The U.S Gun Control Thread

[LDSman]

I'm honestly tired of repeating this debate over and over. I've long since realised I'm probably never going to make anyone pro-gun see sense.

You assume that I'm not seeing sense. Why can't you be the one not seeing sense?

So I might as well use this as a learning experience instead.

So here's a legitimate question. What is it that makes America so special? Why is it that people in the US are so convinced that gun control will never work there when it has worked in literally every other first world country that has implemented it? Someone explain to me what makes the US so vastly different from similar nations.

Gun control does not work in all countries. Look at Mexico. Super strict gun laws yet gun homicides higher than the US.

You can say it's the gangs, but there's gangs in the UK, Australia, Japan etc etc too. Plus, all of those guns started life off being made and sold by legal manufacturers.

Not all of those guns were legally manufactured. There are plenty of guns made in workshops. It's really not that hard. Basic plumbing supplies can get you a basic one shot weapon.

On top of that, which we can see from the Chicago situation, a lot of the guns used in gang crime are just bought across state lines from places with laxer laws.

Most of those purchases are illegal straw purchases. It's flat out illegal for a person to cross state lines to buy a handgun. All of those purchases must be made in the home state.

Surely having tighter restrictions across the board would thus reduce the number of weapons in the hands of gangs.

They aren't enforcing all of the current laws.

I don't want to hear the hand-wave answer of "oh but criminals will always get and use guns" either, because while it's true that some criminals absolutely would still manage, there would still be a reduction. Not to mention the black market is expensive because supply and demand is a thing.

People can make guns in the garages. There have been clandestine gun manufacturing places found all over the world making really good fakes. The laws also work to prevent the law-abiding who needs a gun for protection from getting one. There are 500,000 to 2.5 million self defense gun uses per year. Even the last study from the CDC said that guns are used defensively more than criminally and people who use guns for self defense experience fewer injuries than people that use other means.

You can say that it's because of having such a large and diverse population. That argument actually doesn't look half bad at first... until you start breaking things down more. Australia, the UK, Canada and, hell, technically even the EU countries all have ethnically diverse populations too. You can say it's because they have smaller populations, but a lot of them have similar population density (obviously not Australia but I'm getting to that). Then there's also the fact that this assumption that population = more gun crime breaks down entirely if you start looking at individual cities.

Not every city in the US with similar population density has the same gun crime stats.

NYC is the largest city with the biggest and most diverse population in the Western hemisphere, but it's got less gun crime than St. Louis, New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore and a bucketload of other places and coincidentally better gun control than almost everywhere it beats.

It also has more guns than the UK and is yet lower in crime. Why is that?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/london-now-dangerous-new-york-crime-stats-suggest/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/01/police-launch-murder-hunt-30th-stabbing-london-year/

Internationally, Sydney and Melbourne all have considerably higher populations than every US city bar NYC, less gun crime and also better gun control.

Better? Debatable.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/australia-sees-spike-in-gun-crime-despite-outright-ban/
And supporting my point is the demand for yet more regulations.

Tokyo has a larger population and population density by far compared to US cities, but less gun crime and also coincidentally better gun control.

Japan also has a highly rigid culture that leads to a higher suicide rate for people that fail in their society.

Because of how prevalent your gun culture is? I can agree that if anything this would be the biggest factor but, let's be realistic for a moment. Nobody is going to start a civil war over gun control. I don't even think people would go to that length for an actual ban and that's not what we're talking about here - at the very least nobody in their right mind is. The simple fact is that anyone who even tried to rise up against the government for enacting gun control would not only be a very good example of the kind of people who shouldn't have guns to begin with but would just flat out lose. A handful of crazy people might actually be stupid enough to try but there wouldn't be any movement catching on.

I have my doubts about some of the gun grabbers. Any number of them think the deaths of lot of gun owners would be a good thing. Look at Bronze. Save a 7,000 by killing or imprisoning tens of millions. Gun owners wouldn't even have to rise up. They'd simply not comply. California has just revealed that gun owners aren't running background checks on private sales. At least two states added "assault rifle" registries that the people simply refused to register their rifles on. At that point, the gov't would have to try and force the issue or simply ignore it. How will people react if the gov't started kicking in doors? What if more legal gun owners die due to so called "red flag" laws? Police in Maryland killed a man after he objected to losing his guns because he had an argument with a family member. No court case, no charges files. Secret complaint. Sounds like a great idea for laws. What's next? Secret tribunals that convict you ahead of time?

I'm not trying to change minds here anymore, I have well and truly given up on that. What I want right now is to at the very least try to understand why, despite all of this, you on the the pro-gun side believe that having better gun control would not work in the US.

1. Number of guns.
2. Constitutional Right.

Or is it not about whether it would work or not? Is it a question of the personal freedom of being able to carry a weapon outweighing the societal affects of easy access to weaponry? Or a question of fear of the government potentially altering the constitutional amendments (nevermind that they're called amendments for a reason) outweighing the positives?

The societal effect of weapons goes both ways. Instead of waiting for the police to respond, I can defend myself. Instead of being raped, a woman can defend herself. A gun owner isn't beholden to other people for protection.

Criminals don't follow the law. Gun control advocates won't stop. They are seriously wanting social media searches or mandatory home inspections to insure safe storage of guns or even making third party people responsible for the actions of customers or thieves. They try to play word games by stating "well the constitution says "arms" so we can ban ammo without needing an amendment."
They ignore that a shooter used a handgun and push for rifle bans. They scare people by talking about "untraceable" home made guns without mentioning that there don't seem to be any crimes committed with those guns.

I just want to understand why.

Why do you want to restrict guns? Why should I lose my right to self defense with effective tools because of others? Why should I trust that the gov't or society will always be great and wonderful?

What I would like to know is:

1. You argue that gun control isn't needed because an overwhelming majority of people are law-abiding citizens.
while
2. The US has a gigantic military budget and strong defenses against any form of attack.

Yet, despite 2. being true, the US has no country in both Americas that could or would declare war on them. You could even argue that no country in the world could declare war on them, because in today's world every country is too interconnected in trade, relationships and economy especially, that it wouldn't help anyone.
Regardless, all evidence suggests that the US as a country and its common people are save from outside sources.

The military tries to protect against outside sources. They can't get every threat. Riots happen, terrorist attacks happen, natural disasters lead to looting and violence, wild animals exist, etc.

Then the question is this, why do people in the US need private guns - and we are talking not (just) about handguns here, but also semi-automatic or even automatic guns - if 1. is true? From what do you need to save your familiy or yourself, if you are already save

? Not all citizens are law-abiding. Depending on where you live, the police can be hours away. Long time to be raped and murdered. Handguns are good for personal defense while out and about. Shotguns are good for personal home defense. Rifles are good for long distance defense. Large capacity means you can defend against more opponents. Think mobs. Rapid fire is good for lots of holes in things or getting larger groups like feral pigs.

So either the people of your country are not as law-abiding as you say they are, which would mean that argument 1. is not true, this meaning you would need gun control.
Or 1. is true, which would mean that you would not need guns as you do now, because there is no reason to defend yourself.

Circular and flawed logic. Removing guns would only insure that the law-abiding have to use less effective tools against those that seek to do harm to them. If every person was law-abiding, then gun control wouldn't be needed at all. Why take away something that people aren't using to hurt each other?

Your arguments are flawed either way.

You created a false argument.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

As you can see, LDSMan is a VERY cynical person indeed... Has he even BEEN outside USA?

 

[LDSman]

As you can see, LDSMan is a VERY cynical person indeed... Has he even BEEN outside USA?

Hah! Funny coming from the guy who thinks that gun owners are one bad day from a killing spree.

Yes I've been outside the US. Have you ever been to the US? Oh wait, you've stated you won't go as long as we have guns. Great way to insulate yourself from anything that would alter your gun views.

Do you plan to actually debate US gun control?

 

[BronzeHeart92]

Hah! Funny coming from the guy who thinks that gun owners are one bad day from a killing spree.

Yes I've been outside the US. Have you ever been to the US? Oh wait, you've stated you won't go as long as we have guns. Great way to insulate yourself from anything that would alter your gun views.

Do you plan to actually debate US gun control?

Yes, I won't enter USA as long as Gun 'rights' exists no matter what. Would kinda put me on the edge really knowing that EVERYONE would potentially have firearms and if one of them snaps... Better to be safe and sorry, folks. And while I concede that not every gun owner is bad, is there any reassurance that they won't 'turn' bad tomorrow?

 

[PhoenixIgnition]

Yes, I won't enter USA as long as Gun 'rights' exists no matter what. Would kinda put me on the edge really knowing that EVERYONE would potentially have firearms and if one of them snaps... Better to be safe and sorry, folks. And while I concede that not every gun owner is bad, is there any reassurance that they won't 'turn' bad tomorrow?

If every time a gun owner 'snapped' there would be a shooting your choice would be logical. This isn't the case, though.
Also, apparently most gun violence is commited with guns purchased illegaly. So it's not the general gun owning population that would worry you, but criminals who obtain them illegaly, which are far from being the majority and are not affected by gun laws and restrictions.

You're not being 'safe'. You're not making an informed, logical decision here. You're making a decision based and informed by fear mongering.

There is no reassurance that any person won't turn bad tommorow. That's a poor justification to your position on this. It's also not realistic. Most people don't just wake up and become 'bad'.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

If every time a gun owner 'snapped' there would be a shooting your choice would be logical. This isn't the case, though.
Also, apparently most gun violence is commited with guns purchased illegaly. So it's not the general gun owning population that would worry you, but criminals who obtain them illegaly, which are far from being the majority and are not affected by gun laws and restrictions.

You're not being 'safe'. You're not making an informed, logical decision here. You're making a decision based and informed by fear mongering.

There is no reassurance that any person won't turn bad tommorow. That's a poor justification to your position on this. It's also not realistic. Most people don't just wake up and become 'bad'.

1. Yeah, that might be true. But hey, why don't we Europeans get the same rights they do? Logically speaking, a gun is too powerful of a tool for any average person to wield.

2. True. But again, not taking any chances here anyway.

3. Yeah... But as long there's potential, I'd say it's a good thing to keep guns away in first place. And besides, even if someone did appear normal while purchasing a gun, who's to say he's not faking it at the time?

 

[LDSman]

1. Yeah, that might be true. But hey, why don't we Europeans get the same rights they do? Logically speaking, a gun is too powerful of a tool for any average person to wield.

Why? Because your govt doesn't want to give up that power. And please explain your "logic".

2. True. But again, not taking any chances here anyway.

How do you function then? Finland has guns. Close to two million of them. Do you fear your neighbors snapping? How do you go outside knowing that someone could snap and run you down in their car?

3. Yeah... But as long there's potential, I'd say it's a good thing to keep guns away in first place. And besides, even if someone did appear normal while purchasing a gun, who's to say he's not faking it at the time?

hmm. Paranoia. What's to say your neighbors aren't in a cult? Your teachers aren't secret killers?

 

[Nah]

Why does the US have so many internal threats if most gun owners are so law-abiding? There is a flaw in the argument. You can not have it both ways. Either you have internal threats or not.

Gangsters are also citizens. Gangsters from other countries are a possibility, but isnt that a matter of border safety first then?
Terrorists can be domestic, but then they are also citizens. If you talk about non-US terrorists, then I dont see where they are. No terrorists is gonna attack a family home in the US. 9/11 was 17 years ago, and yet you argue that foreign terrorist are a problem. I can't see it, sorry.

I don't really get why you're taking an all or nothing approach to this. Nobody ever said that literally everyone in possession of a gun is law-abiding. You can indeed have a mix of law-abiding gun owners and non-law-abiding gun owners, it's just that more people than not are the former. Last I checked, gang members and other (violent) criminals only make up a minority of people in possession of a gun in this country.

Depending on the fire arm you seem to be. It seems to be legal to own, use and buy automatic firearms made before 1986. It seems also to be legal to modify your semi-automatic weapon, and kits to upgrade them to basically automatic are legal.

Yes, it is indeed legal to purchase an automatic weapon manufactured before 1986. Those things aren't exactly cheap and easy to find though, nor are they growing in number. Most people who are going to purchase a firearm aren't going to go for an automatic because of that, and also because for most people it's not remotely necessary either. I commented on that bit because there's still this bit of misinformation floating around where some people seem to think that you can just walk into any Walmart in the US and buy military grade weaponry--as if the US is totally lawless regarding guns--when that's not really the case.

Laws on gun modification are not something I'm familiar with.

 

[EnglishALT]

1. Yeah, that might be true. But hey, why don't we Europeans get the same rights they do? Logically speaking, a gun is too powerful of a tool for any average person to wield.

2. True. But again, not taking any chances here anyway.

3. Yeah... But as long there's potential, I'd say it's a good thing to keep guns away in first place. And besides, even if someone did appear normal while purchasing a gun, who's to say he's not faking it at the time?

I hope LDSman doesn't mind if I add in something here, but isn't a car just as powerful as a gun if not more powerful? In America there was the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing that took out the side of a building with a van. In Europe there has been a rash of car killings these past few years, here in Japan there was a car attack in Akihabara that I can remember. Renting a car is even easier than getting a gun, and packed with the right explosives far more deadly. Even with out explosives, a car can kill a significant amount of people if driven onto a busy side walk at a high rate of speed.

So I guess my question is, do you believe a car is too powerful of a tool for any average person to wield? Do you fear that any driver on the road could snap at any moment and tear onto the side walk?

That all being said, I think there is one thing that could help curb gun crime in America, and that is to have something similar to a credit database. If I can go into say Wal Mart and within twenty seconds either get approved or denied for a credit card, why can't there be a database that can approve or deny someone just as quick for a gun purchase? If some one's committed a crime, has a history of mental problems, has a restraining order against them, etc etc etc, the name is checked and either confirmed or denied for the purchase within 10 seconds with out giving a reason why, only a number for the person to call. It would maintain privacy and could be mandatory for any firearm transaction.

 

[LDSman]

Would anyone like to try and answer gimme's questions? I can't really do so myself, as I'm not completely anti-gun control (I just think that it by itself is not the entire solution and that not every piece of gun legislation is helpful).

Hopefully I provided some good answers.

Also, people can't really buy an automatic firearm in this country.

. Horribly expensive and you need to pass a govt check that takes months.

Why does the US have so many internal threats if most gun owners are so law-abiding? There is a flaw in the argument. You can not have it both ways. Either you have internal threats or not.

. While most gun owners are law abiding, not all are. Many of the non law abiding don't own guns. They like other weapons.

Gangsters are also citizens. Gangsters from other countries are a possibility, but isnt that a matter of border safety first then?

No system is perfect.

Terrorists can be domestic, but then they are also citizens. If you talk about non-US terrorists, then I dont see where they are. No terrorists is gonna attack a family home in the US. 9/11 was 17 years ago, and yet you argue that foreign terrorist are a problem. I can't see it, sorry.

people keep getting arrested for terror plots in the US or for seeking to aid foreign terrorists.

Wild animals may very well be a concern. Yet this would mean that everybody, even children, would need a gun at all times when going outside, because wild animals dont break into your house. And this would still ignore the fact that the most dangerous wild animals are either rare, don't come close to humans by themselves, run away rather than attack or are animals like snakes, which you cant defend against with fire arms.

Animals depend on where you live. Snakes can easily be killed by firearms.

Depending on the fire arm you seem to be. It seems to be legal to own, use and buy automatic firearms made before 1986. It seems also to be legal to modify your semi-automatic weapon, and kits to upgrade them to basically automatic are legal.

. Automatic firearms from before 1986 are expensive. Very expensive. Upgrading your firearm to be automatic is illegal and is not as easy as TV makes it out to be. While there are bump stocks that can simulate full auto, it's still not full auto and are basically range toys that waste ammo.

Laws on gun modification are not something I'm familiar with.

The laws are ludicrously stupid at times.

 

[PhoenixIgnition]

1. Yeah, that might be true. But hey, why don't we Europeans get the same rights they do? Logically speaking, a gun is too powerful of a tool for any average person to wield.

2. True. But again, not taking any chances here anyway.

3. Yeah... But as long there's potential, I'd say it's a good thing to keep guns away in first place. And besides, even if someone did appear normal while purchasing a gun, who's to say he's not faking it at the time?

1. Good question. If your people decided they want the right to own arms and fight for it, I guess you'd find out by how your government will react.
Like I said, the vast majority of legal gun owners in the US do not commit gun related crimes. Evidently guns are not too powerful of a tool for them to wield.

2. Well, that's your choice, which you are entitled to. It's just not an arguement for any side of this discussion/debate.

3. There's a dangerous potential to most people doing anything. Life is risky. Human beings are risky. Taking away people's rights because of those risks is immoral and i'd say in some cases it's even evil and oppressive. You can never eradicate enough risks, and there will always be more risks to eradicate and you will have to keep taking people's rights and freedom in order to achieve that. I'm not going into 'slippery slope' territory. Just saying that the logic you're using to justify taking away guns is a dangerous logic and you're also using very flawed arguements to justify it.
It's dangerous to allow governments to posses this kind of power. To just be able, without justification or the support of most of the people, to take away the people's rights.

AGAIN. In reality land, the vast majority of people aren't psychos who fake normalcy to get guns so they can commit crimes. There are cases of people with undiagnosed mental illnesses that can be triggered into violent acts.
Psychopaths who want to buy a weapon to commit crimes in the first place won't do it legally because it will be much more difficult for them.
Also, most gun related crimes are done with illegaly purchased guns anyway, so gun related restrictions and laws won't affect them.

 

[Urrr]

1.
The military tries to protect against outside sources. They can't get every threat. Riots happen, terrorist attacks happen, natural disasters lead to looting and violence, wild animals exist, etc.


2.
? Not all citizens are law-abiding. Depending on where you live, the police can be hours away. Long time to be raped and murdered. Handguns are good for personal defense while out and about. Shotguns are good for personal home defense. Rifles are good for long distance defense. Large capacity means you can defend against more opponents. Think mobs. Rapid fire is good for lots of holes in things or getting larger groups like feral pigs.


3.
Circular and flawed logic. Removing guns would only insure that the law-abiding have to use less effective tools against those that seek to do harm to them. If every person was law-abiding, then gun control wouldn't be needed at all. Why take away something that people aren't using to hurt each other?
You created a false argument.

1. "You can't get every threat." - True. And thus it is also true that no matter how many guns you have, there will always be someone starting a shoting, and until you have gunned him down, he will have killed multiple people already.
A Riot is not a reason to use your gun, which you claim is for self-defence. As long as you are not about to be raped, killed, maimed or otherwise bodily harmed, shoting someone is a crime. Same is true for "looting and violence". Violence might be a reason to use a gun. Looting however is stealing, just as lighting a car on fire in a riot is destroying property. These are not reasons to use guns. Especially, as someone said before, if it is so hard to shot not to kill.

2. If you live many hours from a police station, fine, you propably need something for self defense in your house. However, do you need semi-automatic rifles for that?

3. My argument hinges on the point whether or not your citizens are law-abiding. You are correct in that you can never get 100% there. Yet, this doesnt change the fact that your main argument for having guns is because you want to defend yourself and your family. Do you live in a nice suburban area? Or in the city? Or in a 500 soul village? Where would you need to defend yourself?
If at home, then because someone broke into your house. Do you have the time and space to use anything bigger than a handgun? Do you need semi-automativ rifles for that?
If not at home, are you able to carry your gun anywhere? If yes, even your semi-automatic rifle? Or any rifle for that matter? No? So what do you need those for?

 

[BronzeHeart92]

Why? Because your govt doesn't want to give up that power. And please explain your "logic".

What reason there would be for our government to give up power like that? We have other things to concern ourselves with than whoever has the biggest gun after all.

How do you function then? Finland has guns. Close to two million of them. Do you fear your neighbors snapping? How do you go outside knowing that someone could snap and run you down in their car?

As you might have surmised, guns are in fact a privilege around here, not meant for self-defence at all. Because how HARD they are obtain, no one's likely carrying them in first place and thus I do feel safe. And if there was a maniac with a car around, suffice for me to say that I wouldn't be here, talking to you.

hmm. Paranoia. What's to say your neighbors aren't in a cult? Your teachers aren't secret killers?

What reasons there would be for any of MY neighbors be in a cult? Aren't you just making assumptions here?

 

[EnglishALT]

And if there was a maniac with a car around, suffice for me to say that I wouldn't be here, talking to you.

How can you be sure that someone you pass by in a car will not snap and decide to attempt to run you over as seen in Helsinki in 2017? How can you be sure someone who owns a knife will not snap and attempt to kill people as seen in the 2017 Turku attack? What makes a person more liable to snap and kill with a gun in America than with a car or knife in Finland?

 

[BronzeHeart92]

How can you be sure that someone you pass by in a car will not snap and decide to attempt to run you over as seen in Helsinki in 2017? How can you be sure someone who owns a knife will not snap and attempt to kill people as seen in the 2017 Turku attack? What makes a person more liable to snap and kill with a gun in America than with a car or knife in Finland?

Hey, attacks over here are obviously the exception rather than the rule. No need to be so cynical about our safety over here at all. That said, guns simply make it easier to kill people, no exception. And that's why I'm worried about the future of America's children growing up in a world where every day could be their last. And besides, so tired of people treating cars and knives like dangerous objects. They after all have purposes other than killing people, you know. In that light, making such comparisons is absolutely stupid.

 

[Urrr]

And that's why I'm worried about the future of America's children growing up in a world where every day could be their last.

I agree. It seems to me that they believe the world is out to get them. The mexicas or south americans in general want there money and are also rapists and drugdealers with guns. The "terrorists", who's faces are rather nebulous, are also a threat, not just to national monuments, airport and so on, but to small citys and towns as well as individual homes. If that is not a problem its any number of criminals from within.

But the world is not out to get you (killed). If they want anything from you, its your money. You can always say that there is a rapists out there that could attack you and so on, but at some point you are not careful, rather just paranoid.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

I agree. It seems to me that they believe the world is out to get them. The mexicas or south americans in general want there money and are also rapists and drugdealers with guns. The "terrorists", who's faces are rather nebulous, are also a threat, not just to national monuments, airport and so on, but to small citys and towns as well as individual homes. If that is not a problem its any number of criminals from within.

But the world is not out to get you (killed). If they want anything from you, its your money. You can always say that there is a rapists out there that could attack you and so on, but at some point you are not careful, rather just paranoid.

This is precisely why I wonder if these people had some sort of a trauma or something which would explain their 'sticking to their guns by all costs' attitude. Again, you could say they have bad eggs from the south of the border. But naturally, not all of them like that. And since nothing lasts forever, hopefully the countries in Central America can truly see peace at last free from these drug gangs. And yeah, being paranoid never does anyone any good.

 

[Nah]

I hope LDSman doesn't mind if I add in something here, but isn't a car just as powerful as a gun if not more powerful? In America there was the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing that took out the side of a building with a van. In Europe there has been a rash of car killings these past few years, here in Japan there was a car attack in Akihabara that I can remember. Renting a car is even easier than getting a gun, and packed with the right explosives far more deadly. Even with out explosives, a car can kill a significant amount of people if driven onto a busy side walk at a high rate of speed.

So I guess my question is, do you believe a car is too powerful of a tool for any average person to wield? Do you fear that any driver on the road could snap at any moment and tear onto the side walk?

While one can kill a lot of people with a car (you can kill a person with a lot of things really), cars aren't really the best comparison given that their primary intended function is something other than killing.

That all being said, I think there is one thing that could help curb gun crime in America, and that is to have something similar to a credit database. If I can go into say Wal Mart and within twenty seconds either get approved or denied for a credit card, why can't there be a database that can approve or deny someone just as quick for a gun purchase? If some one's committed a crime, has a history of mental problems, has a restraining order against them, etc etc etc, the name is checked and either confirmed or denied for the purchase within 10 seconds with out giving a reason why, only a number for the person to call. It would maintain privacy and could be mandatory for any firearm transaction.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, the US basically has that already. When you go to legally purchase a gun, a background check is performed, which as far as I know is mandatory nationwide and primarily looks at documented mental illnesses and felony convictions.

Federal law prohibits convicted felons and, iirc, persons with known mental illnesses from being able to purchase firearms.

---

That brings me though to a (sort of unrelated) question I have:

boop

Do you (or if anyone else happens to know the answer, feel free to chime in) happen to know how state and federal law interacts regarding guns? I think in some other thread it was mentioned how Alaska does not have a law that explicitly states that convicted felons cannot purchase guns, while most of the rest of the states do. Is a state having a law barring felons from buying guns redundant when federal law already bars them? Does federal law always supersede state law when it comes to guns, or no?

 

[EnglishALT]

Hey, attacks over here are obviously the exception rather than the rule. No need to be so cynical about our safety over here at all. That said, guns simply make it easier to kill people, no exception. And that's why I'm worried about the future of America's children growing up in a world where every day could be their last. And besides, so tired of people treating cars and knives like dangerous objects. They after all have purposes other than killing people, you know. In that light, making such comparisons is absolutely stupid.

They do have other purposes but they are inheriently dangerous objects. In 2017 there was 40,000 people killed in car accidents in America, on the other hand only 15,000 were killed by guns. This according to USA Today and The Week UK. So which should I fear more from dying from?

Furthermore your argument is that you fear traveling to America out of fear from being shot by someone essentially going "postal" to use an old 90s term. Yet continue to ignore that even with out a gun the vast majority of the public around the world has access to a killing machine no matter what purpose it serves.

This is precisely why I wonder if these people had some sort of a trauma or something which would explain their 'sticking to their guns by all costs' attitude. Again, you could say they have bad eggs from the south of the border. But naturally, not all of them like that. And since nothing lasts forever, hopefully the countries in Central America can truly see peace at last free from these drug gangs. And yeah, being paranoid never does anyone any good.

It is important to remember why guns are so important to the constitution of the United States, in fact I would say the second amendment is the most important amendment of them all. The reason being is the second amendment was written after an armed populous had just defeated the most powerful army in the world and shook off the government controlling them. The founding fathers clearly believed that their experiment in self government could become a tyranny similar to the one they just gained independence from. So they made sure the populous had the functional weaponry to rebel if need be. With out the fear that the populous can rise up and overthrow you, violently if need be, then all the other rights granted are nothing more than suggestions.

While one can kill a lot of people with a car (you can kill a person with a lot of things really), cars aren't really the best comparison given that their primary intended function is something other than killing.

I would say their intended function is irrelevant, if you fear someone is going to engage in a mass shooting, I would argue being hit with a car is just a valid fear especially considering the rash of cars used in terror attacks across Europe in the past few years.

 

[LDSman]

What reason there would be for our government to give up power like that? We have other things to concern ourselves with than whoever has the biggest gun after all.

Its lends itself to creating classes of people. Those with power and those without. Do your politicians have armed bodyguards? Why? Are their lives worth more than yours?

As you might have surmised, guns are in fact a privilege around here, not meant for self-defence at all. Because how HARD they are obtain, no one's likely carrying them in first place and thus I do feel safe. And if there was a maniac with a car around, suffice for me to say that I wouldn't be here, talking to you.



What reasons there would be for any of MY neighbors be in a cult? Aren't you just making assumptions here?

I feel like you're intentionally missing the point.

Hey, attacks over here are obviously the exception rather than the rule. No need to be so cynical about our safety over here at all. That said, guns simply make it easier to kill people, no exception.

A lot of things make it easier to kill people. You know what else a gun does? It makes it easier for granny to defend herself against thugs.

And that's why I'm worried about the future of America's children growing up in a world where every day could be their last.

You are so full of it.

And besides, so tired of people treating cars and knives like dangerous objects. They after all have purposes other than killing people, you know. In that light, making such comparisons is absolutely stupid.

Not really. Why does it matter how someone died? You think its better if a kid is killed by a SUV than a gun?

I agree. It seems to me that they believe the world is out to get them. The mexicas or south americans in general want there money and are also rapists and drugdealers with guns. The "terrorists", who's faces are rather nebulous, are also a threat, not just to national monuments, airport and so on, but to small citys and towns as well as individual homes. If that is not a problem its any number of criminals from within.

Shit happens. Being prepared to respond is a good thing.

But the world is not out to get you (killed). If they want anything from you, its your money. You can always say that there is a rapists out there that could attack you and so on, but at some point you are not careful, rather just paranoid.

I can point out any number of muggings that turned into homicides just because the mugger went "why not?"

This is precisely why I wonder if these people had some sort of a trauma or something which would explain their 'sticking to their guns by all costs' attitude. Again, you could say they have bad eggs from the south of the border. But naturally, not all of them like that. And since nothing lasts forever, hopefully the countries in Central America can truly see peace at last free from these drug gangs. And yeah, being paranoid never does anyone any good.

You're a pretentious one aren't you? What kind of trauma did you experience to be so afraid of gun owners in a different country?

Guns are tools like fire extinguishers. Having access to either is not paranoia.

While one can kill a lot of people with a car (you can kill a person with a lot of things really), cars aren't really the best comparison given that their primary intended function is something other than killing.

one would think its worse. Cars aren't meant to kill people yet they do at a higher rate than guns.

That brings me though to a (sort of unrelated) question I have:


Do you (or if anyone else happens to know the answer, feel free to chime in) happen to know how state and federal law interacts regarding guns? I think in some other thread it was mentioned how Alaska does not have a law that explicitly states that convicted felons cannot purchase guns, while most of the rest of the states do. Is a state having a law barring felons from buying guns redundant when federal law already bars them? Does federal law always supersede state law when it comes to guns, or no?

In general, federal law is supposed to trump things. However in practice it depends on the state. Look at how some cities/states ignore immigration laws. The Alaska thing is wrong.
https://www.quora.com/If-Im-a-felon-in-Alaska-what-gun-rights-do-I-have
Alaska is....unique... Ass end of nowhere, separate from the US and lots of subsistence hunting.

1. "You can't get every threat." - True. And thus it is also true that no matter how many guns you have, there will always be someone starting a shoting, and until you have gunned him down, he will have killed multiple people already.

Not always. There have been multiple cases of people preventing multiple fatalities.

A Riot is not a reason to use your gun, which you claim is for self-defense.

"Use" has many definitions. Koreans with rifles stood on the business roofs and simply being there convinced the rioters to go a different direction.

As long as you are not about to be raped, killed, maimed or otherwise bodily harmed, shooting someone is a crime. Same is true for "looting and violence". Violence might be a reason to use a gun. Looting however is stealing, just as lighting a car on fire in a riot is destroying property. These are not reasons to use guns. Especially, as someone said before, if it is so hard to shot not to kill.

Looters and arsonists should be shot. Maybe it'll end the riot with fewer injuries.

2. If you live many hours from a police station, fine, you propably need something for self defense in your house. However, do you need semi-automatic rifles for that?

Why does it matter what a person uses?

3. My argument hinges on the point whether or not your citizens are law-abiding. You are correct in that you can never get 100% there. Yet, this doesnt change the fact that your main argument for having guns is because you want to defend yourself and your family. Do you live in a nice suburban area? Or in the city? Or in a 500 soul village? Where would you need to defend yourself?

Self defense is self defense no matter where you live. Why does it matter?

If at home, then because someone broke into your house. Do you have the time and space to use anything bigger than a handgun? Do you need semi-automativ rifles for that?

Again with this distinction. Most homes are big enough to use rifles in.

If not at home, are you able to carry your gun anywhere? If yes, even your semi-automatic rifle? Or any rifle for that matter? No? So what do you need those for?

It varies by state. Some states allow carrying a rifle around. Others don't. Mainly because whiny babies complained. What part of Constitutional Right are you having trouble understanding?