Gun Control- Yes, No, Maybe so?

[Roose Hurro]

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?

Due to limited time and four pages worth, I'll just drop my nickel in the bucket. NO. Because this isn't a gun control issue, it involves mental health. And the fact we no longer keep the mentally unstable under lock and key. Yeah, probably not PC, but... well. Considering California passed Prop 47, and let thousands out of prison... not to mention the hue and cry involving our "overcrowded" prisons all over the country, well, you get what you ask for. Tragic as that is.

The only other alternative is to lock everyone up in solitary, so people can't hurt each other. Personally, I'd rather be free to risk having some crazy shoot me than be "locked" up with more and more INEFFECTIVE gun control laws. Not to mention any other laws that take away my FREEDOM. Even if that FREEDOM is my death.

 

[ASTA]

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

Pfft, does anyone?

:v

 

[Brovo]

Hellis keeps presenting this dichotomy that businesses(not just prisons) are constantly choosing between profit and helping people, and that this is universally true of all businesses.

Because it is. Private business is created for the sole purpose of being an engine of profit, and as it grows larger, it becomes more and more beholden to shareholders, not the people who run the business. Small ma & pa stores are fine because they still directly deal with customers and people. Humongous businesses that rake in millions a year are not run by people who give a shit about customers: If they can get away with ripping you off or finding a way to justify maiming people for profit, they will do it. Just look at business terminology: You didn't fire people, you let them go. That sounds so much nicer now, doesn't it?

Fact of the matter is simple: Private enterprise only truly works in situations where its clients can negotiate or even walk away from the table should they find conditions unsatisfactory. You can do that with a video game or food products, because you have a choice about what you buy, or whether you buy anything at all. The reason your health care and prison system suck so much dick is because they're run like private businesses, but if you break your leg, you don't exactly have a bargaining position between receiving medical care or just letting the wound fester until you die. You don't get a choice about what prison you get sent to if you're convicted of a crime, whether you're innocent or guilty.

It should also be noted that, on the topic of prison populations, you'll note a significant number are thrown in for drug related crimes like possession. The system that is supposed to prevent crimes (Drug War) is instead generating a whole fucking ton more of them.

We (being that of the United States of America) live on a massive piece of land, with two large coasts, and two adjacent countries that have massive borders that are downright nigh-impossible to police 24/7. A Gun Ban would solve nothing for the mere fact that smuggling them would be stupid easy.

We (being that of Canada) live on a massive piece of land, with three large coasts, and two adjacent countries that have massive borders that are downright nigh impossible to police 24/7. We somehow manage to enforce gun control. Please don't tell me the Canada, with 1/10th the population and even more land to cover, can do a better job of it than the USA.

Wait....


....people disagree about this?

People disagree about everything. Make a debate thread about waffles and pancakes and people will disagree about that and form sides. Because angry thought germs. Grr.

Pfft, does anyone?

:v

People who shoot themselves in the head, I'd assume.

As for Mental Health Services, yes. Wholeheartedly yes, I can agree with having more of it available to people who need it. Of course, I might be biased in that respect...

 

[☆Luna☆]

Because it is. Private business is created for the sole purpose of being an engine of profit, and as it grows larger, it becomes more and more beholden to shareholders, not the people who run the business. Small ma & pa stores are fine because they still directly deal with customers and people. Humongous businesses that rake in millions a year are not run by people who give a shit about customers: If they can get away with ripping you off or finding a way to justify maiming people for profit, they will do it. Just look at business terminology: You didn't fire people, you let them go. That sounds so much nicer now, doesn't it?

Fact of the matter is simple: Private enterprise only truly works in situations where its clients can negotiate or even walk away from the table should they find conditions unsatisfactory. You can do that with a video game or food products, because you have a choice about what you buy, or whether you buy anything at all. The reason your health care and prison system suck so much dick is because they're run like private businesses, but if you break your leg, you don't exactly have a bargaining position between receiving medical care or just letting the wound fester until you die. You don't get a choice about what prison you get sent to if you're convicted of a crime, whether you're innocent or guilty.

Well, a lot of that is true, but again, that is why regulations exist. No matter how much sway a shareholder has, if something is illegal they can't do it, or they will suffer for doing so. This is an argument for government regulation, not a lack of private businesses. I will admit they will likely try to find loopholes where possible, but you can't deny that the Justice system has fucked up, and we now need more prison services than the government can provide.

Also, your second comparison is not a fair example. That is true of government run prisons too. The conditions can be bad in a state run prison, and prisoners have no say in it. Granted that because the government is not concerned with profit they are less likely to under-spend, and the way the budget system works actually creates the opposite problem. State prisons will spend the entirety of their budget, sometimes even creating a deficit, simply so their budget doesn't get cut. This is a problem however, as it encourages inefficient use of the money. When prison services are in high demand, this isn't something favorable, as it means less people receive the services they need.

 

[Asmodeus]

People disagree about everything.

Sounds like General Chat needs some Big Talk.

Offtopiclolzsodontclickifyourfeelingallrighteousandreporty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bfmq7leZdk

My video didn't work inside the spoiler tags. I'm going to shoot up my office.

 

[Dervish]

We (being that of Canada) live on a massive piece of land, with three large coasts, and two adjacent countries that have massive borders that are downright nigh impossible to police 24/7. We somehow manage to enforce gun control. Please don't tell me the Canada, with 1/10th the population and even more land to cover, can do a better job of it than the USA.

If somebody started smuggling things in through the Arctic Ocean, I wouldn't even be mad, that's impressive dedication lol.

 

[Peter Feels]

If somebody started smuggling things in through the Arctic Ocean, I wouldn't even be mad, that's impressive dedication lol.

LOL I had actually thought something similar.

 

[Brovo]

If somebody started smuggling things in through the Arctic Ocean, I wouldn't even be mad, that's impressive dedication lol.

Sometimes people actually do genuinely try. It's one of the ways that people sneaked jeans into the USSR to sell them on the black market. (Yes, there was a black market for jeans. Yes, that is pretty indicative of how shit the USSR really was.)

 

[☆Luna☆]

Sometimes people actually do genuinely try. It's one of the ways that people sneaked jeans into the USSR to sell them on the black market. (Yes, there was a black market for jeans. Yes, that is pretty indicative of how shit the USSR really was.)

And this was cost effective? I'm extremely impressed.

 

[Brovo]

And this was cost effective? I'm extremely impressed.

When they were sold for hundreds of dollars a piece and you could smuggle several dozen of them at a time? Yes. Obscenely profitable.

 

[Dervish]

Sometimes people actually do genuinely try. It's one of the ways that people sneaked jeans into the USSR to sell them on the black market. (Yes, there was a black market for jeans. Yes, that is pretty indicative of how shit the USSR really was.)

A country without cheap, easy to obtain denim is not one worth living in, damn it.

 

[Zachary-Sama]

A country without cheap, easy to obtain denim is not one worth living in, damn it.

*Wears cargo jeans* I do somewhat understand this logic. I cannot stand pants that aren't made of a strong material. Silk and cotton are good for shirts but if it can't hide a boner in the middle of the street then it's not a good pair of pants XD

 

[Hana]

I'm not sure about this topic myself, but this is why I love debate threads that don't go bad. I learn a lot from everyone <3 It also somewhat helps my debate skills in RL.

 

[Protagonist]

My opinion is that:

A) Any weapon ban should apply both to civilians and police in that area. For example, if a type of firearm is illegal in New York City, the NYPD can't use it either. I can respect the UK's stance, in at least their cops don't have guns either.

B) Inside urban areas, I'd have the law be that weapons that are collateral-prone would be illegal, but non-collateral-prone weapons would be legal. A banned weapon would be something like a flamethrower or grenade. Any use of such weapons would invariably result in property damage.

C) Outside of city limits, almost anything goes.

 

[Jorick]

They are paid and authorized by the government. Despite their behavior, the government still continues to pay and authorize this. I can't see how the lack of government action is not the problem here.

Er, this is sort of like saying "don't blame the criminals for committing crimes, blame the police for not preventing crime." Or "don't blame the politician for working to strip away civil rights, blame the people who elected them."

The fact that the system that's supposed to keep the private prisons in check is failing to do so is bad, yes, but that does not in any way absolve the owners and operators of the private prisons from responsibility. "But nobody stopped me so I thought it was okay" is not a good defense for doing bad things. The problem is, as with most problems, complex and layered rather than black and white. You shouldn't just point your finger at the government and say they're the only ones in the wrong, because doing so implicitly says that the private prison people have no responsibility for their own actions. I believe this is why Hellis has continued to argue with you, because you keep saying that only the government is to blame.

My opinion is that:

A) Any weapon ban should apply both to civilians and police in that area. For example, if a type of firearm is illegal in New York City, the NYPD can't use it either. I can respect the UK's stance, in at least their cops don't have guns either.

B) Inside urban areas, I'd have the law be that weapons that are collateral-prone would be illegal, but non-collateral-prone weapons would be legal. A banned weapon would be something like a flamethrower or grenade. Any use of such weapons would invariably result in property damage.

C) Outside of city limits, almost anything goes.

A) So you'd want criminals with illegally acquired firearms to be better armed than the police? That won't end badly at all, I'm sure.

B) If your basic metric for "collateral-prone" is a flamethrower or grenade, you've got a very strange scale. Based on those weapon choices my immediate thought is that you're talking about property damage rather than number of casualties, but that's probably not the case. I do wonder about where your line for "collateral-prone" weapons is drawn though. What about automatic rifles that can very easily mow through a target person and hit people behind them? What about rather inaccurate submachine guns that can easily hit bystanders? What about shotguns with a wide arc of fire that could easily hit people and things other than the intended target? What about the fact that any poorly aimed gun can cause some collateral in the form of people being hurt or killed? Seems to me that depending on your definition of "collateral-prone" you could justify the banning or legality of most weapons, making it a pretty useless metric.

C) So flamethrowers and grenades are totally cool in the suburbs? I'm sure that won't end poorly at all, such as by some deranged person going to a bank or other crowded place and making use of his totally legally acquired and owned "collateral-prone" weaponry.

 

[☆Luna☆]

Er, this is sort of like saying "don't blame the criminals for committing crimes, blame the police for not preventing crime." Or "don't blame the politician for working to strip away civil rights, blame the people who elected them."

The fact that the system that's supposed to keep the private prisons in check is failing to do so is bad, yes, but that does not in any way absolve the owners and operators of the private prisons from responsibility. "But nobody stopped me so I thought it was okay" is not a good defense for doing bad things. The problem is, as with most problems, complex and layered rather than black and white. You shouldn't just point your finger at the government and say they're the only ones in the wrong, because doing so implicitly says that the private prison people have no responsibility for their own actions. I believe this is why Hellis has continued to argue with you, because you keep saying that only the government is to blame.

I don't mean to say this at all. Those private prisons are awful. They are breaking the law for profit, and they don't give a damn about the people they exploit. However, that was not the argument. The argument was that private prisons are by nature unable to be something ethical and responsible, and my counterpoint was that the reason this is the case is because there was absolutely no care as to if the prisoners were actually being cared for. It doesn't take an inspector to see that something wasn't right with these prisons. Someone had to have known, and despite this they did nothing. The fact that Hellis claims the government run facilities to be more responsible, even though the government knowingly allows this kind of behavior, is what I'm adamantly against.

And if you still believe that there is no way poor government could have known that privately run prisons were being properly run, then how did none of the visitors, prisoners, nor inspectors mention the grossly negligent conditions. It would be ridiculous to believe none of these people said anything. They must have been ignored.

So for that analogy I have this to say. This isn't about criminals and cops. The cops are the criminals. In reality they either fully support or ignore the criminals, and fail to properly punish their criminal acts.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Ok, I've read over most of the posts now and I'm ready to jump into this.
But before I start... Holy shit, 5 pages in and people haven't broken down into enough Drama and Yelling to lock the thread? Congrats Guys! :D

Now, back on topic.

As addressed multiple times, people who do shootings, murder etc. are already willing to break the law. So gun laws isn't really going to stop them. However, it can proof check most owners to make sure it's not in the hands of the simply incompetent. So less "Panicked Citizen shoots a citizen instead of the shooter" or "Toddler fires mother's pistol" incidents. That and it can give citizens proper training on said fire arms so they can learn how to use it properly before owning one.

So considering that? Yes I would (so far) lean towards supporting Gun Control, but to where it's meant to keep people educated. Not in some fantasy attempt to disarm the criminals.

However, the issue of criminal shootings and murders is more complex than that. A lot of it leading back to Mental Illness and the Prison System. To which I have to agree Mental Illness of the people committing the acts are a big issue, where services, therapy etc. needs to be readily available to help them out, so they don't simply become neglected and turn to such barbaric acts. Also please note I say this as an Autistic, someone who counts as having a Mental Illness, I recognize that when someone says "It's cause of mental illness" they don't mean all mentally Ill people, I'm not going out of my way to get offended by things.

Then for the Judical system? I would also agree big parts of that has to do with them being a Private Business (Where profit is the motivation, not helping people. Never a good thing for these matters) and the fact society has a big culture/belief in that Prisons are meant to be Punishment, not rehabilitation. As long as we focus on punishment, people are going to get shit on, not get help they need, go back to society, get stuck in more crime, go back to Jail and repeat. It's just not a good system we have going at all at the moment.

 

[Protagonist]

@Jorick I mean to say, well outside the city. It's ok to fire an RPG if you're out in the country far away from anyone else's property (at least with a permit). You wouldn't be allowed to bring it anywhere near a city.

It's highly unlikely, though that anyone's going to rob a bank with a flamethrower. Why? Flamethrowers are already legal in the US. No, seriously, I'm not even joking about that. Nobody robs banks with them. In general, criminals are going to want access to smaller, concealable firearms such as handguns or submachine guns.

As for collatoral-prone, I think leaving that metric vague is ok. I'd leave it to locals as to what is and isn't acceptable. I would say that, as a good rule of thumb, submachine guns should be considered a grey area.

As for the police in fear of being outgunned, that's actually the point. If a local government has to disarm themselves in order to disarm their citizens, they'll have to think twice about doing so.

 

[☆Luna☆]

@Jorick I mean to say, well outside the city. It's ok to fire an RPG if you're out in the country far away from anyone else's property (at least with a permit). You wouldn't be allowed to bring it anywhere near a city.

It's highly unlikely, though that anyone's going to rob a bank with a flamethrower. Why? Flamethrowers are already legal in the US. No, seriously, I'm not even joking about that. Nobody robs banks with them. In general, criminals are going to want access to smaller, concealable firearms such as handguns or submachine guns.

As for collatoral-prone, I think leaving that metric vague is ok. I'd leave it to locals as to what is and isn't acceptable. I would say that, as a good rule of thumb, submachine guns should be considered a grey area.

As for the police in fear of being outgunned, that's actually the point. If a local government has to disarm themselves in order to disarm their citizens, they'll have to think twice about doing so.

Not to mention the fact that a flamethrower would be a terrible idea. Burning down a building is a lot smarter when you never intend to enter it. It is also hard to rob a burning building... Btw, the concealable thing isn't always true. If they have access to a vehicle, then they can ignore the need to conceal to some extent. This is even more true when the goal isn't to rob, but to terrorize or destroy.

Btw, I'm curious. Where would one safely use a flamethrower?

 

[Windsong]

Not to mention the fact that a flamethrower would be a terrible idea. Burning down a building is a lot smarter when you never intend to enter it. It is also hard to rob a burning building... Btw, the concealable thing isn't always true. If they have access to a vehicle, then they can ignore the need to conceal to some extent. This is even more true when the goal isn't to rob, but to terrorize or destroy.

Btw, I'm curious. Where would one safely use a flamethrower?

As ridiculous as it is for thinking they would actually use it..

It's a terrifying weapon. It could be empty and have its pilot light going and that'd be more than enough incentive to empty a bank drawer.

What idiot would walk into a building and light it up? Common sense.

Also a large open field. They're really fun to use. But terrifying feeling waves of heat hit you as it spits fire thirty feet. Hosea handy.