Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[chang50]

Sorry but Democracy in America is rather large and I forget where exactly I found it, if I feel lazy tomorrow I will look it up and find it.

But anyway, he more or less marveled at how in general the crime rate in the us was extremely low and how in some area's it was at zero. Evidence of this he found to be in that most doors in villages were not locked at night, such was the utter lack of fear that they had of being robbed.

Wasn't that book written in the 19th century when the genocide of the native peoples of the US was in full swing?Poor people generally do not fear being robbed as they possess little of value to steal.

[Crazyirishman]

In regards to the Connecticut Shooting, I find myself agreeing with Morgan Freeman. This is much more of a problem with society and the media than it its a problem with the mechanism used to cause harm.

[Iliad]

In regards to the Connecticut Shooting, I find myself agreeing with Morgan Freeman. This is much more of a problem with society and the media than it its a problem with the mechanism used to cause harm.

Is the US media radically different than media in Britain? Is the US society significantly more homicidal and lunatic than that of Australia?

Or perhaps, it's the easy access to guns that's enabling unstable people like these to perpetrate these crimes?

[2dimes]

Lets be honest guns are made for a person with a sound mind. A gun is made for a person who is trained to use it properly.

Guns are made to fire lead projectiles. They are a commodity produced to be sold for financial gain.

Those statements are very nice and good ideas but they have nothing to do with the production or sale of fire arms.

Remington wants your money. They don't care who you are or what you do with their weapon once you buy it.

[_sabotage_]

+1 2dimes

[Symmetry]

In regards to the Connecticut Shooting, I find myself agreeing with Morgan Freeman. This is much more of a problem with society and the media than it its a problem with the mechanism used to cause harm.

Is the US media radically different than media in Britain? Is the US society significantly more homicidal and lunatic than that of Australia?

Or perhaps, it's the easy access to guns that's enabling unstable people like these to perpetrate these crimes?

US gun culture is particularly geared toward crime. You need a gun to protect yourself from criminals. You need a gun to protect yourself from being invaded. A gun is the ultimate way of defending yourself.

In the US, the reaction to this kind of thing is basically a shrug, a "this isn't the time", or a call for more guns.

[crispybits]

I'm curious

Other than "because the second amendment says we can" is there any reason why normal, honest people need ready access to lethal weapons?

The defence vs government argument fails (or at least nobody has challenged it here to show me why it doesn't)

The defence vs criminals argument fails (or at least nobody has challenged it here to show me why it doesn't)

What is there left? And if there's nothing is "because we can" a good enough reason?

Short of a Constitutional Amendment, that really is enough. Also, growing up on a farm, I hunted as a kid. I think it's valid whether viewed as a recreational activity or for food (and yes, there really are people who do need to hunt for food in some parts of our country).

You're seriously saying that "because I want one" is a good reason to give an average Joe a deadly weapon? If that's the case why isn't "because I want one" a good enough reason to give an average Joe a bazooka with a steady supply of high explosive rockets?

And hunting is one area where I would agree guns can be useful and acceptable. How many hunters do so with handguns or with automatic assault rifles? Surely if hunting is the only valid use, then gun ownership should be restricted to those with hunting licenses (if they don't exist then create them, and make anyone pass a safety test to get one just like you pass a driving test before you get allowed to use ca car) and restrict guns to hunting rifles, that are most effective as long range single shot weapons and not easily concealable.

In the UK farmers and the like can get licenses to have hunting guns. They have to jump through some pretty big hoops to get them, and if they are found not following the law about keeping them locked up properly when not in use there are stiff penalties, but they are allowed still. We're not a zero gun culture here either.

[HapSmo19]

You're not right next door to mexico with it's strict gun laws either.
See how good those are working out for them, Freak?

[crispybits]

Yep, look at countries very close to the US who have banned guns, and you'll see that because there is a ridiculously easy way to get guns and ammunition from just up the road the criminals can still remain heavily armed. Therefore in countries like Mexico and Jamaica, attempts to ban guns have seen the criminal gun use skyrocket.

But look at countries in Europe or Asia who have banned guns without somewhere just up the road where there is a ridiculously easy way for criminals to get guns, and you don't see that.

I wonder why it's only the countries around the edges of America who see gun crime skyrocket to this extent when the government tries to ban guns? Any ideas?

[Symmetry]

Yep, look at countries very close to the US who have banned guns, and you'll see that because there is a ridiculously easy way to get guns and ammunition from just up the road the criminals can still remain heavily armed. Therefore in countries like Mexico and Jamaica, attempts to ban guns have seen the criminal gun use skyrocket.

But look at countries in Europe or Asia who have banned guns without somewhere just up the road where there is a ridiculously easy way for criminals to get guns, and you don't see that.

I wonder why it's only the countries around the edges of America who see gun crime skyrocket to this extent when the government tries to ban guns? Any ideas?

Erm, you might look at Canada. I hear it's pretty close to the US.

[crispybits]

What happened when they tried to ban guns? (serious question, I don't know and I'm lazy so if I dont have to go searching google by getting you to provide the info the all the better )

[Symmetry]

What happened when they tried to ban guns? (serious question, I don't know and I'm lazy so if I dont have to go searching google by getting you to provide the info the all the better )

I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously your point was dumb- I'm not sure if there is a country where guns are banned outright. What were you trying to say?

[crispybits]

That a quick look at the gun stats on wikipedia (without knowledge of which countries ban/highly restrict guns) shows a pattern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

The three highest death rates by gun are countries close to the US. I know Jamaica have introduced very tight controls recently and their gun crime has skyrocketed. I'm not sure about El Salvador or Honduras as I haven't done any research at all into those countries.

The trend for high rates of gun related deaths seem to be skewed to higher figures in countries where guns can go overland or via very short sea trips from the US. 8 of the top 10 on that list fall into that category.

I'm asking if there could be a correlation between there being an accessible and huge legal gun market nearby and the gun related death rate being higher. And if so, is it reasonable to assume that gun control (if it is being attempted in these countries) is encountering extra difficulty because the supply lines for guns and ammunition are easier for criminals to access?

[puppydog85]

But this is kind of a moot point people. The last gun ban banned ar's from having flash suppressors and 15 round mags (get that people? In essence it did absolutely nothing). It turned out to be political suicide and lead to one of the biggest Republican victories in history. Does anyone seriously think that a comprehensive gun ban like S. Korea has would actually make it into any sort of law?

FYI, S. Korea is a very interesting study point for gun laws that nobody here has mentioned that I know of. If you study martial arts you might know that the Korean protection agencies have some of the best practical knife defense experts around (all info gotten from TV and personal experience, so don't ask for data, it's just an observation)

[Woodruff]

If we are going to control/ban something, how about abortion.

A couple thousand kids are killed every day by abortions.

How is that relevant to the discussion?

If a bad choice is made and an object is used in the process to kill someone. Then said object is banned. Logically we must ban all objects that kill due to bad choices.

So you agree that it's not relevant to the subject. Thanks for being upfront about it.

[Woodruff]

Lets be honest guns are made for a person with a sound mind. A gun is made for a person who is trained to use it properly.They should be registered and background checks done. Guns are meant more as a deterent to stop an agressor before they attack you. Not to kill people. Lets be honest guns also kill people by crazy assholes. Unfortunately shit happens. Ive had 2 friends die by guns. It really sucks but a person has a right to hunt for food and protect their family. Thats basic to a person who is self sufficient and doesnt want a village raising his family . We as a country need to be masters of our lives and home. Guns are just a needle in a hay stack compared to the big picture. SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS SICK. This type of shit didnt happen 100 years ago cause people were more aware of the value of life. Greed and self servicing people have destroyed this country. If a person killes another that person should be dealt with accordingly . Morgan Freeman hit the nail on the head with the media. Look at your satellite or cable menu and look at all the TV shows that show murder, rape, steeling, gossip? Humans are feeding their spirits filth and hatred. TV makes this seem normal after generations of watching it. If we want to fix this problem we should of started 100 years ago . This will never get fixed if people ,and how we view life, is not changed. As for guns the same government that wants to take guns from law abiding citizens is the same government that smuggels guns to other countries to kill. Whats the difference?? Or funding wars. Hell if there was no money then it would be harder to aquire materials to make them WMDs. There will always be violence bottom line.no matter from what weapon.

Society really isn't that "sick". As a whole, American society has become far less violent and "sick", in my opinion.

[Woodruff]

Reading the pro gun ownership posts here makes me feel like I've stepped into a paralell universe.I'm so relieved I don't live amongst such people,you really scare me,honestly.So carry on and good luck with your sacred 2nd amendment rights,and I'll pick up the debate again in a few weeks when the next bunch of small children is massacred,at least my two won't be there.

Ah, yes. Thailand, where your children are either safe at work or protected by their pimps.

Yet for all it's faults it's preferrable to a country where so many think as you do.

So, in other words, your visa was denied.

Is the half-hearted troll the only thing you've got?

[Woodruff]

I meant it as more of a regular ma and pa family of god. Not a crazy president who killed Indians, remember he wrote his own version of the Bible. As for Chicago gangsters that was out of greed. Lynchings happen everywhere and how massive were they??? Those are examples yes but a majority of human kind wants peace. An army doesnt speak for the majority of people. Killing was for a cause wether it be right or wrong now days its a hobby.

Even gangbangers don't view killing as a hobby, so this is just assinine. As to the rest of what you posted regarding "the past", that IS how society viewed things then, so your excuses that it wasn't part of society are definitely off the mark.

[Woodruff]

I'm curious

Other than "because the second amendment says we can" is there any reason why normal, honest people need ready access to lethal weapons?

The defence vs government argument fails (or at least nobody has challenged it here to show me why it doesn't)

The defence vs criminals argument fails (or at least nobody has challenged it here to show me why it doesn't)

What is there left? And if there's nothing is "because we can" a good enough reason?

Short of a Constitutional Amendment, that really is enough. Also, growing up on a farm, I hunted as a kid. I think it's valid whether viewed as a recreational activity or for food (and yes, there really are people who do need to hunt for food in some parts of our country).

You're seriously saying that "because I want one" is a good reason to give an average Joe a deadly weapon?

Perhaps you could read what I actually wrote. There is a Constitutional Amendment that states it is a right in our nation. I believe our Constitution should be the law of the land (in a general sense, of course)...that is why it is there. If enough of the nation disagrees with that Amendment, then it can be repealed (as the 18th Amendment was). I do believe that the Constitution is that important, yes.

But aside from that, I do also believe that recreational activity and food are reason enough for them to exist. Remember, you're speaking to someone who also favors the legalization of all drugs (for personal use)...some of those certainly exist almost solely as a recreational activity, despite the potential harm they could cause to the user and to others (through action of the user).

If that's the case why isn't "because I want one" a good enough reason to give an average Joe a bazooka with a steady supply of high explosive rockets?

Because it doesn't make sense that they would be largely used for recreational activity or food. Did you even read what I wrote at all?

And hunting is one area where I would agree guns can be useful and acceptable. How many hunters do so with handguns or with automatic assault rifles? Surely if hunting is the only valid use, then gun ownership should be restricted to those with hunting licenses (if they don't exist then create them, and make anyone pass a safety test to get one just like you pass a driving test before you get allowed to use ca car) and restrict guns to hunting rifles, that are most effective as long range single shot weapons and not easily concealable.

I don't particularly disagree with any of this, and I agree pretty strongly with much of it.

[Woodruff]

You're not right next door to mexico with it's strict gun laws either.
See how good those are working out for them, Freak?

I would strongly suggest to you that the problems in Mexico have next to nothing to do with their gun laws.

[Woodruff]

Well, I'm thoroughly disappointed in this community. I guess I really was wasting my time in thinking that there could be a good discussion about the problems of how mental illness in the United States is viewed and treated, but it's clear that nobody on the conservative side of things here has any interest in it, and even the liberals here don't seem interested in giving it a serious discussion. Most likely because it would cost significant money to help protect those kids, and we can't have that because personal greed is far more important than safety. I guess I was wrong to come to this thread in the hope for it.

[DoomYoshi]

OMG! My Christmas list is complete, and it's not even Christmas yet.

[CreepersWiener]

Well, I'm thoroughly disappointed in this community. I guess I really was wasting my time in thinking that there could be a good discussion about the problems of how mental illness in the United States is viewed and treated, but it's clear that nobody on the conservative side of things here has any interest in it, and even the liberals here don't seem interested in giving it a serious discussion. Most likely because it would cost significant money to help protect those kids, and we can't have that because personal greed is far more important than safety. I guess I was wrong to come to this thread in the hope for it.

I do not disagree with your willingness to bring mental illness to the discussion. I had already mentioned previously how gun owners might have to subject themselves to mental exams; however, yes, even though the mental state of the perpetrator is to blame and not the firearm...let's agree that making firearms at least less available to such people would reduce such incidents.

How much money was spent on the TSA? Has the TSA worked? Not that I am trying to divert the conversation towards a debate about the TSA, airlines, and terrorism; however, it would be related to shooting spree killings, as one could consider a mentally ill person on the same grounds as a said terrorist.

I don't think Obama is about greed, I think he really wants to help our country; but the overly conservative pundits would rather keep everything the same and not change a thing. "Let's keep our gun laws the same!" then next week fifty kids get gunned down at a circus! When is this all going to change? We have to take action today! If that means mental health screenings, fine! If that means stiffer gun laws, great! I am for it!

Trying to find solutions to this problem is always met with people concerned about their little second amendment rights...somehow because it was written on a piece of old paper that used to say slavery was okay makes it a perfect god-written document...give me a break!

If we are going to talk about mental illness, we should also talk about measures that would protect the crux of our populace from said individuals...be they mentally ill or politically/religiously motivated.

[-Maximus-]

If we are going to control/ban something, how about abortion.

A couple thousand kids are killed every day by abortions.

How is that relevant to the discussion?

If a bad choice is made and an object is used in the process to kill someone. Then said object is banned. Logically we must ban all objects that kill due to bad choices.

So you agree that it's not relevant to the subject. Thanks for being upfront about it.

It is relevant. We ban guns to save maybe hundreds of children from mass shootings. Or we stop abortions and save millions. Although losing 18 kids is horrible what say you to all the babies that dont even get that old? Why do 'mericans have such grief over 18 but not tens of thousands?

[2dimes]

Well woodruff, call me sane if you must but...

I would like to suggest, diagnosing which mentally ill people are a risk and treating them, could in fact be even more difficult than having a good conversation about it on this site.