Gun Law in America

[Diablos]

So given the recent events in Vegas we were having a discussion in work about the Gun law in the US. Now I'm based in the UK so to us the right to own a gun is not one I've ever known.

I'm curious as to how many people believe the right to own such weapons should remain in force. If you believe you should have this right then can I ask why?

Do you think Trump will do anything about it?

I suppose one difficulty is if he did ban it then you run the risk of having a bunch of people give their weapons in and then some keeping their's illegally... And then how would you defend yourself against those people...

Equally guns are expensive, will Trump have some sort of compensation for giving a weapon in?

On the flip side even so would it not prevent incidents like Vegas?

[EvolutionZzZ]

People find a way. I don't think banning weapons is the way to go. HOWEVER, I do believe we should ban automatic weapons COMPLETELY. Some states its legal to carry an Automatic Rifle... WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NEED THAT lol

[varney]

I live in Brazil and here we have gun control. If you need guns to defend yourself and you want a legal gun you'll have to pay a lot of money - we already pay a lot of taxes and get nothing in return - such as public safety. The only people that own guns here are the bad guys. Banning doesn't work, it will simply desarm the good guys, making it easier for the bad guys to run free :D Please USA, don't follow Brazil's example.

[Northern]

I suppose one difficulty is if he did ban it then you run the risk of having a bunch of people give their weapons in and then some keeping their's illegally... And then how would you defend yourself against those people...

Equally guns are expensive, will Trump have some sort of compensation for giving a weapon in?

On the flip side even so would it not prevent incidents like Vegas?

I don't live in USA either. It's true that no guns means less deaths due to gun violence. But guaranteed there would be so much backlash, and I doubt many people would give up their guns. I just don't think its possible :/.

Also if USA ever somehow got invaded, or the government got out of control etc (I know I'm reaching here) people would have their own means of defending themselves.

Either way I think there is no easy solution to this sort of problem. There will always be that 1 psychopath with no political/religious motive only killing for the bloodlust/fame. Terrorism is a whole other topic which I do believe can be more controlled. Unfortunately if its not gun violence it'll be homemade bombs, cars/trucks plowing through people, knives, acid etc. :/. Those acid attacks scare me the most tbh.

[Aura]

There is a dire need of more regulations to be placed. This is obvious by the sheer amount of terrorism and killing that has been allowed to happen in America. After Sandyhook, however, I've lost much faith in America to change their regulations and enforce tighter controls.

"No way to prevent this," says the only nation where this regularly happens. ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[Mama Bear]

I was amazed when I read that the bill to make people whose mental illness was so severe they were only disability payments had been revoked.
I know that Australia is often used as the example in this discussion. In the early late 80s- early 90s, we had a couple of spree killings with guns. Then, in 1996 we had the Port Arthur Massacre, in which 35 were killed. In response to that, the government tightened gun regulations. Since then, we've had a couple of sieges and family-killings, but nothing as severe or frequent. Growing up, I didn't see guns, nor feel comfortable being around them. When I moved out to a more rural area, it was a bit of a culture shock that people had guns, but they went pig and roo hunting. It's not like our country just doesn't have them anymore, it's just more limited.
I don't believe that automatic weapons have a legitimate place with civilians. I don't believe that semi-automatic weapons with magazines of more than a few rounds do either. Moreover, it shouldn't be possible to 'convert' guns with bumpers or anything like that. That's not needed.

[bbuilder]

The most surprising thing is just how little oversight there is for people buying guns. Canada and Iceland for example also let people buy guns but there you have to get a license which in Canada I know involves a 2 day course and a background check. In iceland they even have environmental courses which they have to take before they get a gun.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Clair]

My biggest thing is the automatic weapons.
Like he shot 500 people . . . why would anyone possible need a gun like that for personal defense or hunting?
Let people have hand guns or hunting rifles, whatever.
But how is it that any civilian is allowed to own a weapon that can literally mow down an entire crowd of people?
It's insanity.

[I_royalty_I]

First off... it absolutely sickens me that less than 12 hours after this tragedy, the news outlets were already pushing their gun control agendas. People are literally fighting for their lives, dying, and the media as well as groups of people are pushing gun control.

There definitely needs to be restrictions as to who can buy them and how many they can buy. There needs to be proper training, background checks and rules in place as to the transfer of ownership. There does not need to be a blanket ban. That will not solve anything. I know it’s cliche.. but guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

If owning a gun were to be made illegal, you’d be doing nothing but putting a large majority of the population at a disadvantage. It’s not too difficult to illegally purchase a firearm on the steeet. If somebody wants it bad enough, they will get it. Plain and simple. What would happen if owning a firearm were made illegal is you’d be unarming people and making them easier targets, unable to defend themselves. “To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens”. I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t particularly trust the government now, or in years passed. I own a firearm and plan to get more at some point. Making owning a gun illegal would be like making the sale and use of drugs illegal. That has worked out amazingly for us so far.

Whether Trump does or doesn’t do something is an entirely different question. It’s not as black and white as that. I will say that I was pleased with his response to the tragedy. I wasn’t sure how he’d handle it but he has handled this, as well as some of the most devestaring hurricanes ever, quite well. I’m sure it will be touched on but I don’t see much legislation being pushed through anytime soon... not with tax reform and health care looming overhead.

[people]

The US seriously needs gun control. I am not saying ban them completely, however, no one needs 30+ rifles, automatic guns or whatever. I am personally not a fan of guns and I would never own one; not even for self defense. I would prefer a taser and some pepper spray.
There needs to be stricter laws on obtaining guns and on who can own them. Like Aura said, after Sandy Hook and all those children were killed and nothing was done about the issue, there is no way anything could make the government change their mind on them. If innocent kids getting killed is bearable, then the gun control debate is over.

[Diablos]

I agree with most people here, nobody seriously needs a automatic weapon let alone 30. I know some people see them differently and collect them, I know the likes of that Bilzerian fella whatever his name is has a quite a few. He's always shooting melons and shit with some tits behind next to him.

But how do you differentiate the collector from the psycho, and what's to stop the collector becoming the psycho ...

[bbuilder]

I agree with most people here, nobody seriously needs a automatic weapon let alone 30. I know some people see them differently and collect them, I know the likes of that Bilzerian fella whatever his name is has a quite a few. He's always shooting melons and shit with some tits behind next to him.

But how do you differentiate the collector from the psycho, and what's to stop the collector becoming the psycho ...

That's where the background check/recertification for a license should come in!

[Lilac Tentacles]

It's funny, really.

My weapons have never shot anyone. They're locked in a safe. Between me and my father, we have about 50 rifles, handguns, and misc items that shoot deadly projectiles in some form or another. Amazingly, both of us had background checks and safety courses. And once again for the people in the back, they've never killed anyone.
Bad people do bad things.

Did you know that gun control is the strictest in Detroit? I'll give you a few minutes to look up gun deaths in that democratically-slammed pit of hell. Go ahead. Look it up.


Also, for my peeps here who have next to zero knowledge of weaponry-

Automatic weapons are illegal

Under the landmark National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, it is generally illegal for civilians to own these weapons.

You must be a dealer, or a collector with a literal ass-ton of paperwork, and redtape, and money to get one.


If someone is murdering people with an "automatic" weapon, I can assure you, they have acquired this illegally. There is already a law in place to ban this weapon.

[Misha]

It's funny, really.

My weapons have never shot anyone. They're locked in a safe. Between me and my father, we have about 50 rifles, handguns, and misc items that shoot deadly projectiles in some form or another. Amazingly, both of us had background checks and safety courses. And once again for the people in the back, they've never killed anyone.
Bad people do bad things.

Did you know that gun control is the strictest in Detroit? I'll give you a few minutes to look up gun deaths in that democratically-slammed pit of hell. Go ahead. Look it up.


Also, for my peeps here who have next to zero knowledge of weaponry-

Automatic weapons are illegal

Under the landmark National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, it is generally illegal for civilians to own these weapons.

You must be a dealer, or a collector with a literal ass-ton of paperwork, and redtape, and money to get one.


If someone is murdering people with an "automatic" weapon, I can assure you, they have acquired this illegally. There is already a law in place to ban this weapon.

100% agreed. I carry daily. I have multiple firearms. I saw a great post about the whole debate on Facebook and 65% of gun related deaths in America are because of suicide. Banning anything will not stop suicide. The next largest percentage of deaths was by police officers.

I'll let people look up the rest of the stats if they want. Point blank, period, gun control doesn't work in America. It never will. It's far too late for that.

I'm not a Republican either, I think marijuana should be legal, I think gay marriage is perfectly acceptable. I am not a part if the LGBTQ community but I will never judge another person for their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

I suppose I'm just biased because I grew up around firearms. I did gun safety training when I was 14 (14 years ago), I've been hunting deer since, I work on a pig farm for a living. I'm your typical "redneck" other than my liberal views.

My dad committed suicide in the same fashion as Kurt Cobain in 2010. Didn't hinder my views on firearms in the slightest.

I'm not even going to start with my views on the Vegas event, I'd be typing for hours and at the end people would suggest I get a tinfoil hat.

[Northern]

The most surprising thing is just how little oversight there is for people buying guns. Canada and Iceland for example also let people buy guns but there you have to get a license which in Canada I know involves a 2 day course and a background check. In iceland they even have environmental courses which they have to take before they get a gun.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I watched a video about the background check in Canada. Supposedly if your religion says you must cover your face you not required by Canadian law to have to show your face for the photo ID when acquiring a gun. Again I don't know how "accurate" this information is, so take it with a grain of salt. But if that's true that is terrifying.

[Drizzy]

America is too far gone to have any semblance of gun control
Any shady character will be able to get one or a FUCK tonne if they wanted
A lot of people, liberals included, would probably still oppose any changes to gun ownership because ultimately it's an American right
I used to be pretty Aussie in my thinking but I've also seen how life can be here.
The population is far too large, gun ownership is pretty high and gun distribution too vast
In the short term, all that will be achieved is that honest hard working civilians will be disarmed
Leaving guns in the hands of the underbelly of society (who would stockpile for days and weeks and months) and the second largest killer of people (who already have ammunition for months and years) as old mate Misha pointed out
Any changes implemented will manifest themselves in the long run but that's the thing - even if guns were made illegal EVENTUALLY - so many would still be sold under the table that it would still put regular people at a disadvantage


But this is what I know
Having a gun doesn't make me feel any safer
And I'm being honest (I have a Glock 9), I don't feel safer with it
I just feel a little more in control with it.
And the only way I'll give up my gun is if EVERYONE from Boston to Compton has theirs confiscated
Cos i'll be damned if I have a run-in, have a gun pointed at my head and I can't do shit about it

[bbuilder]

I watched a video about the background check in Canada. Supposedly if your religion says you must cover your face you not required by Canadian law to have to show your face for the photo ID when acquiring a gun. Again I don't know how "accurate" this information is, so take it with a grain of salt. But if that's true that is terrifying.

Hmm I know that people are allowed to wear turbans for religious reasons on government ID, but I think full face cover is not allowed. On the website for gun license I don't even see religious exceptions as an option! I'd be interested to watch that video if you have a link

[I_royalty_I]

America is too far gone to have any semblance of gun control
Any shady character will be able to get one or a FUCK tonne if they wanted
A lot of people, liberals included, would probably still oppose any changes to gun ownership because ultimately it's an American right
I used to be pretty Aussie in my thinking but I've also seen how life can be here.
The population is far too large, gun ownership is pretty high and gun distribution too vast
In the short term, all that will be achieved is that honest hard working civilians will be disarmed
Leaving guns in the hands of the underbelly of society (who would stockpile for days and weeks and months) and the second largest killer of people (who already have ammunition for months and years) as old mate Misha pointed out
Any changes implemented will manifest themselves in the long run but that's the thing - even if guns were made illegal EVENTUALLY - so many would still be sold under the table that it would still put regular people at a disadvantage


But this is what I know
Having a gun doesn't make me feel any safer
And I'm being honest (I have a Glock 9), I don't feel safer with it
I just feel a little more in control with it.
And the only way I'll give up my gun is if EVERYONE from Boston to Compton has theirs confiscated
Cos i'll be damned if I have a run-in, have a gun pointed at my head and I can't do shit about it

I always find it interesting to hear the opinions of people who have lived in multiple countries. So many people are quick to jump to conclusions because “that’s not how we do it here” - but they don’t know the whole truth.

It could be argued that you do feel safer as a gun owner because that control allows you peace of mind to defend yourself if you should ever need to. Not saying everybody should walk around with a gun to feel safe, but the option is there and you can do it.

Personally, I don’t like relying on other people to do something for me... especially if those people are the government. I’d prefer to at least have the option to defend myself if need be.

[Northern]

Hmm I know that people are allowed to wear turbans for religious reasons on government ID, but I think full face cover is not allowed. On the website for gun license I don't even see religious exceptions as an option! I'd be interested to watch that video if you have a link

I might of got some of the information wrong, I haven't watched the video since it was released. It seems to have something to do with renewing your license or being exempt from having to have photo ID, I'm not that familiar with how the whole process works in order to get a gun. Here it is regardless if it's accurate or not:


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
I'm not subscribed to Rebel anymore or certain news outlets because I don't want to become extremely biased or locked in some echo chamber. But they have done some interesting investigating about these sort of things or the lack of border control etc.

[Mophead]

Since the formation of America in 1774, and the introduction of the first 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights in 1789 there hasn't been one time where a human right given by the constitution has been taken away completely.
There's been times where amendments have been amended or changed (Amendment 15 is an example of an amended right if I remember correctly), but not once have any rights ever been completely revoked.
That, and SCOTUS would NEVER allow for the second amendment to be removed.

At the very most, the second amendment will be changed like many others before.
But supported with historical evidence, it will never be removed.

[bbuilder]

I might of got some of the information wrong, I haven't watched the video since it was released. It seems to have something to do with renewing your license or being exempt from having to have photo ID, I'm not that familiar with how the whole process works in order to get a gun. Here it is regardless if it's accurate or not:


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
I'm not subscribed to Rebel anymore or certain news outlets because I don't want to become extremely biased or locked in some echo chamber. But they have done some interesting investigating about these sort of things or the lack of border control etc.

That's pretty interesting! It's so strange that they're afraid to offend people's religion for something this important.
Also what's up with that girl's accent? I'm from Canada and I've never heard that before lol

[Misha]

America is too far gone to have any semblance of gun control
Any shady character will be able to get one or a FUCK tonne if they wanted
A lot of people, liberals included, would probably still oppose any changes to gun ownership because ultimately it's an American right
I used to be pretty Aussie in my thinking but I've also seen how life can be here.
The population is far too large, gun ownership is pretty high and gun distribution too vast
In the short term, all that will be achieved is that honest hard working civilians will be disarmed
Leaving guns in the hands of the underbelly of society (who would stockpile for days and weeks and months) and the second largest killer of people (who already have ammunition for months and years) as old mate Misha pointed out
Any changes implemented will manifest themselves in the long run but that's the thing - even if guns were made illegal EVENTUALLY - so many would still be sold under the table that it would still put regular people at a disadvantage


But this is what I know
Having a gun doesn't make me feel any safer
And I'm being honest (I have a Glock 9), I don't feel safer with it
I just feel a little more in control with it.
And the only way I'll give up my gun is if EVERYONE from Boston to Compton has theirs confiscated
Cos i'll be damned if I have a run-in, have a gun pointed at my head and I can't do shit about it

Thank you thank you thank you.

Finally. Someone gets it. I really, sincerely, wish more people would open their views and listen and actually take in this information.

Oh and hi bud, hope the states are treating you right. You still out in Cali?



Anyway, I found that information. Here goes:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

� 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
� 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
� 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons � gun violence
� 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
� 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
� 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
� 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
� 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
� 40,000+ die from a drug overdose�THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
� 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
� 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
� 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

� 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It�s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is �control," not �gun."
**** SOURCE: FBI .gov on gun stats. Numerous sources on the other things such as cardiac arrest, etc., easy google searches. Then simply do the math in percentages.



26124

[bbuilder]

Thank you thank you thank you.

Finally. Someone gets it. I really, sincerely, wish more people would open their views and listen and actually take in this information.

Oh and hi bud, hope the states are treating you right. You still out in Cali?



Anyway, I found that information. Here goes:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."
**** SOURCE: FBI .gov on gun stats. Numerous sources on the other things such as cardiac arrest, etc., easy google searches. Then simply do the math in percentages.



26124

There is a lot of misleading information here. I haven't verified the numbers you gave but using what you have:
First of all, 30 000/ 300 000 000 = 0.01%, not 0.000000925% - I have no idea how you came up this but it makes me question the rest of your numbers
More importantly though, gun control isn't JUST about that number. You can't ignore the terror, paranoia, and tragedy that comes from watching a homocide take place on the news every other weak. It destroys trust in your community, trust in the government and in your police force.

Suicide risk is highly linked to guns in the house actually. Depressed people need time and medication to get well, like any disease. Having guns in the house means they have easy access to a way to kill themselves.

Medical errors - this number is again hugely misleading because any death in the hospital that has ANY medical error (from a typo in a note to something actually relevant) is counted. This means that many of these people would have died regardless. But ridiculous amounts of money are being pumped into the healthcare system to prevent this anyway.

Heart disease - again, huge amounts of money is pumped into the healthcare system to prevent cardiac disease. This does not mean we can't focus on other causes of death as well.

As for "giving control to governments" - this is pretty ridiculous. We have a corrupt government now, with a monkey of a president and absolutely no focus on helping the average person. Do you see people using their guns to take control? This concept comes from hundreds of years ago and is irrelevant now.

I don't completely disagree with guns but we need a population that is well educated and a system in place to prevent those guns from landing in the hands of people with bad intentions to be able to allow them.

Oh and here are some numbers that are verified by the BBC:


There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.

School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012.

How the US compares: The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.

So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to research by Politifact, there were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq.

The US spends more than a trillion dollars per year defending itself against terrorism, which kills a tiny fraction of the number of people killed by ordinary gun crime.

[Misha]

There is a lot of misleading information here. I haven't verified the numbers you gave but using what you have:
First of all, 30 000/ 300 000 000 = 0.01%, not 0.000000925% - I have no idea how you came up this but it makes me question the rest of your numbers
More importantly though, gun control isn't JUST about that number. You can't ignore the terror, paranoia, and tragedy that comes from watching a homocide take place on the news every other weak. It destroys trust in your community, trust in the government and in your police force.

Suicide risk is highly linked to guns in the house actually. Depressed people need time and medication to get well, like any disease. Having guns in the house means they have easy access to a way to kill themselves.

Medical errors - this number is again hugely misleading because any death in the hospital that has ANY medical error (from a typo in a note to something actually relevant) is counted. This means that many of these people would have died regardless. But ridiculous amounts of money are being pumped into the healthcare system to prevent this anyway.

Heart disease - again, huge amounts of money is pumped into the healthcare system to prevent cardiac disease. This does not mean we can't focus on other causes of death as well.

As for "giving control to governments" - this is pretty ridiculous. We have a corrupt government now, with a monkey of a president and absolutely no focus on helping the average person. Do you see people using their guns to take control? This concept comes from hundreds of years ago and is irrelevant now.

I don't completely disagree with guns but we need a population that is well educated and a system in place to prevent those guns from landing in the hands of people with bad intentions to be able to allow them.

Oh and here are some numbers that are verified by the BBC:

So your argument against the numbers I posted, was numbers you posted? Kinda folds in on itself when you point out the suicide risk numbers (those people would have killed themselves regardless of the guns) and pointing out the medical errors as a retort to that. I did not come up with those statistics, someone else did, I just found it to be a good case as to why gun control doesn't work.

Gun control will NEVER EVER work in the United States. Never. No matter what you want. No matter what anyone thinks it will accomplish. It will. Not. Work.

Chicago, Detroit, California. 3 examples of highly strict gun control laws. The gun crime in Chicago alone is larger than most other states COMBINED. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way. Always.

I get why people want guns to be more heavily regulated or banned. I sincerely get it. In the wrong hands, they are the most dangerous tools a person can hold. It just can't work for us. It can't. I wish I knew the answer, but evil will ALWAYS find a way.26127

[bbuilder]

So your argument against the numbers I posted, was numbers you posted? Kinda folds in on itself when you point out the suicide risk numbers (those people would have killed themselves regardless of the guns) and pointing out the medical errors as a retort to that. I did not come up with those statistics, someone else did, I just found it to be a good case as to why gun control doesn't work.

Gun control will NEVER EVER work in the United States. Never. No matter what you want. No matter what anyone thinks it will accomplish. It will. Not. Work.

Chicago, Detroit, California. 3 examples of highly strict gun control laws. The gun crime in Chicago alone is larger than most other states COMBINED. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way. Always.

I get why people want guns to be more heavily regulated or banned. I sincerely get it. In the wrong hands, they are the most dangerous tools a person can hold. It just can't work for us. It can't. I wish I knew the answer, but evil will ALWAYS find a way.26127

How do you know gun control won't work in the US? I mean honestly, as a Canadian, I don't understand how people can look at the media, be horrified about the genocides, but then turn around and say "oh well this sucks but i'm sure giving everyone a gun isn't a part of it". Especially since countries with strict gun laws have already shown much less gun crime

Also, for suicide victims, I don't really agree that "those people would have killed themselves anyway". Take a look at this few sentences from a NEJM article:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]=article

"Why might the availability of firearms increase the risk of suicide in the United States? First, many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.2

Second, many suicidal crises are self-limiting. Such crises are often caused by an immediate stressor, such as the breakup of a romantic relationship, the loss of a job, or a run-in with police. As the acute phase of the crisis passes, so does the urge to attempt suicide. The temporary nature and fleeting sway of many suicidal crises is evident in the fact that more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide. Indeed, recognizing the self-limiting nature of suicidal crises, penal and psychiatric institutions restrict access to lethal means for persons identified as potentially suicidal.

Third, guns are common in the United States (more than one third of U.S. households contain a firearm) and are lethal. A suicide attempt with a firearm rarely affords a second chance. Attempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often."

Oh and that number in your calculator is a fraction bud, you have to multiply it by 100 to get a percentage

[Misha]

How do you know gun control won't work in the US? I mean honestly, as a Canadian, I don't understand how people can look at the media, be horrified about the genocides, but then turn around and say "oh well this sucks but i'm sure giving everyone a gun isn't a part of it". Especially since countries with strict gun laws have already shown much less gun crime

Also, for suicide victims, I don't really agree that "those people would have killed themselves anyway". Take a look at this few sentences from a NEJM article:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]=article

"Why might the availability of firearms increase the risk of suicide in the United States? First, many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.2

Second, many suicidal crises are self-limiting. Such crises are often caused by an immediate stressor, such as the breakup of a romantic relationship, the loss of a job, or a run-in with police. As the acute phase of the crisis passes, so does the urge to attempt suicide. The temporary nature and fleeting sway of many suicidal crises is evident in the fact that more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide. Indeed, recognizing the self-limiting nature of suicidal crises, penal and psychiatric institutions restrict access to lethal means for persons identified as potentially suicidal.

Third, guns are common in the United States (more than one third of U.S. households contain a firearm) and are lethal. A suicide attempt with a firearm rarely affords a second chance. Attempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often."

Oh and that number in your calculator is a fraction bud, you have to multiply it by 100 to get a percentage

I'm no good at math, haven't been in school for 11 years lol

We can just agree to disagree here, if that's cool? I don't want to get to a point of anger over a discussion of opposing opinions which will never sway the other. It's always going to be a bad thing for people who have little gun knowledge, live in a different country, or just dislike guns in general. And that's fine. You have your views, and I have mine. Do I think there's things that could be done to help with gun violence? Sure. More vetting, vigilant mental health evaluations. Banning them completely? Hell no. Look at Brazil.

[Northern]

That's pretty interesting! It's so strange that they're afraid to offend people's religion for something this important.
Also what's up with that girl's accent? I'm from Canada and I've never heard that before lol

No idea I think she must just have a really nasally voice xD.

[bbuilder]

I'm no good at math, haven't been in school for 11 years lol

We can just agree to disagree here, if that's cool? I don't want to get to a point of anger over a discussion of opposing opinions which will never sway the other. It's always going to be a bad thing for people who have little gun knowledge, live in a different country, or just dislike guns in general. And that's fine. You have your views, and I have mine. Do I think there's things that could be done to help with gun violence? Sure. More vetting, vigilant mental health evaluations. Banning them completely? Hell no. Look at Brazil.

Yep that's cool. I'm glad people are talking about it at least!

[TtotheJ]

The thing is, fully automatic weapons ARE illegal. Those pushing for gun control want to ban assault rifles, and the assault rifles sold in America are not automatic. Personally, I think they're going to universally come to the conclusion that people are going to get fully automatic weapons regardless (the ones that are said to have been used in the events like in Vegas) and that the only thing to do is to take the neccessary steps to have a tighter control over SOCIETY. And in my opinion will be a step towards an Orwellian type socitey. I think thats their end game, the ones pushing for gun control.

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk

[Lilac Tentacles]

How do you know gun control won't work in the US?

Because if the government sends anyone into MY state or into MY house to confiscate MY weapons, I promise you, I will go down in a blaze of crazy, fucking, freedom-blasting glory.

And so will millions of other Americans. Our National Guard and Reserves are civilians 28 days out of the month. They are much bigger than our active duty brethren and they all know they're allowed and encouraged to own weapons.

We are actively told to disobey any orders that are not lawful. Taking guns out of the hands of any authorized American citizen is an unlawful order because our second amendment is a RIGHT.

That is why gun control will not work in America. And as Misha stated with factual facts of factually factness: The areas with the strictest gun control have the most gun crime because only criminals are armed. You think disarming the entire US will fix that? Let me introduce you to Mexico. They stepped in when we made drugs illegal, and i assure you, lovely person, they will step in when guns are illegal.

You cannot change who we are. We will have guns. We will always have guns. And they will have to kill us, before we give them up, but once again, the military is armed and authorized to say no to a tyrannical government.

So you guys can all sit in your little peace-circle in here and discuss how nice a utopia will be. Not gonna happen. Ever.

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------



Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.



[Only registered and activated users can see links] _b6ef7eb0ec388a15f5caa004fc76cc6c.jpg

[TtotheJ]

Because if the government sends anyone into MY state or into MY house to confiscate MY weapons, I promise you, I will go down in a blaze of crazy, fucking, freedom-blasting glory.

And so will millions of other Americans. Our National Guard and Reserves are civilians 28 days out of the month. They are much bigger than our active duty brethren and they all know they're allowed and encouraged to own weapons.

We are actively told to disobey any orders that are not lawful. Taking guns out of the hands of any authorized American citizen is an unlawful order because our second amendment is a RIGHT.

That is why gun control will not work in America. And as Misha stated with factual facts of factually factness: The areas with the strictest gun control have the most gun crime because only criminals are armed. You think disarming the entire US will fix that? Let me introduce you to Mexico. They stepped in when we made drugs illegal, and i assure you, lovely person, they will step in when guns are illegal.

You cannot change who we are. We will have guns. We will always have guns. And they will have to kill us, before we give them up, but once again, the military is armed and authorized to say no to a tyrannical government.

So you guys can all sit in your little peace-circle in here and discuss how nice a utopia will be. Not gonna happen. Ever.

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------



[Only registered and activated users can see links] _b6ef7eb0ec388a15f5caa004fc76cc6c.jpg
What you're saying is the truth, 100% agree. And that's why "conspiracy theories" and those demanding transparency concerning the potential that what happened in Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, 9/11 etc. etc., were either false flags (an event that was done by the people that are blaming another group/enemy, laws, or countries, as the ones who were responsible for the events, and done so to carry out specific agendas) or that the event was a hoax (same thing except nothing happened the way it was reported, and was done knowing full well that nothing happened). The motive for doing something like this is an attempt to sway public opinion, and in this case, sway the opinion of gun owners to WANT tighter gun control.

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk

[bbuilder]

What you're saying is the truth, 100% agree. And that's why "conspiracy theories" and those demanding transparency concerning the potential that what happened in Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, 9/11 etc. etc., were either false flags (an event that was done by the people that are blaming another group/enemy, laws, or countries, as the ones who were responsible for the events, and done so to carry out specific agendas) or that the event was a hoax (same thing except nothing happened the way it was reported, and was done knowing full well that nothing happened). The motive for doing something like this is an attempt to sway public opinion, and in this case, sway the opinion of gun owners to WANT tighter gun control.

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk


Because if the government sends anyone into MY state or into MY house to confiscate MY weapons, I promise you, I will go down in a blaze of crazy, fucking, freedom-blasting glory.

And so will millions of other Americans. Our National Guard and Reserves are civilians 28 days out of the month. They are much bigger than our active duty brethren and they all know they're allowed and encouraged to own weapons.

We are actively told to disobey any orders that are not lawful. Taking guns out of the hands of any authorized American citizen is an unlawful order because our second amendment is a RIGHT.

That is why gun control will not work in America. And as Misha stated with factual facts of factually factness: The areas with the strictest gun control have the most gun crime because only criminals are armed. You think disarming the entire US will fix that? Let me introduce you to Mexico. They stepped in when we made drugs illegal, and i assure you, lovely person, they will step in when guns are illegal.

You cannot change who we are. We will have guns. We will always have guns. And they will have to kill us, before we give them up, but once again, the military is armed and authorized to say no to a tyrannical government.

So you guys can all sit in your little peace-circle in here and discuss how nice a utopia will be. Not gonna happen. Ever.

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------



[Only registered and activated users can see links] _b6ef7eb0ec388a15f5caa004fc76cc6c.jpg

I'm not really suggesting we barge in and take away guns. I think the process of making this safer can be started though, even just with background checks. I mean I don't see why anyone would object to this?

More transparency would be great! I don't know about these conspiracy theories though, there are just so so so many episodes of gun violence that it's difficult to believe they are all hoaxes.

[Lilac Tentacles]

I'm not really suggesting we barge in and take away guns. I think the process of making this safer can be started though, even just with background checks. I mean I don't see why anyone would object to this?

More transparency would be great! I don't know about these conspiracy theories though, there are just so so so many episodes of gun violence that it's difficult to believe they are all hoaxes.

I agree the private gun-buying loopholes should be closed. Everyone should have a quick criminal check because I'm really against criminals and crazy people owning guns. They make the rest of us look bad.
What I'm actively against is telling me what I'm allowed to put on my gun. If i want a 30-round mag, it's not because I want to shoot 30 people. It's because reloading is a pain in the ass and I'd rather shoot off as much as possible before stopping to reload. It's not as fun when you have to stop every few rounds.
I would love to own a .50 cal. Have you ever shot a big ass gun? I have. I lit the woods on fire in basic training because we had to burn off all our extra ammo. I saw my barrel turn red from overheating. It's the best thing that's ever been between my thighs. Talk about power... I completely understand why people would want to own one. They're fucking fun.

And there are not "just so so so many episodes of gun violence"

as previously sourced by Misha, most gun "violence" is self-inflicted suicides... or it's criminal gun violence that background checks wouldn't have stopped. She also gave a list of things that cause way more murder/death/kills than guns.

[TtotheJ]

I hate even bringing it up anymore, but it's extremely hard not to, after looking into it myself. There is a 2 hour presentation on the Sandy Hook shooting, that was created by a few concerned journalists', that actually went digging to find out why everything looked so fucking fake. There were a lot of questions regarding the victim's loved-ones, and how their responses during interviews didn't look the least bit genuine. There were also A LOT of discrepancies concerning the official timeline of events when compared to video surveillance that wasn't redacted. A few months before Sandy Hook, I bill was reluctantly passed (even though it faced obvious and rigorous opposition) that gave the police departments authority on what information should be released, concerning crime scene information, photos, and autopsy reports. Because of that bill, NO ONE in the public eye has seen ANY of the crime scene photos or autopsy reports of those killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. Basically, instead of just accepting things as face value, we need to take the time to make choice for ourselves, using the senses we have, to determine what's really going on, ESPECIALLY when we are slowly losing our rights to even LOOK INTO THESE THINGS. The bill in Connecticut that was passed only months before the shooting, is completely unconstitutional. Now, because of the bill, those who are wrongly convicted of crimes no longer have the authority to receive the case files that have helped innocent people prove their innocence. These types of events have sparked a lot of talk about gun control, but it's my opinion, that the logical outcome of the debate on gun control will only lead to the obvious.. "guns don't kill people, bad people kill people" and then, the only logical step from there is.. "How can we monitor these bad people more efficiently." Then, who knows, maybe one day, those bad people end up being wrongly accused, and find themselves without the authority to prove it.

[bbuilder]

I hate even bringing it up anymore, but it's extremely hard not to, after looking into it myself. There is a 2 hour presentation on the Sandy Hook shooting, that was created by a few concerned journalists', that actually went digging to find out why everything looked so fucking fake. There were a lot of questions regarding the victim's loved-ones, and how their responses during interviews didn't look the least bit genuine. There were also A LOT of discrepancies concerning the official timeline of events when compared to video surveillance that wasn't redacted. A few months before Sandy Hook, I bill was reluctantly passed (even though it faced obvious and rigorous opposition) that gave the police departments authority on what information should be released, concerning crime scene information, photos, and autopsy reports. Because of that bill, NO ONE in the public eye has seen ANY of the crime scene photos or autopsy reports of those killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. Basically, instead of just accepting things as face value, we need to take the time to make choice for ourselves, using the senses we have, to determine what's really going on, ESPECIALLY when we are slowly losing our rights to even LOOK INTO THESE THINGS. The bill in Connecticut that was passed only months before the shooting, is completely unconstitutional. Now, because of the bill, those who are wrongly convicted of crimes no longer have the authority to receive the case files that have helped innocent people prove their innocence. These types of events have sparked a lot of talk about gun control, but it's my opinion, that the logical outcome of the debate on gun control will only lead to the obvious.. "guns don't kill people, bad people kill people" and then, the only logical step from there is.. "How can we monitor these bad people more efficiently." Then, who knows, maybe one day, those bad people end up being wrongly accused, and find themselves without the authority to prove it.

I can definitely agree that government is taking away power from the people which should not be the case!
The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing to me is like saying well why don't we just unban drugs, or airplane item restrictions? Sure, in a perfect world we would be able to tell who has bad intentions and allow people with good intentions to have these freedoms, but we don't live in that world. So in the meantime, things like drugs have to be restricted to keep people safe.

[TtotheJ]

I can definitely agree that government is taking away power from the people which should not be the case!
The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing to me is like saying well why don't we just unban drugs, or airplane item restrictions? Sure, in a perfect world we would be able to tell who has bad intentions and allow people with good intentions to have these freedoms, but we don't live in that world. So in the meantime, things like drugs have to be restricted to keep people safe.
Well, do you see the pattern? The war on drugs is really a war on drug users, who then become convicts and face uphill battles. The prison system is private-owned, so it would be bad business to de-criminalize drugs. Prisons also provide cheap labor, while more money is spent by Tax-payers for federal prisons that are tax-exempt.. money that could be used to help keep drugs out of the country and from being moved within the country.

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk

[bbuilder]

Well, do you see the pattern? The war on drugs is really a war on drug users, who then become convicts and face uphill battles. The prison system is private-owned, so it would be bad business to de-criminalize drugs. Prisons also provide cheap labor, while more money is spent by Tax-payers for federal prisons that are tax-exempt.. money that could be used to help keep drugs out of the country and from being moved within the country.

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk

Sure, but the solution is to educate people, nominate and elect responsible parties while passing anti-corruption laws, and being aware of what is happening with politics. The idea of having guns so that you can "rise up" against the government is ancient and I don't think it's applicable or possible today.

[TtotheJ]

bbuilder Look up "Hegelian Dialectic."

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk

[Diablos]

This whole thread has been an eye opener for me. All that we have plastered over here in the U.K. whenever an event like Vegas happens is how crazy the US are, why Guns should be banned etc etc.

It's all one sided so we never see any of the reasoning behind why people support the right to own a weapon and the benefits. So it's been good to see it from the other side of the fence. I've never held a gun, but next time I'm in the US I'm going to make a point of visiting a gun range. I want to experience it!

[bbuilder]

bbuilder Look up "Hegelian Dialectic."

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk

I did... still not sure what you mean!

[Aska]

I come from a redneck area, so taking guns away is never going to happen. Banning the stock thing he used? Congrats people still will make them. We, as an American society, are too far gone to save in that regard.

So what's left to do? Tougher gun laws? Been there, done that. This guy bought 30+ guns in the matter of months and no one caught onto that. If the system really worked, then why was nothing flagged? Private sales can have quick criminal checks but what's that going to stop? Sure, the person selling is still liable if the buyer commits crime with the gun/is a convicted felon, but that still does not stop the violence from happening.

GIANT METEOR 2017

[jawlong]

Own weapons for personal use is prohibited in my country. The discussion here is if it would be good for us, since the violence rate is ridiculous high here in South America.

[Sugar Rush]

Since we're here, let's talk about the Lawbreaker Paradox, since it always comes up:

1. Law-abiding citizens obey the law
2. Criminals are lawbreakers, and thus do not obey the law
3. Laws impose restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
4. Laws restrict and, therefore, only hurt law-abiding citizens

This literally applies to 100% of laws. It's true for the same reason that it's totally useless in discussing a proper course of action--it's a redundant, self-reinforcing pretense of truth by necessity of its definition (ie. "lawbreakers").

So instead of over-politicizing the crap out of the issue to satisfy our lame tribal tendencies and clinging to pointless arguments like the Lawbreaker Paradox to make our point (BOTH sides are guilty of oversimplification and logical fallacies, btw, that just happened to be a convenient example), let's agree that the 2nd amendment is here to stay, but people are dying a lot and we can do more than just *shrug*. We're smarter and better than that.

Here's some basic suggestions to get started:

1. Increase funding for research on gun violence, safety, and laws. Good research informs good, sensible policy, and our is kinda pathetic. Let's re-evaluate the Dickey Amendment while we're at it, because the idea that you can research an issue, but not use that research to inform or shape policy, is just idiotic. Considering the financial burden gun violence costs us in addition to loss of lives, we can afford to step it up to at least a level of concern consistent with its mortality rate.

2. Improve resources necessary to actually enforce the law. Even though no laws are 100% effective, they're a lot less effective when we can't enforce them, wouldn't you say? Quit hamstringing agencies like the ATF by cutting funding and imposing restrictions that undermine their ability to properly enforce the laws we already have.

[Misha]

This whole thread has been an eye opener for me. All that we have plastered over here in the U.K. whenever an event like Vegas happens is how crazy the US are, why Guns should be banned etc etc.

It's all one sided so we never see any of the reasoning behind why people support the right to own a weapon and the benefits. So it's been good to see it from the other side of the fence. I've never held a gun, but next time I'm in the US I'm going to make a point of visiting a gun range. I want to experience it!

Come to minnesota. Ill show you a good time.

[Integra]

I'm an Aussie, admittedly I haven't lived abroad, but I do honestly prefer a scenario where automatic and semi-automatic weapons restricted or not allowed at all.

There have been shootings since, but none to the extent of say Port Arthur, the worst recorded massacre in Australian history.

I'll also leave this several year old but still highly-relevant/accurate comedy piece here for everyone, just for good measure, produced by American's:
US v Australia - Gun Control ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[franbow]

Banning guns will make it harder for the random civilian to stop a shooting if it happens. Think about what would have happened in that church in texas if the two dudes didn't have a gun?

[Misha]

Banning guns will make it harder for the random civilian to stop a shooting if it happens. Think about what would have happened in that church in texas if the two dudes didn't have a gun?

If the two guys were in the church at the time of the shooting, 20 something lives could have been saved.

[Raichuu]

I think some extra regulations are in order. We could do without automatic weapons, certainly. I don't think banning all together would solve the issue by any means. Unfortunately this is just like drugs, the people you want to keep this away from will always find a way. In places where they've banned many times the gun problems are all the worse. There is no perfect solution. /:

[yosup90210]

Guns should most certainly not be banned. There is plenty of evidence out there that shows gun-free zones do not work.

In a lot of instances of mass shootings, it can be argued that if people with guns (as well as trained in the safe use of guns) were present, they could have stopped the shooter before they could kill unimpeded or at least stop the shooter from doing as much damage as they do.

Strict gun laws will not stop criminals from getting their hands on guns. Criminals illegally acquire various things they should not have by illegal means. Making new laws telling them they can't have guns isn't going to stop a criminal from breaking the law and getting guns anyway. In my opinion, the solution should be to get guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens and training more people in the safe-handling of guns.

Having a gun is deterrent, and it makes people think twice about commiting a crime around someone with a gun. No one (at least I don't think anyone is) is suggesting everyone takes their guns and starts shooting criminals like vigilantes. People have guns because it's a deterrent. If a shoplifter, a mugger, or even a mass shooter knew that people were going to be armed and were able to defend themselves. They wouldn't commit the crime, because they know they will be stopped.

TL;DR: More guns and gun safety training for law-abiding citizens.

[Sci_Girl]

To be frank the only way gun dependency and frequent gun violence will diminish is in the change of mindset of those living in it. There is a shift becoming more and more abundant towards the "guns are not needed" category but it has a ways to go. In order for it to go the current thinkers and teachers of this dependency will have to die off. That is the bitter pill to swallow truth. If violence is to decrease the mindset of violence is required needs go be gone. Teach current generation kids that you do not need to fight those you disagree with, flashing a weapon in a disagreement is not necessary, crime is bad, be a good person, respect others and so forth. Teach kids now to be good and maybe just may be society as a whole can come up to current speed as has happened in so so many other Countries so far regarding gun laws.

[Chryssie]

As much as I despise guns, as someone who's lived with people who own multiple guns, banning guns isn't something that can happen. Even just stricter gun laws... those probably won't work. Americans are too obsessed with their guns to even give a second thought about making it harder to access them. I personally would prefer less guns around, I hate their loudness+speed+dangerous capabilities (especially when I wake up to them being shot off which gives me a heart attack every time) but it's just not possible anymore.

If only guns weren't ever created in the first place

[Alexis]

I think the only way america could undo the mess of gun crimes is to go back in time and redo the whole gun laws, TBH they should have looked into it A WHOLE FUCKTON sooner and done something about it. I am sure that 90% of the gun owners are responsible and so on, but that leaves 10% which somewhere as big as america is a heap of crazies with guns.

I for one am glad i live in the u.k and dont own a gun, i own two dogs, a selection of sharp objects and a killer right hook and i dont feel afraid in my own home. I do however understand that i probably would feel a lot more worried if 90% of my area had a gun and i didnt.

Dont bring a knife to a gun fight folks!


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[earthanimal]

I think everyone should have the right to own a gun. The automatic weapon part is touchy, and I'm on the fence about it. On the one hand, if people can easily access automatic rifles, that means *possibly* more instances of mass murder. But, even if they are outlawed, criminals are C R I M I N A L S and will get a hold of one anyway. It can be said that no one needs an automatic weapon, but I am really feeling a violent revolution coming along. And the people that don't want us to have these weapons, are the people that already have a large team of trained soldiers, heavily armed and ready to strike.
But then again, I am just some crazy conspiracy theorist, and maybe everything is just fine and the government loves us and cares about our well being. :onthego:

[Arabelle]

No worries, I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist too. As for automatic weapons, semi autos can easily be converted into fully automatic by removing a pin or something. There is probably no use in polite society for automatic weapons but they sure are fun to shoot. As you mentioned previously, laws are not gonna stop anyone hell bent on obtaining a gun for nefarious purposes and regular people must be able to protect themselves and thier family... should they choose to do so.

[helloswirly]

They should make guns harder to get. Look at Australia, after amending the law on guns, they have not had one mass shooting since 1996.

[Mama Bear]

They should make guns harder to get. Look at Australia, after amending the law on guns, they have not had one mass shooting since 1996.

This actually isn't accurate. In 2002 a university was targeted. We've also had a mass-murder-suicide by gun that is technically also included. There has been a definite reduction in the spree/rampage shootings since the gun laws were changed post-Port Arthur though, yes.
As many people have pointed out on this thread already though, a big part of the problem is the existing amount of weapons, rather than new ones. So many people already have access (and it is such an ingrained part of the culture) that it would be near impossible to undo the existing risk.

[Sci_Girl]

As many people have pointed out on this thread already though, a big part of the problem is the existing amount of weapons, rather than new ones. So many people already have access (and it is such an ingrained part of the culture) that it would be near impossible to undo the existing risk.

Definitely is an issue. The only way it will be fixed is to have current up and coming children to want change. Previous generations of gun wielding "I want to be the hero" types will need to cease to exist. Then slowly, the handing back, collection, stoppage of mass production whatever the solution could be can begin. Only then, only when current young minds take over as the majority adult minds will something change. Current thinking is not going to work.

[Foxglove]

I'm strongly of the belief that we need stricter gun control laws, I really genuinely don't see how that's a bad thing (except for the NRA), and the arguments for why that would be a bad thing really do not sway me (e.g. criminals will still be able to get guns because they'll go that extra mile, whereas normal civilians won't be able to access guns as easily unless they also go the extra mile, guns are for protection -- the same argument that those who use guns to kill their own family have used in the past to defend their gun ownership -- and on the flip side of the coin -- should all high schoolers start going to school with guns to protect themselves from mass shooters then? How about middle schoolers? Elementary schoolers, since elementary schools have also been shot at? What about young 3 year old children, who might fall victim to their father trying to kill them? It's happened many times before. How young is the limit? Are we going to leave 3 year olds defenseless then, because they're too young to wield a gun, even though their gun-wielding parent could still turn their own gun on their child? I am literally only citing a real mass shooting that occurred in the U.S. here, it really did happen that a father shot and killed his own young children and chased his wife through a Walgreens parking lot to kill her as well just last year I believe?... I just think this logic of "guns are to protect myself" can get pretty flawed in the context of the mass shootings of today, like sure you can still get guns... and if you really want to own a gun, you said it yourself: if you REALLY want to get ahold of one, you can, even if the gun control laws make it harder to get one).

I also agree that those who subscribe extremely strongly into gun culture probably won't change their opinion because guns are such a central aspect to their lives and their culture. We just need the younger generation to embrace gun control, and slowly the older generation will die out eventually.
There was that one girl in the midst of the Florida high school shooting who said on tape that she was interested in guns before, but the experience of being in the midst of the school shooting made the thought of guns sick to her stomach and she changed her mind and while she used to be pro-gun, she does now think that there's a need for stricter gun control laws now (and that there's a need for change in the way society views mass shootings).
I kind of hate that mass shootings are becoming an ordinary aspect of being an American. We just suffered a massive tragedy? And another one? And another one? Shrugs. Welp, that's America for you! :$ Nothing we can do about it!
Like no... Also really tired of people attributing mass shootings only to mental illness in the interest of diverting the discussion away from gun control. Everyone around him was aware of his mental instability and acted on it constantly. What didn't they act on? His possession and obsession with guns... I think the most that happened was his family friend who took him in after his mom passed away told him it was either her or his guns and he chose the guns and moved out. His friends on the other hand encouraged his interest in guns and even suggested accessories for him to buy... But that's not what I'm trying to get at -- authorities intervened with his mental issues (he was placed in an alternative school, etc) but authorities never intervened with his gun ownership/obsession

[pipidaga]

I am an Australian citizen, in around 1996 (a year before I was born) Australia became very strict on gun control.
Throughout my whole life, I have never considered owning a gun and I have never heard anyone mention the need/want to have a gun. No one has ever been able to understand a benefit in being able to head down to your local supermarket and order a gun. The fact is, America has more than 1 mass shooting each week, I can't recall Australia having a major shooting in the last year, let alone a shooting at a school/university.
Let me just pose the question.. I understand that there are other factors in play but when focusing purely on the likelihood of being shot, would you feel safer living in Australia or America? (I think the answer is quite obvious)

I see people promoting this idea that you defend yourself with a gun. Fair call you can, but yet again, why is it that no Australian (that I know) has wanted to own a gun for self defence?

I could and would discuss this for all it's worth but I feel we are all quite intelligent here and able to compare two differences. I refer to Australia a lot, but I could equally put many other countries in the same boat as Australia.

Last thing to mention is the relation between $$$ and politics. My belief is that one of the main reasons Trump was able to win the election was due to his wealth, you'd be surprised how much influence you can literally purchase through social media advertising and an experiences team of social media marketers. I believe anyone with enough media attention could win a US election.
The point I'm getting at is the fact that the gun industry is massive in America. With a bit of common sense you can understand that a CEO of a company reliant on the gun industry would happily spend a few million (of their billions) dollars to enforce their opinions through the media..

[Misha]

I am an Australian citizen, in around 1996 (a year before I was born) Australia became very strict on gun control.
Throughout my whole life, I have never considered owning a gun and I have never heard anyone mention the need/want to have a gun. No one has ever been able to understand a benefit in being able to head down to your local supermarket and order a gun. The fact is, America has more than 1 mass shooting each week, I can't recall Australia having a major shooting in the last year, let alone a shooting at a school/university.
Let me just pose the question.. I understand that there are other factors in play but when focusing purely on the likelihood of being shot, would you feel safer living in Australia or America? (I think the answer is quite obvious)

I see people promoting this idea that you defend yourself with a gun. Fair call you can, but yet again, why is it that no Australian (that I know) has wanted to own a gun for self defence?

I could and would discuss this for all it's worth but I feel we are all quite intelligent here and able to compare two differences. I refer to Australia a lot, but I could equally put many other countries in the same boat as Australia.

Last thing to mention is the relation between $$$ and politics. My belief is that one of the main reasons Trump was able to win the election was due to his wealth, you'd be surprised how much influence you can literally purchase through social media advertising and an experiences team of social media marketers. I believe anyone with enough media attention could win a US election.
The point I'm getting at is the fact that the gun industry is massive in America. With a bit of common sense you can understand that a CEO of a company reliant on the gun industry would happily spend a few million (of their billions) dollars to enforce their opinions through the media..

My only argument to your entire statement is, and I'm sorry for naming you man, but Drizzy can tell you the difference in complete culture when comparing Aussie to America. Over 300m people in America, over 600m LEGALLY owned firearms. It's been engraved in our society for hundreds of years and there's no entity in the world that could effectively end shootings from occurring in our nation. Period.

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

Just to add to this, I carry a firearm pretty much every waking moment of my life. I train more than Keanu Reeves. I also think common sense laws should be implemented. I don't have any issue with raising the age to buy rifles and shotguns to 21, but, the current laws in place haven't been effectively enforced by those who are sworn to protect the average citizen for decades now. From 9/11 to the OKC bombing, to the most recent FL shooting; the FBI and local LEOs were informed of the impending events, and did nothing. I understand they have many things to follow up on every day, millions of leads per year. Nobody is perfect. I think it's bat shit crazy that the only viable solution to ending school shootings is arming teachers. I say that with also wanting to point out that the gun "lovers" don't want to mandate them to carry. Just let the ones who have their permit to carry, carry at work. Whether or not they're willing to engage in a firefight under that amount of pressure, safely able to engage an active shooter and effectively put them down, or even be able to identify the threat, is questionable at best. Bottom line, is that taking our guns won't do anything other than further the agenda of the government who has systematically failed it's citizens for so long that those "rednecks" with guns don't trust a man in a political position and I don't either. I would like to see a change, I just don't know what that change could be at this point.

[Sci_Girl]

I also think common sense laws should be implemented. I don't have any issue with raising the age to buy rifles and shotguns to 21

Curious. What about enhanced background checks as a new method of strict screening? To say implement a "if you have had a criminal conviction or brought up on charges of (blank) you cannot be owning/possess/buy a gun and we will be flagging anyone currently owning a weapon with this new screening method". Say someone with a history of drug use...a non-law abider, cannot own or buy themselves a weapon anymore. Therefore only the good citizens of society can be holding weapons. The same people that would technically never hurt a fly. Is that something you, as a gun fan, can get behind?

[Ghosts]

One of the arguments I see all the time is that "criminals are criminals, and they'll find a way to get guns no matter what". That's true to an extent of course. People in organized crime and such will obviously always be able to get access to guns, but those also aren't usually the people shooting up schools and churches and movie theaters a lot of the time. It seems like most of the time it's just some crazy person on their own who isn't going to have those connections to easily obtain illegal guns.

American's can root for guns all they want, but this shit isn't happening in any other first world country.

[Drizzy]

pipidaga imagine since the second war, after Australia had all the wogs and the lebos come that they've been able to own and carry weapons.
The street gangs we have are a joke but imagine they all had weapons since the 50s. Imagine what they could have accomplished with that weight.
The viets in the 80s that were selling massive amounts of coke stockpiled weapons for days and every bogan from Adelaide to Murrumbidgee had a shotgun to defend his land.
Now imagine Australia had no centrelink. Imagine Australias population is 300million not 25million.
Imagine you actually have to work for every dollar, minimum wage is $8 and good luck to you.
Imagine we had no border security. Imagine people from PNG, Singapore, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Fiji, even those Sheepshaggers next door were getting in and out however you please.
They all had access to guns. Im not saying they would all own one but if they wanted to get one, they could.

That's how it is here.
Now you fucking tell me, are you gonna give up yours before they do?

[Misha]

Curious. What about enhanced background checks as a new method of strict screening? To say implement a "if you have had a criminal conviction or brought up on charges of (blank) you cannot be owning/possess/buy a gun and we will be flagging anyone currently owning a weapon with this new screening method". Say someone with a history of drug use...a non-law abider, cannot own or buy themselves a weapon anymore. Therefore only the good citizens of society can be holding weapons. The same people that would technically never hurt a fly. Is that something you, as a gun fan, can get behind?

That is already in place. Even in states where marijuana has been legalized on a state level for recreational use, citizens who have been charged with possession of the substance prior to legalization are federally prohibited from owning firearms. I think there could be more strict screening, provided that the laws are actually being enforced. I don't think private sales without an FFL license should be allowed anymore. There's definitely common sense laws that could be implemented if carried out vigorously, but also an all out ban would turn our nation into Honduras.

[aNEWvision]

TL DR

Statistics

That is all. Take it how you will but look some up.

Oh boy, grave digging. Sorry about that!

[AGA1N]

I live in Brazil, where the disarmament statute is in force, but it is easier to get a firearm here than anything else. Children are armed, while the good citizen who wants to defend himself has to follow the law. Prohibiting guns is not the way.

[jrdizzle]

I live in California and went to Las Vegas for an event about a week or two after the shooting. Although shootings seem to be happening more and more around here lately, I don't think making all guns illegal will solve the issue. Alcohol was illegal before and everyone still drank. Marijuana used to be illegal and everyone still smoked. People will get guns regardless. To me, they get guns out of fear. Nothing could happen at all, but they all hear about the mass shootings or police officer brutality and it just sets people off. Different states have different laws pertaining to different types of firearms and I believe that helps to some extent.

How I'd resolve the issue is not by taking away someone's right to bear arms, but to enforce more safety precautions. After all, those with a driver's license need to take tests every few years concerning the safety of the road and those around them because they can easily hurt someone. I just think the same should be done with firearms all over. Safety classes and tests required every maybe 6 months and limit the amount of firearms one can have per person and per household. There's different ways to go about this.

I may sound bias since I've just gotten out of the US military and would have 1-2 firearms on me at a time. It's not the gun's fault.

[neofreak]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Worth watching tbh.

[omg.UFOs]

If you ban guns do you think that will stop people from killing? No, it only means they will find another way to kill. The way the media is coming down on guns you would imagine people were shooting them all the time...I dont care for guns, its not my thing. but i have friends who really enjoy their guns. They are responsible with them and go to the gun range as a hobby.. If people were shooting up places you would imagine they would shoot up all gun ranges they go to..just a shoot fest!

fact is if people want to kill they will.. The people who are shooting up places never just walked around with a gun threatening people. They were pushed to that point and got a gun. Killing people isnt a simple matter you wake up one morning and decide to do. School shootings happen when someone gets bullied to the point they want these people to die. If guns were banned they would kill in a different way. i guarantee it

[Mama Bear]

If you ban guns do you think that will stop people from killing? No, it only means they will find another way to kill. The way the media is coming down on guns you would imagine people were shooting them all the time...I dont care for guns, its not my thing. but i have friends who really enjoy their guns. They are responsible with them and go to the gun range as a hobby.. If people were shooting up places you would imagine they would shoot up all gun ranges they go to..just a shoot fest!

fact is if people want to kill they will.. The people who are shooting up places never just walked around with a gun threatening people. They were pushed to that point and got a gun. Killing people isnt a simple matter you wake up one morning and decide to do. School shootings happen when someone gets bullied to the point they want these people to die. If guns were banned they would kill in a different way. i guarantee it

Regarding your point on school shootings, I have to disagree. I think that if young people didn't have access to guns, there would definitely be a lower rate of mass/multiple murders in school settings. I work in a high school and cannot think of another way that teenagers could have as effective of an outcome (if you want to think about it that way) with other methods as they would with a firearm. This is predominantly because of range; it's harder to subdue a student who is able to attack from a distance.

[Misha]

Regarding your point on school shootings, I have to disagree. I think that if young people didn't have access to guns, there would definitely be a lower rate of mass/multiple murders in school settings. I work in a high school and cannot think of another way that teenagers could have as effective of an outcome (if you want to think about it that way) with other methods as they would with a firearm. This is predominantly because of range; it's harder to subdue a student who is able to attack from a distance.

The only reason young people have access is because their idiot parents don't secure them correctly, or they're involved in some gang activity and get them illegally anyway. If our government enforced the laws already on the books, mass shootings wouldn't be an issue. There should also be harsh punishment for any parent whose child gets one of their guns and commits a crime with it.

[Mama Bear]

The only reason young people have access is because their idiot parents don't secure them correctly, or they're involved in some gang activity and get them illegally anyway. If our government enforced the laws already on the books, mass shootings wouldn't be an issue. There should also be harsh punishment for any parent whose child gets one of their guns and commits a crime with it.

Oh, I agree with what you're saying. I was more responding to the PPs's claim that "School shootings happen when someone gets bullied to the point they want these people to die. If guns were banned they would kill in a different way. i guarantee it"

[Misha]

Oh, I agree with what you're saying. I was more responding to the PPs's claim that "School shootings happen when someone gets bullied to the point they want these people to die. If guns were banned they would kill in a different way. i guarantee it"

Gotcha. Yeah, I don't think it has to do solely with being bullied, either. I think a lot of it stems from the media glorifying these kids and giving them a name when they're going unnoticed at school. As far as the killings go, most of these kids aren't going to know how to build a bomb, so the majority of them would likely use a knife, and they aren't going to effectively carry out a mass murder in a classroom or hallway. Someone would step in, whether it be a teacher or another student. I was stabbed 14 times and still made it out kicking and throwing punches. Had the group of men decided to pull the trigger, I probably wouldn't be here today.

[Sci_Girl]

The only reason young people have access is because their idiot parents don't secure them correctly, or they're involved in some gang activity and get them illegally anyway. If our government enforced the laws already on the books, mass shootings wouldn't be an issue. There should also be harsh punishment for any parent whose child gets one of their guns and commits a crime with it.

I would agree. However I think there is another larger factor in play as well. Parents should parent. Parents no longer teach their kids right vs wrong. To be careful, think before one acts. No fighting, that anger and temper solves nothing, do not use violence to solve problems. There is no such thing as parenting in that aspect anymore, it is merely use your choice media product and be quiet. The TV/media babysitter which then becomes the contributing source to the glorifying, the fantasy of being the badass with a gun that "will show everyone who is boss".

Kids are going to be useless adults if they continually have nothing instilled in them about being good people. Good people do not commit crimes, bad people do. The more good we teach children the better off they are in learning that they should not require a weapon or resort to a violent act of any magnitude. Our kids are sorely doomed.

It is the current mentality that will break apart society from within. Thought process must change if there is any hope for things to steer away from the current reality of violent people's actions.

[Misha]

I would agree. However I think there is another larger factor in play as well. Parents should parent. Parents no longer teach their kids right vs wrong. To be careful, think before one acts. No fighting, that anger and temper solves nothing, do not use violence to solve problems. There is no such thing as parenting in that aspect anymore, it is merely use your choice media product and be quiet. The TV/media babysitter which then becomes the contributing source to the glorifying, the fantasy of being the badass with a gun that "will show everyone who is boss".

Kids are going to be useless adults if they continually have nothing instilled in them about being good people. Good people do not commit crimes, bad people do. The more good we teach children the better off they are in learning that they should not require a weapon or resort to a violent act of any magnitude. Our kids are sorely doomed.

It is the current mentality that will break apart society from within. Thought process must change if there is any hope for things to steer away from the current reality of violent people's actions.

100% agree with everything you've said. I think it's important to teach our children right and wrong, as well as teach the importance and value of life. I've been teaching my girls about life, including teaching them how to safely handle a firearm and when it's okay to touch one, since my oldest was 4 years old.

[salsadog]

My friend carries guns and she's very active in the gun community. She's the hallmark of how every gun owners should treat their guns. She maintains her gun every week, hides it away where her kids can never reach, and goes to a gun range for practice.

I wish gun laws were reformed. If you want a gun, you have to go to gun meeting every month and practice safe use. I keep hearing about idiots who bring their guns everywhere with them and it discharges; either killing them or hurting someone random. Educating them without taking guns away would be ideal in US. Guns are easy to get through illegal channels anyways.

But yea, ban assault rifles. Why do citizen need assault rifles anyways...

[jongeh]

My friend carries guns and she's very active in the gun community. She's the hallmark of how every gun owners should treat their guns. She maintains her gun every week, hides it away where her kids can never reach, and goes to a gun range for practice.

I wish gun laws were reformed. If you want a gun, you have to go to gun meeting every month and practice safe use. I keep hearing about idiots who bring their guns everywhere with them and it discharges; either killing them or hurting someone random. Educating them without taking guns away would be ideal in US. Guns are easy to get through illegal channels anyways.

But yea, ban assault rifles. Why do citizen need assault rifles anyways...

Listen to Ben Shaprio on the subject matter of why civilians need [semi automatic] assault rifles. Also, read up on why the 2nd Amendment was created. Problem solved.

[Misha]

My friend carries guns and she's very active in the gun community. She's the hallmark of how every gun owners should treat their guns. She maintains her gun every week, hides it away where her kids can never reach, and goes to a gun range for practice.

I wish gun laws were reformed. If you want a gun, you have to go to gun meeting every month and practice safe use. I keep hearing about idiots who bring their guns everywhere with them and it discharges; either killing them or hurting someone random. Educating them without taking guns away would be ideal in US. Guns are easy to get through illegal channels anyways.

But yea, ban assault rifles. Why do citizen need assault rifles anyways...

Assault rifles are already banned. My Norinco SKS is 5 times more powerful and 250 yards more accurate than any AR-15 in the civilian market. It comes down to owner responsibility, and the government doing their job, to stop these mass shootings. Guns will never go away in America, it just isn't going to happen. I agree with the person above me about Ben Shapiro's stance on why we need semi-auto rifles, though he does have a lot of views I don't agree with.

[salsadog]

Listen to Ben Shaprio on the subject matter of why civilians need [semi automatic] assault rifles. Also, read up on why the 2nd Amendment was created. Problem solved.

You got me. The 2nd amendment encourages people to practice safe gun control. That's why we never see news articles about kids getting shot in their faces after their parents left their gun out. Problem solved. Pack up and go home yall.



Assault rifles are already banned. My Norinco SKS is 5 times more powerful and 250 yards more accurate than any AR-15 in the civilian market. It comes down to owner responsibility, and the government doing their job, to stop these mass shootings. Guns will never go away in America, it just isn't going to happen. I agree with the person above me about Ben Shapiro's stance on why we need semi-auto rifles, though he does have a lot of views I don't agree with.

I agree, it all comes down to owner responsibility and etc., but I'm focusing on owner responsibility here. Gun owners need to be educated more about safety. I think this should be a mandatory yearly thing. I just can't see any downfalls to this aside from our gov bitching about not having enough money for it.

[jongeh]

You got me. The 2nd amendment encourages people to practice safe gun control. That's why we never see news articles about kids getting shot in their faces after their parents left their gun out. Problem solved. Pack up and go home yall.




I agree, it all comes down to owner responsibility and etc., but I'm focusing on owner responsibility here. Gun owners need to be educated more about safety. I think this should be a mandatory yearly thing. I just can't see any downfalls to this aside from our gov bitching about not having enough money for it.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't encourage people to practice safe gun control (whatever that means), it gives civilians the right to bear arms. My post was in response to the last sentence of yours, which asked why "citizen need assault rifles anyways...".

I haven't looked at the statistics, but I am almost certain the majority of child gun-related death cases involve handguns rather than assault rifles. You can go and look at the statistics yourself. Apart from that, I literally see no meaningful substance in your response to my post, so I will ask you; what exactly is it you are arguing?

[salsadog]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't encourage people to practice safe gun control (whatever that means), it gives civilians the right to bear arms. My post was in response to the last sentence of yours, which asked why "citizen need assault rifles anyways...".

I haven't looked at the statistics, but I am almost certain the majority of child gun-related child death cases involve handguns rather than assault rifles. You can go and look at the statistics yourself. Apart from that, I literally see no meaningful substance in your response to my post, so I will ask you; what exactly is it you are arguing?

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am not talking about assault rifles. I read a previous post here regarding them and was going off on that and stopped after I was informed better about it. And yes, I am talking about handguns. Should have clarified that so sorry about that.

[Misha]

Let's keep it civil guys.

Handguns have been the topic of a majority of child related deaths in the home due to owner negligence. I keep mine on me (the one I'm carrying that day) until I go to bed; other than that they are under lock and key and unloaded ALWAYS. There is zero reason that justifies a child death due to a handgun in the home other than intentional homicide. That includes a recent article I saw regarding a child that was "accidently" shot and killed while the owner was cleaning his firearm. First off, your firearm should never be loaded while cleaning it. Second, it's actually impossible to clean a handgun while it's loaded without knowing it is loaded.

Point being, there are no accidents with firearm deaths when it comes to the owner of said firearm. It is pure, 100% negligence. Period.

[Sci_Girl]

Should just go back to the good ol' days of playing with Nerf water guns...the only guns kids should be around.

[Misha]

Should just go back to the good ol' days of playing with Nerf water guns...the only guns kids should be around.

Funny story, when the super soaker 2000 came out, this kid blasted my brother in the face with it from point blank range when he came around a corner. Made my brother cry, so my older brother instincts kicked in and I chased the little prick across the park yard and ended up chucking a random spoon I found on the ground at him and railed him in the back of the head. Then I got grounded lol

[fallacy]

Honestly, they really need to control guns, with the rate that it's going now it looks like us is heading back from the Wild West where people would be carrying guns publicly in the future.

[Misha]

I carry my gun in public already

[Sci_Girl]

Honestly, they really need to control guns, with the rate that it's going now it looks like us is heading back from the Wild West where people would be carrying guns publicly in the future.

Countless Americans do already. Many legally. Many illegally. Many illegally, not as criminals, but as people who think permits are just another method of "restricting freedom" so they choose to avoid that process.

Not sure where you are from but here in Canada we cannot fathom the idea that carrying a gun while buying socks at Wal-Mart or eating out for dinner is an absolute essential when venturing into public. We were never brought up with that culture so we only see a ridiculous notion. However if I was brought up shooting cans from a fence post at 5 years old and being told to always be on alert for potential death via others I think I too would be carrying a gun, legally, anywhere I went.

[Mr. 49]

The second amendment was never written about allowing folks to carry guns around. It was written to ensure that the people would have protection against the US army if it fell to fascism. We the people do not have any such protection, guns or not.

[Mardan]

From the perspective of a European, I think it's pretty much impossible to understand the attachment to guns some people seem to have.
And I don't expect to ever change anyone's mind about that either.
It's just that some of the arguments that I see against critics don't make any sense for me.
One of the most common ones I see is "What would making guns illegal/harder to get accomplish? People would get them illegally!"

...yes? That's the WHOLE POINT.
As things stand now, anyone itching to shoot up a school/store/church/you name it, can just grab any of the readily available guns lying around and, in a fit of rage, go through with their lunacy.
Same thing goes for scorned lovers, desperate robbers, angry people arguing...thousands of deaths that happen every day because someone was angry and happened to have a weapon in hand.

Around 70% of non-crime related homicides are what is called a "crime of passion". That is, the homicide isn't premeditated, but it's carried out in a fit of rage.
In other countries, the most you can do is grab a knife.
In America, you can kill your victim, bystanders, and then yourself, all without breaking a sweat.
Normal people do not know where to get illegal contraband.
Normal people do not want to dirty themselves with crime.
Normal people do not want to know they formed a 'link' with criminals.

With an illegals (or heavily regulated) guns scenario, you prevent the normal majority from being involved in "accidental" crime, and you protect them from themselves.
The "You can still get guns illegaly" argument, while true, is completely irrelevant when applied to the demographics gun control would actually be trying to protect.

[Misha]

From the perspective of a European, I think it's pretty much impossible to understand the attachment to guns some people seem to have.
And I don't expect to ever change anyone's mind about that either.
It's just that some of the arguments that I see against critics don't make any sense for me.
One of the most common ones I see is "What would making guns illegal/harder to get accomplish? People would get them illegally!"

...yes? That's the WHOLE POINT.
As things stand now, anyone itching to shoot up a school/store/church/you name it, can just grab any of the readily available guns lying around and, in a fit of rage, go through with their lunacy.
Same thing goes for scorned lovers, desperate robbers, angry people arguing...thousands of deaths that happen every day because someone was angry and happened to have a weapon in hand.

Around 70% of non-crime related homicides are what is called a "crime of passion". That is, the homicide isn't premeditated, but it's carried out in a fit of rage.
In other countries, the most you can do is grab a knife.
In America, you can kill your victim, bystanders, and then yourself, all without breaking a sweat.
Normal people do not know where to get illegal contraband.
Normal people do not want to dirty themselves with crime.
Normal people do not want to know they formed a 'link' with criminals.

With an illegals (or heavily regulated) guns scenario, you prevent the normal majority from being involved in "accidental" crime, and you protect them from themselves.
The "You can still get guns illegaly" argument, while true, is completely irrelevant when applied to the demographics gun control would actually be trying to protect.

Like I've said before, I'm all for stricter laws when it comes to a citizen obtaining a firearm for self-defense as well as for hunting. I also strongly believe our government agencies need to take tips more serious and carry out checks. If you call the police and hang up without saying anything, the police will show up at the location of the original call.

Call the FBI and tell them someone has been making threats to shoot up their school/church/social event, and 9 times out of 10, they throw it in the back yard and go on about their day.

The illegal gun market in the US is already so large, with thousands more guns reaching the hands of criminals daily, that it would turn our country in to Brazil in no time as far as gun related crimes.

I think legal gun owners need to be held much more responsible for the care and security of their firearms when we get cases where someone "grabbed what was lying around" and commit a heinous act against innocent civilians.

[jack35999]

I believe gun control is necessary. But I do not think banning guns as a whole is necessary. A lot of gun violence in the states can be fixed by closing the economic gaps between rich and poor, but that's a discussion in itself that I'm not gonna get into. Banning automatic weapons makes sense, at a minimum those should be restricted to ownership by gun ranges only, there's no use for automatic weapons outside of entertainment and warfare. The big problem with gun laws in the states is that every state needs to follow suit for it to work. Look at Chicago, tough gun laws yet there's a high rate of gun violence. Why? Because the Illinois' shithole neighbour Indiana gives guns out like candy. All the criminals have to do is drive to Indiana and bam Illinois gun laws are useless. The argument that if guns are banned only the bad guys will have guns is ignorant as fuck, if you follow that logic then why do we bother controlling access to stuff like recreational drugs. Why do we criminalize murder if it doesn't stop 'bad guys' from doing it. USA needs to follow in the footsteps of its neighbour to the north. Canada decent gun laws for the most part, the laws also don't really vary by location. Background checks, banning convicted criminals, and requiring fire arms safety courses are important. With all this being said, I plan on getting my possession and acquisition license in the future so I can go hunting.

[Misha]

I believe gun control is necessary. But I do not think banning guns as a whole is necessary. A lot of gun violence in the states can be fixed by closing the economic gaps between rich and poor, but that's a discussion in itself that I'm not gonna get into. Banning automatic weapons makes sense, at a minimum those should be restricted to ownership by gun ranges only, there's no use for automatic weapons outside of entertainment and warfare. The big problem with gun laws in the states is that every state needs to follow suit for it to work. Look at Chicago, tough gun laws yet there's a high rate of gun violence. Why? Because the Illinois' shithole neighbour Indiana gives guns out like candy. All the criminals have to do is drive to Indiana and bam Illinois gun laws are useless. The argument that if guns are banned only the bad guys will have guns is ignorant as fuck, if you follow that logic then why do we bother controlling access to stuff like recreational drugs. Why do we criminalize murder if it doesn't stop 'bad guys' from doing it. USA needs to follow in the footsteps of its neighbour to the north. Canada decent gun laws for the most part, the laws also don't really vary by location. Background checks, banning convicted criminals, and requiring fire arms safety courses are important. With all this being said, I plan on getting my possession and acquisition license in the future so I can go hunting.

Background checks: mandatory for every firearm purchase at the federal level from a licensed firearms dealer

Banning criminals: anyone convicted of any felony or any violent crime is banned from owning firearms. In addition, felons can get arrested for walking down the street with so much as a screwdriver in their pocket

Firearms safey courses: mandatory before any citizen can own so much as a .22LR.

I have said it a hundred times; I agree with more strict laws when it comes to owning firearms. Automatic firearms are banned for any normal citizen, have been since 1986. Ar-15s have never been used by any US military branch. You cannot walk in to any store that sells firearms and walk out without having a permit to carry or permit to purchase, which before obtaining you must undergo an extensive background check. I had to take a course proving my knowledge on safety and legality of owning any firearm, as well as prove my ability to practice safe and accurate handling in a live setting, before I was able to receive my permit to carry my pistol.

[lorie]

I don't really see why, in 2019, the citizens need guns in america.

this isnt the old west in 1800s, where any shit goes. people got robbed, squatters stayed on their properties, stole their cattle and livestock...

the old white men who founded america needed guns back THEN, but in this highly modernized society, i dont really see why citizens need to carry a gun to fucking mcdonalds.
its just like, why? they just like to carry one just because they can and its written on some amendment made 200 years ago.
but since they are so widely distributed now, it would be nearly impossible to get them out of everyone's hands. i almost think its too late to change it now?

in other words, i think we are stuck in a loophole where if we took guns away, you couldn't completely get rid of all of them ,unless police went to every registered persons home and repossessed them. AND THEN some people would be left defenseless to the others who own a gun illegally.(i.e without papers or no location)

i really don't think there's any hope for america at this point, just stay out of public areas/schools or malls that seem to get targeted a lot if possible.

[Misha]

I don't really see why, in 2019, the citizens need guns in america.

this isnt the old west in 1800s, where any shit goes. people got robbed, squatters stayed on their properties, stole their cattle and livestock...

the old white men who founded america needed guns back THEN, but in this highly modernized society, i dont really see why citizens need to carry a gun to fucking mcdonalds.
its just like, why? they just like to carry one just because they can and its written on some amendment made 200 years ago.
but since they are so widely distributed now, it would be nearly impossible to get them out of everyone's hands. i almost think its too late to change it now?

in other words, i think we are stuck in a loophole where if we took guns away, you couldn't completely get rid of all of them ,unless police went to every registered persons home and repossessed them. AND THEN some people would be left defenseless to the others who own a gun illegally.(i.e without papers or no location)

i really don't think there's any hope for america at this point, just stay out of public areas/schools or malls that seem to get targeted a lot if possible.

Look at Venezuela. Less than 10 years after gun ownership is taken from citizens and now the government is mowing people down in armored vehicles.

The point isn't to just walk around armed because we can. It comes down to much more than that. We are a central hub for the most dangerous criminal enterprises in the world, we have more guns in one state than most entire countries have. The amount of illegal firearms that cross the border every day is unparalleled to anywhere else in the world. If you want to break it down in to per capita gun violence to gun ownership, we are ranked something like 110th on the list of gun violence.

All that crap aside,

The 2A is in place for citizens to have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government should we need to. We should be afforded the same weapons that our government uses (which we aren't and more of our rights are being taken every day). The entire reason for the amendment was based on how our country was founded (less the genocide of native americans, which I do not condone at all).

You are right though, there are too many guns for citizen ownership to be anywhere near banned. We would easily overthrow the government should it come down to that. Most of the people working for the government and our armed forces are large supporters of citizen gun ownership and would not adhere to some type of martial law bullshit if it came down to it. The only way America's guns will disappear is a nuclear war that decimated the entire country. Also, the media completely glorifies the tragedies and fails to report the GOOD that happens daily to law abiding citizens who use their firearms to protect the innocent from harm.

I will say it again for shits and giggles, if you don't live here you have zero insight as to what gun ownership is in this country or what would "work" for us. Just ask Drizzy.

[Kia]

Can't say I approve of guns and personally would never own one. I could understand maybe using them at a target range or something for fun but needing to have one at your home seems overly paranoid. There are cases where they are used in self defense but I sure wish I heard those sorts of stories rather than what seem to be monthly mass shootings in the news.

[Misha]

Can't say I approve of guns and personally would never own one. I could understand maybe using them at a target range or something for fun but needing to have one at your home seems overly paranoid. There are cases where they are used in self defense but I sure wish I heard those sorts of stories rather than what seem to be monthly mass shootings in the news.

67,740 cases on average per year where a gun is used in self defense. That's almost 70,000 people a year who refuse to be victims.

[Cookie Tray]

Gun culture in America is a curse. I live in an area that recently had a terrible mass shooting. The gun was legal. The area it happened in has gun stores, gun ranges, military gear readily available a two minute walk from supermarkets, religious places, and community centers. I'm never farther than 5 minutes away from another gun shop or shooting range, it's so fucking ridiculous. There's also a high culture of racism and queerphobia here, and it makes me incredibly uneasy going out in public knowing all these white supremacists have guns.

If our fascist government and police weren't so heavily militarized and armed, I would say a 100% removal of guns (ESPECIALLY FROM COPS) would be a hell of a lot safer. But because we don't live in a bubble and I am not naive, I would never call for removal of guns from those most at-risk to being attacked by pigs and feds: brown, Black & Indigenous people, disabled people, immigrants, activists, and queer people; many of whom are already dying at the hands of the US. (Not that a gun would save us in any of these situations because we'd certainly end up dead, or at best jailed for life for defense against a supremacist) In a less fascist environment, I know for a fact that these mass killings would stop if guns were removed from society. Instantly. And domestic violence deaths would decrease. Domestic terrorism violence would DRASTICALLY be reduced. Military and pigs are especially more prone to gun-related violence. The "bad guys and criminals" y'all mention with guns with countries who have them banned aren't the ones committing mass murder in the US.

People can say "guns don't kill people, people do," all they want but nothing is as easy for mass killing as a gun is and you sure can't do the same damage in the same time to the same amount of people with a knife or any blunt weapon that you can with a gun. In a perfect world with no police and military, nobody would even need one for self-defence.

So while I hate guns, would never own one, and feel unsafe in any home with them, I can't morally call for the banishment of them knowing it'd hurt America's most at-risk communities, because even a gun ban would likely not include cops and military, who MOST NEED them banned. I honestly only "support" gun ownership coming from those I mentioned earlier (BIPOC mostly) in the political climate today. Anyone else can go kick rocks because they have no reason for having a gun.

The facts are... most gun violence in the United States, by far, is from the police force. And nearly all mass murders are carried out by white domestic terrorists. Strip those in power from their guns and then see how the country changes overnight.

[Ape]

Gun culture in America is a curse. I live in an area that recently had a terrible mass shooting. The gun was legal. The area it happened in has gun stores, gun ranges, military gear readily available a two minute walk from supermarkets, religious places, and community centers. I'm never farther than 5 minutes away from another gun shop or shooting range, it's so fucking ridiculous. There's also a high culture of racism and queerphobia here, and it makes me incredibly uneasy going out in public knowing all these white supremacists have guns.

If our fascist government and police weren't so heavily militarized and armed, I would say a 100% removal of guns (ESPECIALLY FROM COPS) would be a hell of a lot safer. But because we don't live in a bubble and I am not naive, I would never call for removal of guns from those most at-risk to being attacked by pigs and feds: brown, Black & Indigenous people, disabled people, immigrants, activists, and queer people; many of whom are already dying at the hands of the US. (Not that a gun would save us in any of these situations because we'd certainly end up dead, or at best jailed for life for defense against a supremacist) In a less fascist environment, I know for a fact that these mass killings would stop if guns were removed from society. Instantly. And domestic violence deaths would decrease. Domestic terrorism violence would DRASTICALLY be reduced. Military and pigs are especially more prone to gun-related violence. The "bad guys and criminals" y'all mention with guns with countries who have them banned aren't the ones committing mass murder in the US.

People can say "guns don't kill people, people do," all they want but nothing is as easy for mass killing as a gun is and you sure can't do the same damage in the same time to the same amount of people with a knife or any blunt weapon that you can with a gun. In a perfect world with no police and military, nobody would even need one for self-defence.

So while I hate guns, would never own one, and feel unsafe in any home with them, I can't morally call for the banishment of them knowing it'd hurt America's most at-risk communities, because even a gun ban would likely not include cops and military, who MOST NEED them banned. I honestly only "support" gun ownership coming from those I mentioned earlier (BIPOC mostly) in the political climate today. Anyone else can go kick rocks because they have no reason for having a gun.

The facts are... most gun violence in the United States, by far, is from the police force. And nearly all mass murders are carried out by white domestic terrorists. Strip those in power from their guns and then see how the country changes overnight.

So when one of these criminals are holding up a bank with gun, who is going to stop them if the police have nothing? I am sorry but i do not understand your reasoning. Many of these cases of police violence(Which is another debate in itself) only show one side of things. If you put yourself in the police's shoes especially in america today with people hating police and calling them pigs constantly, this behavior causes paranoia. If you would like to have an intelligent debate police violence by all means I am up for it and would be more then willing to counter any argument you make. To stay on topic though, the second amendment does protect from the government. Look at Nazi Germany, the first thing that was taken away was guns. Not everyone supported the Nazi's but they couldn't defend themselves.

[Cookie Tray]

So when one of these criminals are holding up a bank with gun, who is going to stop them if the police have nothing? I am sorry but i do not understand your reasoning. Many of these cases of police violence(Which is another debate in itself) only show one side of things. If you put yourself in the police's shoes especially in america today with people hating police and calling them pigs constantly, this behavior causes paranoia. If you would like to have an intelligent debate police violence by all means I am up for it and would be more then willing to counter any argument you make. To stay on topic though, the second amendment does protect from the government. Look at Nazi Germany, the first thing that was taken away was guns. Not everyone supported the Nazi's but they couldn't defend themselves.

It's not causing paranoia, pigs kill people. It is a fact. They do not protect citizens; they protect property. The fact that you're insinuating everything I've already mentioned is NOT an "intelligent debate" shows your bias, and also the fact that you think this is just a debate of ideas and not something millions of people have to live through daily. I'm disabled, I'm brown, and I'm trans. The police are a direct threat to my existence because they kill people like me with absolutely no recourse. Banks have insurance. Banks have been given money (literally billions of dollars) from our govt many times despite banks being incredibly shady to say the least. Why is "a criminal holding up a bank with a gun" a dangerous scenario to you, moreso than police mass killing specific types of people with no repercussions, for absolutely no reason? Why do you value money in a bank more than you value human lives?

As I said: The "bad guys and criminals" y'all mention with guns with countries who have them banned aren't the ones committing mass murder in the US.

I've literally been help up at gunpoint. I was robbed at gunpoint and I knew I was not in danger. Because a regular person with a gun doesn't want to hurt you, they want to intimidate you. This is what you label a "criminal." However, military vets and cops have been TRAINED to shoot people. They are trained to kill. They have been brainwashed into thinking they need to shoot first and ask questions later, no matter what you are doing. No matter if you comply.


People sure love to point at Nazi Germany as The Ultimate Fascist Nation as if we aren't living through that exactly right now in the US with concentration camps and guns aren't outlawed and STILL we have nothing to protect ourselves because it is the govt and police who are overmilitarized. What is a gun going to do against ICE? What will a gun do for the thousands of children and sick people killed in police custody? When faced with a gun, the police who have bigger guns, are going to shoot first. You're dead either way.

Anyway. If you don't "understand my reasoning" it's because you don't live these life experiences, you are protected from being targeted by police. You don't have to fear your friends and family never coming home because they had an interaction with gun-toting pigs. I'm glad for you, but you need to realize that you are lucky for that, not smarter or wiser.

[UselessAccoutn]

Apologies for the very large (well, seems large right now) reply.

Personally, I'm a fan of more gun control. Or at the very least, more liability for owning your gun.
If your kid can steal your gun and shoot up a school, you should be charged with something. Your lack of safety caused people to die. If you're going to own a gun, you need to own up to the fact that it's *dangerous*.
As far as people who are like "but people will still get them from black markets!"
Statistics: An estimated 287,400 prisoners possessed a firearm during their offense, 56% had either: stolen it(6%), found it at the scene(7%), or got it from the street/underground market(43%)
Most of the remainder(25%) had gotten it from family/friend or as a gift. 7% bought it under their own name, from a licensed dealer.
80%(ish, if I remember right) had purchased/gotten the gun without the intent to use it in a crime.

There's also some hefty difference in statistics as to what crimes were committed with those guns, and how many of them actually used their guns. (If I remember right, around 19% of violent-crime state prisoners didn't even fire the gun)
Mostly that homicides and in-person robberies are where people fired their guns the most.

So, if you were unable to purchase guns as freely, or at least make it not legal for gun ownership transfer between unlicensed people, that would curb off 25% of those guns. If you weren't able to own a gun, or sell guns as freely, then I believe it would also help pull a lot of current guns away from the availability of criminals, since police would have more "freedom" to take guns. Right now you can walk down the street with a gun plainly visible, or even hidden if you have the permit. With more control on things like that, it would open up a lot more arrests for having them.
The biggest issue though, I think, that people are talking about is just the fact that we have so many mass shootings. High school shootings to be specific (though the others are also a pretty big problem).
That's where gun ownership liability should come in.
If Uncle Tommy comes in and asks for your gun, and you give it to him, and he goes out to shoot someone, your license should be permanently removed with no chance of ever owning a gun (legally) ever again.
If your kid grabs your gun off the gun rack, pumps it full of ammo on your dresser, goes out and shoots up a school, you should be charged with firearm neglect, with a chance of jail (not like 10 years in prison jail, I mean like a couple months in the local jail), and again a permanent removal of your license to ever own a gun ever again. With restrictions and ramifications this severe, you'd definitely see a decrease in the "I grabbed my dad's gun and shot people haha" area.
I also don't think those would be unfair restrictions. If you want to own a gun, you need to be responsible about it, you need to be liable for owning this machine that exists literally to kill things.

As far as police brutality and such goes, something I learned recently is that one of the problems there are the police unions. The city can't just outright fire an officer, because unions. If an officer shoots someone, the city can't fire him.
The other side is (as someone pointed out) a lot of people say they want guns to protect their freedoms, if the government ever goes "okay we're in control now"
What are you going to do? Fire a gun at a tank? Fight a group of trained soldiers? Build a militia of your own in secret to combat said soldiers? In what time frame? If that ever happens, it's not gonna be like "yeah I think we're gonna take over the country soon, guys" and do something months later. It's a slow shift that nobody realizes until suddenly "marshal law" is in place.
Another (very much less accurate and non-sourced) statistics is that people are more likely to walk away from a crime in progress rather than go in and help, or even report it. You think people like that are going to suddenly band together to fight their GOVERNMENT?


Prisoner Statistic Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

I just realized this was also a bit of a grave dig.
My bad, it was near the top of the section, I thought it was still more active.