Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 12:00am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

Look at newtown, I hate to bring it up, but that kid STOLE the guns from his mom, he had tried to purchase a gun but he failed because they did a background check and it didn't come up well.

The problem here is still the guns, too many of them.

There will always be criminals, and there will always be those who break the laws. Gun control will only really hurt people seeing as how most crimes commited are with illegal guns and not legal guns.

Actually no, if you saw the statistical report I posted a few pages back. In states where gun laws are strict, they just hop over to the next state to get them. National gun control is only as strong as the weakest link.

I hate to bring it up, but that kid STOLE the guns from his mom, he had tried to purchase a gun but he failed because they did a background check and it didn't come up well.

This highlights still the problem of lax gun control. You can make sure the person buying the gun is mentally stable, but you're not checking whether those close to him are. A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 39.6% obtained it through family or friends.

But they shouldn't make us jump through 50 hoops to get a gun for something as simple as self defence.

They should, for all reasons. Gun control has proven to work so many times.

Blaming guns for the abuse of the 2nd amendment right is wrong. Guns are not the cause of the trouble, it's people.

Guns make it exponentially easier to kill someone. The law is outdated.

Excellent point. Criminals already get guns illegally, what's going to stop them after the guns are banned? Nothing. They have no fear of the law now, they still wont have a fear of the law later.

I wonder why then, the number of guns obtained illegally in the rest of the First World is a pittance compared to the US?

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 12:12am

404011xz

404011xz

218 posts

guns make is easier to kill people, along with many other things. Bombs, Cars, Gasses, Anything is a potential weapon. Would you like to make stricter laws against owning cars? Maybe make it illegal to buy bats because you can kill somebody with that. Items that were never meant to kil people can easily be turned into a weapon. Maybe owning knives will become a crime. That sharp kitchen knife in your drawer can easily be turned into a murder weapon. Would you like me to continue with every regular household weapon can be turned into a weapon? Maybe somebody will fashion up a pen that can shoot a small blade from it's tip, wait, that has already been made. See how anything is a potential weapon? It isn't just guns, it can also be that very keyboard your typing on. The only difference is that guns is the prefered option.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 12:38am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,976 posts

Are you really that paranoid? If so, I suggest counseling.

Robbers rarely work alone. Sometimes they're heavily armed. example. Now, I don't live in a 'big city' (it's about 75K), but there are still gangs and occasionally there are gang robberies. If I lived near the poor side of a city of millions where many people are desperate and some are willing to do just about anything for even a small amount of money, I'd be much more worried.

1) Then a non automatic weapon would be fine, right?

Most, not all.

2) Why is there a mob at your door?

During riots, some people do crazy things, including attacking civilian homes seemingly at random. example

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 12:54am

CommanderPaladin

CommanderPaladin

506 posts

The problem that is allowing massacres such as what happened at VA Tech, Aurora, Colorado, the school in Newtown, and so many others is the presence of gun regulations.

That's the premise of this post.  Before I explain why this is the case, let me provide a little clarification. 

The presence of the gun regulations is not what causes the problem, but rather what enables it.  Numerous valid factors have been identified as being responsible in their own manner for these atrocities, including mental imbalance, drug abuse and/or side effects, perverted religious zealotry, sheer malicious intent, the promotion of unnecessary violence in media, etc.  The presence of gun regulations gives the person affected by these factors an avenue to facilitate their intent. 

Now, on to the main premise.  The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America is written as an absolute.  It does not at any point in its text state any form of regulation, exception, or limitation on the Right To Bear Arms.  Read it for yourself:
     

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This in itself renders unconstitutional and therefore irrelevant any and all subsequent gun regulations. 

But I digress.  People are far less likely to attack someone who is armed than someone who is unarmed.  This is a product of the basic survival instinct: excluding extreme circumstances, such as a Fireman entering a burning building to rescue someone, the probability of someone engaging in a specific activity is inversely proportional to the risk of injury or death to that person involved in the given activity.  If you know that you will be shot and potentially killed if you attempt a crime, you are less inclined to commit the act, at least against the intended target.  Firearms provide a simple and exceptionally effective means for self-defense and the defense of others.  Therefore, simple logic dictates that when there are MORE GUNS in the hands of the citizenry, crime will decline accordingly.  Similarly, greater gun restriction and fewer guns will lead to an increase in crime, including gun crime.  But don't take my word, or even logic's word for it.  Here's undeniable proof: 25 Years Murder-Free in a Town Full of GUNS

Psychopaths intent on bloodshed will get their weapons any way they can regardless of the law.  Gun restrictions shackle the honest, law-abiding citizens who would otherwise deal swift and deadly justice to those who would massacre children and turn schools and malls into killing fields.  If the Principle and teachers in Newtown had been carrying weapons, the body count would likely be only one: the madman himself.  If the students at VA Tech had been armed, Cho Seung-Hui would have been stopped cold.  I could go on, but you should get it by now.  Acknowledge the right to defend oneself from the scum of the Earth. 
MORE GUNS = MORE LIVES SAVED. 

-----
Related Article:
One Shot To The Head, or Some Statistical Proof that GUNS STOP CRIMINALS

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 1:16am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

guns make is easier to kill people, along with many other things. Bombs, Cars, Gasses, Anything is a potential weapon. Would you like to make stricter laws against owning cars? Maybe make it illegal to buy bats because you can kill somebody with that. Items that were never meant to kil people can easily be turned into a weapon.

Did you read any of Kasic's earlier points? Guns are made to kill and harm. If you're not using that for such purposes, you're doing it wrong. On the other hand, no one makes cars just to ram people down.

Now, on to the main premise.  The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America is written as an absolute.  It does not at any point in its text state any form of regulation, exception, or limitation on the Right To Bear Arms.  Read it for yourself:

People demand laws change all the time, yet are slaves to the Constitution, which they feel is infallible. Well, it isn't. Like any set of laws, it's subject to changes when times and society changes.

MORE GUNS = MORE LIVES SAVED.

Around the Internet, many people toss around the number '2.5 million,' as in 'There are 2.5 million DGUs a year.' That's quite a lot of lives possibly saved. Now compare it to, say, the 75,684 gun-related injuries back in 2000, or the 31,224 gun-related deaths in 2007. Two and a half million.

Except '2.5 million' comes from a single study back in 1993. The number is both highly cited and highly disputed. Not only are the figures not enough to make an accurate estimate (other studies range from 50,000 to 2 million), but the results don't actually translate to "lives saved thanks to gun use." They refer to a gun being involved in the presumed protection of a person or thing. The general consensus is that 2.5 million is a gross exaggeration.

Firearms provide a simple and exceptionally effective means for self-defense and the defense of others.  Therefore, simple logic dictates that when there are MORE GUNS in the hands of the citizenry, crime will decline accordingly.  Similarly, greater gun restriction and fewer guns will lead to an increase in crime, including gun crime.  But don't take my word, or even logic's word for it.  Here's undeniable proof: 25 Years Murder-Free in a Town Full of GUNS.

Singapore, Malaysia, Japan. Kinda, enough said. No guns, no gun murders.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 3:14am

wontgetmycatnip

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

In the land of the unarmed, the man with a gun is king.

People demand laws change all the time, yet are slaves to the Constitution, which they feel is infallible. Well, it isn't. Like any set of laws, it's subject to changes when times and society changes.

The founding fathers added the second amendment in because they realized that an unarmed citizenry is easy prey. I'm sure that the Zetas would be delighted to disarm the US populace. Over here, in no small part because of the strong gun laws, they can't engage in widespread intimidation of the populace, voter suppression, etc. like they do in Mexico. Take away gun rights, and suddenly it becomes relatively easy to bully the US population into submission and intimidate the government.

Singapore, Malaysia, Japan. Kinda, enough said. No guns, no gun murders.

Mexico, Somalia, Congo. Strong gun laws on paper. Gun traffickers are making a fortune off these countries selling illegal guns.

MORE GUNS = MORE LIVES SAVED.

That's a bad argument. Sometimes, more can can mean increased safety, sometimes it can mean less, and sometimes the number of firearms in the area has little bearing on the safety of a situation.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 3:31am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

I'm sure that the Zetas would be delighted to disarm the US populace.

Zeta is a Mexican cartel, with the majority of operations in Mexico, not the US. Gun rights do not intimidate the government with the most powerful army in the world. These are handguns and shotguns we're talking about, not anything that can seriously challenge the US army.

Mexico, Somalia, Congo. Strong gun laws on paper. Gun traffickers are making a fortune off these countries selling illegal guns.

You said it yourself. On paper. These are all states with weak governance, who cannot enforce their own laws, and in the latter two, exert power outside their own capitals.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 3:45am

wontgetmycatnip

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

Zeta is a Mexican cartel, with the majority of operations in Mexico, not the US. Gun rights do not intimidate the government with the most powerful army in the world. These are handguns and shotguns we're talking about, not anything that can seriously challenge the US army.

I was talking only about civilians and civilian guns in this case. No they wouldn't attempt an open invasion- but right now, if you try to scare someone in the US into submission, there's a very real chance they may own a firearm. In Mexico, only the cartels have guns- if you want to bully someone into doing what you want, there's a very low chance that they will have the capability to shoot you in the face. I don't want Mexican mobs assuming that they can mug me without fear of retaliation.

You said it yourself. On paper. These are all states with weak governance, who cannot enforce their own laws, and in the latter two, exert power outside their own capitals.

Right. There's more at stake here than just the number of firearms present in an area, or the firearms laws that apply to them. After all, there are very few bloody shootouts in gun stores.

If firearms were made illegal in the US, there would still be a demand for them. Black market firearms deals would make a killing. There's a very real possibility that it could result in bloody riots and shootouts from angry gun owners. If we want to deal with violence in the US, we have to deal with poverty, a poor mental health care system, and a host of other factors that directly lead to people being violent. Gun laws can at best decrease violence (and at worst increase or cause it) but they don't deal with the underlying social problems that cause violence in the first place.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 3:56am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,868 posts

Knight

In Mexico, only the cartels have guns- if you want to bully someone into doing what you want, there's a very low chance that they will have the capability to shoot you in the face. I don't want Mexican mobs assuming that they can mug me without fear of retaliation.

Why are the American police left out of the equation? Or the border guards? Is it a unique phenomenon in the States, that the first reaction to danger is to shoot, or pull out a gun, whereas in the rest of the world, it's either to run, or call the cops?

If firearms were made illegal in the US, there would still be a demand for them.

No one is espousing a ban on guns. What gun-control lobbyists are baying for, is stricter regulation. But not that solely, they are also calling for a re-hauling of the police force, a revamping of the mental health system, and a crack down on illegal gun suppliers. Gun control is not a silver bullet panacea if not paired with suitable policies.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 4:39am

wontgetmycatnip

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

Why are the American police left out of the equation? Or the border guards? Is it a unique phenomenon in the States, that the first reaction to danger is to shoot, or pull out a gun, whereas in the rest of the world, it's either to run, or call the cops?

Well, no, Americans aren't psychologically different than everyone else. The police can only help if they care to, they have evidence, and if they can take action before a crime is committed. If a guy storms your house with a gun, shooting him may be the only way to survive.

Also, if an elderly person is attacked, they may not have any other way to defend themselves.

No one is espousing a ban on guns. What gun-control lobbyists are baying for, is stricter regulation.

Some gun control lobbyists do just want stricter regulations, but all too many seem to want to make sure that private citizens can't be armed.

But not that solely, they are also calling for a re-hauling of the police force, a revamping of the mental health system, and a crack down on illegal gun suppliers. Gun control is not a silver bullet panacea if not paired with suitable policies.

On the recent school shooting, as well as the theater shooting a while ago, I did not hear any gun control lobbyists seriously suggest that the cause of the shootings were mental insanity, and that guns were the tool used to facilitate the shootings, but they did not cause the shootings themselves. The anti-gun lobby makes the same mistake as the NRA in assuming that guns are a cause, rather than a means to an end.

Back to an earlier argument:

Guns are made to kill and harm. If you're not using that for such purposes, you're doing it wrong.

So competition target shooters, prop managers, and collectors are misusing their guns?

On the other hand, no one makes cars just to ram people down.

No, but it certainly makes an awfully good tool to use if you want to run someone over.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!