Gun-control!

Hello,

So, after that shooting happened, the topic of gun-control has arisen in many places. Since this board seems to have a higher-than-average intelligence level, and there are some people capable of some pretty strong debating, I'm curious to see what you guys might have to say.

I'll offer my opinions later on, maybe, but I don't want to bias the thread with an OP of 'ZOMG GUNZ R TEH BEZT/WURST!'. I will, however, post a couple of things I've seen people saying for both sides of the argument, and people can go ahead and give their opinions on them. All I ask is that, if you choose to respond, don't attack the person for their responses. Attack their arguments all you like, but don't make it about 'how much of a redneck' someone is, or that 'you're just a liberal hippy' or whatever. You know?

Things I've heard in support of Gun-control
Less guns means less gun-crimes.
Restrictions on certain, high-powered weapons (assault rifles being the main focus) creates a diminished capability for mass-murder.
Restrictions on ammunition sales means people are limited on how much damage they can do.
Waiting-periods and psych-evaluations before obtaining a gun would reduce the amount of unstable gun-owners.
Guns would be harder for people to steal if there were more laws preventing their distribution.

Things I've heard against support of Gun-control
Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
It's in the Constitution to have the right to bear-arms.
Guns are used for many things, hunting, target-practice, collection etc.
If someone is intent on killing, they will find a way. If not one type of gun, then another. If not a gun, then a knife etc.
Without the right to own a gun, one cannot protect themselves from someone who has illegally obtained a gun.


There are other things I've heard for both sides - I just listed up some in the hope of getting discussion going.

 

The focus should be with social reform and the emphasizing of proper family values because if a society respects each other in general overall they won't want to kill each other as much. There will be gun related crimes still but it will be manageable not what it is now. Gun laws help some and are needed to keep the most dangerous guns away from people that don't need high powered machine guns. These people follow the law and use guns responsibly and they are left unable to defend themselves against armed attackers with strong gun laws. Criminals will still get their guns no matter what if they want them. No form of government has been able to stop what the black market does in all honestly and they never will either.

Stronger punishments work too like what you see in other countries that hit them much harder than the courts do in this country even for the first offense. For me it is all about everything and you see in other countries. They have good laws against firearms, tough punishments for being caught with them, and have a society in general that tends to respect each other more than Americans do with stronger family values than the typical American has in general.

Gun laws by themselves do nothing period unless other things back it up that is just my opinion on the matter anyway. Guns don't do anything unless people aim them at other people and pull the trigger if people don't want to do that then it won't be a major issue.

 

All I know from the statistics Ive seen is that cities with the most gun control or bans have the highest crime. D.C. N.Y. Chicago, etc. Before the bans were placed crime was lower in those places.

 

This is a tricky issue. Being a foreigner, I doubt I have as good a picture of gun control as you guys in the US, so please take my opinion as someone looking in from the outside. There's a lot of stuff I don't think we can see.

Firstly, I don't think civilians deserve to have automatic rifles. If you're hunting with a rifle set to full auto, that's pretty lame. And if you're a collector, you've got something pretty dangerous sitting around, and I wouldn't trust most ordinary people to have the responsibility to take care of something like that.

You can kill a lot more with a lot less effort using an assault rifle than you can with practically anything else. I think that is the biggest issue. People are gonna go nuts and kill people somehow, and it's in society's best interests to make doing that as hard as possible. 30 rounds on full auto just makes things a bit too easy. What you have currently is proving insufficient, and people want something done.

Next, I think the crime rates in DC, NY and Chicago don't tell the full story. Here's a country where everyone has these things, and criminals know for a fact these are the places where the ordinary folk are handicapped against them. Why not go for it? Plus, these are big cities where there are lots of people and money. If I were a criminal, it makes sense to target places like that to get a wealth of victims rather than go all the way out to some guy's farm in the middle of nowhere.

However, flat out prohibition has been proven to fail with alcohol, and it will very likely go the same way with guns. Tougher laws on their own just move everything underground, so criminals just take over the trade. You can ban and confiscate as many guns as you want but so long as more come in from places like Mexico, it's still a problem. They're basically not that hard to make, and you can bet that if people want them others will make them.

Prohibition could possibly work if you had a strong government ruling with an iron fist to make sure every single person obeyed, like a Super Nazi Germany in theory.... but what kind of a horrible country would that be?

There's no easy answer to gun control unfortunately. Like smoking and alcohol, guns are something I think would be best eradicated for the betterment of society, but.... they're not going anywhere, and we have to deal with it.

It's also hard to say "Norway does yadayada and that works!" or "Britain did blahblah and that was a disaster!" because those places have cultures so different from the US.

Whatever the case, you need something long term and far reaching. People's attitudes and the numbers of guns out there aren't going to change overnight, so rather than a huge sweeping blow, you'd need to win a battle of attrition.

One possibility is to increase taxes on the gun makers and distributors. If you made this stuff more expensive, maybe people would treat them with more respect. NRA would shut this idea down hard though.

Another alternative is to do more trade-ins for money or other things, then destroy the arms. I think there was one city where they got young people to trade in their guns for video games and such. Expensive and slow process, but it helps reduce the number of firearms available, and in addition lets people see what better things they can be doing with their lives.

Other than that, I like shadowmaster's suggestion of social reform and family values. Better education has always been the best solution to many of society's problems, but the hardest to put into good practice.

 

NYC is trying to get more gun control not less. NYC crime rates have gone down substantially over the years so I'm not really sure where you're getting your stats from cobra.

I think gun control is a worthy discussion, but I think the real diologue that is not happening enough is mental health. This country seriously needs to address our stance on the importance of regular mental health check ups and prevention techniques to prevent events like this. Each of these shootings were people who were mentally disturbed. The sticky point that I think can get lost when people start thinking "oh mental health means that crazy people are dangerous" is just not the case. Some people can be violent, but most of them are no more violent than mentally stable people. There are a minority of these folks who are violent and don't have the mental defenses to fight their violent impulse. If we just made mental health more of a focus in terms of general health care, I think we would have less violence like this shooting.


Remember folks, guns don't kill people. People kill people. I'm a big fan of making it harder for folks to get guns, but people are the ones using them for the wrong reasons. Only a minority of people at that.

 

It is often said the simplest way to solve an issue is also the hardest because we overlook it because it is that simple. Social reform starts at home not with any law and the parents have to know when they should talk to their child about the violence going on around them. The earlier the better and once they understand it as their minds are beginning to learn everything going on around them they won't want to kill people or become serial killers knowingly. Most of the mental health issues people have are solved in this early stage as well before they need to see a psychiatrist later in life.

As tricky said not everyone can be saved but and they will become very dangerous people no matter what. We can only hope they find more creative uses for their violent tendencies that might aid society in general. I also like how he said not all killers are completely insane. Most of them are just like me they just made a conscious choice and stuck with it for some apparent reason. In someone like that the signs are easy to spot and a psychiatrist shouldn't be first person to spot it, it should be the parents or older brothers and sisters when the child is young. If this happened more often crime rate everywhere would drop but it wouldn't go away completely. As much as I hate to say it people will focus more on the gun laws or tougher punishments over the easiest solution to the problem that doesn't require any government official to pass any laws that might take the guns away from people that would use them properly but that is what our world has come down to these days oh well.

 

What keeps mental health out of the public eye as a solution is fear. Unlike getting a cold from some germs, mental health is inside your mind. Yeah there are a few ways you can "catch" it in a sense, if you really fuck up hard with some mind altering substances. Even then, you would need to have the genetic predisposition for your brain changing so that you'd get an illness.

What's scary about mental health is that anyone can get it, and it's unseen and comes from within. It's like a parasite living inside your body dormant, but instead of it being some life sucking leech it's your own body/brain. It can also just be plain hard to deal with the stuff that comes up when you're talking about how to improve your own mental health.

Those nuances and complications I think keep mental health as this foreign untenable concept that masses don't want to touch.

 

I support this side of the argument, here in Europe the liberals have already had their wicked way with us, and the results can be seen in the crime stats, the gun grabbers are
just trying to manipulate people's reactions to the recent atrocity in order to acheive their own political ends, responsible gun owners in a free country shouldn't be penalised for the crimes of others, I wish we had a 2nd amendment here in the UK.

 

You're totally correct. Reasonable gun owners should not be penalized for the few. That's why I don't fully understand why those reasonable owners are so against stricter screening of who is allowed to have a gun, and what type. It's like they're worried they will all of a sudden be seen as unfit to own a firearm. If that is the case, maybe they shouldn't have had one to begin with.

I'm going to post something one of my collegues posted on CNN http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion-lets-honor-the-angels-we-lost-by-coming-together/

 

Good Points Tricky & Marly, though I was attempting to highlight general and violent crime (gun related or otherwise) overall in the UK being higher than many parts of the US, and as was pointed out by Cobratron, even over there many states which already have strict controls/bans have higher crime than states with less gun regulations.

From speaking to people I know on this topic I can understand the reaction to advocates of gun rights, especially at this time, but crimes like Sandy Hook are rare, and most regular gun crime comes from gangs using illegal guns, more regulation wouldn't change that it would only serve to penalise the law abiding gun owners, this topic/debate requires the well considered thoughts of people like Larry Pratt and not the reactionary approach of Piers Morgan.

 

The reason states with high gun violence have more gun regulations is because they have high gun violence. It's being used as a measure to decrease the violence. Places with low gun violence dont' have many laws because there is no need to regulate something that isn't causing a problem .

 

Yes crime is in decline in NYC, but the murder rate is higher in NYC than it was last year. More police officers have been shot in the line of duty in NYC this year than last year. Mayor Bloomberg should really shut the hell up , he is just trying to draw attention to himself so he can run for president . He had the nerve to laud "stop and frisk" as a method that he is actively preventing another Newton. "Stop and frisk". Is nothing but racial profiling targeted at blacks. The Newton massacre was committed by a crazy White kid. That same kid could've done the same thing in NYC and Bloombergs Gestapo would've let him walk right past them because they only persecute minorities.


I'm a hundred percent against gun control. A man should be able to own as many. Guns as he can afford. Banning Assault rifles means they will only be in the hands of the criminals. They do need better background checks and once someone has been treated for mental illness the government needs to cross reference these people with Batf databases and seize whatever firearms they or their co-inhabitants own.

 

Here's an idea that I don't see anyone talking about: Apparently a good majority of the mass murders in this country that are caused by guns are committed by people that would not have been allowed to own a gun but somehow got their hands on one from a careless loved one/friend/etc.

A proposal: If someone commits a murder using YOUR gun, then you are just as liable for the murder as the murderer. Learn to lock up your firearms and keep them away from your mental ill family members. Otherwise, you are just as much to blame as they are.

Keep your guns, be more responsible with them, keep them locked away, etc etc etc...

 

On that Piers Morgan vs Larry Pratt video, I actually think both of them were being very one-sided and ignorant of the other person's point. Pratt kept talking about concealed handguns, and Morgan kept going on about assault rifles. It was like they were each having conversations with themselves. Pratt was obviously avoiding the topic of assault rifles at all costs, while Morgan refused to consider Pratt's arguement for the use of handguns.

Anyway, being a teacher myself, and having had some basic military training, I think having armed teaching staff is a horrible horrible idea. Just with the nature of the job, there are so many places and situations in a school where you can be easily ambushed and have your firearm taken from you. I'd hate to be breaking up a fight between a couple of angry teens and have one of them suddenly grab a gun off me. There are also so many situations where you're very likely to hit other students if you fire at someone. Plus putting it in practice will likely add training costs and extra red tape and administrative crap that cash strapped schools can't really afford.

Here in Australian schools we're having a problem with kids carrying knives, but I don't think it solves the problem by giving knives to all the teachers.

 

I read interesting article about this in one germany newspapers.

The author was asking, how come such attacks happens in USA? The obvious answer - free weapons in the hands of people - is not as obvious as it may seem at the 1st glance.
The author is pointing out the fact that in many onther countries, it is about the some, or similar. In Czech republic, it is very easy to get permission to wield gun. In Switzerland, nearly all mans between like 18 and 34 have army rifels at home, because how their military service works. In Israel, many people have weapons and wears them openly in public. In Russia, many people have weapons due to hunting. And even Canada have a lots of weapons. But in any of this countries, there was not any problem like USA have. Only other country with similar problems is China - country with EXTREMELY strict control over fire arms. Still, there lately was a lot of knife attacks on school kids with many victims.

Because of this facts, the author comes to conclusion it is not gun control what is important. According to him, it is the social and health care system - because in all named states except USA and China, everyone is guaranteed free or cheap access to any services he needs in exchange for % tax out of all people incomes. If it seems you may have any psychical problem, you get free psychologist consultation. If he finds anything, you get free care; or free / cheap medicaments. Only USA and China are different. Author see the problem in this - that the system do not care about people with problems automatically.

Personally, I agree with everything except conclusion. I know how easy it is to get guns here. It is just matter of money - and it is not large sum in fact. Friend of mine is policeman, working in emergency squad. I know how often he is target of army weapons like Kalasnikov or so. Yet no such attacks as USA have happen here, at least yet.
I do not wish to go deep into my personal opinion why is this happening in USA, but I think it may have something to do with the overall mentality indoctrinated in people. I think that in some cases, it can easily lead to this ends. At least this is my conclusion based upon what I know about US (not that much, as I learned and am still learning USA and EU are incredibly different, no matter how similar they seem to be at 1st glance) and what I saw in US when I was there back in 2006.

 

Gun control is a tricky issue because it can work and it can not work. It's all related to culture and socioeconomic factors, meaning that it's not a good or a bad idea per se. I think that the situation would be all the more confusing in the US, where subcultures and nationalities exist all across the country. It's much harder to predict the impact of gun control with so many variables to consider. Too many different values and beliefs.

 

This is why state laws are so important, are far more influential to the day to day lives of those living in the state. This is also why it can be difficult to talk about USA politics and what would work best in USA compared to for example France or Japan. The size of the country coupled with the diversity of people and views make it such that we don't really agree on much of anything.

For example, I'm totally against guns, I hate the things. However I'm totally down for supporting the right to carry them.

Part of the reason I think USA has such a high violence rate is becuase we're having a social problem that is playing out in disturbing ways. There is a culture brewing here that is pushing some people who are unable to cope, into doing these horrible acts. More or less guns isn't going to fix our problem here. Those people will just use a home made bomb, or build a gun on their own. America is in need of a cultural awakening.

 

I agree 100% with the above statement. If someone is hellbent on doing harm they will . Be it by gun violence , or a bomb,or arson. On one hand it's on my bucket list to start a military rifle collection. I hate to see that barred because of a few crazy dickheads that should have been locked in a rubber room .

On the other hand
I have a 9 year old nephew, and I'd be devastated if he were a victim of such a tragedy as Newtown. My hearts go out to the victims and their families.

 

I can think of no real reason to have assault rifles on the streets for anything other than to do what's been done with them recently in the media. If someone claims to need an assult rifle to protect their homes, maybe that person needs to take a hard look at why they need to be able to fire 30 shots in less than a 30 seconds. Either their aim is terrible, or they live in a warzone.