Discussion Gun control

[kkck]

Having guns would assure no protection for the population... How does that work? I already made the point earlier that owning a gun is not about to turn the owner into rambo or make him capable of defending himself from a shooter. The odds of a regular armed person being at the right spot at the right time to get a clear shot at a regular shooter are astronomically low to begin with. Even if there are arguments for people to be able to own any type of gun, the possibility of them being rambo is not one of them. Worst case scenario you turn into a shooting into a shootout. Not to mention that more people having guns has the direct implication of there being more gun relate accidents at large... would the supposed extra protection a gun gives offset the extra amount of accidents (honest question, I have no clue on the matter)?

Another thing, a mass killing with Tupperware, spoons or forks is simply not possible to begin with. I mean, if they could really be used as weapons to that extent then there should indeed be a debate about changing how we eat(how disturbing would it be if we were eating with potential weapons that dangerous) however there is no scenario in which that is possible. Even knifes don't really fall into the same category... A maniac running amock in a shopping mall with a knife is never going to get as many people as the same maniac with a riffle. Heck, people can survive for DAYS after being stabbed in the gut (most deaths related to that are due to doctor negligence). Worst case scenario you have a maniac trying to cut important arteries or something however there is no way a maniac can start an actual mass murder without people running the hell away or ganging up on him after the first couple victims. Even if we were talking about a full blown nailgun it would still never approach to the damage an actual gun can cause.

 

[Charlie]

Having guns would assure no protection for the population... How does that work? I already made the point earlier that owning a gun is not about to turn the owner into rambo or make him capable of defending himself from a shooter. The odds of a regular armed person being at the right spot at the right time to get a clear shot at a regular shooter are astronomically low to begin with. Even if there are arguments for people to be able to own any type of gun, the possibility of them being rambo is not one of them. Worst case scenario you turn into a shooting into a shootout. Not to mention that more people having guns has the direct implication of there being more gun relate accidents at large... would the supposed extra protection a gun gives offset the extra amount of accidents (honest question, I have no clue on the matter)?

I disagree with that line of thought. I do believe that you can use guns for protection. I'm not a gun enthusiast, advocate or owner. I'm also not ignoring that guns don't have the potential for wide-scale damage or injuries due to it being a lethal form of enforcement. Also, unless we have a situation were there is an outright war or need for some-kind of national defense... I can't envision someone attempting play Rambo, or x vigilante.

Just as a shoot out is possible, the opposite is also true. Having someone there with a gun at the 'right time' could be the one resort that saves the day. I would say that each incident is a case by cause issue.

What I believe should be done is, enforcement of existing laws and rules to make sure that criminals or wack-jobs don't end up with them.

Another thing, a mass killing with Tupperware, spoons or forks is simply not possible to begin with. I mean, if they could really be used as weapons to that extent then there should indeed be a debate about changing how we eat(how disturbing would it be if we were eating with potential weapons that dangerous) however there is no scenario in which that is possible. Even knifes don't really fall into the same category... A maniac running amock in a shopping mall with a knife is never going to get as many people as the same maniac with a riffle. Heck, people can survive for DAYS after being stabbed in the gut (most deaths related to that are due to doctor negligence). Worst case scenario you have a maniac trying to cut important arteries or something however there is no way a maniac can start an actual mass murder without people running the hell away or ganging up on him after the first couple victims. Even if we were talking about a full blown nailgun it would still never approach to the damage an actual gun can cause.

Yet a small group of terrorist seized planes with box cutters... and look how much damage that they were able to cause. Where was the national outcry against this? What steps were taken to ban or restrict purchase one of these items. I do not believe that anyone would argue against the potential of a gun being deadly or its implications. However, lets not jump the gun (no pun intented), when a serious incident and use it as means for personal or political vendettas /gains.
Which is what seemingly happens all the time.

Why cant the measures be on gun awareness, education and closing systematic loopholes that end up leaving guns in the hand of these would be criminals or lunatics?

 

[Buffynut]

My thoughts on any issue vary as I talk to new people and hear new arguments, but what I'm left with now is what follows.

America has a Second Amendment Right, a law of the land, that says we have the "the right to bear arms." From my understanding, this was a necessary protection at the time to allow the people to not be taken over by the government. History has proven that one of the first steps toward oppression is to disarm the people. Can't protect themselves, can't fight back. So far I have no problems and no disagreements.

To this day many Americans, perhaps rightly so, perhaps not, feel that this very protection is necessary to maintain their personal safety and that of the country. That without it we would have no personal protection against domestic intruders, a foreign invasion and the government itself.

However, and I think it's a pretty large however, the kinds of weapons being used today, are not the weapons of yesteryear. I don't believe that any civilian has the right to own guns that can kill 30 people within minutes any more than I believe civilians should have access to nuclear weapons and bombs. Clearly, these are not meant for sport or self defense, but mass killings, which we've all kind of agreed is not acceptable.

I'm not arguing that any certain law would prevent people from obtaining these weapons if they really wanted to, or do damage is they really wanted to. But it does stand to reason that it would make it more difficult and that is a step in the right direction.

Some people have talked about banning all guns, but those people have such a small shot of actually trying to implement such a law, it's almost laughable. From what I know, which isn't everything by any means, no one is seriously discussing a ban on all guns in America.

That's not to say there isn't room for the discussion. But it's not what's happening right now, and I think too many people get angry and scared about things that aren't happening. Thank you American media. (full disclosure, I work for the media, the shame...)

To ban all guns, at this point, would only have an adverse effect in making a lot of people more frightened than they already are and frightened people are not generally known for thoughtful rationale.

For the first time in America we have a non-white male as president, and literally everything he does makes a large part of the population think they have to "take their country back." We can't even have a discussion about banning all guns right now, because too many people feel they need them more than ever.

I don't know if any of that is even relevant, but it's what came to mind.

Do I think all guns should be banned? No, I think we need to work on other parts of society that cultivate fear and hatred. I think we need to pay more care to those who need mental help and I think we should always, always, be striving to be the fairest and best country we can be. If we want other countries to respect us and our western democracy, then we need to earn it by striving to be more moral and less superior.

Do I wish we were a more tolerant and reasonable society where it wouldn't matter, I do.

 

[earthforge]

To this day many Americans, perhaps rightly so, perhaps not, feel that this very protection is necessary to maintain their personal safety and that of the country. That without it we would have no personal protection against domestic intruders, a foreign invasion and the government itself.

Which is, with all due respect, ridiculous. Having an AK-47 is not going to protect you from a nuke. If the government or a foreign power really wanted to take out a population center, that's how.

Domestic intruders are the only semi-realistic case for having guns.

For the first time in America we have a non-white male as president, and literally everything he does makes a large part of the population think they have to "take their country back." We can't even have a discussion about banning all guns right now, because too many people feel they need them more than ever.

These happen to be the same people against state-subsidized medical care because they think that if you get sick or ill, it's "your fucking fault in this fucking wonderful country and fuck you for ever hoping to accomplish your dreams you fucking loser".

Which is why I'm beginning to support denying medical care to these people. Because they deny it for everyone else until they need it. If people can spend their lives wrecking others, then they can suffer a little.

I think we need to work on other parts of society that cultivate fear and hatred. I think we need to pay more care to those who need mental help and I think we should always, always, be striving to be the fairest and best country we can be.

We will remain a fear country until our citizens drop the persecution complex.

While claiming some nonsense about the 'greater good' or 'preventing this sort tragedy' from re-occurring. I noticed that these are generally fueled by some politician for his 15 minutes and to look good for his constituents, while infringing on civil liberties. The proposals or ordinances however are never read by the public or we don't bother taking a look at whats actually being proposed and gets some note or mention in the media by a hot keyword or phrase. This is also a fault of our society. We've always been this way for most instances, have we not? Having some tragic incident that happens to occur, albeit not always limited to gun control, you'd see some drastic move for change.

You know, I'm getting flipping sick of people saying this.

The people asked for Sandy Hook to be fixed. In their outrage they demanded a solution. Because by all rights, Sandy Hook never should've happened.

So the politicians responded. But it's now not good enough. Public consciousness has now decided that railing about the deaths of over 30 kids is too high a price for taking away a fundamental Constitutional right.

People wanted change. Now they don't. It's as simple as that. Don't blame the politicians for doing their job. Blame them for getting policy-influencing contributions from unions and corporations.

In most cases, from what I recall in recent times, the events that get big publicity in media, wind up with the killers being some crazy or lunatic that go on mass rampage or killing spree. These kind of people should never have been able to get guns in the first place.

But you see. these lunatics tend to have no criminal history prior. The current system doesn't account for that.

And if you want to access medical records, forget it. You'd have to go through mountains of privacy laws. Even if you get the information, mental illness is often misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. To fix that, you'd have to redo the system. But this means paying for the treatment of people who can't afford it.

Americans have shown they don't want to do that. So this will happen again. And again. And again.

Let me ask you this, in a gun less society, with murderers still being committed, with or around
the same rate as now, what would you propose?

You're assuming the rate wouldn't change. Whether in an ideal or real world, the rate would. In the current America, there'd be a jump in violent crime because many kooks would crawl out of the woodwork because their suspicions that the government wants their guns would've been proven. In the ideal case, reduced guns in home environments might reduce gun-related accidents and rate of fatalities from domestic violence.

But assume we still had crime. What would I propose? Dealing directly with police corruption in less affluent areas. Organized crime thrives in areas where the watchers are not patrolling or are easily bribed. For mental illness, a healthcare system that treats all mental cases, from the most affluent to the poorest.

But this all relies on a mature society that will work together without overreaction. Fat chance of that happening.

It’s also true, that with all the regulations or rules in the world, we can’t stop someone that is determined to commit an attack but how is it delusional to think that that having a gun will assure protection?

Isn’t that one of the exact reasons why some-people precisely carry guns?

Read my sentence carefully. Guns are designed for belligerence. Not defense. That's why you can't stop a determined lone gunman. The only solution is to stop someone from becoming a determined lone gunman.

Someone pushed too far is also likely to take it out on others not necessarily involved., or themselves. I suppose you can correlate the two depending on circumstances, liken it to a ‘means to end’ of sorts.

Would this not be also a failure of our current society or systems that are in place and not necessarily gun issue per-se? The measures in place that are existing, failure to foresee troublesome or problematic signs of these individuals. Therefor, no help is sought nor given resulting in tragic or preventable events.

Irrelevant. Current society has been this way for thousands of years and will continue to be so. As long as there are humans, there will be humans who feel unappreciated. Some people will react more extremely than others. Even if we see it coming, we might not want to. That's just human nature.

All we can do is minimize fatal consequences..

 

[Buffynut]

Which is, with all due respect, ridiculous. Having an AK-47 is not going to protect you from a nuke. If the government or a foreign power really wanted to take out a population center, that's how.

Domestic intruders are the only semi-realistic case for having guns.

I agree. But if you ask my soon-to-be ex-stepdad, he's under the impression that him having a gun will help to keep him safe from "Obama and his Muslim Brotherhood." It's ridiculous, but he's not the only one to believe this. Their fears aren't reflective of reality, but they are very real to them.

These happen to be the same people against state-subsidized medical care because they think that if you get sick or ill, it's "your fucking fault in this fucking wonderful country and fuck you for ever hoping to accomplish your dreams you fucking loser".

Which is why I'm beginning to support denying medical care to these people. Because they deny it for everyone else until they need it. If people can spend their lives wrecking others, then they can suffer a little.

These people are infuriating, and I support this idea 100%. I knew we were going to have problems when the majority of people protesting health care reform, we receiving their own government-subsidized health care.

We will remain a fear country until our citizens drop the persecution complex.

We won't. Our culture has a superiority complex that could make Nietzsche proud.

But this all relies on a mature society that will work together without overreaction. Fat chance of that happening.

Read my sentence carefully. Guns are designed for belligerence. Not defense. That's why you can't stop a determined lone gunman. The only solution is to stop someone from becoming a determined lone gunman.

Irrelevant. Current society has been this way for thousands of years and will continue to be so. As long as there are humans, there will be humans who feel unappreciated. Some people will react more extremely than others. Even if we see it coming, we might not want to. That's just human nature.

All we can do is minimize fatal consequences..

Maybe that's the solution in a nutshell. It's harder than passing laws and way more complicated, but unless we address the causes, the effects will remain the same. I don't mean to go all family values and what not, but people need to make time for their children and raise them with a high respect for living things. The planet, people, animals...

Teach them they're not always going to be right, and teach them how to lose. Teach them they're not always going to be liked and teach them how to handle it.

Keep them away from harmful images, because let's face it, a nation brought up with Honey Boo Boo and Jersey Shore, aren't as likely to be deep moral thinkers as ones brought up with books and thoughtful dialogue. Garbage in, garbage out...

 

[Gats]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html?tid=pm_pop

...
It's so out of my culture, it's just.. I mean I didn't know that there are companies which sell and can sell real gun designed for little children. I know there are a lot of families with gun tradition in many part of the US, it never crossed my mind that such possibility would be even legal even in the US : selling real gun to a 5 years old child (maybe less than that if it's not a recent gift)... Really ?

 

[M3J]

People are stupid like that. What's new?

 

[Gats]

People are stupid like that. What's new?

My point was about company selling real guns to children. I know that this kind of accident and parents behavior are not new at all, I didn't know there was a legal market mixing little children AND real guns. Not just those game apps promoting the use of weapons.

 

[M3J]

I didn't know that either, but it makes sense with American's attitude on guns. Many are like NRA, wanting to own guns. I think the gun companies who also sell to kids or try to appeal to them are quite ingenious because they know that guns are still popular, and that people will want to give their kids guns in a way of saying "fuck you" to anti-gun people. Sadly, we have shitty, idiotic parents like that.

And guess what will be blamed? Video games, movies, TV shows, whatnot. Everything but parents. At least, parents themselves will shift the blame onto something else.

 

[Drmke]

Honestly, yeah it's completely nuts. I'm all for gun-ownership, maybe because I'm American who knows, but that is a case of people refusing to admit any faults with the ideology they were raised with. I doubt most people will buy guns for their tiny children but they'll public ally condone it. Because god forbid conservatives only eat some of the pie, no, they have to have all or nothing.

 

[M3J]

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who believe in gun freedom will buy guns for their kids and give it to them. we've had at least two instances of that.

---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...self_n_3237898.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003



............................

 

[Drmke]

I dunno, I've seen the stories but I know very few people who I think would GIVE their kid a gun. Maybe let them shoot one under supervision at a target or something...but that's an entirely different thing.

 

[M3J]

To be honest, with the way people act, and the stupidity of parents nowadays, I'm not shocked if they willingly give and teach their kids ways of guns.

 

[REN KOUEN]

this is how i stand on it

it should be a states right to decide about gun control, that way if people dont want to live in a gun control state, they can move to a different state

the united states has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the world, but some areas of the country are very strict

i dont think guns cause all of the problems people say they do, and i do believe in the right to bear arms and self defense

besides there are so many ILLEGAL guns in the USA that if they take away all of the guns from the legal law abiding citizens the criminals with illegal guns will have an unfair advantage

---------- Post added at 11:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 AM ----------

I dunno, I've seen the stories but I know very few people who I think would GIVE their kid a gun. Maybe let them shoot one under supervision at a target or something...but that's an entirely different thing.

i had my first shotgun at 8 years old

my dad took me hunting with him but it was my gun, and i could take it out in the yard and shoot snakes if i needed to when he wasnt there

but every scenario is different, this does not mean that all kids should be allowed to have guns

however it does mean that just because someone takes their child hunting or something like that they are not a maniac

---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 AM ----------

All guns? No, of course not. Only automatic weapons and assault rifles. Hunting rifles and hand guns should be legal, as long as improved background checks are implemented, loopholes are closed, and waiting periods are enforced no matter where the weapon is purchased. Ammo also should be subject to the same background checks and waiting periods. Total prohibition is to illiberal for my taste. "The right to swing my arm ends at your nose". Violence can not be legislated out of existence; in China, on the same day as Sandy Hook, there was a mass knifing. At some point prohibition only takes away individual rights, without guaranteeing improved public safety.

i dont see a problem with people owning assault rifles as long as they are properly trained to handle it and they pass the background check

however i do agree that the background checks are to lax and do not dig deep enough, in my opinion the USA should make the background check include some type of psych exam to make sure the person isnt crazy, just because a crazy person hasnt committed a crime yet doesnt mean they should be able to buy a gun

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

An interesting article: A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

well japan is an island

they have alot of people, but it is MUCH easier to control what goes into, and comes out of the country

the USA is littered with corruption and crime that japan doesnt really have to deal with, i mean think about it like this

say the US government took ALL of the guns away from law abiding tax paying citizens

and then the mexican drug cartels, and other groups continued to funnel illegal guns in across the boarder

then you have a bunch of law abiding tax paying citizens who have NO ABILITY to defend themselves
and the US border control is a joke, there is no way they will ever prevent or stop all illegal crossing besides the US has so much coast line, that illegal weapons could continue to be smuggled across via boat or plain also

to me, the US must have guns, its not like all of these crimes are being committed by law abiding citizens with legal guns

 

[kkck]

How often do people go batman on criminals and confront them with guns? I have never actually seen any numbers on the matter but I can't believe such a thing would be common enough for it to be relevant. Even if it was there would be the issue of whether it would offset itself with the known risks of owning a gun... Honestly, I would think the news would be more keen to showing US citizens shooting or threatening potential attackers or criminals to death. I am not saying it has never happened however I do question such a thing being so common that removing guns would actually result in an upsurge of crime. Do potential criminals even think too much about someone getting a gun to defend themselves before committing a crime? Even the prospect of rotting in jail does not actually deter crime as far as we know, why would guns be all that different?

Worth noting, guns in mass shootings such as we have seen over the last couple of decades are in general 100% legally owned. A decent number of them were law abiding citizens with no criminal record before loosing their shit and shooting people.

---------- Post added at 12:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

That said, doing a quick search online does suggest that "illegal gun trafficking from mexico" is not actually an issue. Most guns used in crimes come from completely legal weapon's vendors who sell their guns illegally. Then there are friends who buy them for someone and apparently gun shows and such things.

The US produces 80% of their firearms, it would make far more sense that guns are going from the US to mexico than the other way around.

 

[REN KOUEN]

Lol do you think the news knows about about everything being smuggled accross?

80% of our guns may come from here

but not 80% of illegal guns

no manufacturers are making fully auto assault weapons and putting them on the streets

they are either smuggled from the military (the only people who can legally obtain new fully auto weapons) or they are coming from.other countries

most liberal media outlets are pro-gun control and thus cannot be accepted an unbiased news source

in fact the usa has no unbiased news sources

in all honesty i love the idea of living in a country that has no guns at all

but until they can prove that ALL illegal guns are out of the hands of criminals, i dont think the citizens should have to give their guns up

 

[kkck]

Crimes with assault weapons are to begin with the least common by far. How do you suppose someone would get mugged or a house robbed if they were carrying around large difficult to conceal weapons? Most weapons involved in gun crimes are handguns which are easy to hide and carry around. That said, handguns and semiautomatic guns can be readily and easily bought in the US. Most illegal guns start out as legal and at some point they leave the system and become illegal.

As far as guns coming in from mexico.... come on, that is absurd. Mexico is the sort of place where guns get smuggled in, not smuggled out of. In SA countries it is common to find craft guns so to speak but there is o way those actually make it all the way to the US.... At least nothing I found on the web actually suggests mexico is getting guns into the US, if anything the opposite and the debate is centered around just how many US guns make it to mexico.

Doing some research actually does suggest 80% of illegal firearms come from the US actually. 60% alone could easily come from the first source I mentioned, legal vendors selling them illegally. With the other 2 things I mentioned you can easily get to the 80% thing.

With that attitude towards the information it is absolutely impossible to have a debate though. It is impossible to form a coherent opinion or something if all of the information available is not useful. At most you would be describing your views which you would have no way to justify or make sense of against my views which I would have no way to justify or make sense of.

 

[REN KOUEN]

Legal vendors are monitored way too strictly by the atf and other agencies to sell illegally

the induvidual to individual sales at gun shows are also being eliminated

but you can blindly believe what ever anti-gun news source you want

the problem.in america is that there isno way to effectively obtain all of the illegal guns from the criminals

and if someone says "just call the cops" well by the time the police arrive its often too late

 

[earthforge]

Legal vendors are monitored way too strictly by the atf and other agencies to sell illegally

Not true. There's a lot of loopholes. There's online sales and private transactions that are gamed to get to a wider market. That's what caused a kerfuffle over a teen's suicide in Nevada.

the induvidual to individual sales at gun shows are also being eliminated

Really? I thought the gun control bill got killed in Congress. Are you referring to a state law? If so, which state?

but you can blindly believe what ever anti-gun news source you want

Omne ignotum pro magnifico.

the problem.in america is that there isno way to effectively obtain all of the illegal guns from the criminals

We will never be able to recover them all, but we can recover most. Tracking information of gun sales can change that. Plus, the feds and police are already in the business of tracking down gun traffickers.

and if someone says "just call the cops" well by the time the police arrive its often too late

We can improve response time. A large reason that police response time is so low is that the agencies are both underfunded and mismanaged. But that is something we can fix by greater transparency in police infrastructure. Some agencies are run well, but the ones that aren't (ahem, LAPD) probably need an extensive personnel overview (AKA purge) by an external oversight entity (AKA the government.)

 

[Kaiten]

It is sad that there are more (legitimate) limitations on freedom of speech than on gun rights. It is tragic that the gun rights lobby is larger, better funded, and more paranoid than lobbies for free and open speech, press, and assembly rights. People should have the right to bear arms, there should never be a total weapons ban. Individuals should be responsible for themselves, we have courts to prosecute anyone who breaks the law. But your right to own a a rifle that fires 100 rounds a minute should be limited by my right to live. Speech that represents a clear and present danger is not protected under the first amendment, assault rifles are do not have to be protected under the second. Freedom is not the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want. That is irresponsibility. Freedom is the ability to take responsibility for yourself, and be accountable for your own actions. Government exists not to blindly protect those freedoms, but to ensure that my freedom does not interfere with your freedom.

The NRA is a paranoid, conspiracy driven organization. This is not a simple matter of protecting gun rights for sportsman and self defense, but a group that has come to believe gun control is the first step in taking all of our freedoms away.