Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 1235]

The sad part is there are people who actually think this shit. I've owned guns for about 15 years, and that ownership began with very strict lessons in safety and responsible handling of guns. Better gun safety education would go a long way in preventing accidents. In fact I'd totally support a law that requires people to take a gun safety class and get a certificate before being able to buy a gun.

People who say "herp derp just ban guns why u need them anyways??" are about as intelligent as a sack of hammers and know nothing about US history, culture, and why the vast majority of people own guns. I own guns because I can, and because they're fun to shoot as a hobby. I don't NEED them lol, but I have the right to own them. There needs to be a way to make it harder for criminals to get guns but removing everyone's right to own one is so simple-minded and stupid that it makes me wonder if the people who spout that crap thought about the issue for more than three seconds before opening their mouth.

do many people argue this?

I'd say most gun control people point more at euro/aus/nz style controls than outright NO GUNS! policies as something that is sensible and proven to work reasonably well. Or at least better than the hilarious US situation.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

You quoted something piggus said under my name in this post. Not a big deal, just sayin'

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You quoted something piggus said under my name in this post. Not a big deal, just sayin'

Crap. Sorry. I'm not sure how that happened....

 

[Kad5]

And if they don't tell you until they have? A lot of stuff in your worldview depends on people not lying.

Well if people are in the process of building nukes people usually start getting suspicious. If a company were to lie about it in an accusation they COULD get charged with fraud. The customers of the business have a right to know where the money the business gets is being spent on. (i.e. Audits)

It's very difficult to keep things like that a secret. At some point people figure it out. Heck we accuse countries of building nukes without solid evidence sometimes.

 

[(._.)]

check list to see if you qualify for a US gun controls discussion on neogaf

- you live in the US or have lived in the US for an extended period of time (young childhood not counting)
- you have at least some understanding of how a firearm works and have used one at least once in a safe controlled environment such as an indoor shooting range
- you're not a complete fucken moron
- you're open to discussion and willing to admit both sides have some points to be made

congrats if you qualify

do you carry a fire extinguisher incase you get caught in a building fire? how about an epipen incase you eat something and have some unknown allergic reaction? or a monoxide alarm?

I do see the point I think you're trying to make? Some people do overcompensate for their fear of being a victim to violent crime. I just don't think this is a very good analogy though. It also does not accurately represent the majority of legal gun owners in the US (ref 2nd sentence). Many buildings/homes have fire extinguishers already or some sort of ceiling sprinkler. Most people who have food allergies are prepared with an epipen. Not all emergencies are the same and each one has a different solution.

 

[Panipal2009]

Cute, J-Rzez.

You know when some obnoxious asshole starts ragging on some other dude, then gets owned by a beautifully timed and delivered comeback? And then starts acting all butthurt about it? Yeah. Your comment.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

You know when some obnoxious asshole starts ragging on some other dude, then gets owned by a beautifully timed and delivered comeback? And then starts acting all butthurt about it? Yeah. Your comment.

Who's ragging on who, again? Explain.

If guns and their current governance weren't a problem, this tired argument over controlling them wouldn't be going on. Sometimes, it's much better and easier to let someone else have the last word. I'm not in this thread to win, buddy, I'm in to represent my view and defend where I see fit. If someone else cannot grasp what I view as basic and self-evident logic, I'm not obligated to educate or further explain myself to them just to make them understand. If that strikes you as a reason to contribute nothing to the topic at hand, please, let the nothingness continue unabated.

 

[J-Rzez]

Cute, J-Rzez.

Just pointing out it works both ways. Not trashing your opinion, as you're discussing it more properly than some of the other responses siding with your view.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

do many people argue this?

I'd say most gun control people point more at euro/aus/nz style controls than outright NO GUNS! policies as something that is sensible and proven to work reasonably well. Or at least better than the hilarious US situation.

Whats hillarious about the US situation other than that it works except in NYC, CA, MA, NJ, and a few other locations?

 

[lostsupper]

It's not working when so many are dying from gun violence.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Just pointing out it works both ways. Not trashing your opinion, as you're discussing it more properly than some of the other responses siding with your view.

Well, other than your revision not accurately reflecting my view, even as some inverse or contrarian backhand, I thought it was a rather too-obvious response that didn't say anything at all since it wasn't interested in arguing a real position that you hold...just teaching me a lesson, I guess. It doesn't change the fact that there are systemic problems that need to be addressed and the solutions put forth from those sharing or agreeing with my view are not at all about 'ban all da gunz!!1'. No one actually seriously believes it is possible...because it isn't. It's all about regulations that matter because we have virtually nothing in place now that solves our problem...as evidenced by a growing number of mass shootings in this country. The friction comes from a fundamental difference of worldview where there can be no mending of that divide, only a change of perspective. Like with self-identified liberals and conservatives, that nebulous tipping point between two people. I don't think in extremes just to say something in serious topics, so your post was more like an appeal to the one side of the crowd or the peanut gallery. Just cannot agree with you on this, so let's agree to disagree.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It's not working when so many are dying from gun violence.

Not really

In 2010, an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 6.0 percent from the 2009 estimate.
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2010 estimated violent crime total was 13.2 percent below the 2006 level and 13.4 percent below the 2001 level.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Weapons 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total 15,087 14,916 14,224 13,752 12,996
Total firearms: 10,225 10,129 9,528 9,199 8,775

 

[Milchjon]

Not really

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

"Not really" doesn't really work when two thirds of all your murder victims die from firearms and the decline in firearm murders only mirrors the general decline in violent crimes that is visible across all weapons.

8775 murders by firearms, is still an awfully high number. For comparison, Germany had 815 total murders in 2010, with a population of 81 million compared to 314 million in the US. (Couldn't find the number of murders with firears in Germany for 2010, in 2009 it was 175)

IMO those numers still qualify as "so high".

My honest opinion on guns in the US is: Accept that they lead to more deaths, and either do something about them or realize that you love them so much that you're willing to live with those additional deaths and stop whining.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

"Not really" doesn't really work when two thirds of all your murder victims die from firearms and the decline in firearm murders only mirrors the general decline in violent crimes that is visible across all weapons..

Except it shows that across the board there has been a decline and in the use of firearms too. Mean despite more and more guns being sold, crime is decreasing and even the use of it in crimes. So it does work.

 

[MormaPope]

Alright, I don't want to start a petty fight over this question, so please don't get mad or offended.

Anyone that wants strict gun control, have you ever shot a firearm before? Have you handled a firearm before?

I ask because shooting guns just at targets, or even into a hill is really fun. But I've noticed some people are naturally fearful of guns, which isn't a bad thing at all, but some people are really squeamish around firearms.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Alright, I don't want to start a petty fight over this question, so please don't get mad or offended.

Anyone that wants strict gun control, have you ever shot a firearm before? Have you handled a firearm before?

I ask because shooting guns just at targets, or even into a hill is really fun. But I've noticed some people are naturally fearful of guns, which isn't a bad thing at all, but some people are really squeamish around firearms.

Good luck on certain people answering that one, some people avoid that like they were safeguarding the nuclear launch codes.

 

[Milchjon]

Except it shows that across the board there has been a decline and in the use of firearms too. Mean despite more and more guns being sold, crime is decreasing and even the use of it in crimes. So it does work.

Well, but your murder rate per capita is still roughly three times as high, and your murder rate by firearms per capita is roughly 17 times as high compared to a similarly developed country. A slight decrease still doesn't mean that "it works" when the absolute numbers are still that shitty.

If I wanted to be an asshole, I could say that not only do your gun laws suck, you also have a culture that seems to be a lot more violent overall compared to similar countries.

Alright, I don't want to start a petty fight over this question, so please don't get mad or offended.

Anyone that wants strict gun control, have you ever shot a firearm before? Have you handled a firearm before?

I ask because shooting guns just at targets, or even into a hill is really fun. But I've noticed some people are naturally fearful of guns, which isn't a bad thing at all, but some people are really squeamish around firearms.

I'll quote myself on this:

My honest opinion on guns in the US is: Accept that they lead to more deaths, and either do something about them or realize that you love them so much that you're willing to live with those additional deaths and stop whining.

I'm sure they're fun. I love all kind of shooters, and if I had the chance of shooting a gun in certain contexts, I'd love to try it. But they're also very powerful killing instruments, and you have to ask yourself if "fun" is worth a few thousand additional deaths per year.

 

[Xdrive05]

What's up, GAF? A gun owner here (shotgun and 3 rifles) with a true on-the-fense position on this issue.

Is there any statistical or scientific consensus that heavy regulation and bans reduces violent gun crime? I usually hear anti-gun advocates (floabt) speak as though this is true and definitive. And of course the other side pokes holes in the studies when this is claimed.

And gun rights advocates, if this consensus was true then would you concede your 2nd amendment rights for the public interest of fewer gun crimes?

I'm really conflicted myself; ignorant about the 1st question and still pondering the 2nd.

 

[MormaPope]

Well, but your murder rate per capita is still roughly three times as high, and your murder rate by firearms per capita is roughly 17 times as high compared to a similarly developed country. A slight decrease still doesn't mean that "it works" when the absolute numbers are still that shitty.

If I wanted to be an asshole, I could say that not only do your gun laws suck, you also have a culture that seems to be a lot more violent overall compared to similar countries.




I'll quote myself on this:



I'm sure they're fun. I love all kind of shooters, and if I had the chance of shooting a gun in certain contexts, I'd love to try it. But they're also very powerful killing instruments, and you have to ask yourself if "fun" is worth a few thousand additional deaths per year.

Having a firearm is a responsibility, some people can't handle responsibility well. While a lot of people can. I'd counter your point with automobiles are used simply as transport, and there's more automobile deaths than gun violence. If guns are meant to kill, and there's less deaths with firearms than automobile accidents, wouldn't automobiles be more of threat to the safety of society than firearms? Even if contextually firearms can be easily life threatening?

 

[Milchjon]

Having a firearm is a responsibility, some people can't handle responsibility well. While a lot of people can. I'd counter your point with automobiles are used simply as transport, and there's more automobile deaths than gun violence. If guns are meant to kill, and there's less deaths with firearms than automobile accidents, wouldn't automobiles be more of threat to the safety of society than firearms? Even if contextually firearms can be easily life threatening?

What a shitty comparison, cars serve a civil purpose. Automobile deaths are a negative byproduct of them being used for their actual purpose. To put it bluntly, if you found the number of cumulative hours that cars are driven in the US per year, and and fired guns for the same amount of times, there probably wouldn't be many Americans left at all.

Cars can kill you in the same way eating or having sex or slicing cucumbers can. Guns serve no other purpose than destroying humans/living things/things as efficiently as possible, and the only reason you could find to defend them in a non-violent context is that you're fascinated by that concentrated power (I know I am in a way.)

 

[MormaPope]

What a shitty comparison, cars serve a civil purpose. Automobile deaths are a negative byproduct of them being used for their actual purpose. To put it bluntly, if you found the number of cumulative hours that cars are driven in the US per year, and and fired guns for the same amount of times, there probably wouldn't be many Americans left at all.

Cars can kill you in the same way eating or having sex or slicing cucumbers can. Guns serve no other purpose than destroying humans/living things/things as efficiently as possible, and the only reason you could find to defend them in a non-violent context is that you're fascinated by that concentrated power (I know I am in a way.)

My point was if you would want to protect society, wouldn't it be better to outlaw vehicle use completely to save thousands of lives?

And reiterating your point that "a firearm's only use it to kill!" isn't going to be a revelation to anyone that owns a firearm, and it's almost patronizing to say that to anyone that owns firearms.

 

[Reuenthal]

Well, but your murder rate per capita is still roughly three times as high, and your murder rate by firearms per capita is roughly 17 times as high compared to a similarly developed country. A slight decrease still doesn't mean that "it works" when the absolute numbers are still that shitty.

If I wanted to be an asshole, I could say that not only do your gun laws suck, you also have a culture that seems to be a lot more violent overall compared to similar countries.




I'll quote myself on this:

My honest opinion on guns in the US is: Accept that they lead to more deaths, and either do something about them or realize that you love them so much that you're willing to live with those additional deaths and stop whining.


I'm sure they're fun. I love all kind of shooters, and if I had the chance of shooting a gun in certain contexts, I'd love to try it. But they're also very powerful killing instruments, and you have to ask yourself if "fun" is worth a few thousand additional deaths per year.

Yeah that is my conclusion. Culturally Americans seem to love their guns, I don't agree but as far as cultural differences go this is not a very big one or a fundamental one as far as rights go for which I care more. Statistically while some additional deaths might not have existed in a different environment, this might sound offensive to some but I don't see statistically this being a huge issue although it is an issue.

I am sure most people who use them are responsible, but still you will have more deaths. Accept it and move with perhaps minor changes in laws that still have the result of many people with guns or fundamentally change laws and culture if you want more people alive although as the genie is already out that might have serious problems happening too even if there was an attempt to have far more serious gun control and be a long term issue of eventually happening.

 

[MormaPope]

Yeah that is my conclusion. Culturally Americans seem to love their guns, I don't agree but as far as cultural differences go this is not a very big one or a fundamental one as far as rights go for which I care more.

I am sure most people who use them are responsible, but still you will have more deaths. Accept it and move with perhaps minor changes in laws that still have the result of many people with guns or fundamentally change laws and culture.

To it being a cultural thing; Nah.

I absolutely loathe and detest how most Americans are overly patriotic and nationalistic. I enjoy firearms for their ability to protect and their recreational use, not because it's ingrained in culture. I don't speak for other people obviously.

Not all gun owners are red blooded republicans.

 

[Reuenthal]

To it being a cultural thing; Nah.

I absolutely loathe and detest how most Americans are overly patriotic and nationalistic. I enjoy firearms for their ability to protect and their recreational use, not because it's ingrained in culture. I don't speak for other people obviously.

Not all gun owners are red blooded republicans.

I was not assuming gun owners being red blooded republicans but a culture of gun use that goes beyond that and seeing value in guns for recreational and other uses. Whether it is your fathers having guns, allowing to shoot guns and experience it such stories that I saw here which in other nations are less widespread and people think less of using guns in a recreational way or seeing it natural to have it for home protection. Once you have something a culture of wanting it and a culture surrounding it can be created. For example alcohol surrounding culture in most of the world.

 

[Milchjon]

My point was if you would want to protect society, wouldn't it be better to outlaw vehicle use completely to save thousands of lives?

And reiterating your point that "a firearm's only use it to kill!" isn't going to be a revelation to anyone that owns a firearm, and it's almost patronizing to say that to anyone that owns firearms.

You're using a slippery slope argument where you absolutely shouldn't.
The trade off for allowing cars is slightly (and I mean very slightly if you look at the absurd amount of miles that are being driven) higher health risk for making our standard of living possible in the first place.
The trade off for allowing firearms is a much higher health risk (again, looking at both the absolute numbers compared to other countries and looking at the fact that using a gun in the way it was made to be used will result in injured/dead people) for a fun factor and a subjective feeling of safety that is in no way related to actual safety or even negatively correlated.

Like I said, it's a shitty argument. Imagine what your life would be like if there were no guns. You would lose very little. Imagine what your life would be like if there were no cars. You'd probably lose half of what you think makes your life worth living.

And the fact that their main purpose is killing wasn't meant as a revelation, it was just a part of my argument.

 

[MormaPope]

I was not assuming gun owners being red blooded republicans but a culture of gun use that goes beyond that and seeing value in guns for recreational and other uses. Whether it is your fathers having guns, allowing to shoot guns and experience it such stories that I saw here which in other nations are less widespread and people think less of using guns in a recreational way or seeing it natural to have it for home protection. Once you have something a culture of wanting it and a culture surrounding it can be created. For example alcohol surrounding culture in most of the world.

What you're thinking or believing isn't really wrong, but firearm use really sometimes come down to personal preference in both firearms and life.

I didn't fire a gun until I was 16 years old. My family was never into firearms, my friends family though was a different story. I was never really for strict gun control before and after spending time around firearms my position never changed.

You are right about being around firearms at a early age due to family can sorta morph how a person feels about firearms, but firearms don't have the same cultural power as tobacco or alcohol, it's not even close.

 

[MormaPope]

You're using a slippery slope argument where you absolutely shouldn't.
The trade off for allowing cars is slightly (and I mean very slightly if you look at the absurd amount of miles that are being driven) higher health risk for making our standard of living possible in the first place.
The trade off for allowing firearms is a much higher health risk (again, looking at both the absolute numbers compared to other countries and looking at the fact that using a gun in the way it was made to be used will result in injured/dead people) for a fun factor and a subjective feeling of safety that is in no way related to actual safety or even negatively correlated.

Like I said, it's a shitty argument. Imagine what your life would be like if there were no guns. You would lose very little. Imagine what your life would be like if there were no cars. You'd probably lose half of what you think makes your life worth living.

I can't even argue with you. You win I guess. What you believe and believe is radically different.

You perceive what could potentially be more dangerous to society as being more dangerous than what is actually more dangerous to society. I don't know why you feel this way, but it's delusional.

"Let's have the government and law enforcement have complete and utter control." isn't a world I want to live in. I'd rather risk being shot by my own country men than being dominated and having absolutely no power or say in my country. But of course, that's a hypothetical situation. One of many in this thread.

I could bring up positive stories about people defending themselves with firearms, but you would just make that argument go in circles.

A firearm isn't inherently evil, you're projecting negative thoughts and ideas into what a firearm is used for. Can a firearm be used for bad? Absolutely. Can a firearm be used to protect the innocent? Absolutely. Is a firearm a huge responsibility? Absolutely.

 

[Milchjon]

I can't even argue with you. You win I guess. What you believe and believe is radically different.

You perceive what could potentially be more dangerous to society as being more dangerous than what is actually more dangerous to society. I don't know why you feel this way, but it's delusional.

I could bring up positive stories about people defending themselves with firearms, but you would just make that argument go in circles.

A firearm isn't inherently evil, you're projecting negative thoughts and ideas into what a firearm is used for. Can a firearm be used for bad? Absolutely. Can a firearm be used to protect the innocent? Absolutely. Is a firearm a huge responsibility? Absolutely.

I don't see a firearm as inherently evil. It's a tool. But since it's a very efficient tool that has only one purpose, which is bodily harm, the effects of allowing its use are negative.

I'm not looking at guns for my argument. I'm looking at numbers for the US and for Germany and they lead me to the conclusion that, while of course there are millions of responsible people who don't use it to harm anyone, the net effect of allowing them is negative. Everything else is either normative thinking on your side, as you think they shouldn't lead to more deaths, when they actually do, or anecdotal evidence.

But the fact that you still don't see the fundamental difference between a car and a firearm tells me I really shouldn't be arguing with you. So I won't.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

To it being a cultural thing; Nah.

I absolutely loathe and detest how most Americans are overly patriotic and nationalistic. I enjoy firearms for their ability to protect and their recreational use, not because it's ingrained in culture. I don't speak for other people obviously.

Not all gun owners are red blooded republicans.

.

 

[Milchjon]

.

You're misinterpreting the word cultural. Citing their "ability to protect and their recreational use" is not something a European would really do. Seeing them partly as a toy is something very American in some way.

And with that I'm finally out.

 

[MormaPope]

You're misinterpreting the word cultural. Citing their "ability to protect and their recreational use" is not something a European would really do. Seeing them partly as a toy is something very American in some way.

And with that I'm finally out.

Extreme generalizing, nice.

 

[Tawpgun]

Listen.

What if there was a way to put some sort of a taser on a standard police pistol? Or design a pistol that has a taser?

Not sure how relevant this is to gun control, but after reading about police using guns to take down knife wielding people, it might be a neat idea.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"Not really" doesn't really work when two thirds of all your murder victims die from firearms and the decline in firearm murders only mirrors the general decline in violent crimes that is visible across all weapons.

8775 murders by firearms, is still an awfully high number. For comparison, Germany had 815 total murders in 2010, with a population of 81 million compared to 314 million in the US. (Couldn't find the number of murders with firears in Germany for 2010, in 2009 it was 175)

IMO those numers still qualify as "so high".

My honest opinion on guns in the US is: Accept that they lead to more deaths, and either do something about them or realize that you love them so much that you're willing to live with those additional deaths and stop whining.

To be fair, Germany also has about a 1/4 of the population the US does, not saying you don't have a point but I hate when people use raw numbers when the groups aren't the same in size.

 

[Milchjon]

To be fair, Germany also has about a 1/4 of the population the US does, not saying you don't have a point but I hate when people use raw numbers when the groups aren't the same in size.

Second paragraph ;-)
I factored that into the calculations.

Edit: D'oh, I'm stupid, my calculations are off as I took 314/81 as ~1/3 when it should've been 1/4.

So

Well, but your murder rate per capita is still roughly three times as high, and your murder rate by firearms per capita is roughly 17 times as high compared to a similarly developed country. A slight decrease still doesn't mean that "it works" when the absolute numbers are still that shitty.

It's ~2.5 times as high and ~13 times as high for murders/murders by firearms respectively. Sorry. Point still stands.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You're misinterpreting the word cultural. Citing their "ability to protect and their recreational use" is not something a European would really do. Seeing them partly as a toy is something very American in some way.

And with that I'm finally out.

How am I misinterpreting it? I mean, I can't say I really give a fig how Europeans would do. I mean, *is* there a gun "culture" for many people in the States? Sure. But that's not every gun owner and its disingenuous to try to paint it as such.

My ultimate view is if you don't like guns, don't own one. Problem solved. I'm not a pacifist and I enjoy recreational shooting.

 

[Chumly]

Alright, I don't want to start a petty fight over this question, so please don't get mad or offended.

Anyone that wants strict gun control, have you ever shot a firearm before? Have you handled a firearm before?

I ask because shooting guns just at targets, or even into a hill is really fun. But I've noticed some people are naturally fearful of guns, which isn't a bad thing at all, but some people are really squeamish around firearms.

Yes I have shot a gun. I have said before that gun control laws need to start with the sale of guns. Preventing from guns getting in the hands of criminals so easily. Make people responsible who they sell too.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yes I have shot a gun. I have said before that gun control laws need to start with the sale of guns. Preventing from guns getting in the hands of criminals so easily. Make people responsible who they sell too.

They already are.

 

[HyperionX]

Yes I have shot a gun. I have said before that gun control laws need to start with the sale of guns. Preventing from guns getting in the hands of criminals so easily. Make people responsible who they sell too.

It's too easy to buy a gun from private sales or on the black market for this to work. You either have do something more, like making it much harder to get a gun under any circumstances, or very tightly regulate the whole ownership side of guns.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It's too easy to buy a gun from private sales or on the black market for this to work. You either have do something more, like making it much harder to get a gun under any circumstances, or very tightly regulate the whole ownership side of guns.

No you don't.

 

[Milchjon]

How am I misinterpreting it? I mean, I can't say I really give a fig how Europeans would do. I mean, *is* there a gun "culture" for many people in the States? Sure. But that's not every gun owner and its disingenuous to try to paint it as such.

My ultimate view is if you don't like guns, don't own one. Problem solved. I'm not a pacifist and I enjoy recreational shooting.

I am talking about culture as the sum of beliefs, views and behaviors that members of a certain society share. You don't need the concept of a "gun culture", (which I agree is too strong a word for a large share of gun owners) to see that as you grew up in a part of the world where guns have a different meaning, that view of guns became part of your socialisation.
Guns as a concept are closer to your life's reality than to mine and the people around me. They're less "mystic" to you, for lack of a better word. You're able to see recreational shooting as something that's not wholly unusual.
And that view of firearms is very much a cultural thing. Note that I'm not referring to an overly strong infatuation with guns (which I'm sure exists in a lot of people, becaus guns are fascinating things), but to the fact that many Americans have a completely different understanding of guns as a part of life compared to parts of the rest of the world.

 

[Shake Appeal]

To be fair, Germany also has about a 1/4 of the population the US does, not saying you don't have a point but I hate when people use raw numbers when the groups aren't the same in size.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

The rate for gun homicide by firearm in the US, on this data, is 2.97 per 100,000 people, compared to 0.19 in Germany; all other things being equal, a US citizen is 15 times more likely to be a gun homicide victim.

 

[Milchjon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

The rate for gun homicide by firearm in the US, on this data, is 2.97 per 100,000 people, compared to 0.19 in Germany; all other things being equal, a US citizen is 15 times more likely to be a gun homicide victim.

Holy moly at some of those numbers. The closest thing to the US when it comes to firearms per 100 citizens is Yemen with 54.8, while the US has 88.8 and every other country is <50.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I am talking about culture as the sum of beliefs, views and behaviors that members of a certain society share. You don't need the concept of a "gun culture", (which I agree is too strong a word for a large share of gun owners) to see that as you grew up in a part of the world where guns have a different meaning, that view of guns became part of your socialisation.
Guns as a concept are closer to your life's reality than to mine and the people around me. They're less "mystic" to you, for lack of a better word. You're able to see recreational shooting as something that's not wholly unusual.
And that view of firearms is very much a cultural thing. Note that I'm not referring to an overly strong infatuation with guns (which I'm sure exists in a lot of people, becaus guns are fascinating things), but to the fact that many Americans have a completely different understanding of guns as a part of life compared to parts of the rest of the world.

So different people are different? Heh, I thought GAF was big on cultural relativism I mean, I get where you're coming from and I respect your right to your views but at the end of the day there *isn't* anything unusual about shooting for recreation. Or hunting. There really isn't. Once you get over the "cultural taboo" and the rhetoric that "all guns are bad and a gun in the hand of a good, morally centered citizen with no criminal record will MAKE them go outside and murder school kids!" it's a very fun, engaging hobby that as a side bonus can help one go out and hunt food or defend their property/lives if the need ever occurred.

Shit, I just got back from the gun range today. Shot my new semi-automatic rifle for an hour. It was good stuff. My scope is off a bit, I'll work on that. But outside of that nothing bad happened. I drove to the range, took my rifle out the trunk, went shooting, put my gun back in the car and came home. No one got hurt. No one died. I didn't flip out and kill a bunch of people. Considering the 45 million Americans that own firearms it's downright insulting when people claim they KNOW I must be one hair away from climbing a clocktower because...well..."that's what people with guns do!"

I advocate training. Learning the core rules of gun safety and being responsible with your firearms. I used to think the way many people here do until I read up myself and gave it a try with some buddies.

A gun isn't bad. Owning a gun isn't bad. A gun is a neutral word like water or flame. It's what the person with it chooses to do with it that determines what happens.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

The rate for gun homicide by firearm in the US, on this data, is 2.97 per 100,000 people, compared to 0.19 in Germany; all other things being equal, a US citizen is 15 times more likely to be a gun homicide victim.

No doubt there is a problem but to come to the conclusion that the problem is in and of itself with guns and the removal of them would solve the problem is wrong. If access to firearms is what's causing the murder rate in the US then wouldn't Canada have a similar rate? I mean look at nations like Switzerland and Israel, where many adults keep their firearms at home, should have higher murder rates, but they don't.

Also wouldn't the areas with the most restrictive gun laws in the USA also have the lowest crime rates? In fact it's the opposite. Those cities tend to have extremely high crime rates.

I think the core of the problem is much deeper and more troubling than the ownership of guns themselves among law abiding citizens.

 

[Milchjon]

A gun isn't bad. Owning a gun isn't bad. A gun is a neutral word like water or flame. It's what the person with it chooses to do with it that determines what happens.

In principle I agree with you on that. Maybe apart from the fact that water or a flame weren't invented solely to harm, which, no matter how you use them today, is a fact for guns.

But the problem, and I'm repeating myself here, is that you're arguing what a society where guns are more common should be like, where people are responsible and only use firearms the way you're describing. While I am arguing what it is like, based on the numbers I mentioned before.

Edit: Regarding Switzerland: They're right next door to us, they have a higher standard of living and GDP per capita AFAIK, and yet their homicide rate by firearms is 0.77 compared to 0.19 in Germany per 100,000 citizens. And their suicide by firearms rate is through the roof.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

In principle I agree with you on that. Maybe apart from the fact that water or a flame weren't invented solely to harm, which, no matter how you use them today, is a fact for guns.

Yes, guns harm. As much as a knife is designed to cut. Or a fire is designed to burn. It's what the person wielding those things CHOOSES to do with it that makes it perfectly ok in many many circumstances. And that's not in and of itself a "bad" thing. A gun is a tool. It can be a tool to obtain food. It can be a tool to protect food (if you live in a rural area and have ever had to deal with coyotes snatching livestock or worse - attacking children). It can be a tool for defense of ones home. It can be a tool for defense in public (where allowed legally) I'm not allowed to carry in NY so I don't carry. Period. (Honestly, I don't feel the need/desire to. Looking like a mugger pretty much keeps muggers away from me.) It can be used for target practice which causes zero harm to any living thing. And as I'm sure many will point out it can be used INCORRECTLY by CRIMINALS to enact harm on innocent people. As a gun owner that disgusts me and makes me sad. But we don't need more gun control. We need idiot control.

But the problem, and I'm repeating myself here, is that you're arguing what a society where guns are more common should be like, where people are responsible and only use firearms the way you're describing. While I am arguing what it is like, based on the numbers I mentioned before.

No. What I'm arguing is that there are MANY MANY examples of places with HIGH gun ownership rates and LOW crime rates. My point is that if what people are saying about how "bad" guns are is true then it should be the exact opposite. These are facts and you can go look up the crime/murder rates for these rural places in the US with HIGH gun ownership rates and low crime. It's not about the weapon. It's about the society.

The problem isn't guns per-se. It's far deeper and more disturbing. And if you look and all the "youth" murders it has a GREAT deal to do with the drug trade. Shit, I think legalizing drugs would drop the American murder rate (North & South America) FAR quicker and larger than prohibition and "feel good" gun control that accomplishes NOTHING against those that willfully chose to take an innocent life.

Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I really do respect and appreciate your position. I just don't fundamentally agree with it. But I have enjoyed this conversation ^.^

 

[Milchjon]

Yes, guns harm. As much as a knife is designed to cut. Or a fire is designed to burn. It's what the person wielding those things CHOOSES to do with it that makes it perfectly ok in many many circumstances. And that's not in and of itself a "bad" thing. A gun is a tool. It can be a tool to obtain food. It can be a tool to protect food (if you live in a rural area and have ever had to deal with coyotes snatching livestock or worse - attacking children). It can be a tool for defense of ones home. It can be a tool for defense in public (where allowed legally) I'm not allowed to carry in NY so I don't carry. Period. (Honestly, I don't feel the need/desire to. Looking like a mugger pretty much keeps muggers away from me.) It can be used for target practice which causes zero harm to any living thing. And as I'm sure many will point out it can be used INCORRECTLY by CRIMINALS to enact harm on innocent people. As a gun owner that disgusts me and makes me sad. But we don't need more gun control. We need idiot control.

This I don't agree with. While there are some other, non-violent applications, when you look at them historically, they have been designed to harm. And especially back then, usually primarily to harm people.

What I'm saying is a weapon is not a tool like every other. A knive or fire a fire, while they can be harmful, are not primarily a weapon. They have uses as non-weapons. A firearm really doesn't.

Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I really do respect and appreciate your position. I just don't fundamentally agree with it. But I have enjoyed this conversation ^.^

I typed a longer response, but that would've just lead down deeper into the argument. So I'll just say "likewise!". ;-)

 

[Chumly]

It's too easy to buy a gun from private sales or on the black market for this to work. You either have do something more, like making it much harder to get a gun under any circumstances, or very tightly regulate the whole ownership side of guns.

There is a reason why its so easy to get guns from private sales. Its basically unregulated. Private sales should fall under the same restrictions as FFL dealers. In addition I think that there should be more punishment for straw purchases. I'm more than willing to pay more to have these restrictions put in place.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

There is a reason why its so easy to get guns from private sales. Its basically unregulated. Private sales should fall under the same restrictions as FFL dealers. In addition I think that there should be more punishment for straw purchases. I'm more than willing to pay more to have these restrictions put in place.

It varies from state to state and there are regulations no state allows you to transfer a gun to a prohibited person in that state. Claiming they are basically unregulated is absurd.

There are already laws regarding straw purchases, there is no need for additional laws. Complain to the Federal Government for not enforcing it's laws that it already has.

I'm not willing to pay more for the exorbitant fees for transfers that FFLs like to charge.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

It varies from state to state and there are regulations no state allows you to transfer a gun to a prohibited person in that state. Claiming they are basically unregulated is absurd.

There are already laws regarding straw purchases, then is no need for additional laws. Complain to the Federal Government for not enforcing it's laws that it already has.

I'm not willing to pay more for the exorbitant fees for transfers that FFLs like to charge.

Now that I think about it: This.

This I don't agree with. While there are some other, non-violent applications, when you look at them historically, they have been designed to harm. And especially back then, usually primarily to harm people.

Yes. They're designed to harm. That's not by default a bad thing. It's the manner in which they're used that determines if the harm was legal and authorized or illegal and an unauthorized crime.

TWhat I'm saying is a weapon is not a tool like every other. A knive or fire a fire, while they can be harmful, are not primarily a weapon. They have uses as non-weapons. A firearm really doesn't.

TOOL:

1
a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task
b (1) : the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) : a machine for shaping metal : machine tool
2
a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession <a scholar's books are his tools>
b : an element of a computer program (as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function <a drawing tool>
c : a means to an end <a book's cover can be a marketing tool>
d often vulgar : penis
3
: one that is used or manipulated by another
4
plural : natural ability <has all the tools to be a great pitcher>

Like I said. It's a tool. It's a device that accomplishes a task. The idea that since the task might be to harm a living being that it doesn't fit the definition of a tool is silly and we're getting into semantics at this point.

 

[Milchjon]

Now that I think about it: This.




Yes. They're designed to harm. That's not by default a bad thing. It's the manner in which they're used that determines if the harm was legal and authorized or illegal and an unauthorized crime.



TOOL:

1
a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task
b (1) : the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) : a machine for shaping metal : machine tool
2
a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession <a scholar's books are his tools>
b : an element of a computer program (as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function <a drawing tool>
c : a means to an end <a book's cover can be a marketing tool>
d often vulgar : penis
3
: one that is used or manipulated by another
4
plural : natural ability <has all the tools to be a great pitcher>

Like I said. It's a tool. It's a device that accomplishes a task. The idea that since the task might be to harm a living being that it doesn't fit the definition of a tool is silly and we're getting into semantics at this point.

Hmm, I never said it isn't a tool. Read what I wrote:

What I'm saying is a weapon is not a tool like every other. A knive or fire a fire, while they can be harmful, are not primarily a weapon. They have uses as non-weapons. A firearm really doesn't.

Spoiler

I'm not sure if you misread or if I phrased it wrong, since English isn't my first language

Case in point, here's a post of mine from yesterday:

I don't see a firearm as inherently evil. It's a tool. But since it's a very efficient tool that has only one purpose, which is bodily harm, the effects of allowing its use are negative.

What I'm saying is that there's a fundamental difference compared to the other tools we talked about in that it has very little purpose apart from harm, when other tools that can be harmful have those non-harmful primary uses.

And note that I also said this doesn't make it inherently evil. I just think having guns around makes it easier for people to do more harm.