Gun Control

[SacredWarrior]

Personally I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and these videos explain why along with most of my viewpoints:

What's your stance on gun control?

 

[lostfaith]

This poll is far too simplified. Do I support "gun control," unilaterally, full stop? No.

Do I support reasonable and sane regulation, a universal background check with no exceptions, and restriction on firearms with a high magazine capacity and high rate of fire? Yes.

I don't support fully banning guns, but all evidence supports that that would reduce gun crimes. It also increases the number of stabbings and use of other weapons, but it's a matter of scale.

Someone who goes at a crowd with a knife can be wrestled down and disarmed much easier than someone with a gun. The amount of people they'll be able to harm before someone stops them is drastically smaller than if that same person was armed with a high capacity rifle. If the Las Vegas shooter had only had a knife, we wouldn't be looking at the deadliest mass shooting in this country's history.

But banning firearms completely is crossing a line in civil liberty, in my opinion, so I'm only in support of regulation that prevents as many unfit people as possible from obtaining weapons far deadlier than a knife or a metal baseball bat. And let's be honest; no one really needs an automatic weapon that can put out 500 rounds a minute into a crowd.

It's not a question of whether someone is broadly in favour of "gun control," but to what degree one thinks firearms should be regulated.

 

[SacredWarrior]

This poll is far too simplified. Do I support "gun control," unilaterally, full stop? No.

Do I support reasonable and sane regulation, a universal background check with no exceptions, and restriction on firearms with a high magazine capacity and high rate of fire? Yes.

I don't support fully banning guns, but all evidence supports that that would reduce gun crimes. It also increases the number of stabbings and use of other weapons, but it's a matter of scale.

Someone who goes at a crowd with a knife can be wrestled down and disarmed much easier than someone with a gun. The amount of people they'll be able to harm before someone stops them is drastically smaller than if that same person was armed with a high capacity rifle. If the Las Vegas shooter had only had a knife, we wouldn't be looking at the deadliest mass shooting in this country's history.

But banning firearms completely is crossing a line in civil liberty, in my opinion, so I'm only in support of regulation that prevents as many unfit people as possible from obtaining weapons far deadlier than a knife or a metal baseball bat. And let's be honest; no one really needs an automatic weapon that can put out 500 rounds a minute into a crowd.

It's not a question of whether someone is broadly in favour of "gun control," but to what degree one thinks firearms should be regulated.

Even with regulations, criminals are still getting their guns illegally through the black market which is impossible to stop. All it does is disarm potential victims. We already have those regulations in place. At least where I live (the U.S.) and that varies by state. I live in Tennessee and the gun laws here are fairly lax. I can actually have an unregistered handgun as long as it remains in my vehicle at all times. That's how chill the laws here are.

If the Vegas shooter had a knife, the same amount of people would've died if not more. There have been mass stabbings in the past. Just in 2014, 33 people were killed in China during a massacre and the killer's weapon of choice? A knife. You don't need a gun to commit mass homicide. Some of the worst tragedies not just in U.S. history but world history were not done with guns. Hell the worst school massacre in U.S. history happened in 1927 and the killer used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns to hijack the planes. They used box cutters for crying out loud.

You also forgot to mention that when civilians are armed while a mass shooting is happening, the fatality rate is 1.8 but when the police respond, it skyrockets to 14.29. An armed society is a polite society. A maniac with a gun is very easy to take down. Use a gun of your own and shoot to kill. It works most of the time. Why do you think the Vegas shooter shot from a window? Because most people in Nevada are armed and if he had been at that concert in the flesh, he would've been killed instantly by a civilian.

People like to collect guns. So yes they do need that gun. Just because you deem it unnecessary doesn't mean they shouldn't have it. A gun is a gun regardless of what kind it is. A simple handgun is just as dangerous as an automatic rifle. You don't get to decide what someone does or doesn't need when it comes to arming themselves.

 

[IntrusivePenDesperateSword]

Why do people think 'gun control' means banning them completely? I dunno. I don't.

Thank you, please proceed politely.

 

[SacredWarrior]

Why do people think 'gun control' means banning them completely? I dunno. I don't.

Thank you, please proceed politely.

Your profile pic is awesome as hell :D

Because that's what it always leads to. If you give the government an inch, they'll run a whole marathon. Just look at Prohibition and the War On Drugs. People said the same things about them and look at what happened.

 

[IntrusivePenDesperateSword]

Your profile pic is awesome as hell :D

Thanks!

Because that's what it always leads to. If you give the government an inch, they'll run a whole marathon. Just look at Prohibition and the War On Drugs. People said the same things about them and look at what happened.

Okay, I can see your point with the Prohibition. From just abuse of alcohol being shunned, to a law-enforced ban on both trade and production? I can see that. But the War on drugs? If I'm not mistaken on its history, Nixon just came up one day and declared drug abuse must be eliminated. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, but that seems nothing like gradually taking a fair regulation way too far.

 

[Hatsune Candy]

Just look at Prohibition and the War On Drugs. People said the same things about them and look at what happened.

Do you have a source for that information? I don't think that's quite the same thing, anyways. There's no constitutional right to drink alcohol, and who's to say Prohibition would have still happened even if there was?

Eh, regardless, I have no clue what my stance on gun control is. I've heard the arguments for and against both sides and none of them seem very convincing to be perfectly honest.

 

[Shiri]

I always feel inadequate in these sort of discussions because I don't carry, so I never really look at gun-related things. My state already has a law restricting private citizens from possessing automatic weapons, so I guess I already have gun control? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Trial by Fire]

As far as gun control goes, I'm surprisingly Republican on the subject.

I believe that (most) individuals should have the right to arm themselves against intruders or even a hostile government (if you believe in that). I also believe that gun collectors and hunters should have the right to buy various rifles and handguns for their collections or hobbies, but at the same time, I also do support gun control to an extent.

I support pushes for newer and stronger background checks (especially related to mental health) and an attempt to close the gun loop (how guns can easily be bought through gun shows). I also support the restriction on purchasing ammunition so that gun collectors can have their hobby without acting as a threat to their neighbors. I also think that criminal convicted of a violent crime and suspected terrorists should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm regardless of circumstances.

With that in mind, I suppose I do support gun control to an extent, but not fully.

 

[Eru]

I think civilians should continue to have the right to own guns, protected by some regulations of course to ensure proper operation and such. That said I'm also partial to @Valentyne's view on the poll, in that none of the options completely represents my opinions on it. Therefore my position is "Unsure" but definitely in favor of Second Amendment rights (as far as I understand the subject; I'm not the most informed on the topic by any means but I know where I stand, at least).

 

[Applo]

Perhaps unsurprisingly considering I'm from the UK I favour strict gun control laws. As it stands most people don't own a gun and those that do have to have a reason for owning them. Getting a license to own a gun is relatively tricky and the terms of the license are quite strict. This is a state of affairs I am quite happy with. Most of our police are unarmed and frankly I feel a little uneasy when I see a police officer with a gun.

Would this work in America, probably not. Guns seem to play too big a part in your cultural DNA and there are a lot of them around. The types of controls that Trial by Fire mentioned seem very reasonable to me personally. They would help to keep guns out of the hands of high risk individuals while still being really quite relaxed laws.

 

[Lusterine]

I really don't that the internet is a great place for this conversation, but with that being said, I'd love to see some legitimate sources please. (I tried to find them, but either way the burden of proof isn't on me for proving your points.) I watched the video, and it sourced nothing of actual value.

Even with regulations, criminals are still getting their guns illegally through the black market which is impossible to stop. All it does is disarm potential victims. We already have those regulations in place. At least where I live (the U.S.) and that varies by state. I live in Tennessee and the gun laws here are fairly lax. I can actually have an unregistered handgun as long as it remains in my vehicle at all times. That's how chill the laws here are.

Have you ever considered that differing laws are a potential problem? Everyone likes to sight Chicago as a prime example of gun laws not working, but less than an hour and a half and you're in Indiana, which has lax gun laws. Why bother with a black market when you can go a state over and claim that you need them for your protection?

Not mention the whole good guy with a guy thing. Sure, there are examples of 'good guys' with guns saving the day, but there are also miraculous cases of cancer curing itself. Remarkably unreliable, and not something to keep a hold of.

Not to mention that those who perform acts of gun violence are also tied to crimes domestic violence, experiencing mental health issues, and other problems. Children die every day because we do not require adequate training for individuals handling firearms. They do not know how to store or handle their guns properly, and vulnerable populations (such as women and children) are suffering from it. I don't believe that someone with a history of domestic violence should be able to own a gun.

Not mention that this is an alarming lack of data and registries on guns and gun violence.

Who's getting hurt? Women and children. Who's allowed to own a gun? Too many. Under Brady's Law, a background check must be performed. However, many background checks run under a default program which does not include certain factors that would otherwise make an individual ineligible to own a firearm.

"Furthermore, gun violence disproportionately harms some of the most vulnerable Americans, including children, members of racial/ethnic minority groups, female victims of intimate partner violence, and people living in rural communities.3 As long as researchers are unable to adequately study gun violence, public health professionals will be hindered in their ability to ensure that the basic conditions necessary for health and safety are accessible to everybody" (Bachynski 2017).

What I would actually like is gun control. You said that the government will take a mile when given an inch, but quite frankly, who's fault is that? If we make reasonable demands and hold them too it, it would be a win-win all around.

All I'd like is a comprehensive background check and more training for those carrying weapons. We train our police, but we let citizens walk around? Also, we need to address issues that are the root of gun violence. Poverty, racial politics, mental illness and more are a factor with gun violence. I don't understand how anyone could be against this, unless they're afraid they wouldn't pass an actual background check? I, personally, propose that gun ownership is a side effect of the skewed sense of masculinity and heroism that we've developed in the US. However, I'd need to do hours more research to really come up with any conclusions.

Bachynski, Kathleen E, PhD, MPH. 2017. Ethical Implications of Missing Gun Violence Data. American Journal of Public Health; Vol. 107, Iss. 5,

 

[Quetzal]

I really don't that the internet is a great place for this conversation, but with that being said, I'd love to see some legitimate sources please. (I tried to find them, but either way the burden of proof isn't on me for proving your points.) I watched the video, and it sourced nothing of actual value.



Have you ever considered that differing laws are a potential problem? Everyone likes to sight Chicago as a prime example of gun laws not working, but less than an hour and a half and you're in Indiana, which has lax gun laws. Why bother with a black market when you can go a state over and claim that you need them for your protection?

Not mention the whole good guy with a guy thing. Sure, there are examples of 'good guys' with guns saving the day, but there are also miraculous cases of cancer curing itself. Remarkably unreliable, and not something to keep a hold of.

Not to mention that gun violence is tied to domestic violence, mental health issues, and other problems. Children die every day because we do not require adequate training for individuals handling firearms. They do not know how to store or handle their guns properly, and vulnerable populations (such as women and children) are suffering from it. I don't believe that someone with a history of domestic violence should be able to own a gun.

Not mention that this is an alarming lack of data and registries on guns and gun violence.

Who's getting hurt? Women and children. Who's allowed to own a gun? Too many. Under Brady's Law, a background check must be performed. However, many background checks run under a default program which does not include certain factors that would otherwise make an individual ineligible to own a firearm.

"Furthermore, gun violence disproportionately harms some of the most vulnerable Americans, including children, members of racial/ethnic minority groups, female victims of intimate partner violence, and people living in rural communities.3 As long as researchers are unable to adequately study gun violence, public health professionals will be hindered in their ability to ensure that the basic conditions necessary for health and safety are accessible to everybody" (Bachynski 2017).

What I would actually like is gun control. You said that the government will take a mile when given an inch, but quite frankly, who's fault is that? If we make reasonable demands and hold them too it, it would be a win-win all around.

All I'd like is a comprehensive background check and more training for those carrying weapons. We train our police, but we let citizens walk around? Also, we need to address issues that are the root of gun violence. Poverty, racial politics, mental illness and more are a factor with gun violence. I don't understand how anyone could be against this, unless they're afraid they wouldn't pass an actual background check? I, personally, propose that gun ownership is a side effect of the skewed sense of masculinity and heroism that we've developed in the US. However, I'd need to do hours more research to really come up with any conclusions.

Bachynski, Kathleen E, PhD, MPH. 2017. Ethical Implications of Missing Gun Violence Data. American Journal of Public Health; Vol. 107, Iss. 5,

Are you implying that someone might be more mentally unstable because of owning a gun? :O

Domestic violence would happen whether a gun is involved or not. Although I do agree that a history of domestic violence should rule you out. Sometimes that comes down to she said, he said, which often favors what she said. It doesn't take much for a guy to be taken away in handcuffs even if he's the one with all the scrapes and bruises.

 

[Lusterine]

Are you implying that someone might be more mentally unstable because of owning a gun? :O

Domestic violence would happen whether a gun is involved or not. Although I do agree that a history of domestic violence should rule you out. Sometimes that comes down to she said, he said, which often favors what she said. It doesn't take much for a guy to be taken away in handcuffs even if he's the one with all the scrapes and bruises.

Lol sorry, I meant that domestic violence should rule you out. I'll edit that to make more sense.

 

[Quetzal]

Lol sorry, I meant that domestic violence should rule you out. I'll edit that to make more sense.

At the same time though I wouldn't be surprised if some people choose to own a gun because they are unstable. A gun may provide them with a false sense of security or control that they don't feel otherwise.

They should focus on improving mental health facilities and studies. So many times you read about how a shooter was in a mental health care facility and was let go because there just wasn't anything more they could do for them.

 

[SacredWarrior]

Have you ever considered that differing laws are a potential problem? Everyone likes to sight Chicago as a prime example of gun laws not working, but less than an hour and a half and you're in Indiana, which has lax gun laws.

Because Chicago IS a good example. It has some of the strictest gun laws in the country but has one of the highest murder rates and it's still climbing up. Texas has the most guns per capita but has the lowest break-in rate of all 50 states. Austin alone has the third lowest crime rate in the entire country. You can't stop differing laws. Each state has their own way of doing things and that's how it should be for some things. Lax gun laws don't hurt anyone. If you don't want to own a gun, then fine. Don't own one. But I'm not gonna be disarmed because of someone else's issues.

Not to mention that those who perform acts of gun violence are also tied to crimes domestic violence, experiencing mental health issues, and other problems.

Not always. What if the perpetrator has no criminal background at all? Whose fault is it then? Other law-abiding citizens?

Children die every day because we do not require adequate training for individuals handling firearms.

More kids in the U.S. die from the flu and drowning in swimming pools than gun violence. It's not a huge epidemic like people think it is. Yes more people should learn about firearm safety to prevent accidents.

Why bother with a black market when you can go a state over and claim that you need them for your protection?

Because bureaucracy and it's much easier and cheaper on your wallet.

. I don't understand how anyone could be against this, unless they're afraid they wouldn't pass an actual background check?

Background checks are far too easy to pass and they don't work. Training and educating is a much better solution.

I don't believe that someone with a history of domestic violence should be able to own a gun.

Good in theory but do you not realize how fucked up the justice system is when it comes to domestic violence and how easy it is for someone to be charged with it even if THEY were the victims? You gotta fix that first.

I watched the video, and it sourced nothing of actual value.

Did you watch BOTH videos? Also you have to watch them on YouTube so you can see their citations in the description.

You said that the government will take a mile when given an inch, but quite frankly, who's fault is that?

The government. Who else? They have power that civilians don't have and can do whatever they want without consequence. They violate our rights all the time. The Patriot Act, NSA, and TSA all prove this. Don't even get me started on other countries' governments.

At the same time though I wouldn't be surprised if some people choose to own a gun because they are unstable. A gun may provide them with a false sense of security or control that they don't feel otherwise.

You mean like this awesome chick? :D

They should focus on improving mental health facilities and studies. So many times you read about how a shooter was in a mental health care facility and was let go because there just wasn't anything more they could do for them.

Exactly. So many mass shootings could've been prevented if mental health was taken seriously. Mostly school shootings.

 

[SacredWarrior]

If we make reasonable demands and hold them too it, it would be a win-win all around.

The government never obeys its citizens. If they did, the U.S. wouldn't have so much stupid bullshit in its history and even now in the present day. You can't hold the government to anything because they can punish you for it.

 

[SacredWarrior]

more training for those carrying weapons.

Firearms instructors exist. So yes we do have that. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the law in most states to be trained before you get a gun.

 

[Lusterine]

I did watch both videos and read the descriptions. Neither of those used credible sources.

You missed the point of Chicago and the background checks. I don't think any of the points you've made are reasonable or rational, to be honest.

I don't think you watched my video either :)

Firearms instructors exist. So yes we do have that. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the law in most states to be trained before you get a gun.

 

[SacredWarrior]

You missed the point of Chicago and the background checks. I don't think any of the points you've made are reasonable or rational, to be honest.

I don't think you watched my video either :)

My points were perfectly reasonable and rational. Chicago does have background checks but they obviously don't work if the crime rate there is any indication. Literally anyone and everyone can pass a check no matter how comprehensive it is. And even if they did fail, they can just get a gun illegally anyways.

The vast majority of gun homicides in the U.S. are gang related. How do gangs get their guns? ILLEGALLY. You also aren't distinguishing homicides from self-defense either. Don't forget about suicides also. If you're gonna point to homicide rates, make they're OVERALL homicides and not gun homicides. Like I said before, you don't need a gun to commit a heinous crime or massacre.

Yes I watched the video and it didn't use a credible source nor did it use good arguments unlike my videos which at least provided decent points.

Wanna curb gun violence? Make them readily available and watch the crime rate plummet like it did in Texas. Train and educate people on how to properly use firearms and about firearm safety. Change the mental health system so people can actually get the help they need. By the way, the mentally ill are far more likely to be VICTIMS of violence than perpetrators so yeah I'd argue they probably need guns the most. If they wanna hurt someone, restricting guns isn't gonna stop them.

You're not gonna stop gun violence by restricting gun ownership. Criminals will be the only one to have them if that's the case. Unless you plan on stopping illegal purchases/the black market which is damn near impossible to do. Gun violence isn't going to be stopped period no matter what you propose. Hell you can't stop violence at all. Especially when the homicide rate in America has actually been decreasing but the gun ownership has been increasing. You can thank all of the recent mass shootings for that which wouldn't have been prevented by gun control. Mental health treatment though? Yeah that would've worked much better.