Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Woodruff]

Or, you can ignore all the stats, you can ignore all the evidence from other countries that vastly restricting gun ownership vastly reduces gun crime, and you can keep claiming that your right to own a deadly weapon is more important than the general right to life.
Good luck with that.

It's cute that you believe folks like Phatscotty are interested at all in the general right to life. They just want their way.

[Metsfanmax]

The argument is that by vastly reducing the number of guns in society and restricting them to much less accessible places criminals will lose a vast portion of their access to guns, and the access they do have will be restricted to profesional criminals rather than looney tunes that commit these kinds of atrocities.

I think this argument has some logic to it, but how do we reduce the number of guns per capita? Could we really take away guns that people legally purchased? Or would we just make it harder to purchase guns going forward?

[Phatscotty]

Lets make it really clear.

The argument is NOT that criminals will obey laws.

But the argument is for more gun laws.... We are aware murderers do not follow these laws. That's why we are perplexed as to what more laws is supposed to accomplish, at the expense of the real solution that will actually save lives: more guns.

The real question should be "How do we PREVENT these shootings". Obviously, the answer is not to take away everyone else's guns. If that is the answer, prepare to have to give up your car because some jackass on the other side of the country killed 9 people because he was driving while drunk.

[Metsfanmax]

Lets make it really clear.

The argument is NOT that criminals will obey laws.

But the argument is for more gun laws.... We are aware murderers do not follow these laws. That's why we are perplexed as to what more laws is supposed to accomplish, at the expense of the real solution that will actually save lives: more guns

If you had read the very next sentence you would have seen what the argument was.

[Phatscotty]

Lets make it really clear.

The argument is NOT that criminals will obey laws.

But the argument is for more gun laws.... We are aware murderers do not follow these laws. That's why we are perplexed as to what more laws is supposed to accomplish, at the expense of the real solution that will actually save lives: more guns

If you had read the very next sentence you would have seen what the argument was.

I did read it. I just told Cirspy to hang on, so I can get to that part of it. Calm the f*ck down

[crispybits]

You can neutralise a gun, make it so that it's irreversably altered so that it can no longer be fired. People can keep their guns, but they have to have that done to them. In the UK a lot of guns are actually legal as long as they cannot fire and they have a very visible an unremovable bright orange plug poking from the end of the barrel to show it's not a real weapon (the orange plug is not what stops it firing, something to do with boring out/destroying a section of the fundamental internal mechanisms - I'm not clear on the exact details because I've never had to look into it)

That's just one alternative, I'm sure there could be more. I've never really given it a lot of thought tbh as it's not a problem we really face over here in the UK on a day to day basis.

[crispybits]

Lets make it really clear.

The argument is NOT that criminals will obey laws.

But the argument is for more gun laws.... We are aware murderers do not follow these laws. That's why we are perplexed as to what more laws is supposed to accomplish, at the expense of the real solution that will actually save lives: more guns

If you had read the very next sentence you would have seen what the argument was.

I did read it. I just told Cirspy to hang on, so I can get to that part of it. Calm the f*ck down

To be fair that's accurate - I got a wall post

[Phatscotty]

The argument is that by vastly reducing the number of guns in society and restricting them to much less accessible places criminals will lose a vast portion of their access to guns, and the access they do have will be restricted to profesional criminals rather than looney tunes that commit these kinds of atrocities.

You could even work on the professional criminal gun problem while you sort out the general population gun problem, the two are not exclusive.

As stated, it won't be quick, it will probably take decades, but in the end it will be part of making the US a safer place to live.

Or, you can ignore all the stats, you can ignore all the evidence from other countries that vastly restricting gun ownership vastly reduces gun crime, and you can keep claiming that your right to own a deadly weapon is more important than the general right to life.

Good luck with that.

No, good luck with vastly reducing the number of guns on society. I'm not for guns being sold on the corner, and I am for registering them legally and background checks, but your argument still rests on restricting honest people, and doesn't even address the murderer. If I wanted to match your argument on equal footing, I would go on about how the culture needs to be fixed, and how values need to be reinstituted into our schools, and about teaching the sanctity of life, and rejecting the "burn it all down, man" counter-culture. Also, I don't think we are doing our children any favors by teaching them that global warming is going to end the world "very soon", and that they are 65,000$ in debt at the time they are born. Basically, we are teaching them they are SCREWED.

it won't be quick, it will probably take decades, but in the end it will be part of making the US a safer place to live.

Also, your arguments ignore a lot. What are the consequences in these other countries of not being able to own a gun/protect yourself?

[Phatscotty]

Lets make it really clear.

The argument is NOT that criminals will obey laws.

But the argument is for more gun laws.... We are aware murderers do not follow these laws. That's why we are perplexed as to what more laws is supposed to accomplish, at the expense of the real solution that will actually save lives: more guns

If you had read the very next sentence you would have seen what the argument was.

I did read it. I just told Cirspy to hang on, so I can get to that part of it. Calm the f*ck down

To be fair that's accurate - I got a wall post

I'm not a big fan of open heart surgery on a post to separate the quotes like others do, so I just chopped it in half

[Metsfanmax]

Lets make it really clear.

The argument is NOT that criminals will obey laws.

But the argument is for more gun laws.... We are aware murderers do not follow these laws. That's why we are perplexed as to what more laws is supposed to accomplish, at the expense of the real solution that will actually save lives: more guns

If you had read the very next sentence you would have seen what the argument was.

I did read it. I just told Cirspy to hang on, so I can get to that part of it. Calm the f*ck down

What I had a problem with was you saying that you are perplexed as to what the solution is supposed to do. You may disagree that it will achieve its objective, or even be possible, but that's much different from not understanding the intention.

[Ray Rider]

The argument is that by vastly reducing the number of guns in society and restricting them to much less accessible places criminals will lose a vast portion of their access to guns, and the access they do have will be restricted to profesional criminals rather than looney tunes that commit these kinds of atrocities.

I think this argument has some logic to it, but how do we reduce the number of guns per capita? Could we really take away guns that people legally purchased? Or would we just make it harder to purchase guns going forward?

Using your logic, if guns per capita were the issue, wouldn't other nations with high levels of guns per capita (such as Switzerland or Finland) have high homicide rates as well?

There is such a vast number of contributing factors to this issue that comparing two countries side by side and saying that because one nation has a higher number of guns per capita as well as a higher homicide rate, therefore the guns are the source of the problem is absolutely ridiculous.

[crispybits]

My argument is based on restricting honest people's right to own a deadly weapon. Not something like a kitchen knife that has a legitimate use and can be used as a makeshift weapon, but something that has only one purpose, to kill or injure humans or animals. Tell me why any honest person would need that.

And before you mention self defence:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

A few excerpts:

We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

That link only goes to summary pages, but it provides the conclusions clearly enough, and I presume the Harvard School of Public Health is a credible enough organisation for you? (it's not like I'm quoting an article on MSNBC or something). It also has refrences to the main articles which with google you can normally read as PDFs, I haven't tried in these cases.

So, self defence isn't a valid reason, because actual data shows that this isn't what they are getting used for. What other reason could there be for honest people to own deadly weapons?

[crispybits]

The argument is that by vastly reducing the number of guns in society and restricting them to much less accessible places criminals will lose a vast portion of their access to guns, and the access they do have will be restricted to profesional criminals rather than looney tunes that commit these kinds of atrocities.

I think this argument has some logic to it, but how do we reduce the number of guns per capita? Could we really take away guns that people legally purchased? Or would we just make it harder to purchase guns going forward?

Using your logic, if guns per capita were the issue, wouldn't other nations with high levels of guns per capita (such as Switzerland or Finland) have high homicide rates as well?

There is such a vast number of contributing factors to this issue that comparing two countries side by side and saying that because one nation has a higher number of guns per capita as well as a higher homicide rate, therefore the guns are the source of the problem is absolutely ridiculous.

I havent said that guns are the source of the problem. I think Woodruff is the one who has most closely identified the source of the problem. I'm saying that the current gun situation amplifies the damage the problem causes massively, and that there is no good reason to have this level of legal gun ownership in a civilised society.

[Phatscotty]

Crispy, do you think culture/lack of values has anything to do with it?

[Metsfanmax]

The argument is that by vastly reducing the number of guns in society and restricting them to much less accessible places criminals will lose a vast portion of their access to guns, and the access they do have will be restricted to profesional criminals rather than looney tunes that commit these kinds of atrocities.

I think this argument has some logic to it, but how do we reduce the number of guns per capita? Could we really take away guns that people legally purchased? Or would we just make it harder to purchase guns going forward?

Using your logic, if guns per capita were the issue, wouldn't other nations with high levels of guns per capita (such as Switzerland or Finland) have high homicide rates as well?

There is such a vast number of contributing factors to this issue that comparing two countries side by side and saying that because one nation has a higher number of guns per capita as well as a higher homicide rate, therefore the guns are the source of the problem is absolutely ridiculous.

Actually, those countries do have high gun-related death rates, but both of those countries have significantly lower numbers of guns per capita. The former statistic has rankings from many developing nations where violence is more common in general, but if you consider just developed nations there does seem to be a general trend that more guns results in more firearm related deaths (in case this wasn't obvious). It's definitely not valid to compare only two countries, but if you include a large number of countries and there's a correlation, then that is something to take note of.

[HapSmo19]

Sorry to say but the day we give up our guns is the day we become servants of the state. We have the right to own guns to protect ourselves from the government.

We do have that right, I agree. But to be honest, that's sort of an irrelevant reason, these days. Either a majority of the military will follow the government (rendering the fight against the government essentially finished) or a majority of the military will side with the rebels (rendering the need for personal weapons moot).

OK, I get it now. You've decided, for you and everyone else, that guns are moot as long as you don't have any principles worth defending and you can just side with whichever way the wind blows. It makes sense, coward.

[crispybits]

Crispy, do you think culture/lack of values has anything to do with it?

I'm not sure I'd term it as a "lack of values" as that would be claiming superiority where I don't know if I would personally act differently if I'd had an American upbringing rather than a British one.

I am sure culture has something to do with it though. The second amendment was written when your country had recently come out of a war of independence and fought off what you perceived as an oppressive foreign authority (being British I wouldn't call it that but that's not a core issue here). The mood and opinion at that time therefore reflected a desire not to be oppressed like that again.

What is different today than then is that you are an established nation, and very unlikely to be invaded by a foreign power. You have a mature democratic government, with checks and balances designed to keep the government from getting out of hand.

Also, as has been stated earlier in this thread, the army are the people with the true second amendment power. If they agree with what the government is doing, then small armed bands of independent militia won't be effective. Between drones, highly accurate missile strikes and other capabilities the US army would simply crush any local militias. Similarly, if the army decides the government is out of order they will be the ones who remove the government. The local militias of the kind envisaged at the time of the second amendment would simply be totally ineffective at political resistance.

So for the purposes of defence against the government arming the population is ineffective (unless you suggest we go the other way and give the people cruise missiles and armed unmanned drones etc etc). I have showed that for the purposes of individual self-defence the gun is not the most effective tool with the Harvard research. I see no other reason how anyone could justify allowing anyone and everyone (as long as they are not already certified either mentally ill or criminal - as in they havent been diagnosed or caught yet in some cases) to own and operate deadly weapons.

[Night Strike]

Outright removal of gun ownerships is not the answer and is impractical at least in the short term. Things can certainly be done to tighten the wholesale of weapons though to prevent loner psychopaths from being able to gain such easy access to them.

This guy didn't own the guns he used in the attack, so what are you proposing? That nobody is allowed to own a gun if one person in their household isn't allowed to own one?

Guns should be illegal...it is quite clear that there are TOO many people that have mental instabilities in the United States. The right to bear arms is meant for the military and police forces...NOT THE CIVILIAN POPULACE! And what about hunting? FUCCK HUNTING! AND FUUCK HUNTERS! GO TO THE FUUCKING GROCERY STORE LIKE CIVILIZED PEOPLE!

Funny, but aren't you one of those who decry people who shop at grocery stores and big corporations? Plenty of people use guns safely and peaceably. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the United States, but only approximately 10,000 homicides by gun a year, with most of those committed by gangs and drug violence. So why should we take away guns from every single person who behaves responsibly? Why do we allow criminals to dictate our freedoms?

[Nobunaga]

Guns should be illegal...it is quite clear that there are TOO many people that have mental instabilities in the United States.

Massacres at schools are not limited to the U.S. Canada, the U.K., Finland, Brazil and Germany have had similar tragedies, with similar numbers of dead. Mentally unstable people, obviously, I agree. This is not a problem or a tragedy limited to the US.

The right to bear arms is meant for the military and police forces...NOT THE CIVILIAN POPULACE!

You could not be more in error. Are you perhaps suggesting here that the possession of firearms SHOULD BE limited to these groups mentioned? Maybe that's what you meant.

[Iliad]

Guns should be illegal...it is quite clear that there are TOO many people that have mental instabilities in the United States.

Massacres at schools are not limited to the U.S. Canada, the U.K., Finland, Brazil and Germany have had similar tragedies, with similar numbers of dead. Mentally unstable people, obviously, I agree. This is not a problem or a tragedy limited to the US.

The right to bear arms is meant for the military and police forces...NOT THE CIVILIAN POPULACE!

You could not be more in error. Are you perhaps suggesting here that the possession of firearms SHOULD BE limited to these groups mentioned? Maybe that's what you meant.

Except your massarces occur way, way too often.

Australia also had a similar massacre in 1996, since then we adopted much stricter gun regulations. Not a single mass shooting since.

[Nobunaga]

Guns should be illegal...it is quite clear that there are TOO many people that have mental instabilities in the United States.

Massacres at schools are not limited to the U.S. Canada, the U.K., Finland, Brazil and Germany have had similar tragedies, with similar numbers of dead. Mentally unstable people, obviously, I agree. This is not a problem or a tragedy limited to the US.

The right to bear arms is meant for the military and police forces...NOT THE CIVILIAN POPULACE!

You could not be more in error. Are you perhaps suggesting here that the possession of firearms SHOULD BE limited to these groups mentioned? Maybe that's what you meant.

Except your massarces occur way, way too often.

Australia also had a similar massacre in 1996, since then we adopted much stricter gun regulations. Not a single mass shooting since.

Too often? Columbine right? Then those Amish kids. ... What since? Were there more?

> Edit: Once is too often, of course.

[Iliad]

Guns should be illegal...it is quite clear that there are TOO many people that have mental instabilities in the United States.

Massacres at schools are not limited to the U.S. Canada, the U.K., Finland, Brazil and Germany have had similar tragedies, with similar numbers of dead. Mentally unstable people, obviously, I agree. This is not a problem or a tragedy limited to the US.

The right to bear arms is meant for the military and police forces...NOT THE CIVILIAN POPULACE!

You could not be more in error. Are you perhaps suggesting here that the possession of firearms SHOULD BE limited to these groups mentioned? Maybe that's what you meant.

Except your massarces occur way, way too often.

Australia also had a similar massacre in 1996, since then we adopted much stricter gun regulations. Not a single mass shooting since.

Too often? Columbine right? Then those Amish kids. ... What since? Were there more?

Are you kidding?

You've had shootings at universities, at schools, the man who shot the crowd including Gabrielle Giffords.

I see you're very good at pushing these events out of your memory.

EDIT:
April 1999 - two teenage schoolboys shot and killed 12 schoolmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.

July 1999 - a stock exchange trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killed 12 people including his wife and two children before taking his own life.

September 1999 - a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.

October 2002 - a series of sniper-style shootings occurred in Washington DC, leaving 10 dead.

August 2003 - in Chicago, a laid-off worker shot and killed six of his former workmates.

November 2004 - in Birchwood, Wisconsin, a hunter killed six other hunters and wounded two others after an argument with them.

March 2005 - a man opened fire at a church service in Brookfield, Wisconsin, killing seven people.

October 2006 - a truck driver killed five schoolgirls and seriously wounded six others in a school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania before taking his own life.

April 2007 - student Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 15 others at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, before shooting himself, making it the deadliest mass shooting in the United States after 2000.

August 2007 - Three Delaware State University students were shot and killed in “execution style” by a 28-year-old and two 15-year-old boys. A fourth student was shot and stabbed.

December 2007 - a 20-year-old man killed nine people and injured five others in a shopping center in Omaha, Nebraska.

December 2007 - a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington.

February 2008 - a shooter who is still at large tied up and shot six women at a suburban clothing store in Chicago, leaving five of them dead and the remaining one injured.

February 2008 - a man opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, killing five students and wounding 16 others before laying down his weapon and surrendering.

September 2008 - a mentally ill man who was released from jail one month earlier shot eight people in Alger, Washington, leaving six of them dead and the rest two wounded.

December 2008 - a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit opened fire at a family Christmas party in Covina, California, then set fire on the house and killed himself. Police later found nine people dead in the debris of the house.

March 2009 - a 28-year-old laid-off worker opened fire while driving a car through several towns in Alabama, killing 10 people.

March 2009 - a heavily armed gunman shot dead eight people, many of them elderly and sick people, in a private-owned nursing home in North Carolina.

March 2009 - six people were shot dead in a high-grade apartment building in Santa Clara, California.

April 2009 - a man shot dead 13 people at a civic center in Binghamton, New York.

July 2009 - Six people, including one student, were shot in a drive-by shooting at a community rally on the campus of Texas Southern University, Houston.

November 2009 - U.S. army psychologist Major Nidal Hasan opened fire at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas, leaving 13 dead and 42 others wounded.

February 2010 – A professor opened fire 50 minutes into at a Biological Sciences Department faculty meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, killing three colleagues and wounding three others.

January 2011 - a gunman opened fire at a public gathering outside a grocery in Tucson, Arizona, killing six people including a 9-year-old girl and wounding at least 12 others. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely injured with a gunshot to the head.

April 2 - A gunman kills seven people and wounds three in a shooting rampage at a Christian college in Oakland.

July 20 - A masked gunman kills 12 people and wounds 58 when he opens fire on moviegoers at a showing of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, a suburb of Denver, Colorado.

Aug. 5 - A gunman kills six people during Sunday services at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, before he is shot dead by a police officer.

Aug. 24 - Two people are killed and eight wounded in a shooting outside the landmark Empire State Building in New York City at the height of the tourist season.

Sept. 27 - A disgruntled former employee kills five people and takes his own life in a shooting rampage at a Minneapolis sign company from which he had been fired.

Oct. 21 - Three people are killed in a Milwaukee area spa including the estranged wife of the suspected gunman, who then killed himself.

Dec. 14 - A shooter opens fire at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killing several people including children.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/mass-shooting ... /id/445971

[Nobunaga]

Guns should be illegal...it is quite clear that there are TOO many people that have mental instabilities in the United States.

Massacres at schools are not limited to the U.S. Canada, the U.K., Finland, Brazil and Germany have had similar tragedies, with similar numbers of dead. Mentally unstable people, obviously, I agree. This is not a problem or a tragedy limited to the US.

The right to bear arms is meant for the military and police forces...NOT THE CIVILIAN POPULACE!

You could not be more in error. Are you perhaps suggesting here that the possession of firearms SHOULD BE limited to these groups mentioned? Maybe that's what you meant.

Except your massarces occur way, way too often.

Australia also had a similar massacre in 1996, since then we adopted much stricter gun regulations. Not a single mass shooting since.

Too often? Columbine right? Then those Amish kids. ... What since? Were there more?

Are you kidding?

You've had shootings at universities, at schools, the man who shot the crowd including Gabrielle Giffords.

I see you're very good at pushing these events out of your memory.

...

No, actually, I was out of the country for 12 years. But we're discussing shootings at schools here.

Speaking of which, I found this website, listing what somebody deems the 10 worst. And yes, there have been some since the Amish kids.

http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10- ... massacres/

[crispybits]

Why are non-school spree shootings less relevant to this discussion?

[Neoteny]

The only reason I can think of to keep a firearm around is because there are people like Phatscotty and Hapsmo out there defending the tools of mass murder. Obviously, they want to use those tools, and that's horrifying.