Gun Control- Yes, No, Maybe so?

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Nater Taters, Apr 13, 2015.


More Gun Control?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. Unsure

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. In the wake of numerous school and public shootings over the last five years, one must ask themselves, what must be done to prevent this from happening again?

    Should we have tighter gun control laws or not?
  2. I think, like a driver's license, we should have mental health screenings to see if that person (s) can handle having one. If someone is blind they can't drive (or at least will be denied a DL typically), so why should someone who is going through a mental crisis be allowed to hold a deadly weapon?

    That's just my two cents.
    • Like Like x 5
  3. I was against gun control, under the reasoning that more guns reduce crime and the incentive to commit crime, but I agree with this.
  4. The obvious answer is yes, for so many more reasons than just school shootings. I've also never heard a convincing argument for the lack of gun control in the US.

    But then again, I'm British. We solve all our problems with a pleasant cup of tea, a bitching session about David Cameron, and a cathartic daydream about the good old days of imperialism. Maybe that's why the apparent necessity of guns is beyond my comprehension.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
  5. Gun control is fine and dandy, but people are missing out on one major factor. Most criminals are not getting their guns legally! Do you really think they care if more rules and regulations are put on owning/buying a gun? Hell no! They can rob a bank, get a few grand, and buy one from the guy down the street who doesn't care who he's selling it to.

    What needs to happen is we need to stop giving criminals all these god damn rights, and give them actual punishments! If you kill someone with a gun, knife, or deadly force you should spend the rest of your life in prison, no fucking parole. Life in prison shouldn't have luxuries. There should be no cable TV, no computers, nothing. They should have to work to earn their food, and any sort of privileges, and whatever extra money they make should be given to their families, and if they don't have families of their own, families of the victims. Everyone says crime doesn't pay, but in the U.S it certainly does. In jail they don't have to worry about paying bills, or where their next meal is coming from, or even affording a trip to the doctors. They have little to no responsibilities, and once their sentence over and their slapped in the face with reality, they just want to go back in.

    It's not gun control that's the issue, it's the criminal justice system that's failing.
    • Like Like x 8
    • Love Love x 1
    • Thank Thank x 1
  6. Gun Laws do not stop Gun Crime from happening.

    Of course, some smart ass is going to point out that it will stop certain suicides, and certain murders, but those are very tight circumstances and tend to be crimes of passion.

    Point is, the rampant "gun crime" that includes muggings and murders and robberies and shootings and etcetera are from criminals, not everyday Joes with a shotgun or two and a few pistols locked in their home. These same criminals don't spend $1000+ on weapons at gun stores and go through legal channels that already exist. No, these guys buy guns illegally. These are the ones buying the $50 AK-47 knock-offs and arming themselves to commit crime. So it's safe to say the gun laws stricter than the ones we have simply only hurt law abiding citizens, yes? The guys that want "assault rifles" and automatic-firing weapons will get them, no matter what.

    Banning guns doesn't do anything either. Again, this only hurts the law abiding citizen. Criminals and those that mean to do crime with weapons will get these weapons, period. Either today, tomorrow, or next week, they will be armed. And then you hurt the citizen that would have liked to have been armed in these situations, or where being armed would have proven more fortuitous than not.

    Talking about school shootings and other mass shootings: the laws are already in place, we just need to be stricter in adhering to them, and we need to respect the gun instead of fearing and being ignorant of the gun. Educate people pro-actively about gun safety and what it means, and what to do if there is a shooter.

    This has always been an issue because unfortunately, the folks that do these mass shootings are respectable people until they snap. Nothing you can do about that; you can't know. Gun bans are the whipcord answer, and it works if you can control the flow of guns into your country, but the US cannot even begin to dream to control that kind of flow. More-over, we are a country founded upon the gun, and we kept our freedom and laws in place because of it. A good half of this country would not abide gun bans.
    • Like Like x 8
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. All gun control does is take guns away from law abiding citizens.

    Personally I'm more in favor of stricter driving regulations. Yearly driving exams, more road cameras, and a bigger push for automated driving.

    Guns aren't the problem, tolerance for people with mental illnesses is.

    I have nothing really else to add that everyone else has already said.
  8. Gun control is one of those things that can't just be written off as, "Get rid of the guns, and lower homicides!", because statistically, outlawing firearms in various countries has done little to curb violent crime, and in some cases, increased it. Australia, for instance, still has pretty high homicide numbers for a country that has an almost total ban on firearms, and the UK has a higher homicide rate than Canada, which has pretty prolific firearm ownership (going off of what Wikipedia has, anyways: The thing is, most people who own firearms aren't and won't ever be criminals, and the vast majority of firearms owners keep their weapons secure and locked up in the event of a break in while they aren't home.

    From the Statistics Canada webpage, 75% of violent crime in Canada is committed without a weapon, and firearms are rarely used in violent crime.

    This page breaks down how violent crime is actually decreasing, and of all firearms used in crimes, 57% are handguns and only 16% are rifles and shotguns.

    It also says that about 46% of firearms related homicide is done by gang members, and a good chunk of those guns I can promise you were illegally obtained.

    And that's just Canada, but check this out: This Times article stating that violent crime is at its lowest numbers since 1978.
    But that can't be right, can it? I mean, where were all these mass shootings that suddenly popped up the past few years? Isn't that a sign of a gun problem?

    Not really. The thing is, overall, violent crime and guns being used illegally is on a decline, and the news is a sensational, emotional thing that will keep covering a story about a shooting until damn well everyone on the planet knows about it. Being constantly exposed to stories of people getting shot and these mass shootings makes it really easy to skew the public's perception that Sandy Hook and the Aurora, Colorado shootings are a dime a dozen atrocities that are on the rise. They aren't. Go back and take a look at mass shootings and you'll notice that for the most part, their instances are pretty steady, and one thing we absolutely must not lose sight of is that those atrocities are committed by lone individuals, and they went into those situations knowing they were going to die. They were sick in the head and prone to violence. While in many cases the firearms used in those crimes were obtained legally, I would argue that that's a failure on the government's part to properly screen those individuals, and in a lot of cases, there were warning signs well before they went out and committed their crimes. Gun control wouldn't have made a difference in those cases; reporting troubling behaviour and taking note of some of the fucked up shit they post online would have been more effective. Problem is, nothing's foolproof, and all the measures in the world short of Minority Report won't stop everything from slipping through the crack. Hell, Timothy McVeigh didn't shoot anybody outside of war; he figured out how to make homemade bombs and killed hundreds of people. Where there's a will to do harm, people will use whatever they can get their hands on. Yes, firearms do make murder easier for people, but once again, you don't necessarily need a gun to commit a mass homicide. 33 people were stabbed to death in a 2014 knife attack in China from one man.

    Now, why is the United States such a disproportionally massive location of homicide and violent crime? I'm hardly a sociology or cultural expert, but a part of it, I think, is the US idolizes gun culture and has this unhealthy obsession with self-defense to the point of fantasizing about shooting a criminal breaking into your home, and the fact that different states have wildly differing gun laws. California and New York, for instance, are notorious for having such strict gun laws that even up here in Canada we think that they're excessive and fucked up. A huge problem down there is things like those big gun shows where you can bet vendors aren't checking licenses and anybody can come along, plop down 300 dollars on a new Glock and walk away, no documentation required. You could go from a restrictive state to a non-restrictive one, pick up some gun that's illegal in your state, and nobody's going to stop you. Hell, almost all of the guns the Mexican cartels have come from the US, and there's an obscene amount of gun shops near the border. The problem isn't gun control, it's regulation and licensing and making sure that the people obtaining firearms are legally allowed to, mentally sound, and for the government to keep a better eye on mass transactions as well as regulating the gunshows better. Telling Bubba Joe that he's not allowed to buy an AR-15 and buy the ammunition for it isn't going to lower crime rates. Hell, there's an effective argument that the knowledge that a lot of people have guns keeps crime lower because nobody's going to break into a home and risk getting shot unless they're stupid, desperate, or know nobody's home.

    Last year, the RCMP banned Swiss Arms Classic Green rifles and CZ 858 rifles overnight with absolutely no third party discussion, expert review, or even telling the government. I own one of the CZ 858 rifles and I bought it legally; it is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. It's pinned to 5 rounds per magazine, only fires semi-auto and can't be converted to an automatic, and meets the 18.5 inch barrel length requirement for a non-restricted rifle. Yes, it superficially resembles an AK-47, which is a huge reason why the RCMP reclassified it as prohibited. Now, I am a law abiding citizen with a clean criminal record and military service under my belt, I have my firearms license after applying for it and being checked out by the RCMP, and these rifles had been imported without issue for 12 years after the RCMP initially approved them. I technically became a criminal overnight because I owned something I had bought legally two years before the reclassification, and all of the RCMP's justifications for banning it (the very few times they publicly stated why, seriously, shady on the low bullshit) have long since been debunked. I would like to remind you that of all firearms crime in Canada (which is on a steady decline), only 16% are committed with rifles and shotguns. I can only recall one incident where the CZ 858 was used in a crime in 12 years (the shooters opened fire at a Parti Quebecois election party, killing one person before being stopped), meanwhile, the terrorist who killed a Canadian soldier at a war memorial in Ottawa before storming Parliament Hill couldn't legally own firearms and was using a lever-action .30-30 rifle, which fires slower than a semi-auto and can't be reloaded quickly.

    Point is, guns themselves aren't the problem and nobody in the right mind who's buying an expensive military-style firearm is ever going to use it in a crime because that's an expensive investment to risk losing (my TAR-21 cost me $2500, for instance, and that's on the higher end of things) and we collect them for the same reason people collect cars, swords, coins, stamps, whatever. They have historical value and they're fun to shoot. You can argue until you're blue in the face about how dangerous firearms are, but there's no national campaign to ban alcohol, which is responsible for far more deaths each year than firearms by a landslide, and dangerous irresponsible drivers are also amongst the highest manslaughter rates anywhere. You don't look at the guy roaring down the street in his Mustang like he's going to kill somebody; I assure you, the guy down the street with the AK is less of a threat to you and your neighbourhood than that deer that shits all over your lawn. At least the guy with the AK isn't going to jump out in front of the guy with the Mustang.
    • Love Love x 9
    • Like Like x 1
  9. If you ban guns, knives, pencils, rope... anything that can be turned into a weapon might as well be banned/controlled as well. And that would never go over well with the general population, because that's assuming people won't adapt. People do adapt, and if they're determined to kill someone, you can be sure that they're going to be creative enough to figure out another way to kill them.

    Anyway, screening should be a necessity, but even that's not perfect-- you're still going to have people who commit murder via illegal weapons; guns they got through other criminals. Taking all guns away is only going to prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves at a safe distance.

    I'm pretty passionate about the whole situation, but not very good at expressing my feelings on a keyboard.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. You are wrong. The murder rate for U.K. is 1.0 while Canada is 1.6. Australia is 1.1.

    The U.S. sits significantly higher at 4.7, and is arguably holds the highest murder rate for a 1st world nation - all the nations above it are between 2nd world to barely 1st.
    • You Get a Cookie You Get a Cookie x 1
  11. I was mainly looking at the count, verses the rate. In the UK, there were 653 homicides compared to Canada's 543 in 2012, and I was just pointing out that yes, Australia's lower than both of those countries, but 254 is still a pretty large number for a country that has has all but banned firearms.
  12. Always normalize. Comparing absolute numbers won't get you anywhere ...
    • Like Like x 1
  13. To be fair, the US is massive-- Canada has a lot of space geographically, but population wise, they've got nothing on the over 300 million that the States have. Comparing anything relating to murder/suicide when both countries have such differences is ridiculous.
  14. I could be wrong, but I don't think any legitimate arguments for gun control even exist.
    • You Get a Cookie You Get a Cookie x 1
  15. The point wasn't to say, "look at Canada being so much less violent than other countries" so much as, "You know, considering how easy it is to get firearms in Canada compared to those countries, those numbers are still pretty high." And numbers are numbers, they don't lie. That's still a shitload of dead people.

    Regardless, Canada makes an interesting comparison to the US because despite popular opinion, firearm ownership is very widespread in Canada and we have the highest US cultural intake of any country in the world, yet we still manage to have respectable numbers compared to other developed nations in regards to homicide and violent crime. Switzerland, for instance, has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership in the world and has very low violent crime rates. It suggests that the ability to obtain and own firearms is less important than cultural cues and government oversight, or the lack-there-of.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Going off of the rate, as unanun suggests, the US is 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people, whereas Canada is 1.6. It's not nearly as ridiculous as you'd think.
  17. If we need to ban guns because they are dangerous and allow an individual to cause large scale damage, doesn't that mean we need to ban fire? I'm pretty sure I could easily burn down my school if I buy some matches and I lack sanity. The property damage would be enormous, and there is little that could be done to stop it. I could even burn people alive by investing in a portable container of oil. If someone is dangerous, then regardless of what they have, they will be dangerous. Gun regulation is a good thing to have to prevent people from owning a weapon with the capacity of slaughter, but I find that to be the extent of its utility. After all, one of the good things about having a nation armed to the teeth is that nobody in their right mind wants to invade.

    Also, to some of the above posters. Looking at the US as a whole is terribly misleading at the effectiveness of gun control because the laws concerning it aren't uniform. A state by state breakdown would make a more sound argument.
    #17 ☆Luna☆, Apr 13, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2015
    • Like Like x 4

  18. Wonderful point here.
  19. Hm, those are some interesting points ya'll are making.
  20. I'm now imagining you go to one of those rickety wooden school houses instead of the concrete monstrosities that are the norm now lol.

    But that's a good point I kind of touched on but didn't really delve into, but I honestly think that if the US government had federal firearms laws and legislation instead of leaving it up to each of the States there'd be a noticeable downturn in firearms crime. Like I said, a big problem is the legal loopholes and how easy it is to obtain the firearms in some States verses others with virtually no oversight.
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.