Gun Control, RE: Charleston Massacre

[Esau of Isaac]

I think people like guns because it makes them 'feel' safer, rather than the possession of guns actually making them safer. I'm not sure how much this peace of mind is actually worth in terms of legislation.

I mean, there are myriad factors to consider when it comes to safety. I don't think it's really disputable that in a combat situation having a gun is better than not having a gun. To cover the eventuality that I may need to defend myself, I appreciate the right for me to carry a firearm, and exercise it. I can't say I really care for people trying to tell me I --and by extension other American citizens-- can't be trusted to exercise this right, so I'm going to vote for candidates that continue to support it. No matter how many dramatic speeches I hear from pundits, I'm not going to be guilted into giving up that right. In light of that, it would be far more productive for these legislators to draft reasonable legislation instead of nightmares like "assault weapon" bans. It only serves to invigorate opposition and perpetuate the kind of situation America is in.

[MacLovin]

i doubt gun control is what makes crime go lower.

i mean look at switzerland.

[blah the Prussian]

Let me point out that it makes a huge difference if the partisans were in occupied Eastern Europe as opposed to Germany itself. If they're in occupied territory, they have much easier access to guns, they can coordinate with other resistance movements, some of which were comprised of ex military men, and they are not fighting their government. Also, the German resistance, crucially, never tried to face the SS head on, even if they had guns; their goal, according to the Wikipedia article you yourself posted, was to convince Wehrmacht officers to oppose Hitler. They did this because they knew they would have no hope of winning a rebellion against Hitler. Eventually, they succeeded with triggering a coup attempt that involved a huge number of the German military brass; even that failed. Against a population largely committed to evil, resistance is futile.

Yeah... a woman who just shoots a guy out of paranoia is a criminal... go on... But meanwhile if he's dashing at her/creeping up behind her and making a strange movement towards her, she'd be well within her rights to pull out a gun and tell him to back away from her. If she shoots him, she's a murderer. If he charges at her and she discharges her weapon, a crime scene analyst would be able to see this based on blood spatter, the way the body is lying, etc.

No... men are stronger than women physically. Maybe she could stab him, or maybe his superior strength would easily allow him to wrestle it right out of her hands or punch her, knocking her unconscious, etc. And unless you're actually implying women are men's physical equal (Which is a pretty ballsy statement even for the most diehard of progressives), surely you realize in a physical confrontation men win against women pretty much all the time, unless there's extenuating factors. (For example, white knight syndrome where another man rushes to her aid, she screams which alerts nearby people, maybe she's particularly skilled in a martial art of some sort, maybe he's a weakling, etc). The gender differences don't just vanish, in fact they become more pronounced in a close fighting situation. However, a man or a woman with a gun is equally as powerful as each other.

I'll concede this point, but how many women actually carry a gun wherever they go?

[Rei Rei]

Here in Brazil, we've gone through a very big ban on guns 12 years ago, and the murder rate actually increased. Now, I'm not saying that it increased because it was made harder for civilians to get guns, that's not what I believe at all, but banning guns isn't really an effective way to fight crime, if that's the only notable measure you take. I do think that psychological tests for gun owners would be a really good measure to prevent stuff like this particular case (which as shocking as they are, are only a very small % of the total murders) from happening, though.

The problem that I see in our country is that on the scenario guns get unbanned, who can have access to it? How much would a handgun cost? People who want to acquire guns would get proper training, but will they be avaiable on private shooting schools? Public?

On the long run I don't see this making much difference - surely the wealthier people could benefit more, but the loads of citizens that live in the favelas will still suffer the same way, if not more.

--------

Also, compare the police approach on the Church Massacre with this case here - on this case however, we can't say "prejudice".

[Chiki]

Well if Stanford is a good enough source for you, then this study shows what I've been saying all along. Bad parenting, allowing your kids to go with the wrong crowd, watch violent TV shows and play violent games will likely make them more violent. The problem isn't guns, it's shitty parenting. It's a morally corrupt, lazy society. It's rampant poverty. It's a host of issues that lead to violence, with guns simply being the most convenient choice.

https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/ganginterv/causesofcrime.htm

The problem isn't that guns are just the most convenient choice out of many. Guns are by far more convenient than using, say, knives. They make it really easy to kill people. How many people would have died if this racist was just using a knife?

I mean, there are myriad factors to consider when it comes to safety. I don't think it's really disputable that in a combat situation having a gun is better than not having a gun. To cover the eventuality that I may need to defend myself, I appreciate the right for me to carry a firearm, and exercise it. I can't say I really care for people trying to tell me I --and by extension other American citizens-- can't be trusted to exercise this right, so I'm going to vote for candidates that continue to support it. No matter how many dramatic speeches I hear from pundits, I'm not going to be guilted into giving up that right. In light of that, it would be far more productive for these legislators to draft reasonable legislation instead of nightmares like "assault weapon" bans. It only serves to invigorate opposition and perpetuate the kind of situation America is in.

If no one has a gun at all, that's better than both people having guns in a combat situation.

[Klokinator]

If no one has a gun at all, that's better than both people having guns in a combat situation.

No. If two people each have a knife, the weaker/worse fighter is the loser. (Even if only the weaker guy has a knife, he still can lose depending on how much stronger his assailant is, and if the assailant has a weapon then he's definite screwed either way) It's funny because liberals want equality, yet when it comes to violence, they prefer a perverse dog-eat-dog method of fighting. They want like this weird only-the-best-survive method of surviving. Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator

[Chiki]

No. If two people each have a knife, the weaker/worse fighter is the loser. (Even if only the weaker guy has a knife, he still can lose depending on how much stronger his assailant is, and if the assailant has a weapon then he's definite screwed either way) It's funny because liberals want equality, yet when it comes to violence, they prefer a perverse dog-eat-dog method of fighting. They want like this weird only-the-best-survive method of surviving.

At least you have a much better chance to run away, and survive, if only knives are involved. Not the case with guns.

[Klokinator]

At least you have a much better chance to run away, and survive, if only knives are involved. Not the case with guns.

That is a good point. On the other hand, it's not like the attacker isn't going to chase you as you run, and it's useless running in a closed space such as a house. If you make it to the door and throw it open, you're stabbed in the back and probably going to die. Again, the attacker is likely going to be a big buff male (Since their testosterone generally leads them to be the most aggressive and likely to commit violent crimes) so you really don't want to show your back to them.

[Chiki]

That is a good point. On the other hand, it's not like the attacker isn't going to chase you as you run, and it's useless running in a closed space such as a house. If you make it to the door and throw it open, you're stabbed in the back and probably going to die. Again, the attacker is likely going to be a big buff male (Since their testosterone generally leads them to be the most aggressive and likely to commit violent crimes) so you really don't want to show your back to them.

Still a better chance though. Also, in cases in which the attacker isn't a "big buff male," guns make it a lot easier for them to kill people compared to ones who aren't so physically astute.

[BBM]

You're conveniently talking only about 1-on-1 crimes and ignoring mass-crimes. If that dude had come in with a knife and started stabbing people, a lot less would have died.

Also, like, it's really not as difficult to run away from a dude with a knife in a church as you're making it out to be. People are naturally going to spread out to the corners trying to get away from the attacker. He now has to go to a corner. People in the other corners now have a chance to run to the door. Additionally, he's attacking from close range. You might not be able to like, grapple with a big buff dude, but you could conceivably kick him in the balls or something. Have you looked at any pictures of Roof btw? Does that dude look very big and buff to you? Are you telling me that in a church where everybody was black (black people are athletically superior to white people on the whole), a couple people ganging up couldn't have physically overpowered him at close range?

The whole rape context you're using isn't a good one either. Most rapes are premeditated, yes, but they're not carried out by strangers/serial rapists who just pick another target if they find out that their target has a gun. Most rapes are carried out against a specific person whom the rapist knows. They're not going to just "go and pick a different person".

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders

Yes, you could make the argument based on that page that only 3% of rapists use a gun and if the victims had a gun they would have been able to defend themselves. To a certain extent, that's probably true. Did you also know that 25% of women in the military have been sexually assaulted by other soldiers? Sure, the dude had a gun too, but the point is that having guns doesn't protect you nearly as well as you think it does.

And ALSO, most gun control laws (or at least, the ones in Canada) require licensing and background checks that would weed out people with criminal backgrounds and racist histories. They still leave a good law-abiding citizen with the ability to protect themselves from a rapist or a mugger or whatever.

[-Cynthia-]

That is a good point. On the other hand, it's not like the attacker isn't going to chase you as you run, and it's useless running in a closed space such as a house. If you make it to the door and throw it open, you're stabbed in the back and probably going to die. Again, the attacker is likely going to be a big buff male (Since their testosterone generally leads them to be the most aggressive and likely to commit violent crimes) so you really don't want to show your back to them.

Is there any research that supports 'big buff males' being more likely to commit crime due to supposedly higher testosterone? Or is this just pure conjecture on your part?

[Klokinator]

Is there any research that supports 'big buff males' being more likely to commit crime due to supposedly higher testosterone? Or is this just pure conjecture on your part?

Is there any research that indicates women commit an equal amount of violent crimes, or is this just pure conjecture on your part?

[BBM]

You're right that gun control laws aren't going to make everything better magically. There are a lot of racial issues that also need to be addressed, particularly in the South, but the truth is that nearly every other developed country has gun-control laws, and nearly all of them also have fewer crimes than the US. There are other differences in the countries that makes a direct comparison not entirely accurate, but the idea that dudes with a history of drug abuse and violence can walk into a store and get a gun as easily as they could get a sofa is ridiculous.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Cynthia is referring to males who aren't buff, like, you know, the dude this entire discussion is springing from.

[Klokinator]

You're right that gun control laws aren't going to make everything better magically. There are a lot of racial issues that also need to be addressed, particularly in the South, but the truth is that nearly every other developed country has gun-control laws, and nearly all of them also have fewer crimes than the US. There are other differences in the countries that makes a direct comparison not entirely accurate, but the idea that dudes with a history of drug abuse and violence can walk into a store and get a gun as easily as they could get a sofa is ridiculous.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Cynthia is referring to males who aren't buff, like, you know, the dude this entire discussion is springing from.

1. Nobody can just walk in and get a gun easily. We already have background checks, that's why felons can't own guns. If you're saying 'let's put more restrictions on gun shows that don't have these required checks' then yes, I fully agree they should be implemented there.

2. The dude, even if he had no gun, was mentally disturbed. He would have likely knifed some other black person, probably a bit more carefully. This is pure conjecture on my part, and who knows maybe the thought of getting close to his victims would have made him give up! Or, it may have made him be more careful with his killings. Either way, if 5 people in that church had possessed a pistol, they would have had a chance of fighting back against this killer. He faced zero opposition and that's why he was able to kill and wound so many.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator

[Balcerzak]

You're conveniently talking only about 1-on-1 crimes and ignoring mass-crimes. If that dude had come in with a knife and started stabbing people, a lot less would have died.

Are you ignoring the the mass knifings that have occurred in Japan? Or just unfamiliar with them?

Have you looked at any pictures of Roof btw? Does that dude look very big and buff to you? Are you telling me that in a church where everybody was black (black people are athletically superior to white people on the whole), a couple people ganging up couldn't have physically overpowered him at close range?

If he had time to reload 5 times, why wasn't he physically overpowered and had the gun taken away from him? I'd be more afraid of rushing a dude with a knife than a dude in the middle of reloading personally, but maybe that's just me.

[Chiki]

1. Nobody can just walk in and get a gun easily. We already have background checks, that's why felons can't own guns. If you're saying 'let's put more restrictions on gun shows that don't have these required checks' then yes, I fully agree they should be implemented there.

2. The dude, if he had no knife, was mentally disturbed. He would have likely knifed some other black person, probably a bit more carefully. This is pure conjecture on my part, and who knows maybe the thought of getting close to his victims would have made him give up! Or, it may have made him be more careful with his killings. Either way, if 5 people in that church had possessed a pistol, they would have had a chance of fighting back against this killer. He faced zero opposition and that's why he was able to kill and wound so many.

Can't you go to Walmart and buy a rifle in the South?

[Rapier]

The problem isn't that guns are just the most convenient choice out of many. Guns are by far more convenient than using, say, knives. They make it really easy to kill people. How many people would have died if this racist was just using a knife?

If no one has a gun at all, that's better than both people having guns in a combat situation.

This reeks of wishful thinking. How can you guarantee that no one has a gun at all (let's not even consider that this premise is very doubtful)? If you prohibit people from bearing arms, they will buy it illegaly and use it for crimes against people who could be armed and ready to better defend themselves. Laws are uneffective to keep criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns. So gun prohibition policies harm civilians more than they protect them.

I make the same question. How many people would've been dead if the victims had been armed with guns? One of them could've shot that white-supremacist freak and stopped the kill count before it got ridiculous. Or maybe he wouldn't even try the shootings in first place, because he'd fear for his life.

Studies also show that places where there are heavy gun restrictions have more violent crimes than places where they are more liberal with guns. This is not enough to establish a cause-consequence relationship, I'll give you that, yet it is a compelling argument for saying that restricting guns doesn't necessarily make it safer.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Rapier

[-Cynthia-]

Mass stabbings do occur, but at significantly lower frequencies and with fewer fatalities compared to mass shootings overall http://circanews.com/news/mass-stabbings-rare

And BBM is right, men committing violent crime at higher rates than women is pretty well supported, it was the 'big, buff testosterone' part that I haven't seen any research on.

[Klokinator]

It's not men committing crimes that are big buff testosterone types, it's men easily committing crimes with melee weapons that are big buff testosterone types. Remove guns, and these men gain a huge advantage in every situation.

Once again, why do you want the country to devolve into some awful Mad Max style 'strong crush the weak' setting?

[Chiki]

This reeks of wishful thinking. How can you guarantee that no one has a gun at all? If you prohibit people from bearing arms, they will buy it illegaly and use it for crimes against people who could be armed and ready to better defend themselves. Laws are uneffective to keep criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns. So gun prohibition policies harm civilians more than they protect them.

I make the same question. How many people would've been dead if the victims had been armed with guns? One of them could've shot that white-supremacist freak and stopped the kill count before it got ridiculous. Or maybe he wouldn't even try the shootings in first place, because he'd fear for his life.

Are you trying to pick debates with me in every thread I post in? =_=

You can't guarantee that no one has a gun at all, but you can try your best to get rid of them, duh.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non- firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise

Admittedly, it would be a lot harder to do in America. Americans are obsessed with guns.

Do you know how awful it would be to live in the US if everyone walked around with guns? I personally wouldn't feel safe going out at all anymore. I could just be walking down the street and some obnoxious idiot American could think that I'm going to mug them simply for wearing a black hoodie, and shoot me or something.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Chiki

[Balcerzak]

Mass stabbings do occur, but at significantly lower frequencies and with fewer fatalities compared to mass shootings overall http://circanews.com/news/mass-stabbings-rare

That article is all about mass stabbings in the US, which of course would be comparatively rarer to mass shootings. While yes, it contained a throwaway line about "Mass stabbings are fairly rare outside of the U.S. as well," that was unsupported by the article's listed sources, and I find it hard to believe, considering I easily found (under two minutes searching) 7 unrelated mass stabbings in China in a two year period, when the article you link makes it sound like there have only been 7 mass stabbings, period, since 1900.

Edit: In short, this is me saying, your source is garbage, find a better one that actually says what you claim it does.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Balcerzak

[blah the Prussian]

@Klokinator: would you be in favor of more intensive background tests? I was, incidentally, being a bit over anxious when I argued for an abolition of the second amendment. I retract that statement.

[-Cynthia-]

That article is all about mass stabbings in the US, which of course would be comparatively rarer to mass shootings. While yes, it contained a throwaway line about "Mass stabbings are fairly rare outside of the U.S. as well," that was unsupported by the article's listed sources, and I find it hard to believe, considering I easily found (under two minutes searching) 7 unrelated mass stabbings in China in a two year period, when the article you link makes it sound like there have only been 7 mass stabbings, period, since 1900.

Edit: In short, this is me saying, your source is garbage, find a better one that actually says what you claim it does.

Well I thought the point was to compare mass stabbing related violence to mass shooting violence- which would making the same country as the comparison point logical. Comparing mass shootings in the US to mass stabbings in Japan would have no point given the population difference.

If you have a point about mass stabbings in other countries, then you find a source. I'm not here to make your point for you.

[Chiki]

From what I can find on Google, mass stabbings take place in crowded areas.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

Pretty sure a crapload more people would've died if he had a gun.

[Klokinator]

@Klokinator: would you be in favor of more intensive background tests? I was, incidentally, being a bit over anxious when I argued for an abolition of the second amendment. I retract that statement.

In some ways, yes. In others, no. I think the current system is fine, but the fact anyone can buy a gun from a gun show without a background check is bad.

But assuming this kid was going to be given a gun for his birthday, what does that say? The gun isn't the problem. The shitty parent who said "LOL HERE'S AN ASSAULT RIFLE HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!" is the one at fault. They more than likely had shitty parenting in the first place to race a little shithead racist.

Furthermore, did the kid have a criminal history? Even if he did, what about his parents? I'm assuming the answer is no to both (feel free to clarify) but in either case, it's shitty judgement on the part of shitty parents and no matter what, they likely passed the current laws just fine which is why they were able to obtain a gun. (Therefore they're considered good citizens, and their son murdered a group of churchgoers in cold blood and nobody saw it coming) It all comes full circle to my original point, bad parenting, lazy parenting, and complete lack of parenting is what's raising a generation of narcissists and sociopaths like this little racist twerp. Furthermore, when we have this endemic problem and these little twerps get their guns taken away, they will continue to either commit violence, or gain guns in some other manner and kill people with guns anyway.

Also, it's great and cool to say 'let's not put the guns in the hands of mentally instable people' but meanwhile, back in reality, that's not how everything works. Every law you pass is a new license for someone to be killed or imprisoned by the government. What if grandpa has alzheimers and he's afraid of people busting down his door? He's no threat to society, but since you've decided someone has to classify mental illnesses, you're letting them play god with our rights. We have the right to free speech, that's the first amendment. The second amendment was put there to defend that right. When you say 'let's have more intense background checks', you're effectively saying "You have no right to defend yourself". It's no longer a right when Big Government can tell you if you're allowed or not allowed to have a gun. It's a privilege. And if you're no longer allowed to defend yourself, you no longer have free speech, you only are privileged to say what you're allowed to say.

This is the slippery slope. This is why I don't support stronger gun ownership conditions.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator