law.       Even felons can own these. (modern firearms modified to be muzzle loading do not count, so dont worry!)

[LAwLz]

I would like to point out that the U.K. has 3 times as much crime per capita as the U.S. despite almost all firearms being banned.

I love when people say this because it shows that they just parrot what they hear other people say and then follow that without doing any critical thinking for themselves.

 

Here are some facts.

1) You got the quote wrong. It's suppose to be 4 times as many violent crimes per capita. Not 3 times as many crimes.

2) That claim is based on very old statistics and the numbers has changed a lot since then.

3) The US and UK have different definitions of "violent crimes".

US definition: Murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The US definition does not even include rape against men, only against women.

UK definition: "Violent crime covers a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving

that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and homicide. Sexual

offences include rape, sexual assault and unlawful sexual activity against adults and children, sexual

grooming and indecent exposure."

 

To but it in simpler terms, in the UK simply pushing someone can get reported as a violent crime, while in the US you have to for example stab or murder someone. In the UK groping a women is a violent crime but in the US you would have to rape her for it to count.

 

If you go by homicide rate or cases where someone was seriously injured the US is much higher than the UK. Also, the UK is just 1 country with strict(er) gun laws. There are many many countries with similar laws which has very low homicide rates such as Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Spain and Germany.

 

 

 

I am not interested in arguing for or against gun laws (you cannot reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into). Just wanted to correct that nugget of misinformation.

 

Side note: Please remember that correlation does not imply causation.

[pckid]

When are people going to realize that criminals don't obey gun laws.

[Thunderpup]

As a European, I simply cannot understand why all the bickering.

 

Boredom?

it's what English speaking people do?

 

Because, my good, sensible friend, you will no doubt understand in these contexts of discourse that there can be only one explanation.

...'Murica.

america-fuck-yeah.jpg

As they would say to you, "Fuck Yeah!"...

 I like mine a bit better

 

[Thunderpup]

There are many many countries with similar laws which has very low homicide rates such as Japan,.

 

All debates aside i think Japan is the sort of country that even if every man, woman, and child, owned belt fed machine guns their crime would still be a lot lower than europe and north america.

 

Its just that sort of culture.

[TechStyle]

I haven't read the entire thread but I'm surprised to see it hit 12 pages. Kudos to the mods for allowing such a hot topic to be discussed.

[NeoZeon]

Side note: Please remember that correlation does not imply causation.

Miss America will kill you with a hot iron.png

 

 

That's what bootstrapping is for =D

[stconquest]

When are people going to realize that criminals don't obey gun laws.

 

What whacked out universe do you live in?   Ofc criminals obey gun laws.    

[Albatross]

When are people going to realize that criminals don't obey gun laws.

 

[stconquest]

Fuckin' hero complex.  You ain't stopping shit with with your concealed carry firearm.  Stupid fantasy driven arguments.

 

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/good-guy-with-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-runs-off/article/445111

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/woman-in-michigan-charged-after-shooting-at-fleeing-shoplifters.html?_r=0

[Kalle Hänninen]

Fuckin' hero complex.  You ain't stopping shit with with your concealed carry firearm.  Stupid fantasy driven arguments.

Yeah. 

 

Funny how ppl are referring to pipe bombs and same time preempt amoks with concealed weapons.