it is a pretty old debate and these are not first reactions. in most debates, there is a side that leans more towards logic, rationality and science and the other side sticks to ideology, tradition etc.
countless debates have been had about slavery, women's right to vote, etc etc. until some people in the government had the guts to make some changes for the good.
the biggest point that gun advocates make is:
GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE
well, the logic in that statement is misleading to put it lightly.
of course people kill people, but giving easy access to guns makes it super easy to do that. you dont see the military going to war empty handed do you ? they take the best of the best guns with them because that is what they are meant for, to neutralize their enemy.
there are certain things like C4, dynamites, lethal chemicals, etc. that are not easy to access unless you pay a lot of money or have went through a whole lot of back ground checks or paper work.
why do you think that is the way it is ?
because they are very dangerous to public safety and in the wrong hand can be catastrophic.
there are lot of things that would be fun to own and use, but they are not safe for society.
there are lot of crazy/stupid people every where in the world. but not every where in the world do you have crazy/stupid people with easy access to deadly weapons. it should be common sense ...
also, why do we even have the common sentiment that Iran should never have a nuclear bomb ?
because, the argument is in the wrong hand it can be catastrophic.
surely Iran has the right to bare arms ....
You miss the point of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It's the intent to kill that matters. A gun is an inert tool until a person with intent makes it do what it was made to do. Without that intent, it is just an object. Remove the intent and you remove the violence. Deal with what makes people kill. The phrase is meant to point out where the real problem is.
Did you ever see that episode of Star Trek: TNG "Gambit Part I and II" with the psionic resonator? When Picard figured out that without violent intent, the weapon was useless, he was able to stop the isolationist from harming anyone. It was an allegory that weapons are only as dangerous as the intent of their user. The same idea applies with any weapon. Remove violent intent from those that would use it to harm and the weapon becomes pointless. If I have no desire to kill, why would I pick up a gun to kill?
The key to solving gun violence is solving the issues that cause violent behavior in the first place.
When someone has a strep throat, do you treat the sore throat or do you deal with the infection that causes it? The same goes with gun violence; gun violence is a symptom of an underlying problem. Deal with the causal factors and the symptoms will go away. Gun violence is a social problem that needs a social solution, not an authoritarian one.
I don't understand why people want to slap a law on everything that goes wrong and ignore the reasons it happened in the first place. Intensifying the law isn't going to make a difference to people that live outside the law.
this is a very one sided view. you have to treat both symptom and cause.
you ever heard of a doctor aggravating the symptom while trying to cure the disease ?
not controlling gun access and talking about mental health is like aggravating the symptom while trying to find a cure to something not as simple as strep throat.
also, laws are needed for a civilized nation unless you wanna everyone to own guns and go back to the days of wild west.
there are lot of laws in this country that are good laws, and they were slapped on for the good of all.
it is easy to say that killing is bad, just teach your kids not to kill people.
you dont need to create a law that bans murder, just teach people not to kill.
Gun control legislation is not an option as many have pointed out. NRA is too powerful a lobby group, with too much public support, and generate too much income.
On the flip-side; Every student in school should be profiled and screened for mental health issues. But the problem is that costs too much money as well (They should be profiling asian and white males only, but that would not happen). This isn't even a possibility being mentioned given the political red tape.
From an economic standpoint, the monetary costs of all these innocent lives being taken still doesn't equal the amount of money it would take to offset social reform.
The end result; crazy people will slip through the cracks, and they will have easy access to guns. There will be nothing that changes.
We'll be seeing more schools being shot up.
Id rather be in Europe where a psychopath with a knife kills 1 person and wounds three others than the US where 1 guy can kill 30+ students. Id rather hear about kids being stabbed with staplers and pens rather than shot. At least with a knife you can run, overwhelm, throw objects in your path but with a gun its just too easy
You miss the point of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It's the intent to kill that matters. A gun is an inert tool until a person with intent makes it do what it was made to do. Without that intent, it is just an object. Remove the intent and you remove the violence. Deal with what makes people kill. The phrase is meant to point out where the real problem is.
Did you ever see that episode of Star Trek: TNG "Gambit Part I and II" with the psionic resonator? When Picard figured out that without violent intent, the weapon was useless, he was able to stop the isolationist from harming anyone. It was an allegory that weapons are only as dangerous as the intent of their user. The same idea applies with any weapon. Remove violent intent from those that would use it to harm and the weapon becomes pointless. If I have no desire to kill, why would I pick up a gun to kill?
The key to solving gun violence is solving the issues that cause violent behavior in the first place.
violent intent will always be there, that is human nature. sure, you can educate more on social aspects but that wont solve all issues. you need to do both.
you cannot cure all the crazy, what you can do is stop all the crazy from getting a gun.
You just posted about the accidental creation of gunpowder. Gir is talking about the contemporary use of guns, I don't see how that proves gir wrong.
I didnt say he is wrong Andreas, I just thought it was kind of ironically funny that one tries to create the source of life, instead he end up creating something that is now used in the tool of death.
i'm just wondering how many of your pro gun opinions would change if it were your kid that got shot, or your brother that went on a rampage but used your moms gun to kill her first...
it's not your problem as long as it doesn't happen to YOU, right?
I would certainly be concerned. I am against guns and never touched one in life but back where I was originally born, you kind of need a gun to protect yourself. I cant say that I am anti gun or pro gun, but should such incident happens in your family (doesnt matter if it didnt happen to you,) you would do whatever it takes to protect yourself and people you care about.
When someone has a strep throat, do you treat the sore throat or do you deal with the infection that causes it? The same goes with gun violence; gun violence is a symptom of an underlying problem. Deal with the causal factors and the symptoms will go away. Gun violence is a social problem that needs a social solution, not an authoritarian one.
I don't understand why people want to slap a law on everything that goes wrong and ignore the reasons it happened in the first place. Intensifying the law isn't going to make a difference to people that live outside the law.
Treating every social problem is not gonna happen.. Even here in Denmark where mental health care is avaible to nearly every person, some people still kill and maim others, however they don't take 27 others with them to the grave because they had acces to a automatic rifle. I think its grotesque in this world to think that you really need a gun to protect you self in the modern part of this world, you only need a gun if everybody else can get a gun. We have gun fire episodes in Denmark, however the only ways to get a firearm is to be deep deep in the criminal underworld, otherwise the only way to get one is to have a hunting and gun license, and then you don't have semi- or full automatic weapons avaible, which I would argue are the most effective guns for killing the highest ammount of people in the shortest ammount of time... I just think it's sick
some crazy guy with a knife will kill, or seriously injure maybe 3 people at most, before someone disarms or disables them.
some crazy guy with a gun can fire off a full magazine and reload and start firing again before people even have a chance to react to the situation.
so when people come along with the argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people". for fucking sure that's true. BUT WHY MAKE IT EASIER?
you can run away from someone with a knife. good luck outrunning a bullet.
that said, i agree it's a social issue that needs to be corrected. but i feel like i need to state, again, that gun control doesn't mean the same thing as losing your guns. it means CONTROL. it means sure, they may be more difficult to acquire, a more lengthy process involved, or even more strict laws regarding how/where your guns are secured. but that doesn't mean you can't have them.
most law abiding citizens, if told that their weapons should always be in a locked case unless they're in a designated hunting area, or rifle club ground, would do exactly that. and if this guys mother had done the same thing, this whole thing might not have happened. but she didn't, because legally she didn't have to.
so again... keep your guns, but make them more difficult for the wrong people to get hold of. and let's be clear here... gangs/criminal organizations will still have their ways and means of acquiring illegal weapons... they can even do it in prison... so i think they should be discounted for this type of argument. sure gang and organized crime is terrible, and needs to be stamped out. but those aren't the guys shooting up schools and movie theaters. those guys are too busy killing each other. every now and again a casual bystander gets caught in the crossfire, and that sucks. but that's NOT the same as some brainfucked asshole having easy access to the most lethal of weapons and shooting up a fucking school!
but hey man... keep going with your "HURRHURR GUNS ARE FUN!!!" comments. i'm going to alienate myself big time right here, right now.
i hope it's your relative next time. i hope you have to go through it. and then i hope you have the guts to come back here and tell us how wrong you were.
Actually if you treat the cause...there ceases to be symptoms ...
I know this is not an A+B= C equation
But the logic of prohibition seems to treat problems this way. And if you are not calling for a prohibition, but stronger regulation (which I think you stated) it mitigates damage, but ultimately leaves us in the same position as we are now...
My opinion Is I think we need strong regulation for firearms, but ultimately the solution for "fixing" these problems is in how we as a culture stigmatize and dehumanize the mentally ill...Allow me some sympathy for the Devil,this kid was not born deranged, for what ever reason his illness was ignored, or missed..lots of good points being made all around
and Gir ad hominem is not a good way to try and make your point..it makes you look silly
We live in a world now, where we just won't let ourselves see the opposite perspective. We will never convince an anti-arms persons of the recreational and practical benefits of properly educated and responsible firearm ownership. Out of all of the responsible, legal weapon holders, how many actually cause these things to happen.
Just the same, pro-gun persons can't understand the nervousness and apprehension non-armed citizens have towards tools that can be dangerous and lethal towards the civilian population. Especially so, in a nation that is exhibiting increasing symptoms of an impulsive and insecure society. Mixed wih mental illness, that's sure to make anyone uneasy.
One side yells for a more armed population, the other yells for disarming. None is really to answer as to why there is such a disproportionate portion of radical psychos in America right now.
Americans have lived through worse... Slavery, The Great Depression, The Prohibition, WW||, Vietnam. What gives?
Try applying the more guns more safety logic to other potentially harmful things and see how idiotic it is, like nuclear weapons, if every country had nukes wouldn't it make the world safer using this line of thinking?
We live in a world now, where we just won't let ourselves see the opposite perspective. We will never convince an anti-arms persons of the recreational and practical benefits of properly educated and responsible firearm ownership. Out of all of the responsible, legal weapon holders, how many actually cause these things to happen.
Just the same, pro-gun persons can't understand the nervousness and apprehension non-armed citizens have towards tools that can be dangerous and lethal towards the civilian population. Especially so, in a nation that is exhibiting increasing symptoms of an impulsive and insecure society. Mixed wih mental illness, that's sure to make anyone uneasy.
you are just missing the point.....
majority of gun owners are actually for more gun control and are in the middle of the debate. so this notion of just two sides fighting and nothing in the middle is a misleading concept perpetuated by ignorance.
there is nothing wrong with most legal gun owners. they are not the problem. but organizations like NRA would have you believe that majority of gun owners dont want more gun control while that is just a lie. they do that for money.
Try applying the more guns more safety logic to other potentially harmful things and see how idiotic it is, like nuclear weapons, if every country had nukes wouldn't it make the world safer using this line of thinking?
in theory yes because there is a 100% chance of returned fire
So some retard shoots up a school and now we should get rid of the 2nd amendment? How does this even make sense.
Do you guys honestly think even if gun laws were passed it would reduce gun violence? Ordinary citizens would be sitting ducks to just about anyone who wants to commit a violent crime. And in America, a lot more than 28 people would die because of this. This is a much more dangerous country than UK and statistics show gun violence is worst there since the bans as well.
You would leave the entire nation defenseless. Not just against criminals, but against the government as well, which as I recall, was WHY THE LAW EXSISTS in the first place. Why has no one even mentioned that?
This type of thing almost always leads to more government control and corruption, and in many cases mass genocide as well. I pray to god guns never get banned here in America, and I know most rational Americans feel the same way.
And FYI 22 kids were stabbed in a Chinese middle school just last month, and its not the first time. Yes it's tragic, but these kinds of things happen. There is no real solution to stopping it. It's like IED's in Iraq and Afghanistan, when they realized they couldn't win with guns, they turned to bombs. The same scenario would happen here if guns were banned. The world is a dangerous place, there is no rational way to ever fix that.
So some retard shoots up a school and now we should get rid of the 2nd amendment? How does this even make sense.
Do you guys honestly think even if gun laws were passed it would reduce gun violence? Ordinary citizens would be sitting ducks to just about anyone who wants to commit a violent crime. And in America, a lot more than 28 people would die because of this. This is a much more dangerous country than UK and statistics show gun violence is worst there since the bans as well.
You would leave the entire nation defenseless. Not just against criminals, but against the government as well, which as I recall, was WHY THE LAW EXSISTS in the first place. Why has no one even mentioned that?
This type of thing almost always leads to more government control and corruption, and in many cases mass genocide as well. I pray to god guns never get banned here in America, and I know most rational Americans feel the same way.
And FYI 22 kids were stabbed in a Chinese middle school just last month, and its not the first time.
Passing the firearm law in Australia made a huge decline in gun-related homicides, and was brought in the UK due to a few school shootings, and I couldn't be happier with it.
I've also yet to see the fact that an armed civilian population has stopped an army from invading or has stopped dictators in recent times, so the idea of it preventing an army from invading is a little far-fetched to say the least.
I've also never seen a ban on guns exclusively led to corruption and genocide.
Yes, there are bombs going off in England constantly :poly142:
Also worth noting none of those Chinese children who were stabbed died.
Something like 9,100 firearm-related homicides in the US last year compared to 41 in England & Wales.
"Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.
This too..
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 19793, 2,035,000 educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
During the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pots Khmer Rouge government murdered over 31 percent of the entire population"
I respect your opinion, and I'm glad you feel safer, but let's state some facts..
Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Gun control was actually brought into Germany in 1920 as part of the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler actually loosed gun restrictions in many aspects bringing gun ownership age down to 18 from 20.
That's also not to say that the German people actually liked Hitler. Let's remember he was voted into power and revitalised the ailing German economy after it was left devastated after WW1 with huge investments and massive construction projects.
It's also worth noting a lot of those Jewish people weren't from Germany and from countries with no gun control.
You're right there's still problems with guns in England but at 41 deaths a year related to deaths I don't think the US is one to criticise.
Infact most of those events had little to do with gun control and simply came down to the fact that the incoming governments were just far better equipped and organised. People were just either too poor and/or didn't have access to the same equipment that the army used, and that's even without mentioning the advanced training.
There are plenty of countries that have got gun control and have never had any sort of genocide, so to say somehow gun control=genocide and dictators is wrong.
do you actually believe that if the US citizenry were to rise up against your government, they'd stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning, despite the current gun laws? you asked why this hasn't been brought up already.... IT HAS!
the second amendment was written during a time when people were using muskets and flintlock pistols, not semi/full auto AR's. it was written during a time where a rebellion would actually stand a chance. and more importantly, it was written AS AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR CONSTITUTION.
what's the point in having an amendable constitution, if it can't be changed along with the times and situation of the nation?
Those types of weapons are already illegal. The point is that they exist, because there are "legitimate" sources (like the US military, SWAT, IRS, DHS, KFC, etc) who absolutely need those or else we're totally not safe you guys, totally not safe (/sarcasm). So those weapons exist even though they're illegal. One set of laws for us, one set of laws for them.
That is Accutly a false statement right there. For example you can easily own a AR-15 which is the Semi-Automatic "Civilian" version of the M16 just with a lower fire rate. It is so easy to get a "Civilian" version of many or all mass produced military guns that you would be shocked. You can buy them online just without the trigger assembly and to get the trigger assembly all you have to do is go to a gun shop and show your gun liscensce. I have a 17 year old friend who got one and all he needed was approval from his parents and his own Gun License. I really find no purpose to having a Military gun when you can still have just as much "fun" shooting a hunting rifle. Gun's should be restricted to stuff we need for hunting and protection like a pistol or hunting rifle.
(Caveat: I'm a fan of recreational shooting on gun ranges. Also own guns.)
I'd just like to reiterate to those arguing pro-2nd Amendment specifically by venue of standing up to a tyrannical government: yeah, you and your piddling assault rifle may hold off isolated cases, but it will hardly do anything if the army marches on your ass; all you'll inevidably do is hole up awaiting a heavy armor/artillery/drone strike.
And FYI 22 kids were stabbed in a Chinese middle school just last month, and its not the first time. Yes it's tragic, but these kinds of things happen. There is no real solution to stopping it. It's like IED's in Iraq and Afghanistan, when they realized they couldn't win with guns, they turned to bombs. The same scenario would happen here if guns were banned. The world is a dangerous place, there is no rational way to ever fix that.
kids in china still alive. imagine if he had an AR-15 with 100s of bullets.
sigh, there is no point arguing over something that should be common sense.
as for illegal weapons, there is no such thing in USA as far as i know.
you can buy anything if you have the means, paperwork, connection, etc. and most cases buy them legally.
That quote fits better with the death penalty and other harsh punishments.
I was simply saying if every country had nukes no country would ever use them because they know they would be hit back, and it destroys all motive behind using them in the first place.
i just imagined the scenery at that cinema shooting on the batman screening - with everyone owning a gun.
now that would have been a great situation, people shooting targets they don't see in a dark cinema
also
wow scott, wtf
@frell: thats nonsense, there could no would always be idiots to push the trigger, no matter what. one of the reasons why nobel started his nobel prize
Id imagine the scene more as the shooter knowing theres a very very high probability of multiple people inside having a gun and choosing a different location where people are more defenseless... school...
no question, there will always be lunatics doing crazy shit, anywhere, anytime be it with knifes, or guns, or bombs.
Its just a matter of how simple it is and how much harm could be made.
I would like to ask one question. Would a criminal be more then likely to break into a home that is defenseless (no weapons) and they know it? or break into a house that has a weapon? I am pretty sure the criminal would take the weaponless house... I can't believe people are against gun ownership for law-abiding citizens, it's crazy. Why punish law-abiding citizen's for a nutbags act? I dunno, no point arguing with people nobody will ever get along.
I would like to ask one question. Would a criminal be more then likely to break into a home that is defenseless (no weapons) and they know it? or break into a house that has a weapon? I am pretty sure the criminal would take the weaponless house... I can't believe people are against gun ownership for law-abiding citizens, it's crazy. Why punish law-abiding citizen's for a nutbags act? I dunno, no point arguing with people nobody will ever get along.
what if i said i am ok with limited hand guns ownership only. i object to ownership of multiple guns, AR-15s, bushmsters, stock pile of ammunitions etc. for general civilians.
you dont need 100s of round of ammo or multiple semi-automatic rifles for self defense unless you are one of those dooms day survivalist.
What needs to happen is that invention I saw a few years ago that was created for cops. Basically they wear a ring on their finger that has a special type of magnet in it that will only let the gun fire if its in their hand
They need this for everyone, so even if you only find the gun you're 1/3 there. Then you need to find the bullet and the ring, and assuming most people would wear the ring you wouldn't be able to find it.
I think to own anything more than a semi automatic handgun you should need a "collectors" license, where you go through psych evaluations and you also cannot have the guns if you live with anyone who has mental issues (family members/room mates etc)
what if i said i am ok with limited hand guns ownership only. i object to ownership of multiple guns, AR-15s, bushmsters, stock pile of ammunitions etc.
you dont need 100s of round of ammo or multiple semi-automatic rifles for self defense unless you are one of those dooms day survivalist.
do you agree with that ?
Yeah I agree with that but I am not targeting specific people on here. A lot of websites and facebook (eh) people want handguns as well, like full restriction. I agree with what you said though.
Yeah I agree with that but I am not targeting specific people on here. A lot of websites and facebook (eh) people want handguns as well, like full restriction. I agree with what you said though.
i'm saying that doing armed robbery is much harder if you have no access to guns, of course there are illegal guns, of course there is mugging with knifes or just fists, it's the ease that makes this whole situation oh so crazy. There are other ways to protect your home, and there is no guarantee that having a gun saves you from beeing shot. Also i don't think that having a gun is an issue, having A gun - what does anyone need dozens of guns, hundreds of rounds, semi automatic or automatic guns for? I don't mind people having gunsports as their hobby, i don't have to like it, but oh well - hobbies are hobbies.
why not just limit ammunition rather than the guns themselves?
you can have 1 magazine of ammunition in your home.
you may purchase more ammunition at a rifle club or hunting lodge, for use only on those premises.
also, for more ways to defend your home. there was this movie, in the 90's... some kid who got touched up by mike jackson managed to do over two burglars. was pretty awesome.
violent intent will always be there, that is human nature. sure, you can educate more on social aspects but that wont solve all issues. you need to do both.
you cannot cure all the crazy, what you can do is stop all the crazy from getting a gun.
No, you can't cure all the crazy, but neither can you stop all of the crazy from getting guns. If you think you can make a law that will stop crazy people 100% of the time, you're just as crazy as they are.
No, you can't cure all the crazy, but neither can you stop all of the crazy from getting guns. If you think you can make a law that will stop crazy people 100% of the time, you're just as crazy as they are.
i stand corrected, so i will settle with 90% or 80% or even 50% if it means saving more lives.
To be honest I do not think it is justified to proclaim on whether citizens owning guns privately is a good idea or not based on incidents. It would be dishonest to suddenly do so when I've always felt debates should be about larger-scale statistics and political economic context and how to interpret these, not moral panics or individual outrages.
That said, this comic sums up my feelings about the "debate" in the US.
taking away guns is not a good idea, same with restricting high power rifles and what not. most crimes are done with the most simple hand guns. not machine guns or rifles.
I say have better background checks, hold gun owners accountable for not keeping their guns locked up and out of reach of anyone who isn't regulated to use them and also a mandatory gun training class for what ever type of gun your using. do all this before anyone can get a gun.
taking away guns is not a good idea, same with restricting high power rifles and what not. most crimes are done with the most simple hand guns. not machine guns or rifles.
I say have better background checks, hold gun owners accountable for not keeping their guns locked up and out of reach of anyone who isn't regulated to use them and also a mandatory gun training class for what ever type of gun your using. do all this before anyone can get a gun.
Exactly. How many gang members use ARs? Not a lot I'd think.
Like others have mentioned, its a whole societal issue here. I'm glad the President brought it up in his speech, we need law enforcement, mental care workers, parents and teachers to work together to fix this. Its not something so simple as to slap a bandaid of gun bans to get rid of it.
I would like to ask one question. Would a criminal be more then likely to break into a home that is defenseless (no weapons) and they know it? or break into a house that has a weapon? I am pretty sure the criminal would take the weaponless house...
I also have a question. How on earth would they know if a house had a weapon in it or not?
I'm all for home defense. But buy a goddamn baseball bat. You do not need a Glock.
i just imagined the scenery at that cinema shooting on the batman screening - with everyone owning a gun.
now that would have been a great situation, people shooting targets they don't see in a dark cinema
also
wow scott, wtf
Agreed on both your points. Didn't the other lunatic also use gas grenades or am I mistaken? That would have made other armed individuals in the cinema even less useful.
I also have a question. How on earth would they know if a house had a weapon in it or not?
I'm all for home defense. But buy a goddamn baseball bat. You do not need a Glock.
It was an example but the criminal could know the people in the household personally, or know of someone that does... It's not totally out there... buy a baseball bat? yeah that will be great against a gun! :poly142:
America has a problem in itself, both physical and mental, period, and no amount of speaking about it, laws, or Dr. Phil shows will fix it. Either as a society fix it, or forever hold your breath.
What i dont understand is why any mention of tightening up gun regulation is always interpreted by 2nd amendment enthusiast as "omg they are going to ban the 2nd amendment" That is quite a leap. There is certainly a discussion to be had about what sort of regulation we have as when it comes to how easy is it to get a weapon, as well as what sort of weaponry seems sensible for home ownership.
I believe ownership of weapons for self protection and self defense is fine, but the ownership and ease of procurement in many states of military grade weapons such as assault rifles, automatic weaponry. In my home state, Texas, the lax regulation is serving as a weaponry bazaar to the Mexican drug cartels. The cartels are using Americans with clean criminal weapons to buy multiple military grade rifles and to smuggle them into Mexico. I cant help ask why should such weaponry be permissible? There are not that many armored deer in Texas to my knowledge and if you can shoot a criminal at from maximum possible range of these rifles, i would say that criminal is far enough where you could just call the cops. I mean who really needs an assault rifle for self defense, i mean you cant realistically take your AR15 to Walmart....well perhaps in Texas. But hey even if you are of the opinion of that sort weaponry should be legal in your state,at least make it as difficult as possible to prevent the wrong kind of people from getting said weapons.
Thats the sort of weapon i think should be illegal or at the least,really,really hard to obtain.
After these shootings happen, a lot if people say that we must have means to help identify the sort of people who might commit these sort of crimes as well as addressing society's problems etc,etc. But when is any sort of action in that direction ever taken, medical service for the mentally ill, hmm that sounds a lot like socialized medicine. Is the US public prepared to really fund a mental health services that can help people who are mentally and and even potentially advert some of these terrible incidents , realistically, even if it managed to prevent just a few of these incidents,would it not be worth it. And if not the government then how? Propose something. Sadly in this issue, i dont have much faith in the public and the political system. American like the these ideas on paper but when it comes to actually paying for it thats a whole different story.
What i dont understand is why any mention of tightening up gun regulation is always interpreted by 2nd amendment enthusiast as "omg they are going to ban the 2nd amendment" That is quite a leap. There is certainly a discussion to be had about what sort of regulation we have as when it comes to how easy is it to get a weapon, as well as what sort of weaponry seems sensible for home ownership.
I believe ownership of weapons for self protection and self defense is fine, but the ownership and ease of procurement in many states of military grade weapons such as assault rifles, automatic weaponry. In my home state, Texas, the lax regulation is serving as a weaponry bazaar to the Mexican drug cartels. The cartels are using Americans with clean criminal weapons to buy multiple military grade rifles and to smuggle them into Mexico. I cant help ask why should such weaponry be permissible? There are not that many armored deer in Texas to my knowledge and if you can shoot a criminal at from maximum possible range of these rifles, i would say that criminal is far enough where you could just call the cops. I mean who really needs an assault rifle for self defense, i mean you cant realistically take your AR15 to Walmart....well perhaps in Texas. But hey even if you are of the opinion of that sort weaponry should be legal in your state,at least make it as difficult as possible to prevent the wrong kind of people from getting said weapons.
Thats the sort of weapon i think should be illegal or at the least,really,really hard to obtain.
After these shootings happen, a lot if people say that we must have means to help identify the sort of people who might commit these sort of crimes as well as addressing society's problems etc,etc. But when is any sort of action in that direction ever taken, medical service for the mentally ill, hmm that sounds a lot like socialized medicine. Is the US public prepared to really fund a mental health services that can help people who are mentally and and even potentially advert some of these terrible incidents , realistically, even if it managed to prevent just a few of these incidents,would it not be worth it. And if not the government then how? Propose something. Sadly in this issue, i dont have much faith in the public and the political system. American like the these ideas on paper but when it comes to actually paying for it thats a whole different story.
The AR-15 is a semi-auto version of the M16. It is not an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is mostly just a buzzword misused by the media invented to scare the public into a gun fearing hysteria. Full auto weapons (actual assault rifles) are not allowed to be owned by citizens without a special license from the ATF and they put you through the ringer for it to get it, with lots of strings attached. The AR-15 is a carbine that fires 5.56 nato rounds. Most semi-auto hunting rifles fire a bigger round. The 44, .308, .30-6, etc., are all bigger rounds and they come in semi-auto. A 9mm, used is most pistols (9mm parabellum the most common round in the world), is a bigger round. Let's not forget semi-auto shotguns, like Benelli. You're really blowing the issue out of proportion.
I agree that dangerous people shouldn't have dangerous weapons, but do you think they are going to stop when you make rules that say "don't do that!"? Laws like that only stop law-abiding people. The rest of them need other intervention, either social, medical, or correctional rehab. The key to good gun control is to reduce issues that encourage violence.
The point is to stop people from wanting to grab a gun and go on a shooting spree. If fewer people develop the desire to be violent, the fewer occurrences of all types of violent crime we will have, including gun violence. If you have to arrest or shoot a person who has harmed innocent people, then the law has failed its purpose. You're not going to catch all the crazy people, nor are you going to weed them out with gun laws alone. We do, however, have a very unbalanced approach of using more law and less social action to solve our problems.
Replies
You miss the point of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It's the intent to kill that matters. A gun is an inert tool until a person with intent makes it do what it was made to do. Without that intent, it is just an object. Remove the intent and you remove the violence. Deal with what makes people kill. The phrase is meant to point out where the real problem is.
Did you ever see that episode of Star Trek: TNG "Gambit Part I and II" with the psionic resonator? When Picard figured out that without violent intent, the weapon was useless, he was able to stop the isolationist from harming anyone. It was an allegory that weapons are only as dangerous as the intent of their user. The same idea applies with any weapon. Remove violent intent from those that would use it to harm and the weapon becomes pointless. If I have no desire to kill, why would I pick up a gun to kill?
The key to solving gun violence is solving the issues that cause violent behavior in the first place.
this is a very one sided view. you have to treat both symptom and cause.
you ever heard of a doctor aggravating the symptom while trying to cure the disease ?
not controlling gun access and talking about mental health is like aggravating the symptom while trying to find a cure to something not as simple as strep throat.
also, laws are needed for a civilized nation unless you wanna everyone to own guns and go back to the days of wild west.
there are lot of laws in this country that are good laws, and they were slapped on for the good of all.
it is easy to say that killing is bad, just teach your kids not to kill people.
you dont need to create a law that bans murder, just teach people not to kill.
sure, that will work...
Id rather be in Europe where a psychopath with a knife kills 1 person and wounds three others than the US where 1 guy can kill 30+ students. Id rather hear about kids being stabbed with staplers and pens rather than shot. At least with a knife you can run, overwhelm, throw objects in your path but with a gun its just too easy
violent intent will always be there, that is human nature. sure, you can educate more on social aspects but that wont solve all issues. you need to do both.
you cannot cure all the crazy, what you can do is stop all the crazy from getting a gun.
I didnt say he is wrong Andreas, I just thought it was kind of ironically funny that one tries to create the source of life, instead he end up creating something that is now used in the tool of death.
I would certainly be concerned. I am against guns and never touched one in life but back where I was originally born, you kind of need a gun to protect yourself. I cant say that I am anti gun or pro gun, but should such incident happens in your family (doesnt matter if it didnt happen to you,) you would do whatever it takes to protect yourself and people you care about.
we were throwing spears and shooting arrows long before gunpowder came along
Treating every social problem is not gonna happen.. Even here in Denmark where mental health care is avaible to nearly every person, some people still kill and maim others, however they don't take 27 others with them to the grave because they had acces to a automatic rifle. I think its grotesque in this world to think that you really need a gun to protect you self in the modern part of this world, you only need a gun if everybody else can get a gun. We have gun fire episodes in Denmark, however the only ways to get a firearm is to be deep deep in the criminal underworld, otherwise the only way to get one is to have a hunting and gun license, and then you don't have semi- or full automatic weapons avaible, which I would argue are the most effective guns for killing the highest ammount of people in the shortest ammount of time... I just think it's sick
some crazy guy with a gun can fire off a full magazine and reload and start firing again before people even have a chance to react to the situation.
so when people come along with the argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people". for fucking sure that's true. BUT WHY MAKE IT EASIER?
you can run away from someone with a knife. good luck outrunning a bullet.
that said, i agree it's a social issue that needs to be corrected. but i feel like i need to state, again, that gun control doesn't mean the same thing as losing your guns. it means CONTROL. it means sure, they may be more difficult to acquire, a more lengthy process involved, or even more strict laws regarding how/where your guns are secured. but that doesn't mean you can't have them.
most law abiding citizens, if told that their weapons should always be in a locked case unless they're in a designated hunting area, or rifle club ground, would do exactly that. and if this guys mother had done the same thing, this whole thing might not have happened. but she didn't, because legally she didn't have to.
so again... keep your guns, but make them more difficult for the wrong people to get hold of. and let's be clear here... gangs/criminal organizations will still have their ways and means of acquiring illegal weapons... they can even do it in prison... so i think they should be discounted for this type of argument. sure gang and organized crime is terrible, and needs to be stamped out. but those aren't the guys shooting up schools and movie theaters. those guys are too busy killing each other. every now and again a casual bystander gets caught in the crossfire, and that sucks. but that's NOT the same as some brainfucked asshole having easy access to the most lethal of weapons and shooting up a fucking school!
but hey man... keep going with your "HURRHURR GUNS ARE FUN!!!" comments. i'm going to alienate myself big time right here, right now.
i hope it's your relative next time. i hope you have to go through it. and then i hope you have the guts to come back here and tell us how wrong you were.
Actually if you treat the cause...there ceases to be symptoms ...
I know this is not an A+B= C equation
But the logic of prohibition seems to treat problems this way. And if you are not calling for a prohibition, but stronger regulation (which I think you stated) it mitigates damage, but ultimately leaves us in the same position as we are now...
My opinion Is I think we need strong regulation for firearms, but ultimately the solution for "fixing" these problems is in how we as a culture stigmatize and dehumanize the mentally ill...Allow me some sympathy for the Devil,this kid was not born deranged, for what ever reason his illness was ignored, or missed..lots of good points being made all around
and Gir ad hominem is not a good way to try and make your point..it makes you look silly
Just the same, pro-gun persons can't understand the nervousness and apprehension non-armed citizens have towards tools that can be dangerous and lethal towards the civilian population. Especially so, in a nation that is exhibiting increasing symptoms of an impulsive and insecure society. Mixed wih mental illness, that's sure to make anyone uneasy.
One side yells for a more armed population, the other yells for disarming. None is really to answer as to why there is such a disproportionate portion of radical psychos in America right now.
Americans have lived through worse... Slavery, The Great Depression, The Prohibition, WW||, Vietnam. What gives?
you are just missing the point.....
majority of gun owners are actually for more gun control and are in the middle of the debate. so this notion of just two sides fighting and nothing in the middle is a misleading concept perpetuated by ignorance.
there is nothing wrong with most legal gun owners. they are not the problem. but organizations like NRA would have you believe that majority of gun owners dont want more gun control while that is just a lie. they do that for money.
in theory yes because there is a 100% chance of returned fire
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
- Mahatma Gandhi.
Do you guys honestly think even if gun laws were passed it would reduce gun violence? Ordinary citizens would be sitting ducks to just about anyone who wants to commit a violent crime. And in America, a lot more than 28 people would die because of this. This is a much more dangerous country than UK and statistics show gun violence is worst there since the bans as well.
You would leave the entire nation defenseless. Not just against criminals, but against the government as well, which as I recall, was WHY THE LAW EXSISTS in the first place. Why has no one even mentioned that?
This type of thing almost always leads to more government control and corruption, and in many cases mass genocide as well. I pray to god guns never get banned here in America, and I know most rational Americans feel the same way.
And FYI 22 kids were stabbed in a Chinese middle school just last month, and its not the first time. Yes it's tragic, but these kinds of things happen. There is no real solution to stopping it. It's like IED's in Iraq and Afghanistan, when they realized they couldn't win with guns, they turned to bombs. The same scenario would happen here if guns were banned. The world is a dangerous place, there is no rational way to ever fix that.
Passing the firearm law in Australia made a huge decline in gun-related homicides, and was brought in the UK due to a few school shootings, and I couldn't be happier with it.
I've also yet to see the fact that an armed civilian population has stopped an army from invading or has stopped dictators in recent times, so the idea of it preventing an army from invading is a little far-fetched to say the least.
I've also never seen a ban on guns exclusively led to corruption and genocide.
Yes, there are bombs going off in England constantly :poly142:
Also worth noting none of those Chinese children who were stabbed died.
Something like 9,100 firearm-related homicides in the US last year compared to 41 in England & Wales.
"Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.
This too..
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 19793, 2,035,000 educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
During the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pots Khmer Rouge government murdered over 31 percent of the entire population"
Gun control was actually brought into Germany in 1920 as part of the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler actually loosed gun restrictions in many aspects bringing gun ownership age down to 18 from 20.
That's also not to say that the German people actually liked Hitler. Let's remember he was voted into power and revitalised the ailing German economy after it was left devastated after WW1 with huge investments and massive construction projects.
It's also worth noting a lot of those Jewish people weren't from Germany and from countries with no gun control.
You're right there's still problems with guns in England but at 41 deaths a year related to deaths I don't think the US is one to criticise.
Infact most of those events had little to do with gun control and simply came down to the fact that the incoming governments were just far better equipped and organised. People were just either too poor and/or didn't have access to the same equipment that the army used, and that's even without mentioning the advanced training.
There are plenty of countries that have got gun control and have never had any sort of genocide, so to say somehow gun control=genocide and dictators is wrong.
do you actually believe that if the US citizenry were to rise up against your government, they'd stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning, despite the current gun laws? you asked why this hasn't been brought up already.... IT HAS!
the second amendment was written during a time when people were using muskets and flintlock pistols, not semi/full auto AR's. it was written during a time where a rebellion would actually stand a chance. and more importantly, it was written AS AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR CONSTITUTION.
what's the point in having an amendable constitution, if it can't be changed along with the times and situation of the nation?
[ame="
That is Accutly a false statement right there. For example you can easily own a AR-15 which is the Semi-Automatic "Civilian" version of the M16 just with a lower fire rate. It is so easy to get a "Civilian" version of many or all mass produced military guns that you would be shocked. You can buy them online just without the trigger assembly and to get the trigger assembly all you have to do is go to a gun shop and show your gun liscensce. I have a 17 year old friend who got one and all he needed was approval from his parents and his own Gun License. I really find no purpose to having a Military gun when you can still have just as much "fun" shooting a hunting rifle. Gun's should be restricted to stuff we need for hunting and protection like a pistol or hunting rifle.
I'd just like to reiterate to those arguing pro-2nd Amendment specifically by venue of standing up to a tyrannical government: yeah, you and your piddling assault rifle may hold off isolated cases, but it will hardly do anything if the army marches on your ass; all you'll inevidably do is hole up awaiting a heavy armor/artillery/drone strike.
kids in china still alive. imagine if he had an AR-15 with 100s of bullets.
sigh, there is no point arguing over something that should be common sense.
as for illegal weapons, there is no such thing in USA as far as i know.
you can buy anything if you have the means, paperwork, connection, etc. and most cases buy them legally.
You didn't use that in the right context at all
That quote fits better with the death penalty and other harsh punishments.
I was simply saying if every country had nukes no country would ever use them because they know they would be hit back, and it destroys all motive behind using them in the first place.
now that would have been a great situation, people shooting targets they don't see in a dark cinema
also
wow scott, wtf
@frell: thats nonsense, there could no would always be idiots to push the trigger, no matter what. one of the reasons why nobel started his nobel prize
no question, there will always be lunatics doing crazy shit, anywhere, anytime be it with knifes, or guns, or bombs.
Its just a matter of how simple it is and how much harm could be made.
what if i said i am ok with limited hand guns ownership only. i object to ownership of multiple guns, AR-15s, bushmsters, stock pile of ammunitions etc. for general civilians.
you dont need 100s of round of ammo or multiple semi-automatic rifles for self defense unless you are one of those dooms day survivalist.
do you agree with that ?
They need this for everyone, so even if you only find the gun you're 1/3 there. Then you need to find the bullet and the ring, and assuming most people would wear the ring you wouldn't be able to find it.
I think to own anything more than a semi automatic handgun you should need a "collectors" license, where you go through psych evaluations and you also cannot have the guns if you live with anyone who has mental issues (family members/room mates etc)
Yeah I agree with that but I am not targeting specific people on here. A lot of websites and facebook (eh) people want handguns as well, like full restriction. I agree with what you said though.
glad we agree on that. makes more sense that way
Neox- Ahh I see where you are coming from, I totally agree with that
you can have 1 magazine of ammunition in your home.
you may purchase more ammunition at a rifle club or hunting lodge, for use only on those premises.
also, for more ways to defend your home. there was this movie, in the 90's... some kid who got touched up by mike jackson managed to do over two burglars. was pretty awesome.
No, you can't cure all the crazy, but neither can you stop all of the crazy from getting guns. If you think you can make a law that will stop crazy people 100% of the time, you're just as crazy as they are.
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/
i stand corrected, so i will settle with 90% or 80% or even 50% if it means saving more lives.
That said, this comic sums up my feelings about the "debate" in the US.
Gun ownership positively correlated with homicide rate
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
International study concludes gun ownership positively correlated with homicide and suicide rates
http://web.unicri.it/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf
The more lax a state's gun laws are, the more gun crime occurs in that state
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120403333.html
Decreasing guns on the street by better enforcement of existing gun control laws = less crime
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CPP-BetterGunEnforce-2005.pdf
Castle doctrine laws increase homicide rates
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
Guns in the home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defence
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity
I say have better background checks, hold gun owners accountable for not keeping their guns locked up and out of reach of anyone who isn't regulated to use them and also a mandatory gun training class for what ever type of gun your using. do all this before anyone can get a gun.
Exactly. How many gang members use ARs? Not a lot I'd think.
Like others have mentioned, its a whole societal issue here. I'm glad the President brought it up in his speech, we need law enforcement, mental care workers, parents and teachers to work together to fix this. Its not something so simple as to slap a bandaid of gun bans to get rid of it.
I also have a question. How on earth would they know if a house had a weapon in it or not?
I'm all for home defense. But buy a goddamn baseball bat. You do not need a Glock.
Agreed on both your points. Didn't the other lunatic also use gas grenades or am I mistaken? That would have made other armed individuals in the cinema even less useful.
It was an example but the criminal could know the people in the household personally, or know of someone that does... It's not totally out there... buy a baseball bat? yeah that will be great against a gun! :poly142:
[ame="
http://i.imgur.com/3SVRn.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/r81AO.png
I believe ownership of weapons for self protection and self defense is fine, but the ownership and ease of procurement in many states of military grade weapons such as assault rifles, automatic weaponry. In my home state, Texas, the lax regulation is serving as a weaponry bazaar to the Mexican drug cartels. The cartels are using Americans with clean criminal weapons to buy multiple military grade rifles and to smuggle them into Mexico. I cant help ask why should such weaponry be permissible? There are not that many armored deer in Texas to my knowledge and if you can shoot a criminal at from maximum possible range of these rifles, i would say that criminal is far enough where you could just call the cops. I mean who really needs an assault rifle for self defense, i mean you cant realistically take your AR15 to Walmart....well perhaps in Texas. But hey even if you are of the opinion of that sort weaponry should be legal in your state,at least make it as difficult as possible to prevent the wrong kind of people from getting said weapons.
Thats the sort of weapon i think should be illegal or at the least,really,really hard to obtain.
After these shootings happen, a lot if people say that we must have means to help identify the sort of people who might commit these sort of crimes as well as addressing society's problems etc,etc. But when is any sort of action in that direction ever taken, medical service for the mentally ill, hmm that sounds a lot like socialized medicine. Is the US public prepared to really fund a mental health services that can help people who are mentally and and even potentially advert some of these terrible incidents , realistically, even if it managed to prevent just a few of these incidents,would it not be worth it. And if not the government then how? Propose something. Sadly in this issue, i dont have much faith in the public and the political system. American like the these ideas on paper but when it comes to actually paying for it thats a whole different story.
The AR-15 is a semi-auto version of the M16. It is not an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is mostly just a buzzword misused by the media invented to scare the public into a gun fearing hysteria. Full auto weapons (actual assault rifles) are not allowed to be owned by citizens without a special license from the ATF and they put you through the ringer for it to get it, with lots of strings attached. The AR-15 is a carbine that fires 5.56 nato rounds. Most semi-auto hunting rifles fire a bigger round. The 44, .308, .30-6, etc., are all bigger rounds and they come in semi-auto. A 9mm, used is most pistols (9mm parabellum the most common round in the world), is a bigger round. Let's not forget semi-auto shotguns, like Benelli. You're really blowing the issue out of proportion.
I agree that dangerous people shouldn't have dangerous weapons, but do you think they are going to stop when you make rules that say "don't do that!"? Laws like that only stop law-abiding people. The rest of them need other intervention, either social, medical, or correctional rehab. The key to good gun control is to reduce issues that encourage violence.
The point is to stop people from wanting to grab a gun and go on a shooting spree. If fewer people develop the desire to be violent, the fewer occurrences of all types of violent crime we will have, including gun violence. If you have to arrest or shoot a person who has harmed innocent people, then the law has failed its purpose. You're not going to catch all the crazy people, nor are you going to weed them out with gun laws alone. We do, however, have a very unbalanced approach of using more law and less social action to solve our problems.