Gun Control

[Nilum]

This'll be my last response for the time being, and then I'll go get some tea and maybe reply again sometime later.

Then why are people constantly pressing for stricter gun laws with those odds? That's kinda paranoid in itself don't ya think? The thought process of "Less people should have guns because I'm scared of a mass shooting or some random Joe shooting me" is also toxic.

Less paranoia and more framework oriented. If guns are dangerous (which they are) then have a methodology in place of educating, licencing, and limiting them. You can reduce the number of accidental child fatalities at home by storing ammo elsewhere, you can reduce the odds of rage-induced murder in public by preventing guns from being loaded with ammo in public, so forth. Not everyone will obey those laws, but that doesn't mean the law is useless--it can lower the prevalence of something. Murder is illegal, it doesn't stop murder--but we still have laws against murder, because it's just sensible to do so.

Ergo why I also disagree with banning guns, but support gun control--licencing and the like makes sense. Same way as it does for a car--which you can also use to kill a lot of people really quickly.

Laws and regulations won't save you either That was basically what I was trying to say all along. The mass shootings in America happen at a steady pace and very rarely at that. A gun by itself is simply an object and cannot harm anyone. Only when someone is using it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Therefore people are the problem, not guns. If anything, gun violence is nowhere near as bad in America as mass media hypes it up to be. It's actually decreased over the years and once you control for population, is very minuscule.

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

http://americangunfacts.com/

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

"Nukes don't kill people. People kill people."

Logic faulty; try again.

The gun violence in the US is honestly pretty absurd when contrasted to any of its first world neighbours. Canada, the UK, France, Germany, even Switzerland--all have more gun control, all have less gun related violence.

Gun control by itself will not prevent gun violence, but it's a step in the right direction--along with treating the mentally ill, dismantling ghettos, stopping the drug war, ending private prisons, abolishing non-violent federal criminal sentences that disproportionately target minorities, and so forth. It is one tool in the toolbox. You need more than just one nail to make a bird house--but every nail helps.

 

[SacredWarrior]

The gun violence in the US is honestly pretty absurd when contrasted to any of its first world neighbours. Canada, the UK, France, Germany, even Switzerland--all have more gun control, all have less gun related violence.

Their populations are much smaller. America has over 300 million people. The gun violence is proportionate to us which is why population control is such a factor in these statistics. The more people you have, the more crime you're gonna have. That's just common sense. You literally just used that example for California after all. You also have to consider cultural differences which can't be helped.

Also GUN homicides may decrease but not OVERALL homicides. In fact, gun control makes them skyrocket. One of the sources I shared earlier proves this. When gun control decreases overall violence (which it doesn't), only then can it be considered effective. In fact, America isn't even in the top 10 for gun violence. Even when you limit the comparison to European countries. Again see my source.

There's a reason why Switzerland has a far lower murder rate than the U.K. Hell your own country (Canada) has less gun violence because of your gun ownership being so high in the first place. It's not because of gun control. Most citizens in America (and other first world countries) are law-abiding citizens so even with your restrictions, we'll still have high ownership therefore proving my point even more. It's not as easy to get a gun in America as everyone thinks it is. It varies by state remember? The more guns you have in a country, the less gun violence (and overall violence) you have. America has more guns than people which is why the government can't regulate them all. It's literally impossible for them. Maybe if state and federal government work together, we'll have more responsibility but even that is slippery at best.

The gun laws are different by state and sometimes city. We don't have universal gun laws because it would violate our 2nd Amendment (just like how we don't have hate speech laws), it would just turn into another War On Drugs (which no one wants or needs), and because of how huge the U.S. is. Gun control should be a state issue. Let them choose how they want to handle their guns. You can't compare the entire U.S. to other countries. A state by state comparison is better.

Gun control by itself will not prevent gun violence, but it's a step in the right direction--along with treating the mentally ill, dismantling ghettos, stopping the drug war, ending private prisons, abolishing non-violent federal criminal sentences that disproportionately target minorities, and so forth. It is one tool in the toolbox. You need more than just one nail to make a bird house--but every nail helps.

I can actually agree with this. Most gun control advocates that I speak to think that only gun control is the answer.

you can reduce the odds of rage-induced murder in public by preventing guns from being loaded with ammo in public

Law enforcement and military are exempt I hope?

 

[ShadowCoyote0]

Ah yes, the wonderful question of gun control. I'll come out and say it, there needs to be regulations on owning a gun. Gun safety classes, stopping the sales of assault weapons, and for the love of God, perform background checks. If someone has a history of violence or mental problems, they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun. As far as using the second amendment as a reason for no regulation, there are 2 problems. First of all, this was made during a time when the gun of choice was a musket. A mass shooting is not possible with musket. By the time the time the first shot is fires, everyone then has time to either run away or take down the shooter while he tries to load the next shot. Second, our founding fathers realized that as times changed, the Constitution would need to change as well, that's why amendments were introduced. Guns have drastically changed, our laws regarding them must also change. Lastly, I often hear the argument that people will still find ways to get a gun, so why make laws to make it harder on everyone else. That's the same as saying "well, people break the rules of the road all the time by speeding and running red lights, so we shouldn't have any rules to begin with." I don't have a problem with qualified people owning things like handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles for their own protection, but when any psychopath can get their hands on an AR15, then we have a problem.

 

[SacredWarrior]

Lastly, I often hear the argument that people will still find ways to get a gun, so why make laws to make it harder on everyone else.

If The War On Drugs was a failure, what makes you think a War On Guns will be any better? Prohibition simply does not work. Never has, never will. History shows this.

stopping the sales of assault weapons

You can't do that. If someone wants to sell their own guns, they have every right to do that. The black market on guns can't be stopped either

 

[SacredWarrior]

A mass shooting is not possible with musket.

You'd be surprised. Any mass killings are possible with any weapon. Just ask China. That one country that's had mass stabbings with over 50+ people being killed? Far more than any mass shooting in American history?

 

[ShadowCoyote0]

You'd be surprised. Any mass killings are possible with any weapon. Just ask China. That one country that's had mass stabbings with over 50+ people being killed? Far more than any mass shooting in American history?

I'll admit, in the right hands, any weapon can be used to kill a lot of people. However, your example of a mass stabbing in China has a nasty variable in it, population. China is competing with Indian for the highest population. So, you take on overpopulated area with what I imagined was a enclosed area and of course someone with a knife is going to cause a lot of destruction. So yes, that may be more than any mass shooting in America, but they have the higher population, and therefore more potential victims. Take a look at two of history's most notorious leaders, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. Technically speaking, Mao Zedong was responsible more deaths within his population, however, Stalin killed off a higher percentage of of his country's population. Looping back to our previous topic of musket vs knife, context is very important. As far as your rebuttal to my others points, I may have made myself unclear. I'm fully aware that changing the law won't eliminate the gun problem, but I genuinely feel that it's the first step and that we will see less gun violence taking place. There will always be a black market for something, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action to lessen the problem

 

[Goldmarble]

You'd be surprised. Any mass killings are possible with any weapon. Just ask China. That one country that's had mass stabbings with over 50+ people being killed? Far more than any mass shooting in American history?

Hunh, did a quick search, this is the most prevalent knife attack that comes up:

Largest attack I found reference to was the 2014 Kunming attack, in which 35 innocent people were killed (Including 2 security guards), along with 4 of the perpetrators and 143 people who were injured. Do note, I have no reference on how many of those injured, were directly caused by the attackers, how many were injured by possible crowd reaction, how many may have been injured by the Security, or Police.
Note, that there were 8 perpetrators of the attack.

Then found this: http://www.mining.com/fifty-killed-in-a-knife-attack-at-a-chinese-colliery/

50 people killed, 50 injured, as a result of 9 assailants.
Please do not omit factual information that is somewhat relevant to the conversation at hand. Most of the topic is focusing on mass shootings committed by lone, or perhaps pairs of gunmen (in the case of Columbine). Most large knife attacks require the coordinated effort of more than three people. The two attacks I have dug up, needed 8 and 9 people, respectively. By omitting such information, and just claiming "50+ people dead" in a thread where we are primarily talking of lone gunmen, is somewhat misleading.