Gun Control- Yes, No, Maybe so?

[☆Luna☆]

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.

Well I mean, I could still use the parking lot as a minefield... It doesn't take a ton of creativity... Crazy people are a problem.

Btw, forgive me if I'm being naive, but for Austrlia's murderer rate, does that assume a murderer committed with a firearm? If it does, I'm not sure it is a fair comparison.

 

[Hatsune Candy]

I'm a bit on the fence when it comes to gun control, neither side seems very appealing to me and I have yet to be convinced by an argument from either side.

Personally, I prefer to stay away from guns entirely, but if someone else wants to own one for protection or something, I really don't care that much. It's when people start collecting loads of guns for no other reason than just to have them, that's when it starts to bother me; you really only need the one, anymore and I get the impression that you're planning something devious. Unless you like to go hunting, then I guess owning multiple guns is acceptable in that case.

 

[Dervish]

Well I mean, I could still use the parking lot as a minefield... It doesn't take a ton of creativity... Crazy people are a problem.

Btw, forgive me if I'm being naive, but for Austrlia's murderer rate, does that assume a murderer committed with a firearm? If it does, I'm not sure it is a fair comparison.

Those rates are totals, so it could be anything from a firearm to stabbing to crossbows at a wedding with a side of poisoned wine or melting someone's face off with a sick guitar solo.

That would mean say if Canada had 200 murders in a year, statistically only 50 would be done with a firearm. While any homicide is awful, it means that guns aren't the go-to murder weapon of choice for Canadians. It's probably switching somebody's Timmies with Country Style or asphyxiation via hockey jerseying or something.

 

[Orochi]

I am in a weird position.

The right will hate me for wanting stricter screening methods. The left will hate me for having owned one and regularly frequenting ranges.


To elaborate, I am a reserve officer for my country's navy and have trained in using several firearms. And while I do not own one anymore, it's easy enough to go down a private range (reserved for airport security) with my friend (who is a gun nut and lets me borrow his babies and even pays for our bullets) to relieve some stress. I had a concealed carry (bag only) license and it was a bitch to obtain a the license in the Philippines, especially for people who live outside Manila. I don't know about the US, but I had to pass a lot of requirements and take a bunch of tests (more details here) to get a license that won't even let me equip the gun on my body.


And then there are *lots* of people (some of them I know) that can just illegally obtain guns (and even automatic ones), get drunk on a farm/beach and start shooting. Not to mention actual criminals. So I understand where people are coming from.

On the other hand, I have witnessed first hand irresponsible ~*legit*~ gun owners waving their guns around as an intimidation tool for the STUPIDEST of reasons(mostly traffic/car issues). Those assholes somehow got passed the already difficult screening and makes the responsible ones look bad.

So idk, it's complicated. It's hard enough keeping the psychos from legally obtaining firearms w/o making it *too* difficult for the responsible owners. People need to compromise. The govt needs to compromise.

Personally, I would not mind jumping through harder hoops if it means less assholes and psychos having legal access to firearms. But idk. I only shoot for sport and amusement. I have never felt unsafe in the Philippines, not enough to warrant carrying a gun all the time at least. I would imagine a very different situation in other parts of the world.

 

[fatalrendezvous]

DISCLAIMER: I personally am against gun control ('Murica) and support gun ownership, but I will offer a counterpoint here, and do my best to do so civilly.

Here is something that many people don't think about:

A lot of people argue that tighter gun control would be bad because it would keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. But, looser gun control regulations result in putting more guns into circulation in general. There is no realistic, reasonable way to ensure that those guns cannot, or would not, be used maliciously.

A lot of people argue that open-carry and concealed-carry weapons help to mitigate the problems of gun crime, but at what cost? Let's take the hypothetical here that every adult in the United States does, in fact, carry a firearm. How is this different, in any way, from martial law? What purpose do police forces have in a society like this, where basically every citizen carries a firearm? Where do we draw the line, and how do we prevent ourselves from becoming the rootin'-tootin' wild wild west?

THAT SAID, I recognize that this is an extreme example. But I have always been of the opinion that you have to go too far before you truly know where to draw the line.

As is, there is no way we can be certain that just because a person meets the background checks required to purchase/own a firearm guarantees that person won't use it for malicious intent.

Again if you've gotten this far in my post, I refer you back to my DISCLAIMER at the top of this post. I am a supporter of gun ownership at heart, but I also recognize that the points I've brought up are ones I do not have sufficient answers for.

 

[Koschei]

Coming from Sweden, I find it kind of absurd that people have "the right" to carry a firearm in public unless that firearm is used in service. That a person can collect rifles and whatnot and just keep fully functional automatic weapons in their home is, frankly, scary.

And all these arguments against more gun control all sound like "not ALL gun owners". What is so horrible about making weapons less available for the general public? Like, why do you even NEED weapons if they aren't for hunting or have a practical every-day use? Do all gun owning Americans see it as a hobby if they have no practical use of them, like hunting? Or is it just because they can own a gun? Is it empowering or does it fulfill some kind of childhood dream? Is it for protection from other people who might own guns?

So many questions, though.

I'm completely lost here, but I basically vote yes. Stricter laws and heavier punishments could prove effective in lessening crimes that involve guns.

 

[☆Luna☆]

Coming from Sweden, I find it kind of absurd that people have "the right" to carry a firearm in public unless that firearm is used in service. That a person can collect rifles and whatnot and just keep fully functional automatic weapons in their home is, frankly, scary.

And all these arguments against more gun control all sound like "not ALL gun owners". What is so horrible about making weapons less available for the general public? Like, why do you even NEED weapons if they aren't for hunting or have a practical every-day use? Do all gun owning Americans see it as a hobby if they have no practical use of them, like hunting? Or is it just because they can own a gun? Is it empowering or does it fulfill some kind of childhood dream? Is it for protection from other people who might own guns?

So many questions, though.

I'm completely lost here, but I basically vote yes. Stricter laws and heavier punishments could prove effective in lessening crimes that involve guns.

Well, honestly I can't see how it could be anything but a right. Something is a right until the point someone with authority tells you that you can't do it. Since I can clearly own a gun, it is my right until someone says otherwise. This goes for basically anything. The lack of a compelling reason implies that it shouldn't be restricted. The reason why guns can be owned by any American is because of the belief that we have the right to defend ourselves, and there is a belief that this outweighs the consequences of more guns being available to the public. Until this can be disproved or attitudes shift, I can't say that gun ownership isn't a right.

I personally like the fact that if an armed criminal or wild animal broke into my house that I'd have the tools I need to deal with them. If I wait for the police, I'd be dead, or at the very least have my chances significantly reduced. I value this, and need to be given a reason to give this up.

 

[Dervish]

I'm a bit on the fence when it comes to gun control, neither side seems very appealing to me and I have yet to be convinced by an argument from either side.

Personally, I prefer to stay away from guns entirely, but if someone else wants to own one for protection or something, I really don't care that much. It's when people start collecting loads of guns for no other reason than just to have them, that's when it starts to bother me; you really only need the one, anymore and I get the impression that you're planning something devious. Unless you like to go hunting, then I guess owning multiple guns is acceptable in that case.

I'm a bit on the fence when it comes to gun control, neither side seems very appealing to me and I have yet to be convinced by an argument from either side.

Personally, I prefer to stay away from guns entirely, but if someone else wants to own one for protection or something, I really don't care that much. It's when people start collecting loads of guns for no other reason than just to have them, that's when it starts to bother me; you really only need the one, anymore and I get the impression that you're planning something devious. Unless you like to go hunting, then I guess owning multiple guns is acceptable in that case.

I personally own six rifles and want to get a shotgun, but as an owner, allow me to try to alleviate your concerns about somebody who collects a lot of guns.

As I said earlier, firearms can be pretty expensive, and a collector likely has a good, well paying job and other than obvious reasons for not wanting to be a felon, wouldn't want to put his or her investment at risk of being seized if they suddenly get a criminal record. It doesn't mean they're crazy, it just means they like collecting different makes and models, sometimes for practical reasons, like ammunition availability, other times for more sentimental or themed reasons. It's kind of like how some people collect dozens of guitars; sure, they might only need one, but they have their reasons and the quantity doesn't mean a person's more crazy, it just means that's what they enjoy putting their income towards. My old CAO from my last job takes his sons shooting and they own several firearms, and mount some of them on display. The dude's running a major municipality and is the kindest, most gentle hearted man you could imagine and having met his sons, they're a wonderful family.

Myself, I own six rifles, as I said, and it's for a few different reasons:

My modern military rifle I bought because ammunition for it is inexpensive, which lets me take it to the range more often, and I want something rugged and practical for a variety of reasons. That, and I love how military weapons function and look. It's my prized possession and I absolutely adore it.

I own two WWII-era bolt-action rifles, purely because they have historical value and they're absolutely beautiful and weren't very expensive. The fact they're both proven designs that withstood two world wars and shaped history is something that means a lot to me, a history-loving guy who owns a lot of military books and had served briefly in the armed forces. It's my own way to connect to the past.

I own another Soviet service rifle that fires that same cartridge as the CZ 858 because it's both a historical rifle and dirt cheap. A big reason I got it was because it only cost me 200 dollars, and I also am preparing in case I ever have to surrender the CZ 858, which in itself is beautifully designed, simple, very accurate, and super easy to clean. Trust me, big reason I go for military models is because it rarely gets easier for maintenance.

And then the last gun I have is a semi-auto .22 that I bought because I wanted to get something that was both inexpensive to shoot (500 rounds for 40 bucks, can't beat that!) and super light on recoil so I could get my girlfriend into it. She's played paintball with me for years and we kind of share hobbies, so I wanted to kind of ease her into shooting with something that wasn't intimidating and easy to handle. She's since moved up to shooting most of my rifles comfortably and very proficiently; she actually beat me in a race to shoot a bottle at 100 meters with my military rifle!

EDIT: Haha! I wrote 500 meters. If I could shoot that far, I'd be amazed.

So, anyways, I kind of hope that alleviates some of your worries about why people own a lot of guns. :) Put it this way, the guy buying the 50 dollar Chinese pistol in a van is more likely to shoot somebody than somebody who's been saving chunks off his pay cheques to afford something he really wants. I think that a lot of fear about guns comes from people not being really exposed to them and really being educated about them, and honestly, I'll take all the time in the world to talk to somebody about firearms to explain things they don't understand so they can be better informed and more comfortable. Honestly, the way forward is people talking to each other and explaining their points of view with respect and dignity about this, because it is a serious topic that needs to be addressed. I'd much rather listen to somebody who's anti-gun explain their perspective and opinions with respect than a pro-gun zealot who thinks the only way to live is to have a gun in every room in his house and every human being alive open carries an assault rifle.

 

[Dervish]

DISCLAIMER: I personally am against gun control ('Murica) and support gun ownership, but I will offer a counterpoint here, and do my best to do so civilly.

Here is something that many people don't think about:

A lot of people argue that tighter gun control would be bad because it would keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. But, looser gun control regulations result in putting more guns into circulation in general. There is no realistic, reasonable way to ensure that those guns cannot, or would not, be used maliciously.

A lot of people argue that open-carry and concealed-carry weapons help to mitigate the problems of gun crime, but at what cost? Let's take the hypothetical here that every adult in the United States does, in fact, carry a firearm. How is this different, in any way, from martial law? What purpose do police forces have in a society like this, where basically every citizen carries a firearm? Where do we draw the line, and how do we prevent ourselves from becoming the rootin'-tootin' wild wild west?

THAT SAID, I recognize that this is an extreme example. But I have always been of the opinion that you have to go too far before you truly know where to draw the line.

As is, there is no way we can be certain that just because a person meets the background checks required to purchase/own a firearm guarantees that person won't use it for malicious intent.

Again if you've gotten this far in my post, I refer you back to my DISCLAIMER at the top of this post. I am a supporter of gun ownership at heart, but I also recognize that the points I've brought up are ones I do not have sufficient answers for.

I actually entirely agree, I kind of look at the whole concealed carry movement with rather baffled eyes. There's a popular opinion that if people in the mass shootings were concealed carrying, they could have stopped the shooter, which has its merits. However, a big thing nobody seems to consider is that civilians aren't trained soldiers or cops; they aren't going to react to a crisis well, especially in large groups. Let's say there's multiple people with concealed handguns in the movie theater where the gunman is shooting, what are the chances that in this dark, claustrophobic environment that the wrong person is going to get shot by accident? What if somebody is so worked up they aren't aiming steadily and shoot an innocent bystander? It's something serious that people need to consider. I don't mind the idea of people conceal-carrying if they pass tests and meet requirements, but I don't think it needs to be a widespread thing. Hell, a lot of gun owners are downright irresponsible. Not long ago, a woman in a Walmart got shot to death by her daughter who reached into her purse and accidentally pulled the trigger of her loaded, cocked, and not safe pistol. At the very least, you should always keep your safety on your gun until you're ready to shoot, but why the hell was she letting her daughter rummage in her purse in the first place? It's people like that that REALLY irritate me and makes me wonder if the licensing isn't a bit too lax in some areas.

Coming from Sweden, I find it kind of absurd that people have "the right" to carry a firearm in public unless that firearm is used in service. That a person can collect rifles and whatnot and just keep fully functional automatic weapons in their home is, frankly, scary.

And all these arguments against more gun control all sound like "not ALL gun owners". What is so horrible about making weapons less available for the general public? Like, why do you even NEED weapons if they aren't for hunting or have a practical every-day use? Do all gun owning Americans see it as a hobby if they have no practical use of them, like hunting? Or is it just because they can own a gun? Is it empowering or does it fulfill some kind of childhood dream? Is it for protection from other people who might own guns?

So many questions, though.

I'm completely lost here, but I basically vote yes. Stricter laws and heavier punishments could prove effective in lessening crimes that involve guns.

Please don't turn this into a #notallmen spin-off, it's kind of like comparing apples to depleted uranium rods. It's kind of patronizing.

To you, I say it's different cultural values. Your country doesn't have a history of widespread firearm ownership, mine does. For a long time, most Canadians lived out in the country, and hunting and sports shooting has been a huge part of our cultural identity for ages. I can see why it's baffling to somebody who lives in a country where it's pretty much just farmers and hunters who own guns, but realize that that's not the norm everywhere, and just because some countries have widespread firearm ownership doesn't mean they're more violent, as the statistics I put in my first post would suggest. I can't speak for everyone who owns a firearm in my country, but I've always loved shooting. It's not some empowering fantasy for me, it's just a hobby I enjoy doing that gets me outdoors and meeting people while developing a very fun and potentially practical skill. I hope to one day take up competitive shooting as a sport. The fact that I have guns as a potential home defense option is also reassuring; it's not the reason I bought them, far from it, but I like to know that I have means to protect myself, my girlfriend, my dog, and my property in a dire situation. I hope to god it never happens, but I had one scary situation already where I had some violent drunk asshole trying to break down my door. You can bet I had my rifle loaded just in case the cops didn't get there first.

To turn it around on you, a disproportionate amount of firearms related crimes are committed by people who obtain them illegally. How would stricter laws lower firearm crime rates if the people doing most of the shooting are ignoring the laws entirely? Not being combative, just offering food for thought.

EDIT: I also want to throw out there, in light of automotive collisions being a much higher cause of death than firearms, why does anyone NEED a sports car or super car? They're impractical and you can't legally push them to their capabilities legally, but yet people buy them and often break the laws with them. Heck, from a practical standpoint, why would anyone buy a Mustang over a minivan? It has higher cargo and passenger space and better safety features and gas millage. From a legal, practical standpoint, it should be a no-brainer, but people still love their fast, flashy and impractical cars. I don't fault them for it, but I hope it illustrates my point. Just because something's dangerous doesn't mean it should be banned, especially if statistics back it up.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Ah, one of few topics I tend not to debate much... Why?

1) There's been enough good arguments from both sides
2) I honestly don't really care too much

However I will at least point out that the "Yes, remove guns because of school shootings" is not a valid defense.
People willing to shoot up a school have already shown a willingness to ignore the law and harm others.
By all accounts they are also willing to ignore the law in regards to gun ownership.

 

[SlamifiedBuddafied]

Anyone and everyone should take the time for gun education.

That and everyone capable of doing so should own a gun, be properly trained with it and have a conceal and carry permit. Imagine if everyone were doing so, gun control by the populace. Some jackass runs into a mall with the intent to shoot people for fun will be stopped dead in their tracks, no pun intended.

 

[Koschei]

Okay, fair points on both sides.

But are we talking gun control as in a complete ban on guns, even those legal ones? Or are we talking gun control as in more regulations about ownership and regulating it so that unfit people can't get their hands on them?

Because both sides seem to argue that it's a complete ban. Like an overnight desicion that every gun in the country should be brought in and destroyed. Regulations and control laws wouldn't necessarily affect "law abiding citizens", unless they're looking into getting another gun or something. And even then, if they're nice and abide the law, there's no reason they shouldn't be denied, so what's the downside? Longer waiting periods or more complicated papers to sign, or what?

I'm legit curious why people are so opposed stricter laws. Unless those laws take away guns from people who obtained them legally and are fit to own them, that I can sort of understand, but if that isn't the case? If it's just stricter controls and laws upon getting guns and all that stuff?

 

[☆Luna☆]

Okay, fair points on both sides.

But are we talking gun control as in a complete ban on guns, even those legal ones? Or are we talking gun control as in more regulations about ownership and regulating it so that unfit people can't get their hands on them?

Because both sides seem to argue that it's a complete ban. Like an overnight desicion that every gun in the country should be brought in and destroyed. Regulations and control laws wouldn't necessarily affect "law abiding citizens", unless they're looking into getting another gun or something. And even then, if they're nice and abide the law, there's no reason they shouldn't be denied, so what's the downside? Longer waiting periods or more complicated papers to sign, or what?

I'm legit curious why people are so opposed stricter laws. Unless those laws take away guns from people who obtained them legally and are fit to own them, that I can sort of understand, but if that isn't the case? If it's just stricter controls and laws upon getting guns and all that stuff?

Well, I'm not personally affected, but there are a lot of people who find it hard to shoot for a hobby when they have to jump through hoops just to get ammunition, and they aren't able to get as much as they like either. I'm not sure if it is reasonable, but I do know it is a lot of trouble for some of my friends. It is even more troubling when an expensive gun that you bought becomes illegal. After dropping a lot of money on something, seeing it needlessly banned is troubling. So in other words, intensifying the laws has consequences for people who intend to use their guns regularly, and intensifying the restrictions too much seems to encroach on gun rights. It comes out in the form of, do I really have the right to bear arms if I can't own weapons of a reasonable nature and can't acquire the ammo needed to shoot it as much as my needs dictate? Though, I'm just parroting, so it might be useful to hear someone directly affected.

 

[Dervish]

Okay, fair points on both sides.

But are we talking gun control as in a complete ban on guns, even those legal ones? Or are we talking gun control as in more regulations about ownership and regulating it so that unfit people can't get their hands on them?

Because both sides seem to argue that it's a complete ban. Like an overnight desicion that every gun in the country should be brought in and destroyed. Regulations and control laws wouldn't necessarily affect "law abiding citizens", unless they're looking into getting another gun or something. And even then, if they're nice and abide the law, there's no reason they shouldn't be denied, so what's the downside? Longer waiting periods or more complicated papers to sign, or what?

I'm legit curious why people are so opposed stricter laws. Unless those laws take away guns from people who obtained them legally and are fit to own them, that I can sort of understand, but if that isn't the case? If it's just stricter controls and laws upon getting guns and all that stuff?

Usually on the gun control side, I find more people are in favour of banning or prohibiting accessories and restricting magazine sizes and what not. That's mainly what I speak out against.

But in my admittedly numerous posts, I sincerely hope I've made it clear that I am all about smarter regulation and background checks. I had to wait about a month and a half before I got my licence, and I'm fine with that. I rather the authorities take their time finding out somebody checks out than rushing it through. Owning firearms is a privilege that should be safeguarded, but not everyone should own guns. It's one of those things where people should never forget that they are in fact lethal weapons, but they can be owned and operated responsibility and most often are. Education above all else is paramount. Even having a civil discussion online is a lot better than the screaming matches that seem to make up most gun control debates.

I do think that everyone should go to a gun range at least once to see what it's like.

 

[Goldmarble]

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

The knee jerk reaction, is that we want revenge. We want criminals to pay for what they have done, but...it doesn't work. It didn't work before. It doesn't work now. It's not going to work in the future.

Many people who do commit crimes, can actually be rehabilitated into productive members of society. Norway has, and is proving this.

Are there people who cannot be rehabilitated? Yes. Repeat offenders, with no demonstrated improvement, I feel should be locked away, or potentially euthanized.

This is my personal stance, on this situation. Subject to change, via evidence of better methods.

 

[Hellis]

To you, I say it's different cultural values. Your country doesn't have a history of widespread firearm ownership, mine does. For a long time, most Canadians lived out in the country, and hunting and sports shooting has been a huge part of our cultural identity for ages. I can see why it's baffling to somebody who lives in a country where it's pretty much just farmers and hunters who own guns, but realize that that's not the norm everywhere, and just because some countries have widespread firearm ownership doesn't mean they're more violent, as the statistics I put in my first post would suggest.

Actuallly. Sweden is number 9 in the guns per capita list.

 

[Lea]

Banning guns won't solve anything, most people that shoot up people on average don't even get their guns legally so that won't do anything. Besides, guns don't kill people, people kill people so restricting guns would simply cause them to start using the next best thing and so until everyone is walking around in straitjackets. And you know the funny thing? People will still be getting killed because the ones left in power would undoubtedly be abusing the power given to them for their selfish needs. Plus, if zombies were to take over(Whenever they finally), then every single man, woman and child would be completely defense and mankind would be no more. - Drops the mic before walking out -

 

[Brovo]

This post is likely to be unforgivably long. I've also got a couple shots of Vodka in my system, so I might be in a bit of a ramble and rude. You have my apologies in advance, but here is my full, blunt opinion. If you want it summarized, here it is: Gun Control is factually proven to work. Australia has made that point clear. The low number of gun-related fatalities in countries with gun control makes that clear. Here's an amusing look at said gun laws by John Oliver, who is far more charismatic than I. I'm often dismayed by the black and white view of this issue. So, let me get a few bullet-points out of the way.

• Assault rifles should be legal to own. It's irrational to ban these when they make up a tiny fraction of fatalities in comparison to hand guns. Yes, that does happen to go against what Canada and Australia thinks, despite my using John Oliver's piece about Australia as an example in favour of gun control. You can either take that as hypocrisy, or critical honesty.
• Emphasis on control: Set up a licensing system so that those who want access to progressively deadlier or more exotic firearms need greater (but still reasonably acquirable) permissions in order to do so. Again, the likelihood that someone will go on a killing spree with a .50 calibre sniper versus a hand gun is miniscule.
• Set up tracers in firearms so that if one is reported missing or stolen, it can be found. "What if the government spies on me with it?!" To be blunt, the government is already spying on your Internet usage, phone calls, the phone itself, text messages, payroll, medical records, et cetera. If you sincerely draw the line at tracking your firearm in terms of privacy, you've got issues. Resolve those prior things first and then we can talk about removing tracers in your firearms.
• No, I don't believe gun control alone stops crime. Criminals will commit crime with or without firearms. However, just because a system doesn't completely prevent a crime, doesn't mean it has no impact on that crime. Just because we prosecute people for committing murder, doesn't mean people will stop committing murder. Just because we require people to have driver's licenses for motor vehicles, doesn't mean people won't drive drunk or break the law with them. If you argue against gun control for this reason, realize you can apply the exact same argument to driver's licenses. Except cars aren't instant death flingers.
• Maintain a national database (firearms registry) that details who owns what firearms. That way, if for some reason a person loses their certificate of ownership or similar document, they can simply bring 1-2 pieces of photo ID to a government office to reacquire it. Also useful in case the police impound a firearm off the street in cases of firearms reported missing or stolen.

So, just to reiterate: I don't think any gun should be illegal, so long as it's still classified as a firearm (sorry artillery enthusiasts), but I do believe there needs to be licenses and control measures in place for them. Why? Because when a couple of teenagers can go into a Target and buy hundreds of rounds of ammunition without so much as an ID to go shoot up Columbine, you've got a fucking problem. Now, to go over a few of the points in this thread I found especially confusing or irrational. Please note: If I think a point of yours is irrational, that doesn't then imply that I think you are irrational. Most of the people I'm going to call out here are people I've already spoken with and know, like Nydanna and her lovely ferret, or Dervish and his CHARMANDER! Everyone is entitled to having irrational opinions or statements from time to time. Including me. Just consider this someone who is questioning you, not someone who hates you or thinks you're dumb.

I was against gun control, under the reasoning that more guns reduce crime and the incentive to commit crime, but I agree with this.

More access to instant death flingers does not then reduce the rate of instant death flinger-related fatalities. This is like saying that increased populations of wild bears in cities somehow reduces bear-related fatalities. No. No it doesn't. Now, what causes people to use firearms to murder other people obviously isn't the mere presence of firearms: A gun is just a tool, just like any other tool. However, to believe that more firearms reduces gun crime is irrational, because the US has a shitmetricfucksillyton of guns, and it has tons of gun crime.

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.

If we can't stop all gun crime with gun control, we obviously shouldn't have gun control. If we can't stop all drug crime, we obviously shouldn't have drug laws.

Please stop using this argument, there are much better arguments to use than this in support of firearms.

Gun Laws do not stop Gun Crime from happening.

Source.

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

Mate, I have a mental disorder. By sheer statistical odds, someone you know and call a friend probably has a disorder. I don't wear it on my chest, I don't ask for pity, but I'm making it known to you here and now because by your logic, my existence shouldn't be tolerated. I don't know about you, but I think we've had some pretty good conversations before. I'll chalk this one up to generalizing a group of people, and not malicious intent. I really hope you don't look at me in a poorer light after this merely because of a circumstance of my birth.

Australia, for instance, still has pretty high homicide numbers for a country that has an almost total ban on firearms,

Dammit Dervish. I agree with the statement that banning all firearms doesn't solve the problem, because the underlying problem is people being motivated to murder in the first place, but gun control works... As part of an overlying system of measures that should be used to reduce violence. Yes, I agree with you, Canada's weapon laws in general are fucking stupid. Skallagrim talks about knife laws in Canada, and he makes several good points about how fucking idiotic our laws can be about these things. I agree it needs to be overhauled and a lot of these straight ban measures should be abolished, they're illogical.

However, one doesn't need to keep pulling the same circlejerked claim by the pro-guns folks of the US that gun control only has other forms of violence skyrocket. Because statistics says otherwise.

And that's just Canada, but check this out: This Times article stating that violent crime is at its lowest numbers since 1978.

This is great! It means that our laws to protect citizens are fucking working. While that doesn't mean they're perfect (they never will be), that typically means to adjust the systems we have in place. Not go about deleting them. Gun Control is one measure of many: It's part of a bigger system of laws that maintain order.

Just because things are better now, doesn't mean we should go abolishing a measure meant to maintain order. You don't leave your door unlocked just because there's a low rate of theft in your neighbourhood.

If you ban guns, knives, pencils, rope... anything that can be turned into a weapon might as well be banned/controlled as well.

Guns can fling instant death from several hundred feet away with little training. Knives at least require melee range, but most governments actually do have knife laws too. (They can also be equally daft in what gets banned and what gets kept, because legislators are fucking Hollywood dumb.) Pencils and rope are not reasonable weapons in the same sense as guns and knives: Pencils are used to draw things, rope is used to tie things. Knives are used to cut and gut, and bullets are made to pierce. Knives and guns are tools, but they're intrinsically violent tools by nature, so comparing them to non-violent tools by nature is a bit naive.

However, you are absolutely right that screening is a measure that should be in place, and that banning all firearms doesn't magically make crime go away. So there's good points.

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.

Actually, there's things like murder rate per capita that are easily comparable: Because it measures the number of people skullfucking each other like cavemen at a rate of # per 100,000.

So if you have 50 murders in a town of 500,000 people, that's a per capita rate of 10:100,000. If you have a rate of 40 murders in a town of 200,000 people, that's a rate of 20:100,000. Ergo, the town with 200,000 people has twice the murder rate of the town of 500,000 people: 10 to 100,000 versus 20 to 100,000.

Perfectly rational way to go about it, addresses population disparity. Because even addressing population disparity, the US has much higher rates of violent crime in general than Canada. However, that's not exclusively because of a lack of gun control: You've also got significant presences of gangs (especially gangs as a result of lingering racial divide era) and the ever so infamous drug war. Those both contribute, and probably more than a lack of gun control if I'm going to be honest. However, I don't have the sheer data on that on hand right now. So take that with a grain of salt.

I could be wrong, but I don't think any legitimate arguments for gun control even exist.

I don't want to be murdered by a lunatic with a firearm.

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.

I don't really disagree. However, it should be noted that Switzerland only has about half as many guns per household as the US does, and even they still have some form of gun control. Plus, their own people are starting to push for more gun control.

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?

#1: Fire is not an instant death flinger that can cause pinpoint murder, instantly, from several hundred feet away.
#2: Actually yes, lighting things on fire willy nilly is illegal. It's called arson. Whether you're lighting trees on fire, or buildings on fire, or anything that we could feasible use on fire--that is illegal. If you're in the middle of a drought, you can't even start campfires in your back yard.

So... Yes. Fire is illegal, except in certain, legally regulated circumstances. Like owning a box of matches to light your candle, or owning a hunting rifle to kill some deer.

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.

This is a fair point. It should probably be a federal law, except the US doesn't work on common sense like that.

Hm, those are some interesting points ya'll are making.

Yes. Yes they are. Now I'm going to take a third shot of vodka. Y'all have been warned.

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.

I love you. In a not gay way... Charmander.

Well I mean, I could still use the parking lot as a minefield... It doesn't take a ton of creativity... Crazy people are a problem.

Btw, forgive me if I'm being naive, but for Austrlia's murderer rate, does that assume a murderer committed with a firearm? If it does, I'm not sure it is a fair comparison.

Yes, crazy people do crazy fucking things. That is explicitly why horrible horrible land mines are generally not for sale. In fact, most first world countries don't even use them anymore, because it turns out leaving a whole field full of unkaboomed mines leaves many scattered children giblets several years running.

I'm not sure it does, because I've got the statistics up above...

Personally, I prefer to stay away from guns entirely, but if someone else wants to own one for protection or something, I really don't care that much. It's when people start collecting loads of guns for no other reason than just to have them, that's when it starts to bother me; you really only need the one, anymore and I get the impression that you're planning something devious. Unless you like to go hunting, then I guess owning multiple guns is acceptable in that case.

Generally most people who have large collections of guns have them because they like guns. Like collecting computers, or coins. Vast majority of such collections never get used against people. Mainly because most people who go murdering with firearms are generally the sorts that only recently got their hands on said firearms anyway, rather than collecting them over several years. The deer won't know what hit them though.

So idk, it's complicated.

Leave it to insanity wolf's girlfriend to come up with the mellow, reasonable statement.

THAT SAID, I recognize that this is an extreme example. But I have always been of the opinion that you have to go too far before you truly know where to draw the line.

You know I've been a rampaging cynical auto-correcting dick up until now, but I figured I'd highlight this just to be the person to tell you that critical self-evaluation like this, and being willing to argue from the shoes of the opposing view, is good. Like, really good. Like, that is a mark of immense strength of character and intelligence on your part.

You keep doing this, upstanding citizen. Regardless of the fact that we have opposing views.

That a person can collect rifles and whatnot and just keep fully functional automatic weapons in their home is, frankly, scary.

The majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns, not automatic weaponry. This is like banning katana when the majority of blade-related murders are the result of people carrying knives around 4-6 inches in length, y'know?

Anyone and everyone should take the time for gun education.

That and everyone capable of doing so should own a gun, be properly trained with it and have a conceal and carry permit. Imagine if everyone were doing so, gun control by the populace. Some jackass runs into a mall with the intent to shoot people for fun will be stopped dead in their tracks, no pun intended.

Because you know what resolves mass murder? Arming a population with instant death flingers and putting it into their head that they can stop murder by murdering. This will end well.

Because both sides seem to argue that it's a complete ban. Like an overnight desicion that every gun in the country should be brought in and destroyed.

Because the NRA and other gun advocacy groups tend to go absolutely fucking batshit every time gun control gets brought up. It's like being in a room full of creationists and saying "evolution": The overreactions are real. The insane gibberish and nonsense and fearmongering is real. It's why I'm writing this post: Because in my buzzed stupour, I am hoping that, by targeting every single logical flaw I can find and offering a rational middle-ground opinion, with suggestions that can be tweaked and changed, that some small, insignificant measure of progress can be made.

Huh. I ran out of things. The other points made afterwards are reasonable.

I guess that's it then. Hope this is useful information with a maybe useful opinion by a drunk ferret.

 

[Brovo]

Banning guns won't solve anything, most people that shoot up people on average don't even get their guns legally so that won't do anything. Besides, guns don't kill people, people kill people so restricting guns would simply cause them to start using the next best thing and so until everyone is walking around in straitjackets. And you know the funny thing? People will still be getting killed because the ones left in power would undoubtedly be abusing the power given to them for their selfish needs. Plus, if zombies were to take over(Whenever they finally), then every single man, woman and child would be completely defense and mankind would be no more. - Drops the mic before walking out -

#1: Gun control doesn't always translate to banning all firearms.
#2: Yes. People kill people. This is why Gun Control is rational, like police officers.
#3: Statistics say otherwise, because if you remove the easy way to murder people, less people end up committing murder because it takes more effort. Same way that people rarely steal from bank vaults, they usually steal from small stores or personal homes or mug people on the street: It's easier.
#4: Saying the government would intentionally abuse its power to hurt you first implies the government is both competent enough to do it and implies the government gives a shit about you. Neither of which is true.
#5: If zombies take over, I'll be the first to eat the cyanide tablets.

 

[ᴛᴏᴄᴋᴀ]

If we can't stop all gun crime with gun control, we obviously shouldn't have gun control. If we can't stop all drug crime, we obviously shouldn't have drug laws.

Please stop using this argument, there are much better arguments to use than this in support of firearms.

I never said I support firearms. XD

Honestly, I could care less about the issue. I do not own a gun, nor would I ever. I sleep with my trusty crowbar beside my bed and hope like hell if someone does break into my house I can bash their head in before they can pull the trigger. If other people want to own a gun, and they aren't lunatics who plan on going to the first school they see and shooting people up, that's their business.

Many people who do commit crimes, can actually be rehabilitated into productive members of society. Norway has, and is proving this.

And that's the problem. The U.S isn't focused on rehabilitating people in prison. They're not getting counseling for mommy beating them as a child or their funny uncle touching them when they turned 13. If you watch some of the shows on TV that portray prison life, you'll see that they have very little concern for improving their future when they get out. Yes, there are some who do go to prison and do what they can to make a better future for themselves when they get out, but they are the minority.

However, it's not entirely the prison system at fault either. Try getting a job with a criminal background. It's damn near impossible to find a decent paying job if you have anything in your history. Some of the smaller companies will overlook it if the person can show that their days of crime are well behind them, but not many. Most people who get out of prison, with a felony record, usually end up in low paying jobs and struggle to get by. It becomes much easier for them to be thrown back into prison than try to survive out in the real world.

I'm not even going to get started about people with mental illnesses who commit crimes, that's the system failing them before the crime was committed and a whole different issue all together.