The U.S Gun Control Thread

[Urrr]

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

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


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

4.Why does it matter what a person uses?
Self defense is self defense no matter where you live. Why does it matter?
Again with this distinction. Most homes are big enough to use rifles in.
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?

1. Just as there have been multiple cases of people being murdered by the dozen, before someone stops them, even though, as you argue, lax gun regulations should mean the opposite.

2. True, but than again, the same thing could have been achieve by the police. And if you argue that the police isnt trained well enough, or hasnt enough funds, then why dont you fix that first, rather then compensating by giving everyone firearms.

3. And that sentence right there should be the reason you should not be allowed to have a gun. Because you are not defending yourselfs, but rather perform vigilante justice. If you shot someone because he tries to steal something of your property (and kill him), then you have murdered someone. You may get (partly) away with it, but you still killed someone in cold blood. If you believe in god, or rather judgement, then rethink your life choices.

4. It matters, because, if you where serious with your claim of self defence, then the logical option would be to use something that is easy to handle, not unwieldy and easy to store. Why use a rifle of any kind if a handgun does its job just as well, or better and is even cheaper to buy?
Same goes for going outside. Do you carry a rifle everywhere you go? The woods, the city, grocery shopping, taking your kid to school and so on... Do you go into a cinema with your semi-automatic rifle on?


In general I would like to say, rather than insult commenters you dont agree with, you should try and produce a logical argument that proves your point. And instead of falling back on your argument that "firearms are a constitutional right", you should try and convince people why that is still in need today. No law is perfect. Times are changing (morally, technologically, and otherwise). Laws can be changed.

 

[EnglishALT]

2. True, but than again, the same thing could have been achieve by the police. And if you argue that the police isnt trained well enough, or hasnt enough funds, then why dont you fix that first, rather then compensating by giving everyone firearms.

3. And that sentence right there should be the reason you should not be allowed to have a gun. Because you are not defending yourselfs, but rather perform vigilante justice. If you shot someone because he tries to steal something of your property (and kill him), then you have murdered someone. You may get (partly) away with it, but you still killed someone in cold blood. If you believe in god, or rather judgement, then rethink your life choices.

There are times however where the police are either overwhelmed as we saw in the LA riots mentioned, or pull back and allow the riot/looters to wear themselves out as we have seen in Baltimore or Ferguson.

As for murdering some one for stealing or destroying your property, I can see where you come from with it being murder. However the ones who are most affected by say riots or looting tend to be poorer and lower class businesses, again pointing back to the LA riots, or the Ferguson riots. For many people this business is their life's work, and in many cases it is their life. Destroying it either by stealing everything inside, or burning the building down is something that they will never be able to recover from. Do you believe that they should not be able to protect something they worked ten, twenty, maybe even thirty years to build up, and not have it destroyed by an angry mob?

 

[Corrin]

I'd say yes to gun control laws (like background checks, registrations, limiting their use) because there IS less instance of gun violence in countries with stricter laws.
Also if you really wanna kill someone be a man and stab them.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

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.

Yup, that's exactly it. Over here in Europe, I don't need to fear PRECICELY because we can't buy guns like you could any other item. From my perspective, that's obviously alien and wrong. Can you imagine a store here with a prominent gun section? And again, cars aren't meant for killing.

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.

Except this world has changed a lot since the 18th century when the constitution was written, yes? How is that we HAVEN'T become a tyranny yet, again? Sure, USA might have places where the outreach of emergency services are rather limited. But then, nothing lasts forever and these places might get sufficient coverage after all, no matter if it takes years or even decades. That aside, from what I have read, you pro-gun people apparently fear too much government intervention in your lives, yes? That really makes me wonder...

 

[EnglishALT]

Yup, that's exactly it. Over here in Europe, I don't need to fear PRECICELY because we can't buy guns like you could any other item. From my perspective, that's obviously alien and wrong. Can you imagine a store here with a prominent gun section? And again, cars aren't meant for killing.

For the third, forth, fifth time, what a car is meant for is irrelevant.

You have said, that you fear traveling to the U.S. because you believe some one will snap and shoot you.

Now tell me honestly, yes or no, do you believe that a person who has 'snapped' that wants to commit mass murder, will look at his one or two ton car, will look at his butcher's knife, will look at his computer where he can google up bomb materials and say. "Well I want to kill people, but I don't have a gun so I just can't do it."

Please, tell me, do you honestly believe that the lack of access to a firearm, will prevent someone who wants to murder, from killing? Yes or no?

Except this world has changed a lot since the 18th century when the constitution was written, yes? How is that we HAVEN'T become a tyranny yet, again? Sure, USA might have places where the outreach of emergency services are rather limited. But then, nothing lasts forever and these places might get sufficient coverage after all, no matter if it takes years or even decades. That aside, from what I have read, you pro-gun people apparently fear too much government intervention in your lives, yes? That really makes me wonder...

So we haven't become a tyranny, thus there is no chance that one will happen in the future? Do you believe that if we were to travel back to Venezuela in 1998 when Hugo Chavez was elected, and said "Guys, don't do it, this guy will lead you down to the road of dictatorship and tyranny" anyone would have honestly believed us? Or how about Turkey, a nation that a decade ago was seriously considered becoming a part of the EU and Europe, that anyone would have believed that the election of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, would lead them to the tyranny the people of Turkey experience today?

Tyranny is not something that comes with a big flashing banner and strobe lights. It can be insidious and usually comes in the time of crisis or war in which the public is not focused on the erosion of their rights. Just because you believe it is X year, does not mean that it is any less of a threat to people now or in the future.

 

[Urrr]

1.There are times however where the police are either overwhelmed as we saw in the LA riots mentioned, or pull back and allow the riot/looters to wear themselves out as we have seen in Baltimore or Ferguson.

2.As for murdering some one for stealing or destroying your property, I can see where you come from with it being murder. However the ones who are most affected by say riots or looting tend to be poorer and lower class businesses, again pointing back to the LA riots, or the Ferguson riots. For many people this business is their life's work, and in many cases it is their life. Destroying it either by stealing everything inside, or burning the building down is something that they will never be able to recover from. Do you believe that they should not be able to protect something they worked ten, twenty, maybe even thirty years to build up, and not have it destroyed by an angry mob?

1.If the police are overwhelmed, then because they do not have either enough staff, training or funds, which again goes back to my point. Pointing out where in recent history this lack was the case doesnt help your argument.

2. No. If you shot someone because he attacks your store you build for 20 years, then yes, you are have murdered someone, and it doesnt matter what class they are. Just because you have less, doesnt mean you can get away with a crime. If you suggest that material goods are more important than a human life, fine be that way. But, in your scenario we would have a whole riot on our hands. Do you suggest your friendly store owner gun down a dozen people, just so they cant steal from him?
If you dont answer this question in your head with a immediate "NO", then sorry, your moral values are screwed.
Also one thing, if you have worked 20 years for your dream shop, then there is something called insurance any reasonable person with a property available to the public should have.


PS: I can not help but wonder why you let out number 1. of my orignial post you quoted. Had nothing to say about it?

 

[BronzeHeart92]

For the third, forth, fifth time, what a car is meant for is irrelevant.

You have said, that you fear traveling to the U.S. because you believe some one will snap and shoot you.

Now tell me honestly, yes or no, do you believe that a person who has 'snapped' that wants to commit mass murder, will look at his one or two ton car, will look at his butcher's knife, will look at his computer where he can google up bomb materials and say. "Well I want to kill people, but I don't have a gun so I just can't do it."

Please, tell me, do you honestly believe that the lack of access to a firearm, will prevent someone who wants to murder, from killing? Yes or no?



So we haven't become a tyranny, thus there is no chance that one will happen in the future? Do you believe that if we were to travel back to Venezuela in 1998 when Hugo Chavez was elected, and said "Guys, don't do it, this guy will lead you down to the road of dictatorship and tyranny" anyone would have honestly believed us? Or how about Turkey, a nation that a decade ago was seriously considered becoming a part of the EU and Europe, that anyone would have believed that the election of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, would lead them to the tyranny the people of Turkey experience today?

Tyranny is not something that comes with a big flashing banner and strobe lights. It can be insidious and usually comes in the time of crisis or war in which the public is not focused on the erosion of their rights. Just because you believe it is X year, does not mean that it is any less of a threat to people now or in the future.

1. No need to be so cynical, friend. True, crimes do happen over here on occasion. But they will be investigated as expected in a functional society. Got something against law enforcement and other authorities perhaps? Yes, humans can kill without firearms, that's a fact. But really, we are a safe society regardless. And that's something to be appreciated.

2. True. But hey, we DO remember what happened once Nazis came to power, right? It's all we can do in order to NOT repeat that mistake at all. In case of Poland and Hungary, one can hope EU can intervene before their situation gets too out of hand. Dunno about Turkey but it's certain Mr. Erdogan's a nutcase who should NOT be in a position of authority in first place.

 

[EnglishALT]

1.If the police are overwhelmed, then because they do not have either enough staff, training or funds, which again goes back to my point. Pointing out where in recent history this lack was the case doesnt help your argument.

The only time I can remember in which the police were completely overwhelmed and it wasn't a stand down order, is the South Central LA riots in 1992, which were so large, so dangerous, that the national guard had to be called in under the orders of the Governor, and the marines and army were called in under the President. Something that large and dangerous, where not only the national guard but the marines were used tells me that no amount of staff, training, or funds would have allowed the police to handle themselves.

2. No. If you shot someone because he attacks your store you build for 20 years, then yes, you are have murdered someone, and it doesnt matter what class they are. Just because you have less, doesnt mean you can get away with a crime. If you suggest that material goods are more important than a human life, fine be that way. But, in your scenario we would have a whole riot on our hands. Do you suggest your friendly store owner gun down a dozen people, just so they cant steal from him?
If you dont answer this question in your head with a immediate "NO", then sorry, your moral values are screwed.
Also one thing, if you have worked 20 years for your dream shop, then there is something called insurance any reasonable person with a property available to the public should have.

You automatically assume that a poor store owner has the insurance coverage that would cover such a thing. We know from these riots they do not.

Furthermore even if Insurance does cover everything, it can take months for the money to come, and what would you suggest a business do while they wait? What should they do with their employees? Many businesses would not be willing to rebuild in such a dangerous area and risk full destruction all over again leading them to move, meaning a loss of income to a already poor city and the loss of jobs and income for those that worked there. Should we not care about all of those lives as well?

Now it is interesting that you called it a crime. Many states have laws that allow for the use of deadly force to prevent arson, but do not allow for mere looting.

""…is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling…"

https://www.theridgefieldpress.com/89954-hulda-lane-shooting-when-is-it-legal-to-use-deadly-force/

That I would say seems reasonable as committing arson, burning down a building can create a situation where the fire can spread to other nearby buildings and endanger lives.

I also think it is important to draw a distinction between say a shoplifter, and say a violent riot such as in Ferguson, Baltimore, or South Central LA, in one there is very little fear going on, in another it is a violet mob against you and possibly a few others you rounded up. There is no guarantee that when they attack your shop, they will not kill you as well.

When I am thinking of this for example I am thinking back to the Korean store owners that stood on top of their shops during the South Central LA riots, while they may have injured if not outright killed a few people who went to attack their shops, their actions saved their town from a lot of devastation and possibly even more loss of life.

PS: I can not help but wonder why you let out number 1. of my orignial post you quoted. Had nothing to say about it?

I honestly did not want to step all over the discussion you were having with LDSman, and just wanted to acknowledge a few parts.

1. No need to be so cynical, friend. True, crimes do happen over here on occasion. But they will be investigated as expected in a functional society. Got something against law enforcement and other authorities perhaps? Yes, humans can kill without firearms, that's a fact. But really, we are a safe society regardless. And that's something to be appreciated.

Which is the same can be said about the U.S. or practically any other first world country. What is your point and how does it relate to your fear of being shot when you travel to the U.S.?

 

[gimmepie]

So, I don't really have the time for long responses or anything atm but two things did jump out at me from an earlier reply.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to anyone else that the number of users of a gun in self-defence eclipses the number of guns used in criminal activity? I know that not all dangerous/violet/potentially deadly crimes make use of guns - most probably don't, but I get the impression that there's more than a few people defending themselves with deadly force when it's just not needed?

Second, more of a question than anything, what can be done about current gun control laws not being properly enforced? I think we can agree on both sides that's a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

Which is the same can be said about the U.S. or practically any other first world country. What is your point and how does it relate to your fear of being shot when you travel to the U.S.?

Make no mistake, I don't wan't go to USA because I don't want someone shooting at me while there. But you could definitely say there's an ideological reason behind it as well. In this day and age, why USA still has that 2nd Amendment is quite a mystery. Again, this isn't the 18th century anymore, yes? Society has advanced since then and it's not unreasonable that someone might see Americans as literal barbarians for 'sticking to their guns' still. Fortunately, I don't hate Americans in general.

 

[EnglishALT]

So, I don't really have the time for long responses or anything atm but two things did jump out at me from an earlier reply.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to anyone else that the number of users of a gun in self-defence eclipses the number of guns used in criminal activity? I know that not all dangerous/violet/potentially deadly crimes make use of guns - most probably don't, but I get the impression that there's more than a few people defending themselves with deadly force when it's just not needed?

I wouldn't say that is too surprising, just because a gun was used in self defense does not mean the attacker did not possess a knife, or was far stronger than the victim, or was attempting to attack the victim in greater numbers. If a large male attacker using only his strength attempts to rape a gun carrying smaller woman, I doubt any one expects her to suddenly forgo the use of her gun just because he doesn't have one.

Make no mistake, I don't wan't go to USA because I don't want someone shooting at me while there. But you could definitely say there's an ideological reason behind it as well. In this day and age, why USA still has that 2nd Amendment is quite a mystery. Again, this isn't the 18th century anymore, yes? Society has advanced since then and it's not unreasonable that someone might see Americans as literal barbarians for 'sticking to their guns' still. Fortunately, I don't hate Americans in general.

I can understand that and I do appreciate your candor. There is a safety aspect, there is a fear of tyranny aspect as we have already covered, and most importantly I think there is the aspect that there is a large thriving black market on America's southern border. Like with weed and other drugs, if the government attempts to outlaw something, the cartels will move in and fill that void, difference is the weapons the cartels bring tend not to be registered or traceable.

In all honesty, every country within the next twenty to forty years is going to need to come up with better regulations and openness with gun ownership. We have already seen the distribution of 3D printed gun plans over the internet, Pandora's box is already open, and as time progresses it will become easier and easier for anyone with a 3D printer to create a gun. Having control over your borders to prevent illegal items coming in for the black market like firearms will soon be meaningless.

 

[LDSman]

1. Just as there have been multiple cases of people being murdered by the dozen, before someone stops them, even though, as you argue, lax gun regulations should mean the opposite.

Honestly not sure what you are saying here.

2. True, but than again, the same thing could have been achieve by the police. And if you argue that the police isnt trained well enough, or hasnt enough funds, then why dont you fix that first, rather then compensating by giving everyone firearms.

Answered by Eng. Police aren't/can't be everywhere. And that assumes the police will care enough to respond.

3. And that sentence right there should be the reason you should not be allowed to have a gun. Because you are not defending yourselfs, but rather perform vigilante justice. If you shot someone because he tries to steal something of your property (and kill him), then you have murdered someone. You may get (partly) away with it, but you still killed someone in cold blood. If you believe in god, or rather judgement, then rethink your life choices.

Watching people steal from people who have been hit by a disaster just pisses me off.

4

. It matters, because, if you where serious with your claim of self defence, then the logical option would be to use something that is easy to handle, not unwieldy and easy to store. Why use a rifle of any kind if a handgun does its job just as well, or better and is even cheaper to buy?

Rifles are easy to handle. In some cases, easier than handguns. Also cheaper depending on what you get.

Same goes for going outside. Do you carry a rifle everywhere you go? The woods, the city, grocery shopping, taking your kid to school and so on... Do you go into a cinema with your semi-automatic rifle on?

So if I don't take it everywhere it should be banned?

In general I would like to say, rather than insult commenters you dont agree with, you should try and produce a logical argument that proves your point. And instead of falling back on your argument that "firearms are a constitutional right", you should try and convince people why that is still in need today. No law is perfect. Times are changing (morally, technologically, and otherwise). Laws can be changed.

Defensive gun use far outstrips criminal gun use. I don't need to justify a Right. Do you wish to justify freedom of religion, speech, fair trials, etc?

As far as insulting, being called paranoid or suffering from some unknown trauma tends to irritate me.

I'd say yes to gun control laws (like background checks, registrations, limiting their use) because there IS less instance of gun violence in countries with stricter laws.
Also if you really wanna kill someone be a man and stab them.

Well that's sexist and stupid. Why would I risk serious injury in a knife fight when I can just shoot them instead?

Yup, that's exactly it. Over here in Europe, I don't need to fear PRECICELY because we can't buy guns like you could any other item.

Seems like you fear Americans more than you fear guns.

From my perspective, that's obviously alien and wrong.

Because you refuse to learn anything about guns.

Except this world has changed a lot since the 18th century when the constitution was written, yes? How is that we HAVEN'T become a tyranny yet, again? Sure, USA might have places where the outreach of emergency services are rather limited. But then, nothing lasts forever and these places might get sufficient coverage after all, no matter if it takes years or even decades. That aside, from what I have read, you pro-gun people apparently fear too much government intervention in your lives, yes? That really makes me wonder...

A free people don't need the government acting like nannies taking care of particularly stupid small children.

But, in your scenario we would have a whole riot on our hands. Do you suggest your friendly store owner gun down a dozen people, just so they cant steal from him?

Most rioters will run away after the first couple drop. At is more about not knowing what the rioters are planning. Do you let them burn your house/store down while your family is inside? Do you bring your family outside where the mob can curb stomp, beat, rape and kill them or do you shoot a few and make them run?

If you dont answer this question in your head with a immediate "NO", then sorry, your moral values are screwed.

What are your values if you would let your family die to spare strangers?

Also one thing, if you have worked 20 years for your dream shop, then there is something called insurance any reasonable person with a property available to the public should have.

Not all insurance covers "civil unrest" and payouts can take awhile. Sometimes deductibles are really high.

1. No need to be so cynical, friend. True, crimes do happen over here on occasion. But they will be investigated as expected in a functional society. Got something against law enforcement and other authorities perhaps? Yes, humans can kill without firearms, that's a fact. But really, we are a safe society regardless. And that's something to be appreciated.

Not all law enforcement is honest. And the US is mostly a safe society, Its a big country. Some areas are less safe.

2. True. But hey, we DO remember what happened once Nazis came to power, right? It's all we can do in order to NOT repeat that mistake at all. In case of Poland and Hungary, one can hope EU can intervene before their situation gets too out of hand. Dunno about Turkey but it's certain Mr. Erdogan's a nutcase who should NOT be in a position of authority in first place.

Obvious difference between us. You want outside intervention after things get bad. I believe intervention should be from within and sooner.

So, I don't really have the time for long responses or anything atm but two things did jump out at me from an earlier reply.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to anyone else that the number of users of a gun in self-defence eclipses the number of guns used in criminal activity? I know that not all dangerous/violet/potentially deadly crimes make use of guns - most probably don't, but I get the impression that there's more than a few people defending themselves with deadly force when it's just not needed?

Its not odd to me. Most criminals want an easy crime and will run from people they either find to be armed or think are armed. Take a purse from an old lady, knock an old man out and grab his wallet, burgle a home thought to be empty. Problem is that the victims don't know what the intent is. Take the purse, then drag the old woman to ATMs around the city, then decide that the old woman is cute and then kill her afterwards because you just committed multiple felonies and she saw your face.
Mugger approaches an old woman, old woman recognizes his behavior as mugger aggressive and grabs her gun in her purse. Mugger recognizes the movement as "she saw me and might be armed." he goes elsewhere post haste. DGU. Person tries to kick in door and homeowner yells "I have a gun and I'm calling the police!" Burglar runs. Maybe it was the gun, maybe it was the call. There was a case of a housewife with kids shooting a guy who kicked in multiple doors to get to them. Front door, then bedroom door and then crawl space door despite clear yells of "I have a gun and I've called the police." Audio on 911 call. If anything, I think the numbers are under reported. Some district attorneys will treat that as "brandishing" and arrest the potential victim.

Second, more of a question than anything, what can be done about current gun control laws not being properly enforced? I think we can agree on both sides that's a problem that needs to be addressed.

Either get rid of the unenforced laws or start fining the people who are supposed to be enforcing those laws.

Make no mistake, I don't wan't go to USA because I don't want someone shooting at me while there. But you could definitely say there's an ideological reason behind it as well. In this day and age, why USA still has that 2nd Amendment is quite a mystery. Again, this isn't the 18th century anymore, yes? Society has advanced since then and it's not unreasonable that someone might see Americans as literal barbarians for 'sticking to their guns' still. Fortunately, I don't hate Americans in general.

I've lived in the US for 38 years and have never been shot at. Stay out of the gang neighborhoods and don't deal drugs and you'll be fine.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

Australia is an interesting, but difficult comparison to the US. What makes Australia interesting is how effective their TOTAL disarming was. What makes it difficult is that total disarmament in the US will not happen in the US anytime soon, if ever at all.

Total disarmament in the US would take a Constitutional Amendment, and one going against a very popular Amendment. You would probably need 75%+ of the US population in fervent support of total disarmament for it to even come close to happening. So the US ifs left with other options. We're stuck in an odd conundrum: pass laws that likely won't solve much of the problem, or continue to do nothing essentially thumbing our nose at victims of an obvious epidemic.

No form of partial gun control will make any major mark in the United States. Sure, background checks will make initial guns sales more difficult and may deter some people, but multiple problems arise. How many people would commit violent gun crimes who would have passed a background check? Likely a ton. How many guns exist on the secondary market and, either by loophole or black market, are not subject to background checks? A significant amount. Must we check a person's entire family and all acquaintances before granting a background check? Without this, someone's violent son, or neighbor, or mother, could easily take the gun and use it. In addition to all of these problems (and many more) as long as just 1 state has free gun laws, ALL US states have free gun laws. If West Virginia is handing out guns like candy on Halloween, all it takes is a long ride and those guns can go anywhere. There are no customs checks between states.

However, gun violence is an epidemic. Thousands of people are dying 100% PREVENTABLE DEATHS due to firearm violence, and by pure physics and nature of firearms (long range, easy to use prolifically), a good number of these people would not have been hurt as bad or at all if guns were not involved. Doing nothing is essentially shrugging our shoulders at all people affected by these crimes, whether it be directly or indirectly. We focused more effort on containing and preventing the spread of ebola than we have on guns, and ebola has a grand total of 0 deaths in the US.

How do we in the US acknowledge and put effort into solving this epidemic, but do so in a manner consistent with our laws, and in a manner that will actually be effective in any significant way?

Whomever finds out that answer deserves a Nobel Prize. Like 10 of them.

- Camarohusky from Newgrounds

Just dropping this here in case anyone's interested. Also, you should obviously realize that guns are not a 'right' outside USA, LDSman. Why should it be? We here in EU are doing fine as it is. Same for Japan, Australia etc. If you think WE need same gun 'rights' as you, I'd say you're pretty deluded on that front.

 

[gimmepie]

We don't have total disarmament here. You can still buy and own a gun there's just heavy restrictions. I even know people who work in the gun industry and own guns.

 

[LDSman]

Australia is an interesting, but difficult comparison to the US. What makes Australia interesting is how effective their TOTAL disarming was.

What GP said. No where near that.

What makes it difficult is that total disarmament in the US will not happen in the US anytime soon, if ever at all.

It'll never happen.

Total disarmament in the US would take a Constitutional Amendment, and one going against a very popular Amendment. You would probably need 75%+ of the US population in fervent support of total disarmament for it to even come close to happening. So the US ifs left with other options. We're stuck in an odd conundrum: pass laws that likely won't solve much of the problem, or continue to do nothing essentially thumbing our nose at victims of an obvious epidemic.

Or instead of useless gunlaws, look into stopping the violence.

No form of partial gun control will make any major mark in the United States. Sure, background checks will make initial guns sales more difficult and may deter some people, but multiple problems arise. How many people would commit violent gun crimes who would have passed a background check? Likely a ton.

Most of the gun violence is committed by people involved in drug deals and gang culture. They don't buy their guns legally. They get relatives to buy the guns (illegal) or they steal them (illegal).

How many guns exist on the secondary market and, either by loophole or black market, are not subject to background checks? A significant amount. Must we check a person's entire family and all acquaintances before granting a background check? Without this, someone's violent son, or neighbor, or mother, could easily take the gun and use it.

At that level of checks, you likely have a totalitarian society.

In addition to all of these problems (and many more) as long as just 1 state has free gun laws, ALL US states have free gun laws. If West Virginia is handing out guns like candy on Halloween, all it takes is a long ride and those guns can go anywhere. There are no customs checks between states.

Free? No state has "free" gun laws. And there is federal law about buying handguns between states. In addition, you STILL have to pass a background check.

However, gun violence is an epidemic. Thousands of people are dying 100% PREVENTABLE DEATHS due to firearm violence, and by pure physics and nature of firearms (long range, easy to use prolifically), a good number of these people would not have been hurt as bad or at all if guns were not involved

. Unprovable claim.

Doing nothing is essentially shrugging our shoulders at all people affected by these crimes, whether it be directly or indirectly. We focused more effort on containing and preventing the spread of ebola than we have on guns, and ebola has a grand total of 0 deaths in the US.

Bull shit. So much money and effort goes into preventing gun violence plus if ebola got lose in the US, it would kill far more than guns violence does. Stupid comparison.

How do we in the US acknowledge and put effort into solving this epidemic, but do so in a manner consistent with our laws, and in a manner that will actually be effective in any significant way?

That's the issue all right.

Whomever finds out that answer deserves a Nobel Prize. Like 10 of them.

- Camarohusky from Newgrounds

Support your own arguments please.

Just dropping this here in case anyone's interested. Also, you should obviously realize that guns are not a 'right' outside USA, LDSman.

I realize that. Isn't this a US Gun Control debate? Gun ownership is a Right in the US.

Why should it be? We here in EU are doing fine as it is. Same for Japan, Australia etc.

Hopefully things will keep going fine. What will you do if they don't?

If you think WE need same gun 'rights' as you, I'd say you're pretty deluded on that front.

I think it'd help. Stop with the deluded comments. Not helpful.

 

[Nah]

If you think WE need same gun 'rights' as you, I'd say you're pretty deluded on that front.

I would also rather that we not call people deluded because they have a differing opinion or imply that the only reason someone believes something is because of some sort of psychological issue, regardless of who's right and wrong. I'm really not bent out of shape over this, I just think that the thread has been going fairly well for the most part and just would like to keep it that way, and so would like to nip in the bud anything that might happen to send it in an unwanted direction.

Be aware though that I'm not talking about just this part of a post or just one person, I'd like for everyone to keep this in mind.

Also if you really wanna kill someone be a man and stab them.

nah, real men kill people with plastic spoons

 

[LDSman]

nah, real men kill people with plastic spoons

Why a spoon? Because it hurts more.

 

[Corrin]

I've lived in the US for 38 years and have never been shot at. Stay out of the gang neighborhoods and don't deal drugs and you'll be fine.

Dude I don't know what to say anymore you're 38...you're 38 and you're like this. You're saying we're deluded but you refuse to see the facts right before you.
Also my second comment was a joke, women can stab too. But that's why there's less murder in countries with strict gun laws, because it's LESS easy to kill someone!

Also some people can only afford to live in such places, so harmless people who just happen to be less fortunate deserve to live in such danger? And what of the school shootings? Schools aren't dangerous places with gangs.

 

[LDSman]

Dude I don't know what to say anymore you're 38...you're 38 and you're like this. You're saying we're deluded but you refuse to see the facts right before you.

I never said any of you were deluded. Plenty of facts support my arguments. As far as my age, as you get older, you learn to look up things on your own rather than accept the lies given to you by people who think they know better.

Also my second comment was a joke, women can stab too. But that's why there's less murder in countries with strict gun laws, because it's LESS easy to kill someone!

Wasn't a good joke.
Less murder? Not true.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Also some people can only afford to live in such places, so harmless people who just happen to be less fortunate deserve to live in such danger? And what of the school shootings? Schools aren't dangerous places with gangs.

Address the issues in those neighborhoods rather than trying to curtail my rights. Depends on the school you go to. One of the schools I attended in a rather bad neighborhood had gangs.

 

[EnglishALT]

Also some people can only afford to live in such places, so harmless people who just happen to be less fortunate deserve to live in such danger? And what of the school shootings? Schools aren't dangerous places with gangs.

It may be unpopular to say but there is some need for the poorer neighborhoods to take responsibility for the violence plaguing their area. Establishing youth centers, daycare centers, neighborhood watches are necessary to keep children out of gangs and to avoid gang activity. Keep from having children at a young age or outside of marriage so that a child can grow up in a stable two parent house hold. Stop demonizing the police and start working with them, change the culture of snitching being a bad thing and into something to help the neighborhood. Become proactive with the police in rooting out the drug houses and gang members to cut the cancer out of the community.

Banning guns or placing more restrictions on guns isn't going to stop murders in poor neighborhoods. You can look at the ghettos of France to see that is true, besides most of the firearms in these neighborhoods are already bought illegally. A proactive culture change with people working toward creating a better neighborhood, by force if necessary, is the only thing that will change the community.

Now as for schools, the truth is that they are soft targets. A psycho knows they can go in and massacre dozens of people before the cops even get close to the school. A upgrade in security is necessary, having two rows of electronically locked doors that everyone must be buzzed through after the first bell rings, having metal detectors at the enterances, and most importantly of all having a locked firearm in the building either in the class room or in the teachers office.