Discussion Gun control

[xi0]

So what would happen if we take a different approach? Focus more on the psychological side of why Guns are an issue.

I'm not sure what you mean as far as the psychological side goes. Mental health issues related to violent crime involving guns? Or something else?

 

[Spirit]

I'm not sure what you mean as far as the psychological side goes. Mental health issues related to violent crime involving guns? Or something else?

Yeah I mean if you can't just get rid of the guns, then why not devote more funding into something like learning how and why people do what they do. Hell they should just pull a Psycho Pass

 

[Brandish μ]

I mean, I like Jim Jeffries and the other video is well-intentioned, but the Second Amendment does not exist so that people can keep bazookas in their bedroom closet. It's the "right to bear arms" to protect the population from the tyranny of the government. The issue is the gun lobby is hugely influential and federal law protects private citizens owning them, regardless of what state governments do.

I think he's (Jim) being very basic with his view on gun control, ie just looking at it from face value. The use of 'bazooka's' etc is for dramatic/comedic effect, hyperbole.

As for whether rights can be taken away, this I tend to sympathise with (for the pro-guns argument). Still, the hard call needs to be made imo. The benefits of the move outweigh the costs.

 

[M3J]

I mean, I like Jim Jeffries and the other video is well-intentioned, but the Second Amendment does not exist so that people can keep bazookas in their bedroom closet. It's the "right to bear arms" to protect the population from the tyranny of the government. The issue is the gun lobby is hugely influential and federal law protects private citizens owning them, regardless of what state governments do.

If we're honest with ourselves, we can see that there is a ton of bullshit on both sides of this argument. I'm for stricter laws and regulation on who can own guns, but the reality is, handguns are still responsible for at least 80% of all gun-related homicides. So what issue does banning specific types of guns actually address? None really, yet assault weapon bans are talked about all of the time by people.

And the other issue for me is that "solutions" like Project Exile, which did what it was intended to do, are typically rejected by Libertarians (what type of gun control would they be for anyways? lol) and people on the political left due to how severe a sentence a convicted felon would receive for carrying a gun or even just owning a gun illegally, because they believe that it would disproportionately effect minority populations.

So really, what's the solution? Banning all guns? Changing the constitution? Leaving things the way they are? No one can agree on anything.

Only solution would be to make gun control laws stricter and possibly carry out harsher punishment to the sellers and/or to the suspects. Sellers who don't do a thorough background check or follow the rules should be punished. Stricter gun control can also make it harder for bad people to get guns legally - if they have a history of violence, domestic abuse, or anger problems, then they're far less likely to get guns.

Banning guns is a pretty bad idea because it takes away rights, but more importantly, it puts bad people at more advantage because they can get guns illegally. Law-abiding citizens are less likely to acquire guns illegally, so unless the country somehow stops any gun from entering the country or changing hands, banning guns will never work.

I don't think mental health evaluation will really make that much of a difference. It'd have to be stringent and thorough otherwise most people can pretend to be mentally sound and healthy while planning to shoot someone.

Yeah I mean if you can't just get rid of the guns, then why not devote more funding into something like learning how and why people do what they do. Hell they should just pull a Psycho Pass

From what I've seen and what I know, the only time mental health issues are not stigmatized, and people actually want to do something about it, is when mass shootings happen. Otherwise it's either ignored, or people are looked down on, but it's misunderstood either way. I can't see that many politicians wanting to seriously fund that unless they have no other choice in order to keep their guns.

 

[xi0]

Yeah I mean if you can't just get rid of the guns, then why not devote more funding into something like learning how and why people do what they do.

Why not devote the majority of funding towards renewable and clean energy projects?
Why not make public university tuition-free?
....etc

This isn't answering your question, but the problem is the right only wants to talk about mental health issues when a shooting happens and the left tends to blame the method of destruction itself and not the person wielding the weapon. I wish there was an easy answer to it.

As for whether rights can be taken away, this I tend to sympathise with (for the pro-guns argument). Still, the hard call needs to be made imo. The benefits of the move outweigh the costs.

I don't think it can be made. The thing with the ban in Australia is that your country wasn't founded out of revolt, so the right to arm yourself just isn't held in the same esteem perhaps? You guys have only really been truly "independent" in the last several decades, no? Not trying to talk down to you, so I'll just plead ignorance there. In a perfect situation, no one would ever feel the need to own a firearm.

And I'm saying this as a person who doesn't own a gun, has never felt the need to own one, and whose highschool actually had a shooting at it after I had attended. Maybe to prove my "objectivity" on this issue I've made myself seem stupid to those outside of the country, but... I guess it's just simply a cultural thing?

Only solution would be to make gun control laws stricter and possibly carry out harsher punishment to the sellers and/or to the suspects. Sellers who don't do a thorough background check or follow the rules should be punished. Stricter gun control can also make it harder for bad people to get guns legally - if they have a history of violence, domestic abuse, or anger problems, then they're far less likely to get guns.

People on the left don't like Project Exile and it did all of that. They're against mandatory minimums, etc.

 

[M3J]

How many lefties? Cuz right now, this is the best solution given the fact that we'll never get rid of guns completely.

 

[xi0]

How many lefties? Cuz right now, this is the best solution given the fact that we'll never get rid of guns completely.

Well, it kind of goes against a lot of the justice system reform people are pushing for right now. I think Project Exile makes sense, but if you want less mandatory sentencing, putting people in prison longer is kind of the opposite of what you're aiming for.... but then, while minority populations may be disproportionately effected by such policy, they're also probably disproportionately effected by gun violence as well...sooooo....idk

 

[Brandish μ]

I don't think it can be made. The thing with the ban in Australia is that your country wasn't founded out of revolt, so the right to arm yourself just isn't held in the same esteem perhaps? You guys have only really been truly "independent" in the last several decades, no? Not trying to talk down to you, so I'll just plead ignorance there. In a perfect situation, no one would ever feel the need to own a firearm.

And I'm saying this as a person who doesn't own a gun, has never felt the need to own one, and whose highschool actually had a shooting at it after I had attended. Maybe to prove my "objectivity" on this issue I've made myself seem stupid to those outside of the country, but... I guess it's just simply a cultural thing?

I'm probably not being considerate as I should be to the culture difference, and what it means to Americans to have this right (and the other amendments). So my presumption that the call can be made while logical, is somewhat ignorant and perhaps naive.

As for Australia, we don't have an ingrained pride like Americans do imo. Not that we aren't proud to be Australian, it's just not at the level of patriotism that exists in America. I'd like to note that I'm not talking about people who represent Australia in anything ie army, sports etc... those people are as dedicated as any. Just the general populous. And if we're talking strictly guns, I was a child when Port Arthur went down. My dad, uncles and grandad handed in their rifles for money when the ban came into effect. There wasn't an immensely strong gun culture here to my knowledge, nor were gun lobbies entrenched in politics afaik. So yea, definitely 2 different cultures/situations.

 

[xi0]

As for Australia, we don't have an ingrained pride like Americans do imo. Not that we aren't proud to be Australian, it's just not at the level of patriotism that exists in America.

Well, I think it wasn't the Revolution itself but the sentiment sort of existed in the South longer due to the Civil War. So even if a lot of the loudest gun advocates are bible-beating, KKK members, I can't disagree with them on the right of citizens here to own them.

Believe me, this feeling comes into conflict every time there's a school shooting, or someone shoots up a movie theater. I'm not one like the NRA who says everyone should have concealed-carry permits, but gun crime itself has gone down while concealed-carry has gone up. So while correlation doesn't equal causation, I don't think it can be said that an increase in the amount of guns has increased crime either. It's just the nature of these incidents being so disturbing...

And if we're talking strictly guns, I was a child when Port Arthur went down. My dad, uncles and grandad handed in their rifles for money when the ban came into effect.

Some would be willing to do that perhaps, but more would probably not be okay with it. There's a huge paranoia response to that sort of thing. These are the same people complaining about Merry Christmas becoming Happy Holidays and saying their rights are being taken away, and that's retarded. But if they made this point about this issue, I would have to begrudgingly agree with them...

 

[M3J]

Well, it kind of goes against a lot of the justice system reform people are pushing for right now. I think Project Exile makes sense, but if you want less mandatory sentencing, putting people in prison longer is kind of the opposite of what you're aiming for.... but then, while minority populations may be disproportionately effected by such policy, they're also probably disproportionately effected by gun violence as well...sooooo....idk

Eh, I totally support stricter sentencing for people who don't sell guns properly, and for those who illegally sell or own guns. I mean, why are gun lovers so against stricter gun control laws? It won't prevent them from getting a gun if they're good or a law-abiding citizen, so why do they fear this?

 

[xi0]

Eh, I totally support stricter sentencing for people who don't sell guns properly, and for those who illegally sell or own guns. I mean, why are gun lovers so against stricter gun control laws? It won't prevent them from getting a gun if they're good or a law-abiding citizen, so why do they fear this?

They're typically against stricter laws for illegal ownership. That's my point in bringing up Project Exile. The NRA itself supported it and lobbied congress for funding to emulate the program in Philadelphia and Camden, NJ.

But of course, the left tends to focus on laws making gun ownership stricter, which the NRA is obviously never going to endorse.

 

[M3J]

But why? what do they have to fear?

 

[xi0]

But why? what do they have to fear?

Why what? Fear what?

Not sure you you're specifically replying to here.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

But why? what do they have to fear?

Probably the same reason why we're never going to get Universal Health Care: business and money.

 

[M3J]

Why what? Fear what?

Not sure you you're specifically replying to here.

Why do they fear stricter gun control laws? Why are they so scared of making it harder for bad people to get guns while good people can still get guns, just as quickly?

 

[gnut]

Why do they fear stricter gun control laws? Why are they so scared of making it harder for bad people to get guns while good people can still get guns, just as quickly?

They are strict enough....but it doesnt stop "clean" individuals of buying firearms and selling them to "bad" individuals.
Not saying that gun purchases in mass quantities (even over time to certain persons,mass accumulation of firearms)shouldnt be looked at a little more...but no matter how strict you make gun laws...if you continue to sell guns to civilians then crooked individuals will find ways to acquire them.

So how can you stop our right to bear arms?

 

[M3J]

How is it stopping your right to bear arms when you can still bear arms?

 

[xi0]

Why do they fear stricter gun control laws? Why are they so scared of making it harder for bad people to get guns while good people can still get guns, just as quickly?

The NRA and the gun lobby includes manufacturers. They have a rooting interest in selling firearms, so making that harder is against their self-interests usually.

They have no issue with giving harsher penalties to those who own or use them illegally though, so I think painting the average "gun enthusiast" as someone who just doesn't give a shit about gun violence isn't really fair either. There's also heaps of studies that show why banning "assault weapons" (however the hell people end up wanting to define that) wouldn't even make a dent in reducing gun violence. Nearly all gun-related crimes are done with handguns.

 

[M3J]

I'm sure they care, but they give off the impression that they don't because they have issues with making it harder to buy guns.

 

[Nemispelled]

In response to the OP's question: Yes, I'm inclined to believe that it's not guns that are the problem, but rather, the criminal who is responsible for the killing.

I've always been in support of keeping firearms legal. It acts as a deterrent for offenders who are contemplating about whether a crime is worth it or not. In other words, it makes them think twice before they commit themselves to the act.

Criminals know that it only takes a single screw up for them to land in prison with a life sentence, or possibly even worse, be shot to death.

By allowing the general population to possess guns, you leave criminals wildly guessing at their chances of success. And if that offender is in the right state of mind, he/she wouldn't risk such a gamble.

In the event that the offender does choose to act, citizens are at least given the option to counter-attack and defend themselves.




If criminals are guaranteed by the government that the populace is banned from using firearms, what would stop them from simply raiding a business or attacking a mass crowd of people?

The police? 1.1 million law enforcement personnel is nowhere near enough to defend 321.9 million ordinary civilians.

Nobody is going to trust that they are 100% protected with that kind of data. And criminals certainly won't either.




With that said, I completely agree with tighter regulations and strict enforcement in regards to gun distribution. Using the most recent event as an example (Las Vegas Massacre), I am in full support of near-automatic weapons and modifications being banned, including the purchase of bump fire stocks.

But firearms in general are imperative for self-defense.

Banning guns completely would only hinder the sensible and law-abiding citizens. Criminals can always get their collection off the black market. Since regular people don't associate with that type of system, "making guns illegal" would only serve to supply the wrong side.