The United States of America leads the world in gun ownership, gun deaths and spree killings outside a war zone by a wide margin. Yet for some reason, even the most reasonable efforts to restrict access to guns of certain types and sizes is verboten. That reason is the highly successful gun lobby.
Not only can I buy as many guns with the largest magazines as I can afford but it's gotten to the point where I can tote a gun around just about anywhere and use it to murder another person without even getting arrested if I claim I was "standing my ground" or "protecting my home". It has gone too far.
The thing is, guns make killing way too easy. Just point and shoot. At least with a knife you have to have the motivation and the ability to get within arm's reach. Just try slaughtering dozens of people in movie theater with a knife. The whole point of guns is that they are machines for killing. Killing dangerous and delicious animals, killing people, and based on my observations, killing rural road signs. Target shooting is just practice killing.
So because they are for killing, they should be kind of hard to get. I think you should have to earn it through safety courses and supervised training. Frontier days are over; there ain't going to be a bear busting down the door of your suburban home. And America doesn't depend on state militias to defend the country.
But let's start with something much simpler; the assault weapon. I know a lot of people get off on holding their boomstick and squeezing the trigger, but do they really need 100 round magazines to get their fix? Is their recreation more important than limiting the damage a murderer can do?
Oh that's right, thanks to the gun lobby's exquisite use of the slippery slope fallacy, any step towards limiting guns in any way means the government will go around confiscating all yer guns so they can ... (insert world government-type conspiracy here).
So as always happens after a trademark American spree killing, the politicians and the talking heads will flap their jaws and thump their chests; the Left is stealing your rights; the Right is trying to shoot you; each side is "exploiting a tragedy"; then something new will come along and distract everyone's attention to the next news cycle while nothing changes. Repeat as needed with every additional spree killing.
You read it! You can't unread it!
Seriously though, couldn't agree more, triplemultiplex. I encountered somebody who stated they were open to "any serious proposal to stop the problem," but that brining up gun control was being an assh*le and taking advantage of the situation. What?
skurtz wrote:nwt000 wrote:Get your trolling ass out of here!
I'm more friendlier drinking some espresso.
http://www.youtube.com/user/fpsrussia?f ... sults_main
P.S: fpsrussia isn't russian. Just FYI.
skurtz wrote:nwt000 wrote:Get your trolling ass out of here!
I'm more friendlier drinking some espresso.
Sorry I couldn't resist
Regardless, America has the 'right to bear arms' and has done so for many years. SO many people in the US have guns, that to ban them would be karniving, extremely frivolous and would cause absolute and total anarchy.
While I do believe that something should be done (i.e. a near total ban on assault rifles or AK-47s) but to get rid of shotguns, handguns, or any other simple 'rifle' would be dangerous. People use guns for safety. Others use it for hunting (especially in northern and western states).
There will always be guns. Their will always be tragic events linked to guns. But to ban them completely is just not the right way to go about this. Better screening needs to happen, and maybe a personal questionaire on the purpose of the weapon being brought.
Apologies to the Travon Martin incident, and the victims of the Colorado/Arizona shootings...but some people Need these weapons because honestly, you don't know who is out there or an instance where violence might be the only way out of a situation. I'm not saying anyone should use violence. But in a matter of defense...not only for hunting, or for oneself against like a robber or an aggravated assault on an individual.
It's just not gonna go away. Yes, something should be done..but to kill guns would really take away a RIGHT that many americans are properly given, and only a handful have abused.
I don't have any guns..My parents have one, even though they are hippies..They live 6 miles outside a very small town in the middle of nowhere.Their nearest neighbors are not very close, not close enough to see what is going on at their house..If my parents had to call the police for help, it might take a while for the police to get out to their house..And things have happened..Up until 7 years ago, I was living with them, and we had lived on the same piece of property since I was maybe 2. One time when I was 5 or 6, someone came to our house when we were in town, and murdered our dog. Wolf..Someone just decided to shoot him. We never found out who, and the sheriff didn't do much.That was when my parents got a gun..5 years later, someone showed up when we were gone again, and poisoned our dog Leia. I was about 11 and I was devastated by the loss, and maybe a little frightened that someone just came and did that. Because, in that instance, we also never found out who it was who poisoned her. And, over the years, there were some occassions when random creepy people decided to come up our drive way ( and the driveway to my parent's house is pretty long) they didn't do anything, but their behaviour and excuses for showing up were very odd. And, that was disturbing, because there have been murders on my road..At least two..A women who lived a little up the road from my parent's house was murdered when I was in my teens. I didn't know her, but the story I heard was she lived alone and someone attacked her one night.. And, a dead body was dumped on our road too, maybe a few years later. For all these reasons, I was not left home alone when I was a teen, or at least for no longer than a few hours, because although we had a gun, I had only shot it once. My mom was worried about what might happen if a creepy guy showed up, like the one who did one day when she was home alone, and maybe if he was dealing with me, he might try something. And, by the way, my parents are very liberal, hate Repulicans and conservative Christians, and they do not irresponsibly shoot their guns. And, I have even heard them making fun of the kind of extremists you are making fun of in this post. But, they have guns, and they are not irresponsible about owning them.They seriously have them for home protection, and considering where they live, they need it..Infact, I really hope they decide to sell the property and move, to be honest. Because another great thing about where they live is the nearest town has a lot of meth heads and drug dealers in it. Some of them only sell pott, but even with that, there is a lot of violence..Last year, one of those pot dealers had a home invasion, someone came into their house at gun point and stole their money and weed. My Dad knows someone who knows the guy that happened to. That area is just not safe.
Now, I don't have a gun..But, if I heard about a lot of things happening in my area like home invasion, and women in my area getting raped, f*ck yeah, I'd get one..And, I'd learn to shoot it. Maybe this issue is not something you think about, because you don't have a vagina, but things like that do happen to women..There are a lot of sick scumbags out there, and I don't want pigs like that touching me..And, this may sound bad to you, but I don't have a problem with "murdering" a f*cking creep who would break into my house and try to do that to me. Infact, creeps like that sometimes don't just rape their victims, they murder them too. And, if what I just stated goes against your morality, that's fine.
Another thing, maybe you shouldn't exploit a tragedy to promote your beliefs. We have both posted on this board for years, and I have seen your comments on gun control before. You might have things soft and easy, and you have no reason to be threatened by anyone..Not everyone has those luxuries. Some people have the problems I have listed..Some people also have stalkers, or abusive ex boyfriends or girl friends who keep showing up. And, the people who have good reason to protect themselves should not be denied it, because some people are irresponsible..By the way, if a psycho wanted to kill a bunch of people in a movie theater, gun control wouldn't stop him. He could always burn down the theater.
America, we need to talk about your guns.
You're American too tripple and can't disown the problem. More talking about it is better, though only if ideas are expressed not the same old words. Whatever our duristiction's laws and situation, everyone is posed the question of what regulation should exist over guns. None of us have the power to effect how it is answered so shouldn't stress too hard.
That reason is the highly successful gun lobby.
It's hard to disentangle issues and talk exclusively about them, as they effect and are effected by our views and policies on everything else. Lobbying is a complex issue i don't want to get into but less influence on laws from powerful interests would probably help.
It can't be removed from the culture war context. Proponents of other 'left' issues are assumed to favor gun control, and vice versa, despite little logical connection between the issues. Given how little effort there has been to regulate weapons, the continued attacks on the left for gun controll seem little to do with guns themselves.
The faliure of alcohol prohibition is used both to oppose laws against guns. Another issue linked to guns. It may seem like cognitive dissodance or even hypocracy that I want to decrease regulation of cannabis and increase it on guns. Conclusions about general things, like laws limiting access to something or even a general class of things (guns, drugs, etc) are rarely solid. The DEA say alcohol prohibition decreased alcohol consumption by 30-50%, though they're a biased source. The harm done increased as gangs rose up, desipte use going down. Although handgun ownership drops as gun laws get stricter, it's the effect on harm done that must be examined.
Statistics on firearm related violent crime are relatively meaningless. That making guns hard to get decreases gun ownership and gun-related violence should be too obvious to mention, though the multitude who don't accept it force us to.
The effect on crime in general is more important and contentious. Opponents of gun laws say criminals could just use knives, but will they and will as much harm be done if they do?
Within the US, states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide this study from 1988 to 1997 and this study from 2002-2003. It was hard to find data comparing homicide rate against gun ownership by US state- either more research needs to be done, or what exists needs to become more available.
I couldn't find anything on international homicide rate by country so made one with data from wikipedia.
The US appears to be an outlier so I made a graph without the US for comparison.
Other factors like economic development, culture, welfare and education have an impact. If the same effect is seen in diverse nations, it could cancel them out. It's possible the same law in different circumstances would have opposite effects not just to other nations, but to the general rule which will usually have exceptions. Despite the limits of statistics they're probably the best guide we have.
If only we could stick to statistics.
The thing is, guns make killing way too easy. Just point and shoot
Does anyone think they can unholster your gun, take off the safety, aim it and fire while a mugger has a knife to their jugular or gun to their temple, before getting killed? A gun in the home may deter intruders but when gun-control opponents talk about how they'll deal with street criminals or how gun laws put them in danger of it, they seem to think a gun turns you into a Clint Eastwood character. If I were a mugger I'd be more likely to kill someoen if i thought they had a gun so maybe high gun ownership leads to more violence?
Fear of crime seems unduely high, compared to fear of other dangers, among gun enthusiasts. Most criminals don't want to murder you, trying to fight back usually makes them more violent. Sometimes they'll hurt or kill you whatever you do, sometimes fighting back works, but it's what's usual that matters.
If you had to fight to the death, which weapon would you prefer in your hand - a spoon or a gun? Gun proponents often argue that if we banned guns, people would switch to other weapons. The response that it's easier to kill with guns, which tripplemultiplex gave, is ignored though anyone answering "gun" to my question implicitly agrees.
Banning guns wouldn't change the intention of wouldbe criminals. How easy it is for chemicals to react determines the proportion that react, how easy it is to kill probbaly determines how many are killed. It doesn't have to make people more moral, to stop them hurting as many people. Crimes of passion could be prevented if people had a chance to calm down before killing. If something else were as dangerous as guns, it's of course possible to ban that too.
For all our problems the UK is not a tyranical dictatorship. Same goes for Japan. The US will not become a dictatorship if gun control laws are tightened. Other freedoms do not depend on guns. The US is already losing it's freedoms without gun ownership decreasing. How are we supposed to stop politicians with guns anyway - shoot them? If someone had taken control of the military and police, I'm unsure how handguns will help.
When people say they'll kill cops if guns are made illegal, not only do they sound like spoiled children who don't respect the democratic process or rule of law, they sound dellusional. If you think you can take on the entire police force and army, have at it. The idea the police wouldn't enforce a law or the military wouldn't obey orders disrepsects those professions discipline. Treasonous bastards who wouldn't obey orders have no right in those jobs.
In my country, most cops are unarmed. We have significantly fewer people shot by police. Our low crime rates suggest they do their job anyway. Not that there aren't armed units. Training is important in reducing police brutality and abuse of power too, but the issue of limiting police gun ownership must be put on the table.
Of course I just want to disarm the rebelious colonies so i can re-invade them, like France invaded us when we disarmed. Oh wait, that never happened. The idea disarming your people opens you upto invasion is silly if you have a standing army.
It won't abolish all crime, but it doesn't have to to decrease crime. Doesn't need to be perfect to be good. It may have different effects on different classes of crime, like violent and property crime. Complex laws might be needed as with alcohol.
let's start with something much simpler; the assault weapon
We banned pot over 50 years ago, we still haven't banned alcohol - the 'slippery slope' argument that any gun laws (banning assault rifles? background checks?) will lead to total gun bans is a joke.
There are people around the globe that take guns a little too seriously, not just Americans. Like FPS Russia.
FPS Russia is ironically, an American. The US has the highest rate of handgun ownership in the developed world.
2nd amendment. 2nd amendment. 2nd amendment. 2nd amendment. 2nd amendment. 2nd amendment. 2nd amendment. 2nd amendment
Sadly not always said in jest. Gun technology has come so far since the founders that what they meant by "bear arms" has litle to do with what we mean. It's likely they were talking about the state's right to a militia since the federal government didn't have a standing army at the time. It says "well regulated" for a reason. The document was a compramise between many opposing views, as is any law, none of the founders (with their disparate views) agreed with all of it. It's a work of man and not perfect. They knew they were infallible and few thought this would last longer than the articles of confederation; the question should never be "does it say it's wrong in some old document" but "does the evidence say it's wrong." As smart as they were, their authority to write it came not from knowing the perfect laws but by winning an war. As their war was treasonous by the 'constitution' of the time, they knew better than most that constitutions sometimes need breaking. I hate how laws are twisted in their description to fit the letter of a constitution they don't fit the spirit of - a standing army would likely be out of the question for any of the founders but SCOTUS has a way with words. Another issue we can't talk about gun control without mentioning i guess.
Not everyone has it as good or is as sheltered
How do you know he's so sheltered or has been all his life? The evidence and statistics will be the same whatever we've personally experienced. That different areas have different crime rates, is unrelated to the issue of gun laws, if we don't think gun owneship helps in the event of a crime.
I don't have a problem with "murdering" a f*cking creep who would break into my hous
Is the death penalty metered out for mugging, robbery or burglary? Should it be? It's unconstitutional to execute someone without a trial that's for sure. As people can't know the intention of intruders, shooting them is best seen as self defence. Proportional force laws exist in a lot of places so be careful if you think it's murder in quote-marks in the eyes of the law.
Someone broke into my flat at college in the first year. I grabbed a knife for defence and called security. Turned out to be a stoned guy who thought it was his flat. Still broke in through the window. If I had a gun I'd have shot the f*cker, been a murderer and in jail now.
I thought someone broke in the house when I was a kid. Turned out it was my older sister, who'd run away from home, had snuck back into the house. I grabbed a kitchen knife. If I had a gun, I may well have shot her in the f*cking head as it was dark and she broke in.
Even if people have guns in the home, we have to train them to warn people before they use violence, to prevent people killing family members as much as to stop the "murder" of burglars. If you would be totally OK with killing a human being, you probably shouldn't have knives let alone guns. My faith in humanity is maintained by my doubt that the people who say they'd be OK with killing someone really would be, just as I doubt the people who say they'd be rapists if they didn't believe in Jesus would do what they say.
An aquaintance of mine went on a Columbine inspired "killing spree" a few years back. This being England, he couldn't get hold of a gun although he really wanted one, and settled for a machette and bombs. He was arrested before he managed to hurt anyone. If this was America I'm sure he would've had a gun and done a lot more damage. Being hard to find does stop at least some nutters going on sprees.
That said I don't think laws should be based on rare single events however tragic, it's the common statistically significant violence that should determine our laws. our judgement of what laws are good that is. Using events like this to get laws we like passed is just pragmatic politicis. It's not like the NRA doesn't use tragedies to push their message.
I recognize that some people want guns for their own person security and that's fine, regardless about what I think of it. But no one needs an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine for self defense.
If a person is concerned about self defense, why not get a taser or some other non-lethal weapon? In all of the most likely scenarios where somebody imagines they'd need a gun, the taser would work just as well and have the added bonus of not killing anyone.
There is this subtext when the NRA-types use their slippery slope fallacy to argue against any restrictions on gun ownership. To them, some gun laws means there will be an all out prohibition leaving them powerless against some REAL tyranny (not the made up crap about health care). So that means they expect there to be a time where they need to kill government agents for some reason. It is the logical extrapolation of their slippery slope. And I find that really strange, to expect your government to be hunting you down in the near future.
As far as the timing of this discussion, what is the appropriate amount of time after a mass murder to begin discussing sensible ideas about how to prevent it from happening again? How much longer should we all sit in quiet contemplation about innocent people being murdered so as to not "politicize" this tragedy? If anyone knows, please tell me.
You read it! You can't unread it!
I'm not proposing that everyone give up all their guns
Banning guns outright is on the table and wouldn't be as disasterous as many 2nd ammendment types claim. A spectrum of regulation is possible, as the complex laws on alcohol or for guns in other countries show.
Closing loopholes in any law is important. End the gun show loophole.
I recognize that some people want guns for their own person security
The "we just want to hunt" argument is a joke that has to stop, unless people want guns to only be legal for hunting. Saying an automatic weapon is needed for self defence is like saying the DoD is needed for defence.
Killing isn't easy even if it's totally legal in your duristiction, so not being (as likely) to take a life is a benefit of 'non-lethal' weapons.
Unassumption wrote:Killing isn't easy even if it's totally legal in your duristiction, so not being (as likely) to take a life is a benefit of 'non-lethal' weapons.
Yes, that's the problem with the "if somebody tried to hold-up a store and I had a gun, I could stop him," argument for gun ownership. Even if you think your John Wayne, you are not, and if you saw somebody holding up a store, you're probably not going to pull a gun out on them even if you have one - you'll be scared shitless.
Complete prohibition of guns would be a bad idea, but I agree that the NRA mentality is creepy and deluded.
skurtz wrote:nwt000 wrote:Get your trolling ass out of here!
I'm more friendlier drinking some espresso.
I know tripplemultiplex and most "anti gun" Americans aren't arguing for a total gun ban but coming from a country that almost has that I can't say even that is anywhere nearly as bad as NRA types say it'd be, although I'm unsure if it's the way to go. I think that extreme should be discussed though, alongside all the intermediates, since there doesn't seem good evidence that even that fails.
Unassumption wrote:How does that invalidate it? People often make the argument that, if guns were not arround people would commit murders through other means. I wanted to test if that were true, by checking the effect on total homicides of less gun ownership. If people are going to make that argument, I don't see why getting data on it is invalid?
People are dumb. And I'm one of them. But the UK data is still too high for its gun ownership compared to the US, despite the US having the most homicides in absolute terms. Rounding up or down gives me a result between 2.9 and 3.7 I had given earlier. To wit:
homicides per mil - 12
guns per 100 - 7
homicides per gun per 10,000 - 1.71
homicides per mil - 47
guns per 100 - 89
homicides per gun per 10,000 - 0.53
ratio: 3.2 UK/US.
The increase in the number of guns present does not give a corresponding increase in the relative homicide rate, or even keep it constant. In fact, it lowers it. Which is why gun rights advocates insist on citizens owning guns. So, even though the US has almost 13 times the guns the UK has, it only has almost 4 times the homicides. What does THAT tell you?
That it's not 1 more murder for 1 more gun, doesn't mean it isn't 0.25 more murders for each gun, let alone less murders for more guns.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests