Opinion Why gun control is...well...stupid

[MedievalMethods]

You can't really blame the OP. The Internet isn't helpful when conveying sarcasm. That said, I got it 

I'd say that it's not really a necessary evil assuming that the populace is moved to be educated to be able to self-determine and operate autonomously through voluntary association (and honestly, people will work to keep communities up and such regardless of the lack of governmental/corporate incentive). The idea that government as we understand it (top-down legislature) is necessary is a sad thing to think of - sure, the governments you listed as modern examples of bad government certainly are pretty repressive, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. I'd actually say that government is not neutral at all, and even in the best-case scenarios it is simply only less repressive than those governments mentioned. Governments maintain a certain false necessity that the borders and nationalities which divide us all through education and indoctrination. The "democratic" and "free" governments of the western world may not be as domestically oppressive (racism and poor-shaming notwithstanding), but they still don't pull any punches when it comes to oppressing others worldwide or economically. 

Also, for your statistic on murders in the US and UK, I think this is an interesting article for all to read. 

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

There seems to be at least four points your addressing in the paragraph above, so I'll do my best to answer them separately for ease of reading.


Government and its Morality - This is where you get into the pessimism and optimism. In order for for government to be anything but a neccesary evil, you would indeed assume the citizenry be informed (which I believe is different than being merely educated) and able to muzzle their government through voluntary association. I never make this assumption and apply it liberally, since I believe one should always anticipate the worst of government. It is this healthy suspicion, after all, that allows the citizen to be on-guard. At the same time, I very much disagree with your idea that borders and nationalities are inherently negative things. But thats a fun debate for another thread 


Racism and Poor-shaming - While a small blurb, I highly disagree with this point, that there is a modern culture of racism and poor-ism (for lack of a better term) in Western countries. Prejudice exists, and will always persist as a part of the human condition, but at a much reduced rate in countries operating in the sphere of Western freedom. Examine any country not influenced by Western values, and you will inevitably find a country very much lacking in freedom and liberty; quite repulsive in prospects for advancement economically, religious and philosophical thought, and for equality under the law if you are a minority. 


Western Foreign Policy - And while I can't exactly elaborate on this without going off topic from the thread, I also find your opinion of Western world foreign policy very much skewed. I agree there has been over reach by Western nations in past and recent history. But you seem to phrase it, as if no non-Western nation has every attempted to take something from a neighbor sovereignty 


Lastly, and more relevantly, the numbers I mentioned from the websites given are statistics re-recorded from Pew, the international gold standard in polling. But as a general advisory, I agree with your message: confirm, confirm, confirm sources. 

 

[Swindle]

You can't really blame the OP. The Internet isn't helpful when conveying sarcasm. That said, I got it 


There seems to be at least four points your addressing in the paragraph above, so I'll do my best to answer them separately for ease of reading.


Government and its Morality - This is where you get into the pessimism and optimism. In order for for government to be anything but a neccesary evil, you would indeed assume the citizenry be informed (which I believe is different than being merely educated) and able to muzzle their government through voluntary association. I never make this assumption and apply it liberally, since I believe one should always anticipate the worst of government. It is this healthy suspicion, after all, that allows the citizen to be on-guard. At the same time, I very much disagree with your idea that borders and nationalities are inherently negative things. But thats a fun debate for another thread 


Racism and Poor-shaming - While a small blurb, I highly disagree with this point, that there is a modern culture of racism and poor-ism (for lack of a better term) in Western countries. Prejudice exists, and will always persist as a part of the human condition, but at a much reduced rate in countries operating in the sphere of Western freedom. Examine any country not influenced by Western values, and you will inevitably find a country very much lacking in freedom and liberty; quite repulsive in prospects for advancement economically, religious and philosophical thought, and for equality under the law if you are a minority. 


Western Foreign Policy - And while I can't exactly elaborate on this without going off topic from the thread, I also find your opinion of Western world foreign policy very much skewed. I agree there has been over reach by Western nations in past and recent history. But you seem to phrase it, as if no non-Western nation has every attempted to take something from a neighbor sovereignty 


Lastly, and more relevantly, the numbers I mentioned from the websites given are statistics re-recorded from Pew, the international gold standard in polling. But as a general advisory, I agree with your message: confirm, confirm, confirm sources. 

1. Considering how it breeds distrust and essentially involves ignoring the fact that there are billions of other humans who all pretty much have the same needs that you do, I can't imagine what quite makes them a good thing. But, you're right, it's better not to derail the original subject matter, although not many really seem to be in disagreement on this thread on the gun control thing.

2. Errr...maybe? I mean, considering all the reactionary anti-muslim laws and sentiment, the intense backlash against letting Syrian refugees into European countries and the USA on the basis that they might all be undercover terrorists, and just an all-too-common level of xenophobia coming from both Europe and the USA, I think it's safe to say that there's a fair amount of racism in those regions. Plus, systemic racism (which I would say is not so much outright but more just a symptom of times past that is still not being addressed properly) is pretty rampant in the United States at the very least. Minorities (namely blacks and hispanics) are disproportionately in poverty/jailed, have less access to education and jobs, and well, you know, that whole controversial police brutality thing in which blacks/hispanics made up a disproportionately massive number of police shootings in the last year. 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/165/racism This would be a good article to read on the matter, as it includes matters of racism in all parts of the world. I mainly recommend you read it, though, to learn that even though the Western world often has provisions against racist actions, it doesn't immediately eliminate things like white nationalism and just the general xenophobia that has yet to leave the minds of the public, particularly in Europe/the USA. 

Also, anti-poor sentiment is alive and well, at least in the USA (I've not lived in Europe, so I can't say for sure what it's like there, especially since they tend to vary politically in climate). The individualist rhetoric is strong and often all I get to hear from people as a poor person is that I (and the 15 million unemployed/48 million impoverished) should just suck it up, pull up the bootstraps, and pull myself out of economic disparity, and it's a rhetoric I've heard even from left-leaning people in the USA, too. Statistically it's not even possible for half of the 15 million unemployed to get jobs - there's only 6 million jobs available as of today. 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-world

3. Considering the colonialism and subsequent dropping of third-world countries with little aid of note (for every one dollar in aid a developing country receives, they average 25 dollars for debt repayments, often pulled from the already impoverished public who never accrued the debt in the first place), I'd say the over-reaching is long running. Again, the USA is a big problem in this scenario - it's literally dismantled democratically elected governments in the middle east and elsewhere just to serve the economic interest of its government and corporations. And when you consider that regions like the Middle East are still being bombed and destabilized out of some extreme need to "destroy" terrorism (which you'll never do, because you'll never break the spirit of an enemy as determined as that), the western world has not been so good at upholding "freedom" and "liberty" worldwide. 
 










I'm not so sure where you get the idea that it's skewed, since I'm well aware of and also despise the much more overtly oppressive governments of history and of our time that did not originate from the west - but the point I'm trying to make is that Western values should not be held so highly as to forget the terrible things that those governments have done. I know that it's a step above oppressive governments like those of Assad, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and etc., but just being slightly better than the worst doesn't make you good. (Which, by the way, a lot of despots have been endorsed by the USA, as outlined in the video above.) 

But uh, I'll stop derailing the topic for now. If you want you can talk to me in PM or something so that people can discuss what this thread is actually supposed to be about. 

 

[MedievalMethods]

We can continue this here. 


Also, what are peoples opinions here on what constitutes proper firearms to own? As in, should I be equally able to own a .22 semi-automatic rifle, and say, an automatic Tavor?  Yes, no, maybe and why or why not? 

 

[The Gunrunner]

We can continue this here. 


Also, what are peoples opinions here on what constitutes proper firearms to own? As in, should I be equally able to own a .22 semi-automatic rifle, and say, an automatic Tavor?  Yes, no, maybe and why or why not? 

I was kinda avoiding a serious post because the only things I had issues with were nitpicks on a few arguments - Namely the founding fathers knowing where developments would go, and the government having no business limiting a law-abiding citizen. Problem is, the people giving these arguments had the same position I did in the general topic. It wouldn't have been adding anything.


But since you asked.


TerrinX actually... highlighted a mistake;   "If you shoot an intruder with a pistol bullet they're dead." It's not quite true, but first: Let's analyze a home invasion.


Typically, the interior of a home is tight corners and relatively small spaces, the exceptions being wide living rooms or hallways. Different homes have different layouts, of course, but this is what the typical home is like. So, because of this, you're going to be fighting someone who's likely to be close to you - Someone who can shoot you as easily as you can shoot them. Because of this, you want to kill the invader immediately. You don't want to have to empty the magazine.


"If you shoot an intruder with a pistol bullet they're dead" is an idea that has never been supported by history or even the military. It's not 'being shot' that decides whether you're dead, it's 'where and how long ago were you shot.' Unless you've hit the spine or head, where the effects immediately incapacitate, you're relying on pain threshold, blood-loss, and infection. In the past, men have been stabbed fifty times in duels and managed to kill their opponent before dropping, men have been gut-shot and continued to be conscious despite their guts hanging out, and men have had limbs blown off only to grab the part and keep moving. Even in the military, there's the 'double tap' rule. Your body can't stop a weapon from doing its damage, but it can keep running despite the harm. 


Yes, it's harder for them to sight in after being shot but, again, this is the close quarters of a home invasion.


"Then you need to hit the head or spine. What's the problem?" The problem is something that also ties into what Medieval said about the government having no business limiting the law-abiding: People panic.


For years in history (up until Vietnam,) accuracy in training and on the field were like day and night - In training, volley fire should have eviscerated a rank. On the field, it might get around 4 or 6 soldiers. The same was happening during ww2. They found that it was two things: Fear of the sounds in a firefight (guns are loud, basically,) and the ethics against killing a human being. It caused other things too, but they aren't relevant to this. Anyway, without the exposure that desensitizes you to the tense environment of a life-or-death scenario, your aim is pretty shit. It's easy to hit someone right when you see them, but it's hard to calmly go "Oh, right. I need to hit the spine or head," and adjust your aim - At least, it's hard to do that quick enough to matter.


But even if you desensitized a civilian to that situation, telling them to aim for the head or spine is pretty ridiculous. It would be an order purely due to the restrictions on the firearms available - After all, the military and police tell their members to aim for 'center mass,' not 'the head.' It's faster to take aim (because it's easier to hit,) and it will kill them with adequate damage.


That's why I see the point behind shotguns, SMGs, or machine pistols. I don't see why a rifle is exactly necessary, but if it's loaded with hollow-point then I don't see a problem with it either.


Buuut when it isn't, then I think there is a problem. "The fact of the matter is, the government has no business limiting the law-abiding, average citizen from acquiring whatever he wants to defend himself."


Well, flamethrowers and certain chemical weapons are illegal for the military, so there isn't a reason they'd be legal for civilians.


But I won't be a smart-ass. The serious answer is, again, people panic - They can make mistakes. They can miss their shot, or misjudge the penetration of their ammunition type. Both of these things endanger other people's lives despite your intent. Because of that, it's in finding some kind of balance; allowing weapons and ammunitions that help with home-defense, cutting it off at the type of overkill that can hurt other people. For example: Explosives, dragon's breath, toxic gases or nerve agents, etc. I realize these are extremes, but I hope my point is clear enough to understand.


So in summary: I think different firearms give a different edge that someone may want in order to protect themselves and their home, but I don't think the potential endangering of other people's lives should be disregarded for one person's defense. Yes, I think it's fine to own a semi-auto rifle or an automatic Tavor.

 

[Lorsh]

 

[Zachy1993]

I don't understand how any sensible and compassionate human being could be against common sense gun control. Maybe if it was your workplace or a family member's home or school that got shot up, and you were standing there cradling his/her body in your arms as they were choking to death on their own blood...you'd understand it. But until then, your kind prefers to put a weapon at a higher value than another human's life.

 

[/b/ board]

Just throwing some info here:


US has something along the lines of 10k homicides per year (With firearms, atleast what my sources say) , while Brazil is a shit ton smaller and has extreme gun control laws and we have (almost) 50k homicides per year WITH firearms

 

[TeaMMatE11]

I don't understand how any sensible and compassionate human being could be against common sense gun control. Maybe if it was your workplace or a family member's home or school that got shot up, and you were standing there cradling his/her body in your arms as they were choking to death on their own blood...you'd understand it. But until then, your kind prefers to put a weapon at a higher value than another human's life.

How can you blame an inanimate object for someone's death?  If we restrict guns, our liberty from the government will be at stake.  If the government becomes an oppressive regime, we the people have the right to overthrow the government.  It's written in the Constitution.  If this hypothetical realm exists, and guns are banned, how are we supposed to tear down the government?


Civilians can help police take out criminals as well.  There was an instance where a rampant sniper sniped random people on the streets.  The police were outgunned, and a few civilians pinned the sniper down, allowing police to kill the sniper.  


Don't blame the gun; blame the shooter.  He used a weapon irresponsibly.  Most criminals do.  

Just throwing some info here:


US has something along the lines of 10k homicides per year (With firearms, atleast what my sources say) , while Brazil is a shit ton smaller and has extreme gun control laws and we have (almost) 50k homicides per year WITH firearms

Who is "we?"  And you just changed the statistic.  Is it 10k or 50k?  Info that you are giving is unreliable, as you are contradicting yourself.  Look, Germany tried extreme gun control, and it didn't work.  A shooter, who covered the equivalence of 3 Virginia (?) counties shot multiple cars on the freeway before being killed by law enforcement, and was armed to the teeth.  He possesed illegal guns because of the strict gun control.


Suppose guns are banned.  Ask yourselves this: what is considered a weapon?  Our fists?  Feet?  Laptops?  Poles?  Point is, there is no cut and dry "this is a weapon."  Anything and everything can be used as a weapon.  And on top of that, if guns are banned, just the act of having a gun makes you a criminal.  Furthermore, we, as civilians would be in more danger than the criminals.


In the 1920's, alcohol was banned.  Did that stop people from going to squeakeasies?  No it didn't.  Al Capone became rich for his illegal runs of alcohol.  If this proves anything, it proves that restricting stuff does not work.  If banning guns follows the same path that prohibition did, than us as civilians are screwed.  We're not dealing with alcohol.  We're dealing with guns.  And a black market for guns and ammo would be very detrimental to our society, as, again, criminals won't care about the laws put in place anyways.  Criminals are criminals and they break the law.


...And it's unconstitutional.


Shooters will ALWAYS pick easy targets such as schools to do a major shootout.  Think about it.  If they are in a rage spell, they would not go to Fort Knox and do the shooting spree there.  The shooter would pick a school or a church.


Suppose a church had civilians armed to the teeth - handguns, shotguns, rifles.  Do you think to unleash the rage the shooter has, he would do it on this armed-to-the-teeth church?  No, because he still values his own life.


Look, I'm sick and tired of California's stupid gun control laws.  It's getting way out of hand.  Do yourself a favor and research California gun laws and see how ridiculous the laws are.

 

[/b/ board]

How can you blame an inanimate object for someone's death?  If we restrict guns, our liberty from the government will be at stake.  If the government becomes an oppressive regime, we the people have the right to overthrow the government.  It's written in the Constitution.  If this hypothetical realm exists, and guns are banned, how are we supposed to tear down the government?


Civilians can help police take out criminals as well.  There was an instance where a rampant sniper sniped random people on the streets.  The police were outgunned, and a few civilians pinned the sniper down, allowing police to kill the sniper.  


Don't blame the gun; blame the shooter.  He used a weapon irresponsibly.  Most criminals do.  


Who is "we?"  And you just changed the statistic.  Is it 10k or 50k?  Info that you are giving is unreliable, as you are contradicting yourself.  Look, Germany tried extreme gun control, and it didn't work.  A shooter, who covered the equivalence of 3 Virginia (?) counties shot multiple cars on the freeway before being killed by law enforcement, and was armed to the teeth.  He possesed illegal guns because of the strict gun control.


Suppose guns are banned.  Ask yourselves this: what is considered a weapon?  Our fists?  Feet?  Laptops?  Poles?  Point is, there is no cut and dry "this is a weapon."  Anything and everything can be used as a weapon.  And on top of that, if guns are banned, just the act of having a gun makes you a criminal.  Furthermore, we, as civilians would be in more danger than the criminals.


In the 1920's, alcohol was banned.  Did that stop people from going to squeakeasies?  No it didn't.  Al Capone became rich for his illegal runs of alcohol.  If this proves anything, it proves that restricting stuff does not work.  If banning guns follows the same path that prohibition did, than us as civilians are screwed.  We're not dealing with alcohol.  We're dealing with guns.  And a black market for guns and ammo would be very detrimental to our society, as, again, criminals won't care about the laws put in place anyways.  Criminals are criminals and they break the law.


...And it's unconstitutional.


Shooters will ALWAYS pick easy targets such as schools to do a major shootout.  Think about it.  If they are in a rage spell, they would not go to Fort Knox and do the shooting spree there.  The shooter would pick a school or a church.


Suppose a church had civilians armed to the teeth - handguns, shotguns, rifles.  Do you think to unleash the rage the shooter has, he would do it on this armed-to-the-teeth church?  No, because he still values his own life.


Look, I'm sick and tired of California's stupid gun control laws.  It's getting way out of hand.  Do yourself a favor and research California gun laws and see how ridiculous the laws are.

My mistake man, 10k in the US, almost reaching 50k in Brazil.


(Atleast what my sources say about the US)

 

[Zachy1993]

@TeaMMatE11 

The only people saying ANYTHING about banning guns are the gun lobbyists and conservatives. Literally NO ONE who is for sensible gun control has ever said anything about wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment, or ban guns altogether. If you don't think there's something wrong with a maniac being able to purchase a gun, and no I'm not blaming the gun I'M BLAMING PEOPLE LIKE YOU who make it SO EASY for a sicko to GET ONE, just because you think it's up to YOU to somehow overthrow the government (which btw, would never happen, a bunch of rednecks with their shotguns and gun collections wouldn't make it past the white house lawn), if you don't think that we can do better to prevent innocent lives being lost SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE A GUN FETISH, then this conversation is over.

 

[TeaMMatE11]

@TeaMMatE11 

The only people saying ANYTHING about banning guns are the gun lobbyists and conservatives. Literally NO ONE who is for sensible gun control has ever said anything about wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment, or ban guns altogether. If you don't think there's something wrong with a maniac being able to purchase a gun, and no I'm not blaming the gun I'M BLAMING PEOPLE LIKE YOU who make it SO EASY for a sicko to GET ONE, just because you think it's up to YOU to somehow overthrow the government (which btw, would never happen, a bunch of rednecks with their shotguns and gun collections wouldn't make it past the white house lawn), if you don't think that we can do better to prevent innocent lives being lost SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE A GUN FETISH, then this conversation is over.

This thread was supposed to spark a civil debate.  Name calling, you've already lost.  I don't care what you call me, because calling people out like that, is immature and not respectful in a debate.  I'm not calling anyone out by insulting them.  I am insulting the way California is handling gun control.


Look, I think there SHOULD be background checks, a good, thorough one, on medical history and family history before buying a gun.  I do believe in SOME restriction.  I don't believe in what California is doing to guns.


I'm guessing you just came here to insult me, and nothing more, without reading this entire thread.  If we can't have a civil discussion, then so be it.  


Name calling is a last resort for people who don't have any more facts to spit out.  If you don't have anything productive to add to this conversation, then leave.  I'm not here to spark drama; I'm not here to insult other people's beliefs, albieit the title is a little harsh.  This was a rant thread, and so far everyone who has contributed to the discussion had an open mind, and, debated respectfully.  You, on the other hand, are the polar opposite, of everyone else here.


This goes for EVERYBODY.


If I start another one of these threads, and you all have been wonderful in terms of debating, please respect each other.  It sounds obvious.  


If you read this thread, AT ALL, maybe, just maybe, I wouldn't have called you out like this.  But I'm using you as a lesson for everyone else here.  Since you're so closed minded, this discussion is over.  I will leave this thread open for the next few days, and if anyone does NOT have anything more productive to say, I'm closing this thread.


@everyone 

 

[King Ad Rock]

Look, I'm sick and tired of California's stupid gun control laws.  It's getting way out of hand.  Do yourself a favor and research California gun laws and see how ridiculous the laws are.

State laws are decided by voters. Either vote and campaign or move to a more gun friendly state I'd say.

 

[TeaMMatE11]

State laws are decided by voters. Either vote and campaign or move to a more gun friendly state I'd say.

Can't move.  I'm 18, bud.  I don't have money for a campaign. 


Yes, I know laws are decided by voters.  Which means I hate the voters in Cali for the ridiculous gun control.


I understand why some regulation has to be in place.  Cali is getting out of hand.  I'm just gonna have to deal with it for now.

 

[King Ad Rock]

Can't move.  I'm 18, bud.  I don't have money for a campaign. 


Yes, I know laws are decided by voters.  Which means I hate the voters in Cali for the ridiculous gun control.


I understand why some regulation has to be in place.  Cali is getting out of hand.  I'm just gonna have to deal with it for now.

True. But that's the beauty of this great country of ours. Someday you'll have the means to move and you'll find and move somewhere that will allow you to own exactly what you want. California has had high profile shootings with legally obtained firearms over the recent years so it makes sense that their laws are stricter (Elliot Rodger comes to mind) Add that with its left leaning culture and I think you might always be fighting an uphill battle in that state. Good luck my friend!

 

[Omnimon]

Can't move.  I'm 18, bud.  I don't have money for a campaign. 


Yes, I know laws are decided by voters.  Which means I hate the voters in Cali for the ridiculous gun control.


I understand why some regulation has to be in place.  Cali is getting out of hand.  I'm just gonna have to deal with it for now.

It'll be impossible to get the gun laws changed in Cali , your better off moving to say Oregon3  . As it is with the politics in Sacramento and given how that state's legislation works, its impossible to pass anything that resembles a loosening of such laws unless there was a drastic change in the electorate.  The problem with the regulation is that its reactive and it doesn't truly address the issue that some individuals *should* not have a gun ( aka mental illness, but that's a whole different topic to tackle )  . Which is why you have more and more draconian laws on it .


3https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/oregon/

 

[TeaMMatE11]

It'll be impossible to get the gun laws changed in Cali , your better off moving to say Oregon3  . As it is with the politics in Sacramento and given how that state's legislation works, its impossible to pass anything that resembles a loosening of such laws unless there was a drastic change in the electorate.  The problem with the regulation is that its reactive and it doesn't truly address the issue that some individuals *should* not have a gun ( aka mental illness, but that's a whole different topic to tackle )  . Which is why you have more and more draconian laws on it .


3https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/oregon/

This is the exact problem I have.  I couldn't have expressed it better.  The whole mental illness thing is a different topic.  I think that everything that can be said is all in this thread.  I'll be closing this thread soon, if no one else has anything to add.  We've pretty much addressed every common point in a gun control debate.  I hope this proved to be educational to some and help others see the opposing side's view. 


After all, this is the true nature of debate.  It's been fun, but I think this topic has overstayed it's welcome in terms of drama.

 

[BAPE]

My university just allowed campus carry law to function. Basically you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon anywhere with you in campus as long as it's concealed.

 

[MechanicalHeart]

*slowly chews on popcorn*  

 

[Bacon is fluffy]

Neat, another californian? xD


Anyways the only people who benefit from gun control are those who have guns or those in power, wanting to expand their own. There are many different reasons to have guns, including the age old, "Well they're here already and are here to stay". Disarming people not only puts us in a bad position in relation to our neighbors, but to our neighbhoring countries as well. South America already smuggles drugs and people into the United states when we have the firearms to protect ourselves(poor border states). What more when we disarm people who need em?

I agree with a number of your points (not Russia being the most violent country in the nation mind you), but as an Aussie where gun control is in place, we have had a sharp drop in gun-related crime. Particularly mass shootings.


There are ways and ways to control violence, and you guys have some constitutional issues around the right to bear arms which shouldn't be disregarded, but gun control can work.


It's just moronic to put in laws that won't or can't be obeyed - at least unless the intent was to drive away the gun corporations.

Here's the thing about control, it's an illusion. Doesn't affect people who will get them under the table. Doesn't affect criminals. Doesn't affect people who come from outside of a country. It does however, affect the majority who will abide by the law and in turn, cause problems for them. Aussie is also an island nation and isn't connected to any major land mass. Citing the results from place not connected to another continent doesn't translate well for others. I'm sure as hell it's a lot more complicated for a state like france or germany in europe, than it is for a place like Australia. Being surrounded by all the potential variables in Africa to the south or Russia and asia to the east, really adds a lot of complications that a place surrounded by an ocean doesn't experience.

 

[thoughtless]

Although I am personally all for gun control, I think it's a little too late in the game to be getting rid of them now considering how many of them are already in circulation. Now if we got rid of them early on like Canada, and maybe if Mexico, Middle America and South America were in better shape, we wouldn't have the problem we have now. At this point, I have absolutely no clue about what could be done about the mass shooting problem plaguing the US.


One thing I do have to say is this. We do not have guns to protect us from our own government in the event that they do try to take away our rights.


Realistically speaking, we could not take down the government with the strongest military in the whole world. If the people controlling the military really wanted to, they could take absolute control of the US and its people at any point in time.


And to state one other thing, if people truly need to own a gun in order to feel some semblance of safety, what exactly does that say about the state of the US?

 

[Swindle]

Although I am personally all for gun control, I think it's a little too late in the game to be getting rid of them now considering how many of them are already in circulation. Now if we got rid of them early on like Canada, and maybe Mexico was in better shape, we wouldn't have the problem we have now. At this point, I have absolutely no clue about what could be done about the mass shooting problem plaguing the US.


One thing I do have to say is this. We do not have guns to protect us from our own government in the event that they do try to take away our rights.


Realistically speaking, we could not take down the government with the strongest military in the whole world. If the people controlling the military really wanted to, they could take absolute control of the US and its people at any point in time.


And to state one other thing, if people truly need to own a gun in order to feel some semblance of safety, what exactly does that say about the state of the US?

It's probably got a lot to do with the very weak excuse we have for psychological healthcare, and just so many people working lame jobs for lame pay for companies that don't care about them and will fire them at any moment if a better alternative comes along that causes a lot of stress in people all over the USA.


There's little social safety net (which some want to reduce even more) due to the stupid bootstraps mentality of the country's capitalist system and psychological problems are often swept under the rug or otherwise dismissed in a handwave-y fashion. 


I'd say that making life less of a boring, difficult trudge for the working class and impoverished and giving them affordable mental and physical healthcare would probably help. Trying to breed a mindset of open communication and trust between eachother would be nice too. In doing this you might reduce the number of poor, socially maladjusted children in abusive or otherwise emotionally neglectful households which have a chance of being the mass shooters of the future, and in trying to build (ideally) worldwide trust and communication there might also be a chance for fewer politically charged shooters in a world where we hate and distrust eachother less.


But eh. I've met few people who don't just think of it as a pipe dream.


Additionally, the military is, as you would expect, made up of people with homes and families. I don't believe that everyone is blindly loyal to the government unless they've been fooled into it, and the government has used the military against the civilian populace before, but it's somewhat of a mixed bag if it came down to a popular revolt. 


Also, it is exceptionally peculiar but also unsurprising that the US gun culture is so prolific. A culture of abject distrust towards foreigners (whether they are across the sea or the street) and the strange obsession with violently defending your home is definitely unique amongst "first-world" countries, at least as far as I know.

 

[SilverSkyWolf]

So a little background before I kick this off.  This is a rant, and itms mostly focused on California's gun laws, not the country's gun laws.  I also encourage a FULL, THOROUGH READ before commenting.  Clear?  Ok, good.


California is a very gun restrictive state, only allowing 10 bullets in a mag, rifles have to be only semi-auto, etc etc.. Now, the Governor of California passed a law requiring guns to "micro-stamp" an id number on a bullet as it is being fired.  Let's just focus on this for a second before we continue.  Ruger and another gun company pulled out of California because it was getting too expensive to keep up with California's legislation.  On top of that, this is a rediculous claim, because we don't have the technology for that yet.


Yes, Sacramento passed a law that is not even FEASIBLE for the name of "gun control."


Number 2) Sacramento just passed another law saying that all magazine fed rifles are considered Assault rifles.  That is sincerely stupid.  Let's move on before I get too worked up about that.


Now we have gun control laws in general:


1) America is NOT the most violent country in the world, despite the "anti-gun" shit the media dances around on the TV.  It is THE PERSON, NOT THE GUNS.  If weapons WERE the problem, then we should have no SECOND AMENDMENT.  It's stupid, irresponsible gun users who pull stupid stunts.  On top of that, Russia is the MOST violent country in the nation, and guns are banned there.  


2) Banning guns not ONLY violates the 2nd Amendment, but it also takes away the potential safety from a person.  What do I mean by this?  I'm talking about home defense (after all, self defense is the MOST common reason to learn how to shoot a gun).  If a robber or a murderer comes into your home, and he has a firearm, and you only have a knife, who's gonna win?  The criminal.  Criminals don't care about laws, THEY HAVE ILLEGAL GUNS ANYWAYS.  The U.K. just banned knives and swords because gangs were using them.  Banning guns will do nothing more than to put people in danger MORE THAN THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY.  Then what's next?  Lots of stabbings.  Then the ban of knives.  then people would be best to death with fists and feet.  Is the government going to cut off our hands and feet as well?


3) The second amendment protects against the civilians rights to have guns.  According to Crash Course US History, when Hamilton wrote the 2nd amendment, he wrote it with the intent that the civilian should be as well armed as the military. Back in the 1800's, the only weapons were muskets.  Point is, guns are there to help protect us from a home invasion, an invasion force into the US, or a corrupt government.


4) in places where guns are banned, there is more violence.  Research has been done, and the places where guns are banned are the most violent.  I wouldn't want to live in a world where violence runs rampant.


I had to get this off my chest, and I realize that a lot of people are not going to agree with this list, but I encourage an open mind even if I was a little hostile.  Forgive me, and thank you for reading.

I don't agree with you entirely, maybe it's because I'm British but we do have much less guns and much lower mass shooting rate. If you were in Britain (or any other country with very strict gun control) if you saw someone with a gun you would know they were up to something alowing you to get away or call the police, in America you wouldn't be able to tell if someone with a gun had bad intent or not meaning that people might not get out of danger or call the police.


But I do agree that they shouldn't change the gun law too much, since many Americans have guns even if you were to suddenly ban them only the people breaking the laws will be left and the citizens will be left defenceless. Although on a lesser scale the same thing will happen with gun laws and people will suffer due to it. However I think the ID micro stamping the bullets isn't a bad idea, it could help with detective work helping save lives in the prosses.


Although I'm not that keen on the idea of everyone having a wepon that could easily kill someone it's better then only the bad people having guns.

 

[TeaMMatE11]

I don't agree with you entirely, maybe it's because I'm British but we do have much less guns and much lower mass shooting rate. If you were in Britain (or any other country with very strict gun control) if you saw someone with a gun you would know they were up to something alowing you to get away or call the police, in America you wouldn't be able to tell if someone with a gun had bad intent or not meaning that people might not get out of danger or call the police.


But I do agree that they shouldn't change the gun law too much, since many Americans have guns even if you were to suddenly ban them only the people breaking the laws will be left and the citizens will be left defenceless. Although on a lesser scale the same thing will happen with gun laws and people will suffer due to it. However I think the ID micro stamping the bullets isn't a bad idea, it could help with detective work helping save lives in the prosses.


Although I'm not that keen on the idea of everyone having a wepon that could easily kill someone it's better then only the bad people having guns.

"Micro stamping" is good only in theoretical terms.  Anyone who is experienced with guns (most likely police, FBI, etc.) would be able to tell what kind of bullet was shot based on the casing size.  We don't have the tech to micro stamp bullets.  In theory it's good, but it's not practical.

 

[King Ad Rock]

"Micro stamping" is good only in theoretical terms.  Anyone who is experienced with guns (most likely police, FBI, etc.) would be able to tell what kind of bullet was shot based on the casing size.  We don't have the tech to micro stamp bullets.  In theory it's good, but it's not practical.

"The United States National Research Council released a report on March 5, 2008 that concluded that a national database of ballistic markings is unworkable and that there is not enough scientific evidence that, "every gun leaves microscopic marks on bullets and cartridge cases that are unique to that weapon and remain the same over repeated firings". The study endorsed microstamping as an alternative to be investigated."

Edit: Sauce: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12162

And I'm not sure where you're getting your information. The technology has been there for some time.

 

[TeaMMatE11]

"The United States National Research Council released a report on March 5, 2008 that concluded that a national database of ballistic markings is unworkable and that there is not enough scientific evidence that, "every gun leaves microscopic marks on bullets and cartridge cases that are unique to that weapon and remain the same over repeated firings". The study endorsed microstamping as an alternative to be investigated."

Edit: Sauce: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12162

And I'm not sure where you're getting your information. The technology has been there for some time.

Lets say it's successful.  A lot of people "reload" their bullet, or make their own bullets.  How do you prevent this?  This would work for stock bullets, but not for people who make their own bullets.  People do this because it's cheaper to make your own bullets than to buy them.


Point: How do you regulate this?