Gun Control, RE: Charleston Massacre

[Rapier]

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

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.

To be honest I didn't even realize it was you at first. XD

Anyway, yeah, I'll engage in debate as much as I want. I love rethorical and argumentative conflicts, even if I lose all the time. It just happened that you're around, though. Now, to the topic.

First, trying your best to get rid of them by legally prohibiting or heavily restricting guns won't really work, because criminals can get their guns illegally anyway. It's not even an issue for them. It'll only keep civilians from getting guns to defend themselves. You see where I'm getting at? Forbidding or heavily restricting guns doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. Rather, it takes away or considerably diminishes civilians' ability to defend themselves. So it's actually worse!

Besides, you're appealing to absurdness at some parts. No one said guns should be sold so easily. Rigorous, psychological checks, criminal checks and the like should be taken into account before allowing someone to buy a gun. Even the most conservative, pro-gun militants agree with this point. So the risk of meeting said hypothetical idiot would be very low.

I've read part of your study. It says one of the factors where Australia succeeded was in that, since it is a small island nation, it could react well against illegal gun traffic. I doubt such a thing would have as much success in the US, which is simply huge. I'm challenging your claim whether this is applicable in similar countries to the US. The same could be said about countries where the FARC is practically knocking on your door. If you could assure me with data that heavy gun restrictions worked on countries in similar conditions to the US, I'll buy your case.

As for me, I'd feel safer wielding a gun than walking around with nothing in a country where our homicide rate is as high as a Middle East warzone. Even if I don't like guns at all.

Nobody will be warned for off-topic

He did nothing wrong...

Edited June 20, 2015 by Rapier

[blah the Prussian]

So should I wait to respond to Klokinators post until it goes into the gun control thread?

[Balcerzak]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the flow of the argument was:

• What would crime be like if there were no guns?
• Back and forth conjecture about knives, and melee weapons.
• Claim from BBM that the conjecture had shifted from mass massacre to one-on-one crime.
• I bring up the fact that in countries with restricted gun access, mass stabbings are certainly things that do happen.
• You claim mass stabbings are irrelevant because they are uncommon in the US... because citizens in the US have access to guns.

It really feels like you were missing the point I was trying to make, so I must have clearly done it a disservice in how I was presenting it.

The point is this, mass stabbings do happen, and they can certainly produce a similar number of victims as the Charleston Church incident did. (There's obviously going to be methodological differences, and you won't have the Texas A&M clock tower sniper with a knife, but that's an avenue for separate discussion and no reason to write off the matter entirely.)

[Rapier]

"What would crime be like if there were no guns?"

This is just baseless conjecture, sorry. Even if we prohibit all guns, it does not mean criminals will not wield guns and commit crimes with them. A gun prohibition is not a certainty that it'd have stopped the white supremacist guy from commiting the crime with one. The Americas have plenty of terrorist groups selling illegal guns. All conjectures made after this question are fallible.

Because it is not possible to have a scenario where there are no guns, I question whether discussing about this can be productive at all.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Rapier

[blah the Prussian]

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.

So your argument can be basically summed up as "whoever is doing the background checks has too much power." Okay, but how can that power be abused? Further, the second amendment was not made to protect the first, it was made out of military necessity because it was the only way under equipped US forces could hope to stop the British until the French came in to save our asses. That was why the Second Amendment was made, not to protect people. Finally, you have not provided a credible alternative to background checks, despite believing that it is bad for skinheads to have guns (hopefully). So, what's your plan there?

[-Cynthia-]

Mass stabbings are not entirely irrelevant in the US or anywhere else, clearly they do happen. I do find the argument of 'well criminals will just use knives/clubs/fists etc." (I don't include explosives in this...explosives are illegal anyway) rather weak on the basis that mass stabbings appear to be less common than mass shootings and also seem to be less fatal (producing more wounded and fewer fatalities than firearms related incidents). This has a certain amount of logic to it, knives require closer range which makes it more difficult to reach targets quickly and also requires more force/precision to kill than a firearm.

If there are sources that claim that mass stabbings are equivalent or greater than mass shootings in terms of frequency and fatality, I'm not finding them.

[BBM]

wrt to mass stabbings in Japan- I know of two, a school massacre, where the kids wouldn't have guns to protect themselves anyways, and one with a dude driving into a crowd and then stabbing people. I think Chiki said this earlier, but can you imagine if that dude had a gun? Additionally, as Cynthia just said, they occur less on the whole and also result in less deaths and more wounded people instead, because it's much more difficult to kill someone with a knife. A random mentally disturbed person isn't going to have the training and skills to kill person as efficiently with a knife as they could with a gun.

As for gun control requiring a permit to purchase, this is something that varies by state. NC, as it turns out, does require a permit, but there are plenty of states that don't, and NC doesn't have a gun registry for handguns. A permit to purchase is also different from a permit to own. This dude got his gun as a present. And yeah, he's probably not going to register a gun he got as a present and was planning on killing people with, but the fact is that there are very few concealed carry permit laws.

As for "the black people in the church could have defended themselves if they'd had a gun"- the fact is that nothing stopped them from having guns. But they didn't have any. Are you advocating that every person on the street walk around with a gun? Did the right to carry a gun save any lives? Yes, there have been cases where people with guns have stopped mass shootings (you posted a picture of one earlier), but that's an exception, not the rule.

[Balcerzak]

This dude got his gun as a present. And yeah, he's probably not going to register a gun he got as a present and was planning on killing people with, but the fact is that there are very few concealed carry permit laws.

He wasn't given the gun as a birthday present. He purchased the gun using money he was given for his birthday. There's a serious difference.

One key part of this horrific scheme -- the weapon -- came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development. His grandfather says that Roof was given "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with it.

[Klokinator]

(I don't include explosives in this...explosives are illegal anyway)

Which is ironic given that you think limiting access to guns or banning them will somehow make criminals less violent, yet bombings still happen.

[-Cynthia-]

Which is ironic given that you think limiting access to guns or banning them will somehow make criminals less violent, yet bombings still happen.

So do you disagree with any type of weapon being banned?

[Klokinator]

As for "the black people in the church could have defended themselves if they'd had a gun"- the fact is that nothing stopped them from having guns. But they didn't have any. Are you advocating that every person on the street walk around with a gun? Did the right to carry a gun save any lives? Yes, there have been cases where people with guns have stopped mass shootings (you posted a picture of one earlier), but that's an exception, not the rule.

Not everyone has to have a gun. If 20% of the law abiding citizens carried a gun around when out and about, in church, whatever, they provide protection for everyone else. I never said all the people had to have a gun, in fact the only number I ever said was 'about 5 people'. If 5 people in that church were carrying a handgun, they'd have likely stopped the killer.

And as for the exception not rule argument, that's my point. It needs to become the rule, not the exception. People need to get over their stupid gun hysteria. People used to walk around with rifles slung over their shoulders in schools and all sorts of other places, and mass shootings never happened. Around the time people said 'hey kids can't be around guns! they cause death!" we had Columbine and it's been that way ever since. It's sad, because the more mass shootings, the more gun control, and thus the more mass shootings. Hell of a vicious cycle.

And yes, I do disagree. I'm sure you think banning things makes them magically disappear despite the incredible litany of evidence proving you 100% wrong (You remember how banning murder and drugs got rid of drugs? I don't!) but for the rest of those of us living in reality, it never works like that.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator

[-Cynthia-]

And yes, I do disagree. I'm sure you think banning things makes them magically disappear despite the incredible litany of evidence proving you 100% wrong (You remember how banning murder and drugs got rid of drugs? I don't!) but for the rest of those of us living in reality, it never works like that.

You support all manner of explosives being legal(that's what I meant by all weapons- explosives are weapons obviously)? While it would be naive to think that banning weapons would remove them entirely, to assume that making things illegal has no affect on their availability is erroneous. Look at the variety of countries(first world) that have stricter gun control laws than the US- and observe the reduced number of homicides by comparison. It's pretty clear that in those countries that criminals are not obtaining guns and committing homicides at the same or higher rates than before gun control laws were enacted.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

Edited June 20, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[Chiki]

Why won't limiting access to guns decrease the rate of murder?

[Klokinator]

Dear god, the loop is complete. Hey Chiki, try reading the topic. That's been covered before, at least ten times. It may slightly reduce the rate of murder, and will definitely reduce the amount of gun murder, but here's the difference: Responsible citizens who own guns to protect themselves now don't have that defense.

I'm so glad you have all the faith in police to protect you (When seconds count, they're only a phone call and minutes away) and perhaps you're strong enough to defend yourself against an attack or dare I say gang of attackers with your fist and wits, but for old people, women, many types of men, they lose that defense.

Maybe my grandmother was right. You can't argue with a liberal. They just ask the same questions over and over and over again. You just want to be disarmed, so fine, don't buy a gun, call the police, hope they help you. In the meantime, you can thank that crazy gun neighbor who scared off attackers and made the news for the reason other assailants don't enter your house. Furthermore, gun crimes are dropping year by year anyway, as if gun hysteria wasn't lame enough. Any mass killing is bad, but just because one or two a year make the news and freak people out for 6 months straight doesn't mean that guns are making people drop like flies. And to the rest of the responsible owners out there who use their guns defensively 3.5 million times per year, thanks for helping protect even the idiots who want to disarm you.

Tired of this merry go round.

[-Cynthia-]

But what is the value of 'protecting yourself' if crime isn't even reduced? It isn't as if the United States has significantly reduced rates of other kinds of crime. http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/CTS12_Sexual_violence.xls

Compared to Canada for instance(probably the most similar country to the US), the United States has 27.3 recorded rapes per 100,000 people in 2010, Canada had 1.7. How are less strict gun laws stopping crime here?

Although rape is trickier subject to compare cross-nationally than homicide, as it is less easily defined. The United States doesn't appear to be lower than most strict gun control nations regardless http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate#2010

Edited June 21, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[Phoenix Wright]

Maybe my grandmother was right. You can't argue with a liberal. They just ask the same questions over and over and over again. You just want to be disarmed, so fine, don't buy a gun, call the police, hope they help you. In the meantime, you can thank that crazy gun neighbor who scared off attackers and made the news for the reason other assailants don't enter your house. Furthermore, gun crimes are dropping year by year anyway, as if gun hysteria wasn't lame enough. Any mass killing is bad, but just because one or two a year make the news and freak people out for 6 months straight doesn't mean that guns are making people drop like flies. And to the rest of the responsible owners out there who use their guns defensively 3.5 million times per year, thanks for helping protect even the idiots who want to disarm you.

Tired of this merry go round.

stop using the 'l' word like that you're hurting our collective liberal feelings.

though i identify as a democratic socialist, i am also opposed to gun control. that said, think about your scenario. it's illogically pessimistic. do you know where a person is most likely to be robbed, shot, jumped, etc.? in a poor neighborhood. what you're proposing can happen is a possibility, but the chances of it actually happening to anyone are basically slim to none. there won't be a scenario where some crazy gunman saves his neighbor--the actual likelihood of that happening is basically fucking zero. these arguments are fear-mongering at best and purposefully disingenuous at worst. and even if these events do actually happen, i can just use your point that due to its infrequency in occurring, it's irrelevant in basing public policy because off it. in other words, if just twice a year donald from next door in florida and catelyn from upstate new york save their neighbors from being murdered, this does not mean at all that guns should be something one is obligated to get to prevent future gun crimes. it's not a proper deterrent of crime, nor a solution to the crimes itself.

the reason gun control won't work in the long run is due to what olwen already pointed out: we're americans. it's part of our culture. though he was fear-mongering too (fucking LOL at the thought of being mugged by some guy because you're wearing a black hoody), the point stands that guns are a part of our national identity. trying to get rid of guns will cause a cultural backlash that, frankly, isn't worth it.

what needs to happen, i feel, is actually pretty simple. to begin with, racism is a systemic problem that the united states should prioritize getting rid of--the best method is through education. unfortunately, those states that need it the most have very anti-intellectual facets of their cultures. (i don't mean to oversimplify, but it's basically the south and midwest.) what can happen more quickly is stricter criteria for getting a gun. no doubt, if you make it harder to get a gun and ammo, that in itself can serve as a deterrent.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Cowboy Karimov]

Further, the second amendment was not made to protect the first, it was made out of military necessity because it was the only way under equipped US forces could hope to stop the British until the French came in to save our asses. That was why the Second Amendment was made, not to protect people.

Just throwing this out, but the Bill of Rights was formulated in 1789, 6 years after the Revolutionary War was formally ended and 8 years after fighting ended.

[Blaze The Great]

I don't remember the exact quote or where it came from, but the paraphrase is something like this:

Where guns are legal, there will be tragedies. Where they are illegal, there will be genocides.

Now, I'm fairly certain that no one is talking about making guns illegal, but we seem to be leaning more and more towards extensive gun control. I think guns should be allowed with limited restrictions (i.e. background checks).

[BBM]

I'm like, a really weak dude. I don't even know any females my age who probably couldn't overpower me. I would not feel safer if there were less strict gun control laws here. I haven't exactly had conversations about gun control with other Canadians because it's not even a debate despite the most conservative government we've had in a long time, but I don't know any women who think that there would be fewer sexual assaults if guns were available either.

And if you think that the chance of being attacked is so high that you need to carry a gun on a daily basis to protect yourself, I don't know what that says about the States.

Also, the idea that guns stop home robberies is dumb. Home robbers target houses where they know the residents are on vacation, even in places with stricter gun laws. That's just common sense, regardless of whether or not the owners have guns.

@Balcerzak- If anything that just makes my point stronger? It clearly means that whatever background checks that are being carried out aren't strong enough? The guy had a drug charge (tbf not sure if that was before or after he got the gun).

[Klokinator]

And if you think that the chance of being attacked is so high that you need to carry a gun on a daily basis to protect yourself, I don't know what that says about the States.

It says we have shitty parenting which leads to shitty people which leads to lots of violent crime which means you need to have a gun to protect yourself.

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. We don't need gun laws, we need people to start taking responsibility for their actions rather than expecting others to just up and improve themselves. Stop worshipping degenerates like politicians and celebrities and start praising morally sound individuals.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Klokinator

[Phoenix Wright]

It says we have shitty parenting which leads to shitty people which leads to lots of violent crime which means you need to have a gun to protect yourself.

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. We don't need gun laws, we need people to start taking responsibility for their actions rather than expecting others to just up and improve themselves. Stop worshipping degenerates like politicians and celebrities and start praising morally sound individuals.

you're delusional if you think living in the states is that bad lol. like, absolutely bonkers.

[Esau of Isaac]

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

It is better when you have a gun in a combat situation than not having a gun, regardless of whether the opponent has a weapon or not. I'm not going to stop carrying because of the possibility that somehow every other gun in the country will disappear as well.

Why won't limiting access to guns decrease the rate of murder?

Because guns don't make people become murderers?

Edited June 21, 2015 by Esau of Isaac

[-Cynthia-]

you're delusional if you think living in the states is that bad lol. like, absolutely bonkers.

It's not that bad- but we're also not on the level of Canada, Japan, Western Europe etc. in terms of crime rates, particularly homicides. I think the overall goal should be small policy changes and a shift in cultural attitudes. Arming everyone in an attempt to emulate Africa and Central America seems like the wrong direction,

[blah the Prussian]

Just throwing this out, but the Bill of Rights was formulated in 1789, 6 years after the Revolutionary War was formally ended and 8 years after fighting ended.

The US military had not been significantly overhauled in that time. Our command staff still believed that you could win a award by relying on the militia. Of course, that militia didn't do us much good when the British landed their elite Royal Marines in Washington and burned it. See, Klokinator, this is what happens when a bunch of fanatics who think their rights are being taken away go up against trained soldiers. Also, Klokinator, do you really support ALL manner of weapons being legal? What about Tanks? Should people have tanks? Or how about drones? Should we let private citizens blow up anyone they hate with drones? Your problem seems to be that you refuse to rely on the government for anything. To me, relying on the government seems like a swell idea. Here's some food for thought: there is very little chance a guy with a gun will do any noticeable damage to trained soldiers. Now, you talk all the time about democracy and freedom of speech, but tell me: how many people do you know who would be prepared to die for those rights if they were faced with that situation right then and there? I know I wouldn't. There is no way you would able to marshal enough people to fight a government you deem tyrannical. Also, if Grandpa with Alzheimer's has a gun, he can shoot the mailman thinking he's a murderer. There is no way in hell I'd allow him near a gun.

[Klokinator]

you're delusional if you think living in the states is that bad lol. like, absolutely bonkers.

This country is infested to the brim with narcissists, lunatics, apathetic people, lazy people, fat people, and so on. We have among the highest crime rates in the world if not the highest in many categories. We worship inanely dumb celebrities, 30% of the citizens believe the Earth is orbited by the sun (I'm not sure if that statistic is true, back when it was floating around sources claimed it was an wasn't but hey this is still a thing and this so it probably is true), and our country invented Scientology which now has millions of people who eat it up because it just makes so much sense. We're a punchline for jokes in most other civilized countries. So yes, it's really that bad.

Also, Klokinator, do you really support ALL manner of weapons being legal? What about Tanks? Should people have tanks? Or how about drones? Should we let private citizens blow up anyone they hate with drones?

(Appeal to emotion is also a misrepresentation of an argument, since you seem to think it's okay to kill someone 'because you hate them'. Great way to straw man as well! Very effective debating points!)

When you're being attacked by an assailant, a tank won't do you any good (Unless it's the army but then you're fucked either way). A drone will be even more useless. Clearly a gun is clearly different from either of those. And don't even try to misrepresent my argument by saying I want bombs allowed. You can't defend yourself with bombs. Their only existance is to cause destruction. While this can take a healthy form (Rapid demolition of towers for example) when you're being assaulted, a bomb is useless and unwieldy.

Knives have a use of inflicting harm, but as a bladed object they have hundreds of other uses, such as cutting food, shaping wood, etc.

Guns are a quick weapon which can be effectively used to completely halt an attacker. While I would agree that pepper spray is a great deterrent and generally an attacker would not have a defense, such as a gas mask handy, the issue becomes that if an attacker is more than 10 feet away and pointing a gun at you while you have a short range vial of pepper spray, not only is your defense useless, it may even backfire and hurt you instead (Perhaps a small breeze blows it back into your face, shifted wind, etc).

Furthermore, guns are almost 100% directly equal against each other in the majority of combat situations. Sure, a pistol fires less bullets than a mass shooter with an assault rifle. And sure, it might be a little less accurate, might deal a little less damage, etc. But in general, if you hit someone with bullets from an assault rifle and vice versa, the other will die or be badly injured. You can't compare bombs, drones, tanks, that's an absolutely stupid comparison and a very weak argument.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Klokinator