The 2nd Amendment needs to go

[BronzeHeart92]

Honestly, I find it really ghastly just how easy it can be to obtain firearms and ammunition in States apparently. We here in Finland do just fine without this so called right to 'keep and bear arms'. If we can do it, USA can as well. Trust me.

 

[string555]

Does Finland have several types of gangs that easily collect all kinds of weapons?

I can't have a gun where I live anyway, but my point is that the way things seem to be in the US with criminals having such easy access to weapons, it seems a lot safer to let the sane citizens have access to guns too. Of course, unfortunately, it seems they have some not so sane individuals getting access to them too, even sometimes by legal methods. I believe there has to be a balance, and people in the US fall into 1 of 3 categories (Very broadly). You have non-criminal citizens, criminal citizens, and government officials. If you take away guns from the citizens who had the right to have them, that balance shifts.

So it seems like the system really just needs better mental health checks for getting access to weapons. It doesn't seem like criminals can ever really be prevented from getting them, but having these better filters may end up at least preventing some of these incidents.

I realize that one argument against that would be that if citizens have guns, then it is more likely that a criminal could steal it from them and use it. So maybe getting rid of as many guns as possible prevents criminals from getting them? However, there would still be a demand, and if there's a will, there's a way.

Personally, if I were in a situation where someone was wielding a weapon, and people's lives were on the line, I would feel much better having a gun.

This is all just my opinion, you can take it or leave it however you want.

 

[Sawsbuck]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

 

[Star-Lord]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Guns make it insanely easy to kill people / Have no other "real" purpose other than to kill/injure things. This is unlike cars or knives before somebody comes around trying to compare the two.

To be frank I'm far too exhausted to debate this anymore. There was once a man who was reported having a gun in a town I used to live and the entire downtown core was put on a lockdown. That to me seems like more appropriate action to someone holding a killing machine than the open carry/concealed carry and easy access that the United States has.

This article gets reposted as a joke every time there's a mass shooting in the US. How depressing.

 

[Nah]

Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't really necessary, there just needs to be actual gun control.

I can't have a gun where I live anyway, but my point is that the way things seem to be in the US with criminals having such easy access to weapons, it seems a lot safer to let the sane citizens have access to guns too. .

I think that if this was really going to work, it would've shown signs of working already. But it hasn't, so....

 

[Arsenic]

Yeah, gun laws... just like the decently rigours ones in France! Oh wait but the terrorists that attacked Charlie Hebdo managed to get A FUCKING RPG. Not to mention a plethora of more conventional weapons. Isn't it funny how bad people just don't listen to rules...

Don't get me wrong though, not supporting that NRA craziness of get a gun in every man woman and child's hand either. I don't think anyone in that attack having a 9mil on their hip would've changed much (I mean unless they got old west reflexes)

Both sides are stupidly wrong on this argument. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, haven't most terror attacks in recent years used trucks as ultra-lethal weapons? Take away one tool will only see another replace it.

 

[string555]

A tool's nature depends completely on the intent of the person wielding it.

Even if you took away all guns from the world, there would still be malicious people. As recently seen, even a tool as innocent as a car or truck can be wielded by a malicious person to cause harm. So again, even if you took away all guns from the world, people with malicious intent would still find ways to carry out their attacks.

Either way, sadly, I really can't think of a valid solution to these problems. It always seems to either be ISIS involved, or it's simply someone with severe mental health problems. I guess in the case of the mental health problems, better mental health care might help, but the problem is getting the people to the help before it escalates into a real problem. As for ISIS, they can go psyduck themselves. >:/

 

[Sawsbuck]

A tool's nature depends completely on the intent of the person wielding it.

Even if you took away all guns from the world, there would still be malicious people. As recently seen, even a tool as innocent as a car or truck can be wielded by a malicious person to cause harm. So again, even if you took away all guns from the world, people with malicious intent would still find ways to carry out their attacks.

Either way, sadly, I really can't think of a valid solution to these problems. It always seems to either be ISIS involved, or it's simply someone with severe mental health problems. I guess in the case of the mental health problems, better mental health care might help, but the problem is getting the people to the help before it escalates into a real problem. As for ISIS, they can go psyduck themselves. >:/

Exactly!

 

[Kanzler]

Yeah, gun laws... just like the decently rigours ones in France! Oh wait but the terrorists that attacked Charlie Hebdo managed to get A ****ING RPG. Not to mention a plethora of more conventional weapons. Isn't it funny how bad people just don't listen to rules...

Don't get me wrong though, not supporting that NRA craziness of get a gun in every man woman and child's hand either. I don't think anyone in that attack having a 9mil on their hip would've changed much (I mean unless they got old west reflexes)

Both sides are stupidly wrong on this argument. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, haven't most terror attacks in recent years used trucks as ultra-lethal weapons? Take away one tool will only see another replace it.

What about America though, where most of these mass shootings aren't terrorist attacks? If both sides are stupidly wrong, then how could we proceed to something better?

 

[Aliencommander1245]

it seems a lot safer to let the sane citizens have access to guns too. Of course, unfortunately, it seems they have some not so sane individuals getting access to them too, even sometimes by legal methods. I believe there has to be a balance, and people in the US fall into 1 of 3 categories (Very broadly). You have non-criminal citizens, criminal citizens, and government officials. If you take away guns from the citizens who had the right to have them, that balance shifts.

Citizens having guns does not protect them from criminals that have guns, at all. You're more likely to have more deaths in a situation where you've got random people firing their weapons during a crime?

Also, if there's less guns in the country there's less guns in the hands of criminals, that's just how it works. Australia isn't ruled by mad max gangs of gun wielding maniacs while the helpless populous cowers without them.
Not only that, but more guns in the hand of civilians is more accidental gun deaths, kids getting their hands on guns and shooting themselves/others with them is much more likely when, you know, there's a ton of guns everywhere. Even the claims that "responsible" owners lock them up or whatever don't really hold up because all it takes is one lapse of concentration, one forgetful episode or one mechanical failure and all the precautions are nullified.


I just genuinely don't understand that crazy line of thinking like "if we have gun control criminals might still be able to get guns, they're criminals they don't listen to the law" as if guns are some kind of natural formation that just appears sometimes arbitrarily and there's no way to stop people from getting them, or that they can be pulled out of thin air.
Then there's the whole "they'd still find ways to hurt people even if they didn't have guns" which... is also absurd? A person with a knife can't stab almost six hundred people from a hotel a block away, a person with a car can't run down a school full of children. Guns are items created explicitly for the purpose of killing and are extremely efficient at that, there's no other object that's as easily obtained or as deadly that can be compared to them like this. A lack of guns isn't going to cause people to carry around bags of knives and lob them at people.

It just feels like a lot of this comes from a place of lack of knowledge, do people not understand how many gun deaths occur each year in the US? Do they not know that the majority aren't from these big profile mass shooting events? Do they value people's lives so little that the idea that they could be stopped with legislation resonates so hollowly that they can't comprehend the idea that this stuff is preventable, or that other countries don't have issues anywhere near as comparable?

 

[Desert Stream~]

if only people were willing to change :p The amendments were meant to be adjusted as needed, it's possible to change them, but some people hold the amendments like they're some kind of sacred text.

 

[Arsenic]

What about America though, where most of these mass shootings aren't terrorist attacks? If both sides are stupidly wrong, then how could we proceed to something better?

They are terrorist attacks first off. (The only reason the Vegas story turned from "Terror Attack in Vegas" to "Mass Shooting in Vegas" is because they discovered the terrorist was white)

Second, I'm going to take both sides to their extremes for a moment.

Total gun ban, would require a lot of man power to accomplish. You are going to have to either have the national guard, or other military body do a sweep of every home in the country, otherwise the ban is pointless as plenty wont give up their weapons willingly. There will be a lot of shootouts between citizens and military as well, from people who'd rather fight than give in. This isn't for a bad reason either, as situations like Waco texas are all the evidence some people need to believe that martial law is coming, and weapons confiscation would be seen as the last step before it was imposed. A disarmed country cant fight back very well after all.

After the months of chaos, criminals would still have easy enough access to weapons, brought in from mexico, or if that is cut off in the operation, other ways, not to mention the plethora of weapons that would have been hidden. Someone who is interested in causing damage to the civilian populace would have to look to a weapons smuggler, and that smuggler is going to have access to a lot more deadly toys than a semi-auto rifle with a bump-fire stock. Full auto toys, probably some explosives too.

Result: Terrorist is probably going have better equipment to kill with, but attacks will most likely be much less frequent due to easy access to civi-arms being gone. Semi-effective


ARM EVERYONE The NRA's wet dream will be much shorter a type. Lets say the NRA gets their way and everyone from school teachers to sanitation engineers are packing a .45. This leads to a situation similar to the cold war, nuclear deterrence and whatnot (Or to simplify, "I don't want to shoot you, because you can shoot me back") which would be great at first. This leads to problems though. It's much easier for people who aren't fit to steal or otherwise get a gun with so many in the open.

The main problem though is the same as with Nuclear deterrence. The country would be a ticking time bomb just waiting for the right people to end up together. All it would take is one jumpy kid, and times square could turn into a flashpoint, with everyone opening fire on perceived attackers when those attackers are actually doing the exact same thing they are. The result would be countless dead, even more injured, and a whole lot of spent brass that needs to be cleaned up.

Result: maybe less small time violence, as criminals might think twice on drawing one someone when that person can draw right back on them. Country loses the need for a terrorist to even attack, as it becomes a tinderbox just waiting for someone to throw a match and we'll give ourselves a tragedy. A little bit effective?

So that leaves me with both sides wrong. But that still leaves the question of if both are wrong, how do we go forward. And that is by figuring out a third option, whether that be better control and checks on weapons, or something else entirely, I don't know. I do not see either as a solution to end tragedy, because there is no easy way to make all this stop.

Of course I could just be talking out of my ass, and be already indoctrinated by one side or another and be completely wrong on everything I've said. All I know is I was supposed to start a road trip 40 minutes ago.

 

[donavannj]

Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't really necessary, there just needs to be actual gun control.

This. Because I do have serious concerns about what sort of precedent this would set for the removal of Bill of Rights amendments (those being the first 10 amendments for those who don't know) if we were to repeal the 2nd amendment.

 

[Grey Wind]

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, haven't most terror attacks in recent years used trucks as ultra-lethal weapons? Take away one tool will only see another replace it.

A tool's nature depends completely on the intent of the person wielding it.

Even if you took away all guns from the world, there would still be malicious people. As recently seen, even a tool as innocent as a car or truck can be wielded by a malicious person to cause harm. So again, even if you took away all guns from the world, people with malicious intent would still find ways to carry out their attacks.

Well when someone uses a truck to kill 50 and injure 400+ in the space of about 20 minutes, we can have truck control. But right now I think the focus should be on guns.


It's honestly baffling to me that this is still a debate. The US is the only developed country to have this number of mass shootings and it's insane to me that nothing's been done yet. I also find these "well, they'll find away to kill" or w/e comments incredibly cynical and dismissive. Clearly there's an issue, and it's an issue that's pretty much unique to America (and no, terrorist attacks in France are not the same as random citizens going on killing sprees).

You really can't beat that Onion article:

Spoiler:

So that leaves me with both sides wrong. But that still leaves the question of if both are wrong, how do we go forward. And that is by figuring out a third option, whether that be better control and checks on weapons, or something else entirely, I don't know. I do not see either as a solution to end tragedy, because there is no easy way to make all this stop.

Both "sides" aren't wrong because this issue isn't black and white enough to be divided into the two groups you mentioned. I also think most people who are pro some sort of gun control are aware enough to see the difficulties in outright banning all firearms.

 

[Star-Lord]

Guns make it insanely easy to kill people / Have no other "real" purpose other than to kill/injure things. This is unlike cars or knives before somebody comes around trying to compare the two.

@ The people bringing up terror attacks using trucks.

Trucks have a very real purpose in transporting goods and people that our way of living currently relies on. Absolutely baffling that people go "Well no point in controlling guns they'll just find another way to kill people uwu" so you're going to just... let people keep killing others with guns. Good plan!

 

[Aliencommander1245]

So that leaves me with both sides wrong. But that still leaves the question of if both are wrong, how do we go forward. And that is by figuring out a third option, whether that be better control and checks on weapons, or something else entirely, I don't know. I do not see either as a solution to end tragedy, because there is no easy way to make all this stop.

You didn't actually present "both sides" though? You presented two strawman arguments with very clear flaws and then pointed those out, in a way that doesn't even hugely make sense and relies in a lot of weird leaps.

While "if they had guns they would've been able to shoot the guy" IS an actual argument often used after these tragedies (Someone is doing it in this thread) it's not an actual position in the gun control debate.

I don't think anyone is actually saying "let's remove all the guns" and no country has ever actually done that or tried that. Even Japan, with it's incredibly tiny gun ownership rates, hasn't "banned them" or prevented civilians from owning them, they just have incredibly tight security on who can own a gun, what reasons they have to have, the qualifications they need to have and how long they can have them for.

Gun control is possible, it's not hard and it's not hard to achieve. The only reason it's failed, in the US so far is because the republican party is so far in the pockets of the NRA that it's been turned into a partisan issue, it's been twisted into being about "rights"- twisted into anything and everything except for being about saving lives and creating a safer country. It's incredibly sad to see people think there's no possible way for gun control to be enacted, or who think that gun control just equals "banning all guns forever and always"

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I'll just post this link here just to show you guys why pro-gun groups are anti-gun control. And don't first-world countries where gun control is active also have high crime rates and poor governments?

And aside from protecting ourselves from criminals and terrorist attacks, there's also the fear of a zombie apocalypse caused by an unknown virus (there exist videos on youtube explaining how it can happen in real life). And from what we learn from fiction, long-range weapons like guns are more effective against zombies than close-range weapons like knives because you're much safer from getting bitten by them. The game ZombiU took place in the UK, where gun control is active thus fewer guns available in-game, which is why London has fallen to the zombies in its story.

 

[Arsenic]

Straw man arguments are way more fun though.

I mean for example here's two parody videos that do a great job at disproving the other side!






Ok, I'll be a little serious now.

First off, let's knock off those insulting comments to gun-owners (looking at you Lipstick) You happen to be insulting my father with your "humor" and I don't much appreciate that as he is a city first responder and helps more people in a work-week than you probably have in your entire life.

Moving on.

I just want to ask people to reply to this question in the best, most un-biased way you can. Separate from all the recent happenings or opinions on guns and control and whatever.

Why was the second amendment added to the bill of rights?

 

[EC]

Why was the second amendment added to the bill of rights?

So the people could rise up against the government if they thought the government was being tyrannical.

Today, obviously, the government could mow down anyone they want with ease, assault rifles to defend them or no.

 

[Kanzler]

They are terrorist attacks first off. (The only reason the Vegas story turned from "Terror Attack in Vegas" to "Mass Shooting in Vegas" is because they discovered the terrorist was white)

What about it makes it a terrorist attack though?

And even if there isn't a simple solution that makes it all go away, isn't it worth the shot to do something that causes incremental change at least? It's kind of like saying I'll never work hard because there's not one thing I can do to become a millionaire - you might never reach the goal, but the point is to do something different that might work (because you'll never know if you don't try).