US Gun Control General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Yeah, I don't understand this thing of not being able to talk about gun control in threads where it applies.
shinobi602
Member
More like always prepared just in case. Better safe than sorry. I like to have it and not need it, than to need it in a desperate situation.
The world is still a pretty dangerous place.
yn-neko hates a cat
Banned
You want to execute our armed forces service men?
In other words, killing most of the USA population?
yn-neko hates a cat
Banned
Most?
shinobi602
Member
Society that is better morally, I guess? I don't know. I wouldn't feel the need to carry if I was living in one of those countries, probably.
We have a police force. They don't really instanteously show up at your door at the press of a button.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Regardless of any of that a person has a right to carry if it's legal in their area. Gun ownership by civilians has prevented many a crime. If the media reported on these incidents the way we report on mass shootings it'd be extremely skewed for those using it for legit self defense.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Regardless of any of that a person has a right to carry if it's legal in their area. Gun ownership by civilians has prevented many a crime. If the media reported on these incidents the way we report on mass shootings it'd be extremely skewed for those using it for legit self defense.
Where did they get the latter statistic? About a year ago I was asking for that exact data and I could not for the life of me find any, and no-one else on either side of the issue could either.
you are able to, perhaps you can't sense the riled passive aggression of the OP?
this isn't some fringe agenda that people are crowbarring into places it doesn't belong.
Shake Appeal
Member
The UK has a parliamentary system that is actually effective at allowing the elected government to pass legislation, and whichever government is in power will be more than happy to pass radical legislation if it is both politically expedient and relevant to their agenda.
The US, on the other hand, has a system explicitly designed to deny effective governance to any one element that doesn't have an overwhelming consensus of support, and a reactionary unwillingness to so much as tinker with a centuries-old Constitution, one which foolishly enshrined gun-ownership rights as one among a number of compromises made with the belligerent early states (who were wary of federalism, having just been liberated from what they perceived to be a tyrannical British Empire). It also grants more power to lobbyists (and the almighty dollar) than just about any other Western democracy, and aggressive outside forces like the NRA, not to mention widely engrained cultural support for gun-ownership as a 'civil right', can not only roadblock any moves toward tighter laws, but can end the political careers of those who attempt such moves.
P.S. Many Americans find the idea that 'society' or the government should protect you kind of terrifying, so it's kind of hard to sell them on the idea that their society isn't working by suggesting the government play a great role in their personal safety.
I carry concealed. My wife was robbed at gunpoint and almost killed. She still suffers from PTSD now because of it. The guy was shot and killed when he pulled it on a cop after leaving the business. He was robbing a insurance business in broad daylight to get money for drugs(crack). People are crazy and willing
to do bad things to people. I hadn't picked up a gun in years until that situation.
to do bad things to people. I hadn't picked up a gun in years until that situation.
In that case America has an even bigger problem because the rest of the world manages just fine with defending themselves without guns
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Guess I should have worded that better. I wasn't being sarcastic, I agree with you. I was talking about the idea that it's not allowed to be discussed in those threads.
show me your skeleton
Member
sorry for being naive but why would anyone want/need more than five guns?
entremet
Member
No passive aggressiveness here. No aggressiveness anywhere online from me. Not worth it. But without tone, facial expression and the like can I see how its easy to read into thing online, especially with the lack of nuance that voice tone and body language provide.
I have only seen this (police patrolling with assault rifles) after very specific (and rare) events - Ronan Kerr murder, the army barrack massacre a few years back. I would say, when compared to the south and mainland Britain, NI is a special case.
captainnapalm
Member
My two cents: Gun control isn't the answer. Gun crime is a sympton of deeper social problems. You need to treat the cause, and the cause is not freely available guns. If the society was a happy, equal and prosperous one you could give every citizen their own arsenal and they wouldn't wind up killing people.
Found it, it's by a gun rights group and references estimates and some studies done in the 90's, but doesn't go into much detail:
http://www.saf.org/images/TruckBrochure.pdf
yn-neko hates a cat
Banned
Many people have guns for collections. No one actually plans to use vintage WW2 pistols for self-defense.
It is kind of scary with all the corrupt cops and politicians out there.
teruterubozu
Member
Why is such a serious topic labeled with "Garbage" in the title? Even the 9/11 conspiracy thread gets more respect.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Violent crime is very scary, but it is also extraordinarily unlikely. I can't imagine that any external threat is more dangerous, statistically, than keeping a weapon in the home and on your person.
Yes, but it's less dangerous now and he was making the assertion that society is getting worse and it's more dangerous. So... the exact opposite of fact.
entremet
Member
Fair point. I'll ask a mod to rename it.
Shake Appeal
Member
I've heard this plenty of times, and while I agree with the idea that gun control isn't the sole solution and we should instead address deeper-seeded societal problems (principal among which in the US is income/wealth inequality), there is literally no good reason we can't do both.
show me your skeleton
Member
ah, i see. so they still count? i would've thought they were made useless somehow. again, i'm pretty naive on the situation.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The implication of the latter stat is that 799,000 murders a year are prevented (partially?) by using guns in self-defence. That's crazy. Highest murder rate in the world = Honduras with 91 per 100,000. US has 4.2 per 100,000. 799,000 murders a year in the US would give the US a gun homicide rate of 266 per 100,000. You'd be looking at a bare minimum of 61 in 62 would-be murders being stopped or mitigated by using guns in self-defence. :O
Had this little idea a few days ago.
People in the US seem to be mostly talking about banning "assault weapons", so they want the big guns gone, but keep the small handguns, then usually someone who is pro guns pulls up the statistics, showing that basically the absolute majority of crimes is committed with handguns, so banning assault weapons wouldn't change much at all.
So I was thinking, what if you ban everything but the big guns? (Obviously full automatics would still be banned)
Think about it, muggers would have a harder job, because some shotgun is much harder to hide than a handgun, the problem of "We had to shoot him because he might have been armed" wouldn't exist anymore, because you'd see right away if he's armed or not.
Obviously there are a few problems, like what about the concealed gun carriers, or what if people start modifying the rifles in a way that they become concealable again.
But the basic point of the idea is that you could somehow change gun laws in a way that everyone who had a gun would wear a big sign over their had that says "I have a gun"
Would a robber really risk walking through the streets, knowing that there's a constant risk that a cop might see him?
People in the US seem to be mostly talking about banning "assault weapons", so they want the big guns gone, but keep the small handguns, then usually someone who is pro guns pulls up the statistics, showing that basically the absolute majority of crimes is committed with handguns, so banning assault weapons wouldn't change much at all.
So I was thinking, what if you ban everything but the big guns? (Obviously full automatics would still be banned)
Think about it, muggers would have a harder job, because some shotgun is much harder to hide than a handgun, the problem of "We had to shoot him because he might have been armed" wouldn't exist anymore, because you'd see right away if he's armed or not.
Obviously there are a few problems, like what about the concealed gun carriers, or what if people start modifying the rifles in a way that they become concealable again.
But the basic point of the idea is that you could somehow change gun laws in a way that everyone who had a gun would wear a big sign over their had that says "I have a gun"
Would a robber really risk walking through the streets, knowing that there's a constant risk that a cop might see him?
someone do a quick gaf search for 799,000 threads started by manos.
in most developed countries, handguns are equal to assault weapons in their illegality, while it's still common for farmers to own a shotgun.
should they modify it to make it more compact they'd be looking at jail time.
shinobi602
Member
If you can 100% guarantee that no violent harm will befall me or my family, I will gladly get rid of this gun.
You can hide a lot under a coat.
Cheers, really appreciate that. Very interesting to read, because it's all so baffling looking on.
If mass shootings were happening as often over here Downing Street would basically be besieged until they said how they were going to address it. The same thing happened on a different scale with the London riots.
It's hard to get your head round the idea of a wild west mentality where everyone is out for themselves, because by definition just as you are given the power to defend yourself then others have to power to violate other people's rights. And a modern society should be about protecting those most vulnerable and unable to defend themselves. I just can't see how it can be seen any different.
Or how a constitution which applied to a completely different society and situation can still be so enshrined today. Would the founding fathers really have thought your average citizen should have a semi-automatic assault rifle just because the state has them?
I hope not, because then the citizens should have access to tactical nuclear weapons as well. It's all so bizarre.
Can you guarantee that no violent harm will befall you or your family while having a gun?
Spunky Monkey
Member
The people that say they need guns for protection and we shouldn't ban them. All the shootings that have appeared on the news lately don't show a single person using a gun for protection. Either that means most people don't carry guns for protection or they don't use them.
So what would the difference be if they were banned or more heavily regulated? Maybe guns in the home for protection works as a deterrent but out and about they don't?
So what would the difference be if they were banned or more heavily regulated? Maybe guns in the home for protection works as a deterrent but out and about they don't?
LyleLanley
Banned
Does a gun really change that?
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
I'm for concealed carry
You never know when you'll be accosted by two masked dudes jumping out of a bush
You never know when you'll be accosted by two masked dudes jumping out of a bush
If someone breaks into your home, you are safer with a gun than without.
captainnapalm
Member
I'd agree with that, but the argument in the media seems purely to revolve around gun control or no gun control, and that's really not getting to the root of the issue.
But if what J-Rod says is true here:
Well, that's a ridiculous level of gun control. You can't be that lax about it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Arguable. Possibly yes, possibly no.
Baconsammy
Banned
Guns dont save people. People save people.
Spunky Monkey
Member
The government doesn't seem to want to talk about gun laws for what ever reason around the election. Are more people who vote pro guns than those who'd rather feel safe and have stricter gun laws?
Maybe every time a civilian pulls out a gun and is documented by the police counts as "saving a life" to the statistic? That's the only way it makes sense.
maniac-kun
Member
They are just a industry that want to keep their sales up. They dont care who gets killed with the guns. Its a simptom of corporate America.
Onion_Relish
Member
You're just as likely to accidentally injure a family member with the gun than you are to repel an intruder. That's the problem with America, you think you control the guns, but really, they control you.
Also, American gun control is an oxymoron, just like skinny American. The only redeeming aspect of America's gun lust is that they will be the first to develop laser pistols, and that will be badass.
Also, American gun control is an oxymoron, just like skinny American. The only redeeming aspect of America's gun lust is that they will be the first to develop laser pistols, and that will be badass.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Lost track of the numbers, but this is not supported by statistics last I checked.
If you can get the drop on them, yes.
- Status