Guns

[Kanzler]

Perhaps U.S. civilians should be allowed to keep guns for self-defense, if only because the market for firearms is so large to begin with. But there is a study that shows that a gun is used very rarely in defense in response to an offender committing a violent crime (assault, rape, robbery etc.), only less than 1% of the time. So even if all guns theoretically disappeared from the hands of law-abiding citizens, only a very small minority of crime instances would be affected. The argument that guns help in self-defense, judging from the observations in this study, is irrelevant compared to whatever benefits would occur from banning legal access to guns.

The study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/pdf/amjph00463-0112.pdf

Also, the one of the main ideas of the article concerning Chicago was never addressed - and it's a really good one. Laws don't mean anything without enforcement. So even if Chicago has the toughest laws, it's highly misleading to say that tough laws have nothing to do with violent crime. I'm sure China has really tough laws against violent crimes, and you know what? Offenders actually get executed.

And the whole argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is overused and abused. By that logic bombs don't kill people, but people kill people - and bombs are still pretty darn banned. Like Scarf said: guns facilitate violence, much like bystanders facilitate bullying. Yes, in strict logic, we wouldn't say guns kill people, nor bystanders bully people. But they enable the act to happen, and by removing the enablers, we remove an incentive for that act to happen. It's irresponsible to use that phrase to kill discussion because ideas should be represented clearly, and arguing from the logical "correctness" of a statement is irrelevant compared to the issue at hand and I wouldn't stop at "a bit disrespectful", but go as far as to call it an obstruction of logic.

I feel that human behaviour can be guided, if the right incentives are used. If the death penalty was executed swiftly and harshly for violent crime, crime rates /will/ go down. Career criminals are rational actors in the sense that if they have a realistic chance of being offed by the state, they're not going to get paid. And I don't think criminals do what they do because of the excitement. Let's say there was a law that penalizes the possession of a gun outside of military/law enforcement context with death. It feels more likely to me that criminals would all rather rot (safely) in the ghetto together, instead of killing each other and getting killed by the justice system at the same time. I laugh at the thought of drug dealers attempting to do drive-by-and-strangle-each-others, or knife duel like they do in counter strike if their guns were taken away from them. It will be much harder to kill when the tool that makes it so easy is taken away. The school shootings will occur every now and then, but you could never defend against those anyways. A mass shooting is scary, but gun violence occurs every day and not only on the front pages of a newspaper.

It's clear that guns have no place in a civil society, and ideally, they would disappear from the hands of civilians in a snap. The problem is one of practicality as you can't simply make the theory of "take the guns off our streets" into real-life action. Although, and I'm citing the study above, implementing a gun ban wouldn't really affect the victim's ability to defend against gun crime, if the victim's gun is only used 1% of the time. Gun crime just happens, and most of the time you can't stop it as it's happening, with a gun or not, whether you like it or not. It's a disheartening conclusion, but it just might be something we have to suck up and accept as a reality.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

So Scarf, are you against guns or not? I understand where you're coming from but nothing convinced me that a gun kills someone even with your 5 or so paragraphs about the topic.

Yes it guns vanished out of thin air then the crime would go down drastically but that will never happen. Criminal or not, someone will have a gun. The govt. can confiscate all the guns they want by going house to house, building to building and still wont get them all. Even if they banned guns meaning you can't buy them at gun stores or anything then it would still happen. Not just the black market, don't forget people own mom and pop shops. Let's say the owner knows someone in the black market, it's just a shot in the dark and they supply him with guns, or even they get access to the black market and they buy guns. They open up in the back a gun store, it's an underground area cops can't get to it. It's the same with cartels and medical marijuana, sell marijuana in the front sell everything else in the back, only special customers get it. They're friend or long time customer buys it and they tell they're friends, and those friends tell those friends and before you know it you have guns again. Just like that, the way it was before.

You don't need to know people in the black market to get guns, you just gotta know people in general, they're friend knows a gang member that gang member knows where to get guns by the dozens they take them back they're get money off those people and those people sell them in stores. I'ts not rocket science if you really think about it. Stricter gun laws or even slapping a ban on guns in general wouldn't solve a thing. In the 20's they banned Tommy Guns thinking people wouldn't have them anymore and the crime would go down, guess what? Nothing happened, Russia had crates full shipped by boat to America just like that. You can't control guns and we will always have them regardless criminal or not. Just because you're breaking a law you don't agree with means your a criminal. Smoking weed isn't a criminal, drinking underage isn't a criminal, owning a gun when you should have one isn't a criminal.

What we need to do is reach the youth, go through the hood and gather up youngsters and get them out of that way of life, in the cyfe they know how to cut 8 balls by the time they're 13, rolling with a gang when they're 13, selling dope when they're 13 raping, murdering, robbing houses, etc. They think it's okay because it's all they ever seen in they're life, I feel sorry for them because they're forced to sell this much cocaine, this much heroin, this much crack, his much marijuana in this amount of time or they get shot. It's a cold hearted world in the ghetto and they're not the only ones capable of damage, yes they are the main reason for crime in the first place but the rest is usually delusional minded people and psychopaths. A normal person with a gun and knowing gun safety wont kill anyone as a rule but someone that's in a gang will, they kill 6 year olds, old people, they're own members if they try to get out or don't sell enough product, women, someone that walked down they're street, police officers, etc. Then you have the mentally insane people that something goes wrong in they're life they get a thought in they're twisted mine telling them to kill people and it will be okay. That doesn't make guns bad, it's just the way people are. I too wish we could guns out the hand of the criminally and mentally insane people but we can't. Even with the strictest gun laws, it's impossible. It's our culture it's not the UK, China, Africa, Japan, The Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, or Australia, etc., were completely different people. It's our way of life.

 

[Kanzler]

I think smoking weed, and drinking underage is criminal in the eyes of the law, and will be dutifully punished if law enforcement had the resources and actually cared.

And we all know how to get kids off the street: more funding for education, youth job training, community programs linking parents with the schools and law enforcement so everybody's on the same page, benefits for single parents - basically stuff that we're told we can't pay for.

I think Obama's on the right track for some of his intended reforms. Here in Canada, we do have a 10 round cap on magazine capacity, as well as prohibition on assault weapons. Handguns are a restricted weapon that can only be used in certain situations (like on shooting ranges, or if it is determined that you have some special need for protection that the police cannot provide - and you'll have to go through the federal police for that). The only non-restricted firearms are rifles, which makes sense. If you want a restricted firearm, you need that registered. We had a registry for long guns that we got rid of, but I think it was so irrelevant nobody cared to begin with.

Based on stuff I've read in the news, the polls in America say that people don't seem to mind too much about gun control, just only whenever a massacre shows up. It's been favouring less controls recently, and whatever pro-gun-control movement that arises basically floats with media coverage. But being in a democracy, if most people don't care most of the time, maybe it's just not a big deal? I mean gun control laws, not violent crime etc. because of course that's always on the agenda.

But on the other hand, think of the Mexicans! Their law enforcement is already as overstretched as it is, having to deal with the drug cartels and corruption, but most gun crime there is done with handguns. And a lot (2.2%) of legal gun sales in America end up getting smuggled into Mexico every year. So for the sake of the Mexicans, implement a ban on handguns so they don't have to deal with American weapons XD

On a more serious note, we are living in a world affected by globalization, and crime is a component of that. Even if one argues that Americans, as a sovereign country, should be concerned with American policy and have the right to do whatever they want, the problem of drugs, arms, and crime is intertwined between nations and thus requires an international effort. I don't know if the public will buy that argument though, because honestly - voters only care about their short term interests. Anyways, I feel that it's still valid even if it doesn't get enough exposure. Other countries are affected by how gun control works in the States, making them stakeholders. So it's only fair if they have a say too.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Yes I agree fully with you on another topic here I'm gonna jump around a little to keep this thread afloat.

People up here say "ban semi automatic weapons, there will be less massacres". But what they don't realize is all guns but fully auto's AK's or any military issued weapon for that matter are classified as *semi auto*. Semi auto means one shot burst and that's exactly what a pistol is even tho they may have 16 or so round clips in them depending on the pistol. Therefore saying "ban all guns". An assault rifle is just a fancy name they gave it, a shotgun is an assault rifle, a hunting rifle is an assault rifle, and I believe we have all the right in the world to own those guns.

Give someone a revolver with quick reload that's 12 shots in 30 or so seconds, there's a video for it and that right there is 12 body's within 30 seconds. A glock were' not getting in model # but typically have 16 clips in them the accuracy of those things are spot on for the most part so that's 16 body's in 20 seconds or so. Banning rifles won't stop the massacres, banning guns won't stop the massacres, only thing that will stop massacres is to beef up the security at schools and search every student there or have metal detectors like they have in most schools in Aurora and Chicago up here. Metal detectors will catch the guns, take in a bag full of guns they search in when you go through the detectors right there stops the massacre. You can't stop massacres on the streets. A gang drive by is a gang drive by and you can't fight they're power. No matter the law on guns here it wont stop anything, there's always something that's gonna happen regardless.

 

[Mr. X]

Guns don't fall into just the auto and semi-auto catagories.

Your forgetting about pump action, bolt action, lever action single action and double action weapons.

Also, your definition of semiauto is wrong. The definition is "A weapon that preforms all actions necessary for repeated firing." Essentially, if you can pull the trigger and it will fire, cycle out the spent casing, cycle in a new round, and be ready to fire again all at the same time, without any further action on the users part, then it is a semi-auto.

And your also wrong about a shotgun being a assault rifle. A shotgun functions completely diffrient then a rifle. You can see it on the ammo - Shotguns fire shells, rifles fire bullets. Their is more to it then this, but long story short shotguns are not rifles.

If you want to make a point, at least make sure you understand the technology first.

Edit
http://homestudy.ihea.com/aboutfirearms/10diffrifleshotg.htm

Also, Hunting Rifles are not Assault Rifles. Mainly because none of them are automatic - In fact the vast majority aren't even semi automatic. The most common types of hunting rifles are actually bolt action.

 

[Esper]

So Scarf, are you against guns or not? I understand where you're coming from but nothing convinced me that a gun kills someone even with your 5 or so paragraphs about the topic.

Not even the fact that guns can go off by accident? I know there was something in the news in the last year or so about a kid who brought a gun to school and it went off while in their bag and injured a few people. I mean, yes, you can teach people to be responsible with anything, but accidents happen. (And even if being responsible prevented 100% of accidents, can we ensure everyone will be responsible enough?) I would think the reasonable thing we should do is look at how dangerous something is and let that decide how readily we want to make it available to people.

So, for instance, look at explosives. We don't let just anyone use them. Only trained people can use them and only under specific conditions like in places where no one could accidentally get too close (demolition sites, bomb ranges, etc.). That's a sensible way of doing things because explosives are very dangerous - either from a proper-handling sense (screwing up would be very bad) or a malicious-use sense (bad people could do lots of bad things with them).

Then there are guns. I think they're fairly similar to explosives in how dangerous they are. You have to handle them properly (or you could hurt and kill yourself or others) and if bad people have them they can (and will) hurt and kill people.

Obviously there are differences, and explosives are probably more dangerous in many circumstances, but since we agree that it's sensible to restrict who can acquire explosives it makes sense that we should do the same for guns since they're both dangerous for the same reasons. Dangerous stuff should be regulated: The more dangerous it is, the more it should be regulated. You might still think that guns aren't dangerous in and of themselves and it's all on the person holding one, but I would argue that widespread improper use of guns should be assumed and taken into account. It's been demonstrated that lots of guns will be used badly. It doesn't matter that a responsible person can handle one responsibly. Others will not. We can't pretend that because some will be good, everyone will be good and justify gun ownership based on that argument. Admittedly, one could turn this argument on something like knives. Some will use them badly. So we shouldn't allow knives, then? Ah, but knives aren't as deadly as guns, aren't as likely to kill by accident. They're not as dangerous. Which is my main point: how dangerous something is should determine how much we regulate it. Guns are very dangerous.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

A gun won't go off with proper gun safety, you can't compare moronic people to smarter people when it comes to guns. As I said, guns have safety locks for a reason. The safety lock don't just out of the blue turn off, it doesn't work that way. Plus, if a clip isn't in the gun which is what he should of done then it's literally impossible to go off. But as you said, guns kill people because they're oh so dangerous, nobody should have gun it means this, the statistics say this, blah, blah, blah, gtfo. Let me add this, let's ban guns from citizens let the criminals have guns and see how that works out. They're killers scarf not us. But liberals will never get it.

 

[Esper]

A gun won't go off with proper gun safety, you can't compare moronic people to smarter people when it comes to guns. As I said, guns have safety locks for a reason. The safety lock don't just out of the blue turn off, it doesn't work that way. Plus, if a clip isn't in the gun which is what he should of done then it's literally impossible to go off. But as you said, guns kill people let me add this. Let's ban guns from citizens let the criminals have guns and see how that works out. They're killers scarf not us.

But morons have guns, too. Unless we want to stop morons from having guns we have to assume that a portion of all gun owners are morons.

Gun ownership restrictions would only be one part of the solution anyway. You'd limit how many people could own, what kinds, how much ammunition they can buy, or go further and prevent the sale, manufacture, or ownership of certain types of guns and ammunition completely. You'd also raise the penalties for breaking these laws. The goal would be to reduce, over time, the number of guns in circulation by rounding up guns whenever and wherever they surface for whatever reason unless the person who has one can show they've done absolutely everything by the book and has a very compelling reason to own their gun.

And, really, when has owning a gun ever stopped a criminal except when that gun is in the hands of the police? Yeah, I'm sure there are token instances, but by and large it doesn't help at all.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Gun restriction or not, it wont solve anything. If someone wants something they will get it. There's many many ways to get a gun and there would be many many ways if they were restricted. You can't stop gun control it's impossible and guns aren't just gonna vanish like that. You're also wrong about upping the crime involved with it, people will still take the risk. People still drink and drive don't they? I'd say that's equivalent to the danger of a gun, texting and driving, I'd say a step down from a gun. You can't stop someone from breaking the law, they will do it no matter what. If they were illegalized here and the way America works is they would get a thrill of breaking the law so more people would have guns, it's the way America is. Even with countless tests to get a gun, they will still get them you can't stop them and quit playin this game because it's not gonna change. Don't you realize 95% or so of gun related deaths are from gangs anyways with people that were unarmed. That's something you should think about.

 

[Mr. X]

Would you support the repeal of laws preventing convicted felons from being able to purchase firearms?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Would you support the repeal of laws preventing convicted felons from being able to purchase firearms?

Dude, you don't get it. If they want a gun they will get it no matter the law quit asking dumbass questions like this okay? Stricter gun laws or any law to prevent ANYONE from getting a gun, it wouldn't stop them.

 

[Kanzler]

Would you support the repeal of laws preventing convicted felons from being able to purchase firearms?

I would agree with this. While it might be going far to take away their voting rights, taking away their right to bear arms is fair. The second amendment shouldn't be seen so much as a "god given right", but more as a responsibility. As all of the horrors that exist are not out of responsible exercising of that right, and therefore people shouldn't see it as something that unalienable. The constitution protects rights towards the end of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and if people demonstrate they're unable to do that, then they should have the right they have offended (in this case the right to keep and bear arms) taken away from them.

But ShinyUmbreon189 brings up the point that convicted felons don't acquire their arms legally, so it'll be irrelevant when it comes to its intended purpose.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

But ShinyUmbreon189 brings up the point that convicted felons don't acquire their arms legally, so it'll be irrelevant when it comes to its intended purpose.

This, they are convicted felons for a reason they were incarcerated for a reason, they broke the law, and to get incarcerated you have to commit more than a minor crime. If they broke the law once to get what they want they would break it again leaving the repeal against felons with guns irrelevant. You can't stop them no matter what a felon is a felon, if it's a gang member forget about it they're hood hooks them up with a piece so they're already out of the picture. Normal felons not involved with gangs and gun trading through the black market knows people as well, those people can supply them with guns or know where to get guns with no questions asked. You can't just slap a law and expect someone to follow because chances are very little of the population actually will.

 

[Mr. X]

While they can ignore this law, using alternative methods to get weapons, the law does effect them as it denys them a method of getting weapons.

This is what gun control is about - Making it harder for them to get weapons. Repealing the law would make it easier for them to obtain weapons - since they have a new method to use now. Not repealing them means that you believe that gun laws do affect criminals.

Either way it shows my point - The laws do have some effect on criminals.

It's a yes or no question - So is your answer yes? Or no?

Edit - Also, yes convicted felons don't buy guns. Because they can't. Repeal these laws and they would be, instead of stealing weapons, buying them instead. You don't see a average gun owner stealing weapons do you? No. You don't. Know why? Because he can buy them instead.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I'm not answering it because it wont do anything, you're point isn't valid. If a felon wants to get one, they will get one they don't care. That's like saying someone that was incarcerated for selling dope won't continue to sell and do dope, they will.

 

[Mr. X]

Your refusing to answer it because, deep down, you know I'm right. The laws do make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I'm not answering it because it wont do anything, you're point isn't valid. If a felon wants to get one, they will get one they don't care. That's like saying someone that was incarcerated for selling dope won't continue to sell and do dope, they will.

But that's true of anything though.

If someone wants to murder, they're going to do it regardless of if its illegal. Or steal. It's illegal, people still do it. So, why have the law then?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

But that's true of anything though.

If someone wants to murder, they're going to do it regardless of if its illegal. Or steal. It's illegal, people still do it. So, why have the law then?

I'm responding to X because he thinks restricted gun laws will make it harder for them to get guns when it wont. They will find a way to get a gun, they're criminals not law abiding citizens. It's like saying yea, we can't sell you this gun because of you're criminal background, what's he do? Get's a hook up from his friend, to get a gun you don't have to purchase it through the system and for some reason he don't realize that.

 

[Mr. X]

No, I'm asking if you would support the repeal of laws that prohibit felons from buying and owning weapons.

It's a yes or no question, one that you have time after time danced around.

I've explained the meanings behind the answers - It's time for you to give a straight answer. If your beliefs are truely as strong as you say they are, then you should have no issues giving a straight answer.

Would you support repealing the laws that prohibit convicted felons from being able to purchase and own firearms?

Time to stop dancing around - Do right by whatever your real beliefs are and answer it loud and proud. Yes? Or No?

Edit - Triforce has a point. Murder is illegal - Still, it happens despite what the law says.

This is what you are ignoring - Laws have never been about stopping every instance of something. It's about preventing as many as possiable. While it doesn't have much effect on the hardcore criminals - I'll agree, they just don't care - it does prevent your average person from committing crimes as a spur of the moment thing.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I'm not answering the question because you have it twisted, gun laws wont effect them. But to answer truthfully, yes they should restrict criminals from purchasing guns, will it work? No, but once in a blue moon you may have this criminal that turns his life around and obeys the law, but it's a really big if.