Gun Control, RE: Charleston Massacre

[-Cynthia-]

Gun control enforcement in U.S. cities has had mixed results. Chicago(or D.C.) for instance, has extremely strict gun control laws but high levels of gun crime (a lot of the guns used in crimes in Chicago are purchased in places like Indiana). As a counterexample, New Orleans has rather lax gun laws(and the state of Louisiana even moreso) and also has very high levels of gun crime.

So overall, I wouldn't conclude that gun-free zones in cities reduce crime, but I also wouldn't conclude that criminals seem to be deterred by the threat of citizens carrying guns. There are just too many guns easily available in the US right now for city-wide laws to be effective IMO.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/14/despite-recent-shootings-chicago-nowhere-near-u-s-murder-capital/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/15/1599631/no-chicago-isnt-proof-that-gun-regulation-doesnt-work/

[Chiki]

So overall, I wouldn't conclude that gun-free zones in cities reduce crime,

Only because, as you point out, those guns are purchased in places like Indiana. If they banned guns nationwide in the US, maybe the result would be different.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

So overall, I wouldn't conclude that gun-free zones in cities reduce crime, but I also wouldn't conclude that criminals seem to be deterred by the threat of citizens carrying guns. There are just too many guns easily available in the US right now for city-wide laws to be effective IMO.

Have you tried comparing countries that are similar to the US but, despite having heavy gun restrictions, also have more crime? I can't see how heavy gun restrictions are helping countries like Brazil. See the comparison here.

I doubt anyone who defends guns can seriously answer this question with a "no" while maintaining a consistent argument: If three or less people involved in the massacre had guns, wouldn't there be less victims? If having guns lowers the amount of victims, then yes, I see it as beneficial.

And I don't accept "maybe they'd have no gun to begin with" as an answer because a case scenario where there are no guns in the US is very unlikely, if not unrealistic at all, whereas civillians having a gun and lowering the kill count in such case is more likely. Judging from both situations, the former is the best one. Thus, I prefer it.

I also find the notion that the best protests against totalitarian dictatorships are pacific protests as hilarious. Why not take a look at Venezuela's political prisoners or Cuba's? You can't argue with dictators, that much is obvious.

This isn't about crime in general though, or the levels of it. It's about gun crime. Gun availability. Ease of access to such powerful weapons designed to kill with ease. People dying every day as a result of such loose restrictions on the things. It's all senseless to me how it's allowed to simply carry on the way it is.

It feels to me as if your governments are saying, "Yeah we're fine with thousands of people being murdered with guns every year. We're not going to enforce stricter gun laws to try to reduce this number at all. GL HF."

I can't see how making civilians more vulnerable to criminals because the former have more availability to guns is beneficial, either!

Edited June 25, 2015 by Rapier

[-Cynthia-]

Have you tried comparing countries that are similar to the US but, despite having heavy gun restrictions, also have more crime? I can't see how heavy gun restrictions are helping countries like Brazil. See the comparison here.

Brazil has been dismissed in this thread(by Brazilians) as not being a similar country to the US overall- it's a closer comparison than Honduras or something but most people do not consider Brazil to be 'first world' although that matter is a bit complicated. I think the question that should be asked why the US isn't more like Canada, Japan, Australia, Western Europe etc. There are some cultural differences to be sure, but stricter gun control is a thing that these countries have in common that the US does not. While it would be naive to claim that gun control is the sole cause of fewer gun homicides, I have seen no data that indicates that stricter gun control in these countries cannot be a factor.

I doubt anyone who defends guns can seriously answer this question with a "no" while maintaining a consistent argument: If three or less people involved in the massacre had guns, wouldn't there be less victims? If having guns lowers the amount of victims, then yes, I see it as beneficial.

And I don't accept "maybe they'd have no gun to begin with" as an answer because a case scenario where there are no guns in the US is very unlikely, if not unrealistic at all, whereas civillians having a gun and lowering the kill count in such case is more likely. Judging from both situations, the former is the best one. Thus, I prefer it.

Do you have any evidence for this claim of what situation is 'likely' and what is not? It's just conjecture otherwise.

[BBM]

People keep saying NO GUNS IS UNREALISTIC. This is true; no guns are unrealistic, but no legal guns is realistic. And almost all the crime examples that have been listed in this thread (rape, burglary, mass-shootings) aren't committed for the most part by organized criminals with easy access to guns; they're committed by lone people who may not have knowledge of where to go and get guns illegally. I, for example, do not.

And if you think that banning guns will lead to people who have no plans on committing a crime also going out and getting guns illegally, then there is a serious gun culture problem that needs to be addressed. People in almost every first-world country get by without guns. Why is America so different that the populace absolutely needs guns?

As for IEDs stopping tanks- firstly, it's not at all that easy to penetrate tank armour as you think it is, and secondly, that doesn't counter the point about how civilians don't need guns. And as for the argument that you could sneak up on tank crews while they're not in the tank... the police also have people who can do that to civilians in their homes. They're called SWAT teams and they're actually trained professionals. You'll say "but the guerrilla forces won't live in homes" and you're right, but they can still kill innocents in retaliation. You might say that that will inspire more people to fight back, but it'll cause many more people to get afraid and start turning against the guerrilla forces.

[Esau of Isaac]

People keep saying NO GUNS IS UNREALISTIC. This is true; no guns are unrealistic, but no legal guns is realistic. And almost all the crime examples that have been listed in this thread (rape, burglary, mass-shootings) aren't committed for the most part by organized criminals with easy access to guns; they're committed by lone people who may not have knowledge of where to go and get guns illegally. I, for example, do not.

And if you think that banning guns will lead to people who have no plans on committing a crime also going out and getting guns illegally, then there is a serious gun culture problem that needs to be addressed. People in almost every first-world country get by without guns. Why is America so different that the populace absolutely needs guns?

As for IEDs stopping tanks- firstly, it's not at all that easy to penetrate tank armour as you think it is, and secondly, that doesn't counter the point about how civilians don't need guns. And as for the argument that you could sneak up on tank crews while they're not in the tank... the police also have people who can do that to civilians in their homes. They're called SWAT teams and they're actually trained professionals. You'll say "but the guerrilla forces won't live in homes" and you're right, but they can still kill innocents in retaliation. You might say that that will inspire more people to fight back, but it'll cause many more people to get afraid and start turning against the guerrilla forces.

No legal guns is not realistic. The American people have become disillusioned as a general rule from the very strict legislation enacted a couple decades ago. You may not know where to obtain guns illegally, but someone that plans on committing crimes is going to find out where to do so. And in a country that borders another that is embroiled in constant turmoil as a result of cartels that deal, among other things, in illegal weaponry, there would be a flood of easy to obtain firearms even in the event that citizenry magically decided to waive their 2nd Amendment rights.

Asking why Americans have a history of gun culture is a difficult question to answer, and wondering why Americans would want to retain a right they've historically had if it were taken away isn't difficult to answer. It's as much a part of being American as, say, the right to privacy. It's simply something that is ingrained into American identity.

As for your final paragraph:

1.) Goat farmers can manage to build IEDs that penetrate and kill a variety of armored vehicles, tanks included. For the record, penetrating the tank is not required to injure the occupants. For that matter, the majority of armored personnel aren't found in tanks but in lighter-armored vehicles. And either way, tank crews are killed outside of their tanks all the time in warzones.

2.) You realize that all of these personnel have homes they live in, just like everyone else, and in the event of a genuine armed resistance all of these peoples' identities would be known by the countrymen that are being occupied by them? Police already freak out about the presence of apps that warn others of speed traps. You think an internet-savvy populace intent on rebellion isn't going to be intimately aware of the comparatively few people that are occupying them?

3.) Are you saying that you are complacent with government members killing innocent people? I can't imagine an American populace that would stand by and watch while police murdered their countrymen en masse. Hell, I can't even imagine soldiers going through with that.

[Rapier]

Correct me if I am wrong, but first world and third world classifications have to do with GDP and economy, not with crimes. I've brought the comparison because both have a similar size and population. They are also closer to Latin America terrorist organizations. I confess I don't know how Canada, Australia and Western Europe are (I don't think it is valid to bring Japan to the discussion because its population and size is way lower than the rest, and I question Australia because they're in the middle of the ocean, making it much harder to get illegal traffic). I don't know whether these countries had a lot of violence prior to their anti-gun laws and/or whether their anti-gun laws effectively lowered the crime rate.

Do you have any evidence for this claim of what situation is 'likely' and what is not? It's just conjecture otherwise.

It's just more inductibly probable to have a situation where murders are stopped by a civillian with a weapon, in basis that it is a country especially close to terrorist organizations (which I conclude makes it easier for criminals to get an illegal gun), than a situation where civilians nor criminals have guns. Then again, it is not a matter of fact, it is a possibility.

@BBM

No legal guns is realistic. However, no legal guns also means civilians can't defend themselves. It makes the cases worse.

In countries where violence is minimal, I don't see why this issue should be touched. In countries where there is a lot of violence, giving a way for the population to effectively defend themselves against criminals seems sensible. Again, I make the same question: If at least three of the victims had a gun, don't you think they could've lowered the death count by killing that criminal? Take a country with a homicide rate much higher than the US and with heavy anti-gun laws, would you deny the population the opportunity to defend themselves?

Getting an illegal gun is not exactly easy (using yourself as an example is not valid because you don't want one enough to search every nook and cranny), but how hard do you think it is, with terrorist organizations very close and the internet making it easier to find and buy guns? I think a criminal who wants to get access to guns, being from organized crime or not, won't have that many issues... But I admit, we're dealing with speculations here. I don't know about any evidence pointing to either side. I can imagine crimes with guns would become hard or impossible to some criminals, but I don't know whether disarming the population makes it worse by raising the number of deaths in fewer cases, even if the number of gun crimes are lowered.

---

If any anti-gun person can prove to me that taking guns away from the legal market will certainly lead to less crimes and violence with undeniable evidence, I'm flipping my side. I don't like guns, I'd just prefer the citizens to be able to defend themselves instead of being butchered like in this massacre and many others. Until there is none, there's only conjecture.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

And if you think that banning guns will lead to people who have no plans on committing a crime also going out and getting guns illegally, then there is a serious gun culture problem that needs to be addressed. People in almost every first-world country get by without guns. Why is America so different that the populace absolutely needs guns?

i'd basically account it to the us having been founded via the use of guns, fighting back being a core american value (the bill of rights makes it so that the people are guaranteed to be able to "fight back," whatever that could mean depending on context), and we've been involved in dozens of conflicts/wars since the nation's inception. it's because we've never escaped guns and have felt no need to. 200+ yrs of relying on guns to solve your problems has its effects...

obviously, i'm over-simplifying it and am also not a historian, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

Correct me if I am wrong, but first world and third world classifications have to do with GDP and economy, not with crimes. I've brought the comparison because both have a similar size and population. They are also closer to Latin America terrorist organizations. I confess I don't know how Canada, Australia and Western Europe are (I don't think it is valid to bring Japan to the discussion because its population and size is way lower than the rest, and I question Australia because they're in the middle of the ocean, making it much harder to get illegal traffic). I don't know whether these countries had a lot of violence prior to their anti-gun laws and/or whether their anti-gun laws effectively lowered the crime rate.

it's more than just gdp/economy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

[-Cynthia-]

Correct me if I am wrong, but first world and third world classifications have to do with GDP and economy, not with crimes. I've brought the comparison because both have a similar size and population. They are also closer to Latin America terrorist organizations. I confess I don't know how Canada, Australia and Western Europe are (I don't think it is valid to bring Japan to the discussion because its population and size is way lower than the rest, and I question Australia because they're in the middle of the ocean, making it much harder to get illegal traffic). I don't know whether these countries had a lot of violence prior to their anti-gun laws and/or whether their anti-gun laws effectively lowered the crime rate.

Poverty is generally a strong predictor for crimes, so that's usually what's controlled for. Controlling for population size isn't quite as important since you can still compare crimes per thousands of people- although countries with very small populations (like the Vatican or Luxembourg or whatnot) tend to have too little data to be very significant.

@Illegal Weaponry It is true that even under the strictest of gun laws, some criminals would still obtain guns. This is true for many things- for example criminals are able to obtain/create high grade explosives despite them being highly illegal. Most people do not support making high grade explosives legal anyway, because the chance of a criminal obtaining a high grade explosive is reduced. Whether the reduction in criminal gun use is worth the reduced self-defense is debatable- it is worth noting that self-defense using guns is relatively rare (some evidence suggests only 2.7% of gun homicides are in self defense for instance) http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

Gun control is a tough issue to declare with certainty whether the measures worked or not as nearly all research is correlational and subject to other factors. Australia had a significant decrease in homicides and firearm related homicide following its gun buyback program - however it is possible that crime would have reduced anyway and Australia isn't the same as the United States (although similar in many ways). http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

I wouldn't make the claim that the U.S. should definitely adopt the same policies as Australia, but I think that the matter should be looked into. Automatically ruling out gun availability as a contributer to homicides seems presumptuous.

[NobodiePichu]

all right, I probably don't really know where most people involved in this discussion are coming from, as I live in Canada and we don't really have many problems with guns and gun control nation wide as the states do, so please forgive any "cultural" ignorance of the situation in the U.S. that might come across from an inhabitant of one of the U.S.'s closest neighbours but I'd just like to get this thought off my chest.

Now I support gun legislation, especially in the states, as it both seems very logical to do, guns are tools designed to kill, any tool that can kill should be regulated in my opinion, as not only will it reduce the options of tools a murderer will have to murder people with, and on a more selfish note, it would do wonders for my peace of mind knowing that there a lot harder to get then simply walking into a store and buying one like a chocolate bar, just the knowledge that the government is actually going out of there way to protect me as an individual of there country at least makes me feel more secure, even if it isn't exactly true.

Second I support gun legislation because I support government actually doing there job and running the country. Call me a communist, or a fascist, or whatever else you believe government control to represent, if you will, and in fact I do lean slightly towards government control because I personally don't believe full on democracy will actually ever really work (there are too many variables for a government based on the choices of people to ever work efficiently), and that is what a government is there to do, to represent the people, enact laws protecting the people, and to act in the peoples best interest. This is a discussion for a different thread.

thirdly I believe in gun control, especially in the states, because considering the staggering amount of gun deaths in your country yearly, It's been almost all but proven that having no regulations on guns isn't working at keeping your citizens safe. Yes take away the guns (and I'm not even suggesting taking away guns, just putting tighter regulations, or even reducing the production and selling of guns) and you'll still have murder true, but by at the very least regulating guns you would make it harder for murders to get there hands on an efficient and very deadly way to kill people, earlier in the thread I believe it was klok that mentioned that people would kill with things like bombs and bow an arrows, and though that would certainly happen, it would be much harder to do, and that would already go leaps and bounds towards protecting your citizens by simply making it harder to murder someone.

Gun legislation is not going to be perfect, yes people will probably still get guns, and use them to kill other people, yes citizens will no longer have dangerous high powered killing machines to defend themselves with, but shouldn't simply lowering the rate of gun deaths be a reward by itself? and when did killing in self defence become morally clear cut? I'm sorry but the defence thing seems like BS in my mind cause a) who's gonna have the bigger gun in most cases b) killing (especially in sentiant cases) is wrong, murder doubly some, even if it's in self defence, as it is still the loss of human life no matter how deplorable that person is and c) It reflects poorly on a country and its inhabitants that they wont entertain the idea of the blatantly obvious, as it makes them look stupid.

again I refer to the start of this post if I seem ignorant of the situation, but I still stand by my argument here. however instead of just standing here and stating an opinion of some one who apparently has a very different "culture" then most people who would give a rats ass about arguing against gun legislation, I'll let end this post with a brilliant comedians opinion on the matter, even though I'm sure it wont change yours.

[Esau of Isaac]

@Illegal Weaponry It is true that even under the strictest of gun laws, some criminals would still obtain guns. This is true for many things- for example criminals are able to obtain/create high grade explosives despite them being highly illegal. Most people do not support making high grade explosives legal anyway, because the chance of a criminal obtaining a high grade explosive is reduced. Whether the reduction in criminal gun use is worth the reduced self-defense is debatable- it is worth noting that self-defense using guns is relatively rare (some evidence suggests only 2.7% of gun homicides are in self defense for instance) http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

"'The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of defensive gun uses and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting defensive gun use questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the defensive gun use question, falsely or otherwise.'

Clayton Cramer and David Barnett say that such a structure could cause the NCVS to under-count defensive gun uses, because someone who has successfully defended themselves with a gun may not consider themselves a 'victim of a crime.' In the NCVS, if one says that they have not been a victim of a crime, the survey assumes that there was no attempted crime and does not go on to ask if they have used a gun in self-defense."

Reading through your source leaves a pretty strong sensation of bias btw.

Second I support gun legislation because I support government actually doing there job and running the country. Call me a communist, or a fascist, or whatever else you believe government control to represent, if you will, and in fact I do lean slightly towards government control because I personally don't believe full on democracy will actually ever really work (there are too many variables for a government based on the choices of people to ever work efficiently), and that is what a government is there to do, to represent the people, enact laws protecting the people, and to act in the peoples best interest. This is a discussion for a different thread.

There is a strong difference between government functioning to protect its inhabitants and acting as an ultimate body of authority, wouldn't you say? Government control comes in many forms, don't you find it odd that on one hand you argue for the efficiency of lack of popular vote, while also arguing in favor of a larger government in the name of efficiency? If you're so in favor of governmental regulation, would you be accepting towards a government that demands mandatory military service and firearm ownage? Or is that not the brand of governmental control that you desire?

More, if a government is in place to represent the people, then why can't the people make their will represented? I realize you say this is for a different thread, but you did mention it here.

thirdly I believe in gun control, especially in the states, because considering the staggering amount of gun deaths in your country yearly, It's been almost all but proven that having no regulations on guns isn't working at keeping your citizens safe. Yes take away the guns (and I'm not even suggesting taking away guns, just putting tighter regulations, or even reducing the production and selling of guns) and you'll still have murder true, but by at the very least regulating guns you would make it harder for murders to get there hands on an efficient and very deadly way to kill people, earlier in the thread I believe it was klok that mentioned that people would kill with things like bombs and bow an arrows, and though that would certainly happen, it would be much harder to do, and that would already go leaps and bounds towards protecting your citizens by simply making it harder to murder someone.

There is no such area in America where there are no regulations on guns. Depending on the state and municipality there are tighter or laxer gun laws, but there exist a number of regulations wherever you reside in America. In addition to this, I often hear of tighter regulations, but I'm interested to really hear what kind of regulations you are talking about. People generally seem to be for tighter laws, but when asked they don't generally have any specific things to point out aside from stringent background checks and psychological evaluations, things that are already performed in many areas.

Gun legislation is not going to be perfect, yes people will probably still get guns, and use them to kill other people, yes citizens will no longer have dangerous high powered killing machines to defend themselves with, but shouldn't simply lowering the rate of gun deaths be a reward by itself? and when did killing in self defence become morally clear cut? I'm sorry but the defence thing seems like BS in my mind cause a) who's gonna have the bigger gun in most cases b) killing (especially in sentiant cases) is wrong, murder doubly some, even if it's in self defence, as it is still the loss of human life no matter how deplorable that person is and c) It reflects poorly on a country and its inhabitants that they wont entertain the idea of the blatantly obvious, as it makes them look stupid.

a.) Depends. Most crime is carried out with small discreet weapons, not with large high-powered killing machines. My pal has himself a Mossberg 500 which he chambers in 00 buck shot for home defense. I can guarantee his gun's bigger than the other guy's.

b.) I disagree. If someone has the lack of moral sense to refrain from breaking into someone's home, they accept the consequences that may come with the territory. I'm not going to shed a single tear for some robber that felt it was necessary to bust his way into another guy's home.

c.) This is not an argument, it is a pure insult.

[-Cynthia-]

There might be some underreporting by NCVS of self-defense cases, but I'm not finding much good self-defense data out there. If people have a better source I'd like to see it, but I find it to be better evidence than the vague 'well civilians need guns for self-defense' that makes no account for the frequency of such occurences.

[Tryhard]

Because I like guns, and I like owning a gun. I like shooting and improving my marksmanship. I like being prepared for what might happen. I like training to be the best kind of me I can, whether it's running, lifting, swimming, or what have you. I come from a family of military members, my grandad was a drill sergeant in Korea, my father was a seaman in the Navy, and my brother's an Army man himself.

On a related side note, I believe I made a topic here some time ago about a break-in that happened in my home some time ago. Back then, I was "saved" by the burglar accidentally hurting themselves in my home before running off. I resolved that if something like that happens again and whatever guardian angel I had on defense that night's taking a break, I'll be the one to send them off.

Like I said, my disagreement with guns is purely emotional. Coupled with the fact that I've lived in a culture where even regular handguns were banned soon after my birth.

Previously, I could say that I was more vocal on the issue, as I perceived that Americans were willing to let innocents die in order to entertain their hobby, paranoid delusions or what have you, but these days I just can't bring myself to care about another nations decisions.

[NobodiePichu]

@Esau Of Issac:

course its biased, if any headway is going to be made people need to lean towards one side or the other, otherwise people wont be able to decide. again i was just giving my perspective on the issue as an outsider of the states on what I feel should be done on gun control/legislation/regulation/just put more barriers in between crazy people having guns or not. If you want your guns cause they make you feel safe, then go ahead and have your guns, I just feel that if you want to go down that route there should be more barriers in between people getting and owning guns then there are now. Just by making the things harder to get and own you make it harder for people to willy nilly kill each other with them. again I digress, and I probably wasn't thinking entirely straight.

If I said anything to offend your national pride though, I apologize, because as someone who's not very nationalistic himself I don't hold nationalism in a very high regard, and as an outsider frankly the opinion that comes across when one hears about stuff like this in the U.S. is not a positive one, in fact it makes the states look bad in the view of a lot of citizens of other countries (mostly first world because we actually have the time to worry about civility). Which again is a shame but it's simply how the U.S. ends up projecting themselves as a nation.

though I did answer your questions on my political beliefs in bold red.

There is a strong difference between government functioning to protect its inhabitants and acting as an ultimate body of authority, wouldn't you say? Of course there is.

Government control comes in many forms, don't you find it odd that on one hand you argue for the efficiency of lack of popular vote, while also arguing in favor of a larger government in the name of efficiency? I don't find it odd at all, popular vote is slow and inefficient, granted it is one of the few ways to show the opinion of the people in a statistical way, but a government that can't hear the cries of there own citizenry, especially with all the new ways people can voice there opinions nowadays, is a failed one. I don't support ultimate government control, because that proven to not work, but I don't support popular vote, because that has also proven to not work (in some cases efficiently, in some cases at all), I support a sort of middle road, that I don't have a system for but I propose we should work towards. If anything elected bodies of the peoples views have proven to be even worse at times sadly enough.

If you're so in favor of governmental regulation, would you be accepting towards a government that demands mandatory military service and firearm ownage? If I could protest against it then yes I would be fine with it. However you imply that more in the sense of a dictatorship which I don't support.

Or is that not the brand of governmental control that you desire? Again I desire more government power, but not total government control. the power to be more effective, but the responsibility to listen to the people, with the people having the power to force the government to listen.

More, if a government is in place to represent the people, then why can't the people make their will represented? Because there are other ways then popular vote for the people to represent themselves, besides popular vote is far to statistical to actually be accurate to peoples feelings on matters and issues.

I realize you say this is for a different thread, but you did mention it here.

Without a head the body is just about good for floundering. In the ideal democracy were everybody got heard nothing would get done, as everyone has there own opinion. Leaning towards this as in the case of what most people who believe in the peoples own governing ability is just stupid. centralizing power is needed in order to get anything done, though I'm not saying there should be kings and dictators, but ultimately the head of government (the president, prime minister, whatever) should have most of the power if you want a government that can actually get shit done. Granted this is not an ideal system, as collected power in one individual tends to go haywire, but neither is democracy, the bureaucratic tangle that is democracy makes me cringe, and its the blind devotion to democracy that bugs me the most out of any democratic nation in all honesty, but again discussion for another forum so lets just cut it off there.

Edited June 26, 2015 by ShinyPichu

[Phoenix Wright]

Previously, I could say that I was more vocal on the issue, as I perceived that Americans were willing to let innocents die in order to entertain their hobby, paranoid delusions or what have you, but these days I just can't bring myself to care about another nations decisions.

the problem is here. many people outside of the united states just don't understand that owning a gun and going out shooting and all that jazz isn't just a hobby, it's an exercise of one the fundamental rights given to us. i don't like guns, but i understand why a banning wouldn't work. and it's just as esau said: those that think gun control laws should be stricter don't really have specifics in mind, which is frustrating.

looking more into it, though, it's not just that the united states is a different beast. every region, if not every single state, is a different beast. strict gun control worked for california. i doubt tighter gun control would be ineffective in those states like alabama where you don't even need a permit to purchase a firearm. that is ridiculous. but a ban? that is unconstitutional, and i can't endorse that. i don't think weapons should be taken away from americans, i believe it should be hard to for a citizen to get a hold of them.

dc has the highest gun homicide rates of any state/district in the us. its percentage of people who own guns is ~4%, and due to a relatively recent supreme court ruling, has unrestricted carry laws. vermont, on the other hand, has similar laws, has ~42% gun ownership (surprise to me), and the lowest homicide rates. what are we to conclude? well, considering dc is one of the poorest areas in the us, it's that poor areas are more violent (which is a surprise to no one). so i don't think it's valid to conclude more carriers = safer. this is the general trend as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

edit: literally skimming through this article so i can't comment one way or another but it seems interesting enough.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Edited June 26, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[-Cynthia-]

the problem is here. many people outside of the united states just don't understand that owning a gun and going out shooting and all that jazz isn't just a hobby, it's an exercise of one the fundamental rights given to us. i don't like guns, but i understand why a banning wouldn't work. and it's just as esau said: those that think gun control laws should be stricter don't really have specifics in mind, which is frustrating.

looking more into it, though, it's not just that the united states is a different beast. every region, if not every single state, is a different beast. strict gun control worked for california. i doubt tighter gun control would be ineffective in those states like alabama where you don't even need a permit to purchase a firearm. that is ridiculous. but a ban? that is unconstitutional, and i can't endorse that. i don't think weapons should be taken away from americans, i believe it should be hard to for a citizen to get a hold of them.

dc has the highest gun homicide rates of any state/district in the us. its percentage of people who own guns is ~4%, and due to a relatively recent supreme court ruling, has unrestricted carry laws. vermont, on the other hand, has similar laws, has ~42% gun ownership (surprise to me), and the lowest homicide rates. what are we to conclude? well, considering dc is one of the poorest areas in the us, it's that poor areas are more violent (which is a surprise to no one). so i don't think it's valid to conclude more carriers = safer. this is the general trend as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

edit: literally skimming through this article so i can't comment one way or another but it seems interesting enough.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Well in addition to what you said, while D.C. is technically its own entity, cities universally have much higher homicides per capita than rural areas overall and DC is pretty much all city. Comparing DC with other states is kind of like comparing the Vatican with other countries- the data set is too limited.

[Esau of Isaac]

course its biased, if any headway is going to be made people need to lean towards one side or the other, otherwise people wont be able to decide. again i was just giving my perspective on the issue as an outsider of the states on what I feel should be done on gun control/legislation/regulation/just put more barriers in between crazy people having guns or not. If you want your guns cause they make you feel safe, then go ahead and have your guns, I just feel that if you want to go down that route there should be more barriers in between people getting and owning guns then there are now. Just by making the things harder to get and own you make it harder for people to willy nilly kill each other with them. again I digress, and I probably wasn't thinking entirely straight.

If I said anything to offend your national pride though, I apologize, because as someone who's not very nationalistic himself I don't hold nationalism in a very high regard, and as an outsider frankly the opinion that comes across when one hears about stuff like this in the U.S. is not a positive one, in fact it makes the states look bad in the view of a lot of citizens of other countries (mostly first world because we actually have the time to worry about civility). Which again is a shame but it's simply how the U.S. ends up projecting themselves as a nation.

Again, though, while I'm not completely averse to tighter regulations, what exactly do you mean when talking about barriers are you talking about? What sort of regulations should be introduced?

I don't find it odd at all, popular vote is slow and inefficient, granted it is one of the few ways to show the opinion of the people in a statistical way, but a government that can't hear the cries of there own citizenry, especially with all the new ways people can voice there opinions nowadays, is a failed one. I don't support ultimate government control, because that proven to not work, but I don't support popular vote, because that has also proven to not work (in some cases efficiently, in some cases at all), I support a sort of middle road, that I don't have a system for but I propose we should work towards. If anything elected bodies of the peoples views have proven to be even worse at times sadly enough.

The popular vote exists to appropriately represent the will of the people. It does so through the presence of elected officials. You can't on one hand argue that the purpose of the government is to represent it and then at the same time argue that a representative democracy is less effective at doing that then whatever form of totalitarianism you're arguing for.

If I could protest against it then yes I would be fine with it. However you imply that more in the sense of a dictatorship which I don't support.

Again I desire more government power, but not total government control. the power to be more effective, but the responsibility to listen to the people, with the people having the power to force the government to listen.

Because there are other ways then popular vote for the people to represent themselves, besides popular vote is far to statistical to actually be accurate to peoples feelings on matters and issues.

What do you mean by greater government power but not total government control? What model of government are you arguing is more efficient at operating, and what representative democracy are you comparing it to? To what extent does the government exert greater control?

Without a head the body is just about good for floundering. In the ideal democracy were everybody got heard nothing would get done, as everyone has there own opinion. Leaning towards this as in the case of what most people who believe in the peoples own governing ability is just stupid. centralizing power is needed in order to get anything done, though I'm not saying there should be kings and dictators, but ultimately the head of government (the president, prime minister, whatever) should have most of the power if you want a government that can actually get shit done. Granted this is not an ideal system, as collected power in one individual tends to go haywire, but neither is democracy, the bureaucratic tangle that is democracy makes me cringe, and its the blind devotion to democracy that bugs me the most out of any democratic nation in all honesty, but again discussion for another forum so lets just cut it off there.

You are on one hand arguing that you don't favor totalitarianism, then arguing that a system of checks and balances is inefficient and all power should be vested in a single body.

How many major economies of the nation don't have some form of representative democracy? All of them that can be listed are allocatively inefficient precisely because they lack appropriate bodies that represent the will of the people.

Well in addition to what you said, while D.C. is technically its own entity, cities universally have much higher homicides per capita than rural areas overall and DC is pretty much all city. Comparing DC with other states is kind of like comparing the Vatican with other countries- the data set is too limited.

Those states that are being compared to have cities inside them.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Esau of Isaac

[-Cynthia-]

Those states that are being compared to have cities inside them.

And also a lot of parts that are not cities obviously. There isn't much point in comparing crime in cities to crime in states, unless you want to show that more crime occurs in cities (which we know already).

[Esau of Isaac]

If the crime is being compared as an aggregate then it's actually more incriminating. It's irrelevant either way because the per capita crime rate is still equal to or higher than many other major metropolitan areas, so the point stands.

[Chiki]

it is worth noting that self-defense using guns is relatively rare (some evidence suggests only 2.7% of gun homicides are in self defense for instance)

No attention has been given to this crucial point.

[Esau of Isaac]

I actually posted in direct contrast to his point earlier.