The US clearly has a serious gun violence problem though. Doing nothing about it is simply wrong. At least try something, or run policy experiments in similar states and compare results, or something.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NRA's solution to Sandy Hook massacre: "armed guards" in every school
- Thread starter Josh7289
- Start date
- Status
The US clearly has a serious gun violence problem though. Doing nothing about it is simply wrong. At least try something, or run policy experiments in similar states and compare results, or something.
Oh, definitely. Don't get me wrong. I was just being a stickler on the Japan thing. Something definitely needs to be done.
That's what I hate about these gun debates. I don't see how gun defenders can argue that the status quo is okay. If I were to fuck up at work and break something, my employers and teammates wouldn't be like, "well, things are too broken already...it's too hard to change... let's just hope it doesn't happen again". If an NFL player fucked up and fumbled the ball 3 times in a row, the coach wouldn't say, "well, let's leave him in the game... it's too late to change things now". etc.
Even if you don't know how to solve the problem, at least TALK about it; at least TRY something. Don't say things like, "It's our right to have guns, period." Consider the options. Question your laws.
To the Americans here: what's it like right now?
Last week, there seemed to be a lot of outrage. It felt different: like there was going to be change this time. How does it feel like now? Do you still think something will be done?
From here (Canada), it seems to be following the pattern of the other massacres. It's still in the news, but less so... after the holidays, I'd be surprised if it was mentioned much anymore, sadly.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
thats a no no
True but the Government knows who owns a car who doesn't. Why isn't there a national gun registry?
Because it costs money is my guess. Just add a gun tax to pay for it IMO.
Requiring licensing shouldn't violate the right to own guns assuming that the average person would be able to get that license after fees and paperwork.
I find it amazing that you need a license and insurance to cut and style hair or operate heavy machinery; however when it comes to a tool that can only destroy and never create it's a free for fall grab bag.
Devolution
Member
They did when I was going to highschool. Truant patrol basically. My issue is armed guards on campus.
Just saw this article on this similar subject.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/video-2009-abc-news-experiment-demonstrates-more-guns-unlikely-to-stop-mass-shootings/
http://www.nationalmemo.com/video-2009-abc-news-experiment-demonstrates-more-guns-unlikely-to-stop-mass-shootings/
Mammoth Jones
Member
Ok.I just prefer to start at the problem of criminal violence and not focus on "banning" a firearm that isn't even used in the majority of crimes.
-A requirement for gun safes in the home.
-A national law requiring the reporting of stolen/lost guns to the police.
-Dealing with mental illness, poverty and ending the drug war.
-Cutting military spending to fund it.
These are reasonable solutions.
Shouta
Member
It doesn't prove him wrong. Applying a historical and national point to the individual person doesn't work. If that were the case, everyone in the world would be violent because every country or societal entity has fought in some fashion. It'd be just like calling every American a slob or every Japanese person an otaku, etc.
His point is half right. It's not that Japanese people are inherently less violent. It's because their culture is constructed in a manner that fosters different attitudes and emotions. As a result, the problems that end up manifesting later are either of a different magnitude or variety. Even if guns were more readily available in Japan, it doesn't necessarily mean that gun violence would become an epidemic there.
This is not to say that culture is the only issue. It'd be far better if we didn't have guns period, as it removes any possibility of this kind of tragedy from occurring so easily. But because people want to still have access to them, it needs to be much more regulated and restricted than it is now.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
-Gun registration with periodic check ups so straw sellers don't purchase guns and then sell them to fellons.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Perhaps. If we could sit down and hash out the details of "periodic check ups" then sure. Yea, I'd be willing to compromise on that.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Over here we just have to go to the police station once every three years and show our guns, so the police know that you still own them.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
I approve of all of these.
Also add more funding for after school programs which also include meals given at these places.
fastford58
Member
Every licensed gun owner in Canada is run through CPIC everyday. It is an automated process, it is an invisible process.
I have no problems with this, really. If I'm dumb enough to commit a crime that would get me a prohibition, I probably should not be keeping weapons.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I was under the impression that one has to "go to the police" as well.
fastford58
Member
What do you mean?
Christberg
Member
Proper gun licensure laws that require you to demonstrate no record of psychological issues or criminal history, competence with said firearm and demonstrate that you are familiar with gun laws. For pistols, assault rifles etc. more stringent licensing that requires regular physical (drug screenings) and mental health checkups as well as regular, more stringent competence testing. Failure of exam revokes license, ability to purchase ammunition. Gun license renewal requires transport of firearms to licensing site for surrender in case of failure.
And yes, our dangerously gutted public healthcare and welfare systems are a serious driver of violence in general.
Byakuya769
Member
LEAVE MY FUCKING SLAVES ALONE!!!! -POW POW POW-
Dreams-Visions
Member
-Annual, federally-funded gun buy-back programs
Mammoth Jones
Member
If it's voluntary: Deal.
Dude Abides
Banned
Also a pony for everyone.
If gun control is hard but worth aiming for, so is that.
User Name Here
Member
Just popped in to do this.
That's who I think it is right? Gangster guy from that movie... "say hello to my little friend" guy?
That's silly. Of course a weapon can be inherently more dangerous than another weapon, regardless of if the wielder just uses it responsibly.
I don't know a lot about politics but none of these sound unreasonable to me. I'm from a country that has a low incidence of gun violence and mass killings compared to America and most of these suggestions have been in effect here for a very long time.
Mammoth Jones
Member
It's not silly at all. A bushmaster .223 with 232402 rounds in a magazine in the hands of a law-abiding citizen at the gun range is many many times *LESS* dangerous than a 9mm with a 10rd magazine in the hands of a suicidal maniac that just broke into a classroom. You're *only* looking at the potential "destructive capabilities" of the device void of any context for HOW they are used.
And people do that and scoff and say "I don't see any reason why someone would NEED such a thing." All the while ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun crime is done with pistols.
Just makes sense to me and is a far better alternative than removing rights from the one hundred million law-abiding gun owners in America.
I'll break it down for you...
Mad man with an assault rifle = danger level 9000
Mad man with a hand gun = danger level 2000
Mad man with a knife = danger level 100
The obvious solution is to remove guns altogether, but you start with those that are more dangerous. Its not like you use guns for cooking or for breaking open cardboard boxes...its either something wrought from fear and a desire for self defence, a tool used to kill or harm, or a selfish recreational or materialistic thing that is dangerous in the wider picture.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
he's my fundemental issue.
If one takes the concept of the "medium is the message" as a relatively truthful statement, and one looks at a gun as the medium, what is the message?
The guns fundemental purpose is to shoot projectiles at high velocity towards things which tend to be moving, or in other words, living things.
It serves no other purpose whatsoever. Whether it's being shot out of protection, for food or in malice is beyond the point. The fact is that it's only purpose is to harm living things.
Is that really an item which we should celebrate? which we should protect? And should it be the right for people to own an object, whose sole purpose is to cause harm to life?
If one takes the concept of the "medium is the message" as a relatively truthful statement, and one looks at a gun as the medium, what is the message?
The guns fundemental purpose is to shoot projectiles at high velocity towards things which tend to be moving, or in other words, living things.
It serves no other purpose whatsoever. Whether it's being shot out of protection, for food or in malice is beyond the point. The fact is that it's only purpose is to harm living things.
Is that really an item which we should celebrate? which we should protect? And should it be the right for people to own an object, whose sole purpose is to cause harm to life?
Mammoth Jones
Member
And the other 100 million law abiding gun owners that didnt break any laws?
And what about caliber of ammo? Is a semi auto .22 now more of dangerous than a .45 handgun?
The ease of concealability alone makes pistols on a whole other tier compared to long guns. It's sorta why criminals use pistols the vast majority of the time...
Stop being selfish and think of all the lives that could be saved if your lust for killing machines as toys, collectibles, recreational objects, or defensive tools, could be put to rest.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
and what about the 100 million other law abiding gun owners who had their guns and failed to anything to stop that shooting? Doesn't it seem pretty fucking useless for 100 million people to have guns and fail to stop a single man from killing innocent children with his.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
I still can't understand how this is hand waved by pro gun people.
Wide availability of guns in the US is the direct cause of gun violence: just see the statistics. The US is number 10 in the world and the only countries ahead are either failed states or countries with such a crime problem the worst LA has to offer is just a picnic in comparison.
Wide availability of guns creates an instant scalation of conflict since the chance someone else is carrying instantly makes shooting to kill the safest option.
Every time you look at your guns think of the 60k+ injures per year and the 10k+ deaths per year - that's the real price of that shiny colt in your closet. I've removed suicides from those figures by the way.
Heck the NRA with the GOP complicity has defunded the ATF and blocked the appointment of a director for years. The reality of the situation is that gun proponents have removed all the checks and balances. Heck people can buy weapons on gun shows without a waiting period or background check.
I'm always amazed by how the United States is the most ardent religious country amongst first world nations yet when push comes to shove they behave like psychopaths when it comes to public policy. Meals for the poor, better healthcare for everyone, taking care guns are properly regulated...
Angelus Errare
Banned
It's hard to believe that some people think "but they're fun!" suddenly means they're beyond criticism. It's the height of selfishness.
Only one nation in the history of the world has used nuclear weapons on another country, yet everyone would be safer with less of them to go around. Deescalation not escalation.
Had an enlightening chat with the extended family at a holiday gathering last night.
My sister-in-law thinks teachers should be armed.
She also thinks the government has been programing these killers to garner public support to take our guns away.
And we should prepare for revolution if the Guv'ment comes for our guns.
And the UN is raising an army to take our freedom.
I didn't have enough face palms to handle the stupidity of it all.
My sister-in-law thinks teachers should be armed.
She also thinks the government has been programing these killers to garner public support to take our guns away.
And we should prepare for revolution if the Guv'ment comes for our guns.
And the UN is raising an army to take our freedom.
I didn't have enough face palms to handle the stupidity of it all.
Dude Abides
Banned
Gun legislation can be passed in a few months. Solving poverty is a pie in the sky pipe dream that will never happen - it's pointless to discuss in this context. Not to mention that gun safes have little to do with prior shootings and the drug war has fuck all to do with anything. I understand that gun lovers want to talk about anything and everything that doesn't involve actually restricting guns.but I don't have to fall for it.
The shit you hear from conspiracy nuts... Hell that illuminati bullshit makes my head hurts.
More than that, there is very little talk on the inherent conflict of interest between for-profit gun manufacturers and the country's welfare. Even putting groups like the NRA aside, there was an actual effort around the 70's to market guns to women and young people after saturating the market of white males. Teens weren't finding guns, they were being shown to them. Similarly, these "armed guards" are nothing but a new market to profit from at our society's expense.
Conspiracy theorists use reverse Occam's Razor.
I guess to some people is this sort of reality more acceptable then that they're just some maniacs out there who will kill little children for no reason whatsoever.
I don't see him/her lusting. I think they're just being realistic in looking at the whole picture. Trying to ban/outlaw guns would probably go about as well as outlawing liquor, but more violently. I think controlling something that already exists that is dangerous is better than knowingly starting chaos over it.
Mammoth Jones
Member
The vitriol and personal attacking is completely unnecessary and not conductive at all to a civil debate.
Yea, because criminals won't be criminals if I didn't have my gun. They'd just go do something else?
You're not making any sense in that regard and no, I will not give up my right to self defense nor my means to self defense. You however can feel free to not own a firearm of any kind. That is entirely your right. And I completely respect that.
Some would, yes.
Others would still be criminals, just with less devastating results.
I'm sorry, Mammoth, I mostly agree with some of the proposals you put forth, but the "criminals will still be criminals" reasoning is kind of BS. People, in fits of depression, break down, panic, whatever the hell is going on, a lot of times reach for the easiest avenue of lashing out. If you take that option off the table, or make that option definitely not the easiest avenue and not as tempting, yes some criminals will just go do something else. A portion of gun deaths aren't criminals being criminals. They're humans being human, and guns being guns and amplifying the effects.
- Status