Gun Control, RE: Charleston Massacre

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, I'll concede that was a logical fallacy. What about my other statement?

[Klokinator]

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.

You make a lot of assumptions.

1. People actively resisting will kill corrupt soldiers. Even if you only take them out on a 1:1 ratio (Your life for one corrupt soldier) you at least make the soldiers have to kill you and they lose a friend, which makes them start to suffer from battle fatigue over a long period of time. "Man, this whole Gestapo thing sucks, I've lost too many friends to the resistance, and last week we had to fight and kill Lenny's grandfather because he wouldn't come without a fight. Are we really doing the right thing?"

1.5 Incidentally, even if every guerrilla fighter does no damage at all to the oppressive army (It will, but let's assume this is the case for the sake of argument) they still have to kill you. Few people can straight up murder their countrymen without feeling incredible amounts of guilt. Can you be a soldier and storm into a fellow American's house, shoot them dead as they reach for a gun and feel nothing? Maybe, if the military brainwashed you, but the nightmares you experience every night as many soldiers do WILL haunt you and cause you to lose confidence in the main military. Even just witnessing another fellow soldier killing someone can have the same effect. Spread this out over the majority of the bottom grunts in the military, and the effect will spread FAR faster than if you go willingly to a death camp and die out of sight, out of mind from the main military grunts.

2. Another logical fallacy.

Just because most people are terrified weaklings who won't fight for their rights doesn't mean we all are. If your problem is a lack of a backbone, grow one. If you don't want to grow one, enjoy the death camps that always seem to get set up by the oppressive government. If you'd rather die a nobody without fighting for your right to live, then you're the problem, not the solution.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Klokinator

[blah the Prussian]

Here's the thing: there is one name that will blow 1.5 right open. It's called the Waffen SS. These were people, ordinary like you and I, who were the armed wing of the Nazi party. They did all kinds of shit, from guarding concentration camps to murdering civilians in the streets. The vast majority of them died unrepentant in the closing days of the Second World War. How about the Imperial Japanese Army? These men made a point of making life hell for any soldier that surrendered. They massacred innocent Chinese civilians left and right. Before the atomic bombs fell, they were perfectly willing to fight to the end. So tell me, if soldiers will suddenly have an epiphany from killing innocents, name a major mutiny that happened in history from them doing this that ended up mattering at all. Incidentally, Operation Valkyrie doesn't count, as von Stauffenberg was already opposed to Hitler.

Do you think any one of these soldier went on to oppose Hitler? Think again. You give soldiers far too much credit. Plus, it doesn't seem too tactically sound to use a method of resistance that relies solely on the emotions of the other guy.

Now, just a short point here, but a 1:1 ratio isn't enough if a traditional amount of people fight the government. That goes double if a lot of civilians agree with the government, as they did in Naz Germany, Imperial Japan, Maoist China, North Korea, and many other totalitarian societies.

Finally, two. Well, you seem awfully self righteous, don't you? Sure, it's easy to boast about how you'll die a martyr for freedom and bullshit, but something tells me it'll be a different story if tanks rolled into your hometown. I myself would be perfectly willing to let the military take over. At least they'd get something done. Just because a government is autocratic doesn't mean they'd commit genocide or set up death camps.

Edited June 21, 2015 by blah2127

[Klokinator]

Just because a government is autocratic doesn't mean they'd commit genocide or set up death camps.

Great point! Instead it might just be an internment camp where you're held against your will a few years, like the Japanese, and then released. Too bad that's the exception, not the rule. (Also the fact that it was done due to worries of national security, and attacks on the inside by Japanese, and also the whole part about protecting Japanese Americans from indiscriminate attacks from other Americans as anti-Japanese thoughts were elevated quite high. So basically, completely different situation from say a nazi death camp or slave labor camps during other tyrannies.)

Also, Hitler was unique. He was the first person to do this in recorded modern history (As in pictures of the carnage, videos, etc) and he left such a scar on the world that most have not forgotten, even 70+ years later. Previous dictators who did this were spoken of. Heard, not seen, as it's said. Due to the atrocities he committed, things are much different now than they were back then. For one thing, while the military is still vastly superior to the civilians, we have a new invention called the Internet at our fingertips. The internet is great, because it's a wealth of knowledge from all over the world, including how to make fairly advanced weaponry. Nobody had this in 1940's Germany, they had the old forms of communication, such as word of mouth, television (Which was entirely propaganda) newspapers (Same) and maybe phone. Nowadays, people can come together by the millions and say "Hey, this dictator guy is actually pretty bad, right?" without assembling themselves in one big meeting hall as a perfect target for attack by said dictator.

Now, what I just said could be construed as hyperbole and make believe, however it's already been demonstrated in the modern day. The Kurds, ISIS, and plenty of others all use social media to communicate. It's easier to organize when everyone isn't streaming into a building in broad daylight when surveillance is watching. Yes, IP's can be traced and such, but it's a lot more work for an oppressive regime than it used to be. Furthermore, such social media can also be used to instantly communicate plans of attack. "One hour, attack the capitol building all at once" or something like that.

These things are much more viable than they used to be. Information about weapons construction, the fact civilians typically outnumber the military vastly (Numbers aren't great compared to advanced weaponry, but it's somewhat effective) and even contacts inside a military establishment leaking information can all be very effective at bringing down an oppressive regime.

But the hardest part about this debate so far is how everyone but me is focusing on one detail at a time. I look at the whole picture, how everything intertwines. It's not "BAN OR MAKE GUNS HARDER TO GET, THAT WILL END VIOLENCE!" and it's not "BOMB THE WHITE HOUSE, THAT WILL END THE OPPRESSION!" and it's not "BOMBS AND DRONES KILL JUST LIKE GUNS SO THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY THE SAME". There's hundreds of factors, and in the end it still comes down to the fact that America is one of the most violence-prone countries in the civilized world, if not the whole world itself. It's our culture. Until it's not our culture anymore, we need guns to defend ourselves from others with guns. And if you try to eliminate the guns, the attackers gain the advantage. You wanna make a difference, try making sure you're not a violent attacker and that your kids won't grow up to be as such. Of course the point is relatively moot, most such people are well out of the scope of this forum, so in the end this entire debate is just shouting at the air.

Kinda sad, really.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Klokinator

[blah the Prussian]

Great point! Instead it might just be an internment camp where you're held against your will a few years, like the Japanese, and then released. Too bad that's the exception, not the rule. (Also the fact that it was done due to worries of national security, and attacks on the inside by Japanese, and also the whole part about protecting Japanese Americans from indiscriminate attacks from other Americans as anti-Japanese thoughts were elevated quite high. So basically, completely different situation from say a nazi death camp or slave labor camps during other tyrannies.)

Wait, but the Japanese internment camps were done by a democracy, so it is a completely different issue. Of course, if the Japanese Americans had tried to defend themselves, they likely would have been shot, as opposed to imprisoned, but then released. So the internment camps are a situation of government tyranny that would have made the situation worse.

Also, Hitler was unique. He was the first person to do this in recorded modern history (As in pictures of the carnage, videos, etc) and he left such a scar on the world that most have not forgotten, even 70+ years later. Previous dictators who did this were spoken of. Heard, not seen, as it's said. Due to the atrocities he committed, things are much different now than they were back then. For one thing, while the military is still vastly superior to the civilians, we have a new invention called the Internet at our fingertips. The internet is great, because it's a wealth of knowledge from all over the world, including how to make fairly advanced weaponry. Nobody had this in 1940's Germany, they had the old forms of communication, such as word of mouth, television (Which was entirely propaganda) newspapers (Same) and maybe phone. Nowadays, people can come together by the millions and say "Hey, this dictator guy is actually pretty bad, right?" without assembling themselves in one big meeting hall as a perfect target for attack by said dictator.

That is also a good point, however, this goes both ways. The internet would now make it even easier for the Nazis to spread their propaganda. Now, you don't need to leave your home to hear the speeches of the glorious Fuhrer! Plus, it is entirely possible to limit or even outright get rid of the internet; just look at North Korea.

Now, what I just said could be construed as hyperbole and make believe, however it's already been demonstrated in the modern day. The Kurds, ISIS, and plenty of others all use social media to communicate. It's easier to organize when everyone isn't streaming into a building in broad daylight when surveillance is watching. Yes, IP's can be traced and such, but it's a lot more work for an oppressive regime than it used to be. Furthermore, such social media can also be used to instantly communicate plans of attack. "One hour, attack the capitol building all at once" or something like that.

The same goes for totalitarian regimes. "Oh shit, the rebels are attacking the capitol building all at once!" or something like that. Your use of the ISIS example just proves my point, as they are certainly horrific tyrants.

These things are much more viable than they used to be. Information about weapons construction, the fact civilians typically outnumber the military vastly (Numbers aren't great compared to advanced weaponry, but it's somewhat effective) and even contacts inside a military establishment leaking information can all be very effective at bringing down an oppressive regime.

But how many of these civilians are combat ready? They outnumber the military for a reason; many are children, elderly, or disabled. If rebels force children and the elderly to fight for them, one must ask who the real bad guy is. You then have to factor out all the people who are too scared to fight (likely to be a lot) and once that is done you're left with a pretty pathetic fighting force. I agree about contacts, but they are irrelevant to guns.

Now, if you look at a revolution in recent memory that has not devolved into an anarchistic clusterfuck (another problem with an armed population is that they make stuff like that easier) is Egypt. Now, the revolution that toppled Mubarak was non violent. The protestors mostly followed Gandhi's methods of not attacking the soldiers. This was what made the Egyptian army oust Mubarak, and that is the best way to make the enemy soldiers feel bad. If you attack them, you are likely to only alienate them from your cause further.

[MacLovin]

my two cents:

getting rid of all guns is as fanciful as Superman tossing all nukes into the Sun in Superman IV.

not gonna happen.

besides, the only people who are qualified to judge gun control are those who've had extensive training and experience using them.

And it's not like there aren't other ways to kill people.

I mean there are hundreds of ways to kill and maim without the use of firearms or bladed/pointed tools. This includes anyone who has had at least moderate training in a martial art (Say, a 1st dan).

Hell, I'm pretty sure more people die in car related injuries than gun related injuries across the world. Does this mean we ban cars?

[blah the Prussian]

my two cents:

getting rid of all guns is as fanciful as Superman tossing all nukes into the Sun in Superman IV.

not gonna happen.

besides, the only people who are qualified to judge gun control are those who've had extensive training and experience using them.

And it's not like there aren't other ways to kill people.

I mean there are hundreds of ways to kill and maim without the use of firearms or bladed/pointed tools. This includes anyone who has had at least moderate training in a martial art (Say, a 1st dan).

Hell, I'm pretty sure more people die in car related injuries than gun related injuries across the world. Does this mean we ban cars?

Australia had quite the success with buying back guns. Why are the only people qualified to judge gun control those with gun training? Martial arts takes much more training that "how to go bangity bang or stabbitty stab 101". Finally, source, please.

[Shin]

Hell, I'm pretty sure more people die in car related injuries than gun related injuries across the world. Does this mean we ban cars?

Actually, they're both roughly level in the US, they're both losing to poisoning though, maybe we should make poisoning people ill-... wait¹.

Admittedly, the US's overall crime rate per head is lower than the UK, but that doesn't really take the type of crime into account. The UK has more assaults, thefts, fraud and the like, whilst the US has a lot more deaths relating to firearms and violent crime². The UK does have about double the incidence of rape crime though. However, it can be speculated whether that's just difference in the criminal culture than any effect from weapons - the UK might just have more rapey criminals.

Whilst I can see where Klok's arguing, different law sets will indeed affect what kind of crimes happen, firearms do contribute to a fair number of crimes in the US. It's entirely possible that guns do scare off would-be attackers, but there's also a lot of deaths caused by criminals with guns, a large percentage of them legally owned³. The US is a relatively young country, so the desire to have weapons for defense makes historical sense. One might argue why an individual needs an automatic assault rifle to scare off burglars, but that's a Brit musing about another country's culture.

Living in the UK, handguns and automatic weapons are completely illegal, whilst single-shot reload-able guns can be obtained with a license. Roughly three-quarters of gun crime, and half of violent crime overall in the US is with handguns⁴, most likely due to their relative ease to obtain and conceal. Of course, it also works for the defender, but I felt it was worth mentioning.

Truth be told, the US isn't too bad compared to other countries, there are definitely places where gun ownership would scare me much more. I don't really have a concrete answer, my job's to make people less diseased, not deciding whether we should let people stab or shoot each other. Where I live, guns are pretty tightly regulated, and we don't really have as many deaths relative to the US. Would the same policies work in the US? Hypothetically, but I have a feeling people would respond differently, partly due to culture and beliefs in general. I don't particularly like the idea of the general populace being well armed, but I've grown up in a country where they're not. The US could probably benefit from re-evaluating how it handles firearms, but I'm not really the person to ask what needs to be done.

tl:dr Firearm legality increases deaths from violent crime, but possibly might have an effect in reducing others. The UK and the US are culturally fairly different, so it's not exactly clear whether changing gun policies would have the same effect.

Some rather OK sources:

1. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.

2. Nationmaster. It seems to have reasonable sources from government records

3. US Bureau of Justice findings, it's a little old but it's probably still somewhat relevant

4. FBI violent crime stats between 2008 and 2012.

[blah the Prussian]

Incidentally, are there any stats on how many crimes are stopped by guns? Hell, how many rapes? Might be important to know.

[BBM]

Your case wrt guns vs pepper spray doesn't make sense Klok. If someone has the advantage of surprise and pulls out a gun on you, whether you have a gun or pepper spray is irrelevant. They're going to shoot you before you can pull the gun out and shoot them.

[Shin]

Incidentally, are there any stats on how many crimes are stopped by guns? Hell, how many rapes? Might be important to know.

I can only go by what the sources give me. I couldn't really find anything about crimes prevented and all I saw was a comparison of percentages of the population.

[MacLovin]

Why are the only people qualified to judge gun control those with gun training? Martial arts takes much more training that "how to go bangity bang or stabbitty stab 101".

1. Probably because they actually know how to utilize them. It's kinda like asking why a Gourmet Chef should judge cooking imo.

2. I'm coming from 10 years personal experience in Tae Kwon Do here.

There are potential killing moves taught within the first year or two.

I mean, there's this basic palm strike move that can break off your nose and shove it into your brain.

Additionally, there's also double hammer fists to the temple.

Those are just basic things taught in "Step Sparring".

Oh and any technique aimed at the throat can potentially kill.

Additionally, knives are used in a wide variety of martial arts. Examples would be Apache Knife Fighting and Philippine Knife Fighting. (Both of which have specific names, but I cbf to find them)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

I have to admit, I read about car related death being more prevalent than gun related death in the USA back when I was like 12.

Actually, they're both roughly level in the US, they're both losing to poisoning though, maybe we should make poisoning people ill-... wait¹.

Admittedly, the US's overall crime rate per head is lower than the UK, but that doesn't really take the type of crime into account. The UK has more assaults, thefts, fraud and the like, whilst the US has a lot more deaths relating to firearms and violent crime². The UK does have about double the incidence of rape crime though. However, it can be speculated whether that's just difference in the criminal culture than any effect from weapons - the UK might just have more rapey criminals.

Whilst I can see where Klok's arguing, different law sets will indeed affect what kind of crimes happen, firearms do contribute to a fair number of crimes in the US. It's entirely possible that guns do scare off would-be attackers, but there's also a lot of deaths caused by criminals with guns, a large percentage of them legally owned³. The US is a relatively young country, so the desire to have weapons for defense makes historical sense. One might argue why an individual needs an automatic assault rifle to scare off burglars, but that's a Brit musing about another country's culture.

Living in the UK, handguns and automatic weapons are completely illegal, whilst single-shot reload-able guns can be obtained with a license. Roughly three-quarters of gun crime, and half of violent crime overall in the US is with handguns⁴, most likely due to their relative ease to obtain and conceal. Of course, it also works fAmeror the defender, but I felt it was worth mentioning.

Truth be told, the US isn't too bad compared to other countries, there are definitely places where gun ownership would scare me much more. I don't really have a concrete answer, my job's to make people less diseased, not deciding whether we should let people stab or shoot each other. Where I live, guns are pretty tightly regulated, and we don't really have as many deaths relative to the US. Would the same policies work in the US? Hypothetically, but I have a feeling people would respond differently, partly due to culture and beliefs in general. I don't particularly like the idea of the general populace being well armed, but I've grown up in a country where they're not. The US could probably benefit from re-evaluating how it handles firearms, but I'm not really the person to ask what needs to be done.

tl:dr Firearm legality increases deaths from violent crime, but possibly might have an effect in reducing others. The UK and the US are culturally fairly different, so it's not exactly clear whether changing gun policies would have the same effect.

Some rather OK sources:

1. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.

2. Nationmaster. It seems to have reasonable sources from government records

3. US Bureau of Justice findings, it's a little old but it's probably still somewhat relevant

4. FBI violent crime stats between 2008 and 2012.

America is known to be a melting pot, so the culture's are more varied.

Besides, I'm pretty sure it's just as easy for an untrained person to kill an individual with a bow and arrow/throwing knife/hatchet as it is with a gun.

[blah the Prussian]

1. Probably because they actually know how to utilize them. It's kinda like asking why a Gourmet Chef should judge cooking imo.

Seems pretty simple to me. If trained soldiers use it against other trained soldiers, its rob ably in our best interests to keep it out of the hands of sociopaths.

2. I'm coming from 10 years personal experience in Tae Kwon Do here.

There are potential killing moves taught within the first year or two.

I mean, there's this basic palm strike move that can break off your nose and shove it into your brain.

Additionally, there's also double hammer fists to the temple.

Those are just basic things taught in "Step Sparring".

Oh and any technique aimed at the throat can potentially kill.

Additionally, knives are used in a wide variety of martial arts. Examples would be Apache Knife Fighting and Philippine Knife Fighting. (Both of which have specific names, but I cbf to find them)

How does any of this change the fact that you need a shitton of training to pull these moves off? Also, you need to be at a close range to pull off these attacks. Not so, as mentioned countless times before, with guns.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

I have to admit, I read about car related death being more prevalent than gun related death in the USA back when I was like 12.

America is known to be a melting pot, so the culture's are more varied.

Two problems with this. Firstly, the margin is not that far apart. Secondly, most car crashes are accidental, while most cases of gun violence are deliberate. A better comparison would be hit and runs vs shootings.

Besides, I'm pretty sure it's just as easy for an untrained person to kill an individual with a bow and arrow/throwing knife/hatchet as it is with a gun.

I have attempted to shoot a bow and arrow with zero training. Its not easy. Plus, guns are far easier to come by than there alternate weapons you listed.

[Klokinator]

We should ban heart disease. That will surely reduce the number of people dying to it, if not eliminate it completely!

[-Cynthia-]

Admittedly, the US's overall crime rate per head is lower than the UK, but that doesn't really take the type of crime into account. The UK has more assaults, thefts, fraud and the like, whilst the US has a lot more deaths relating to firearms and violent crime². The UK does have about double the incidence of rape crime though. However, it can be speculated whether that's

A number of these cross country statistics are difficult comparisons though, due to how crime is classified in these countries. For instance, the FBI classifies violent crime as murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The British definition includes all crimes against the person including all simple assaults, all robberies, and all sexual offenses. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

Homicides can be measured pretty objectively, due to being very clear cut and not subject to victim report rates. Other crimes are trickier- I can find one source that says that the UK has double the amount of rape of the US and another one claiming the opposite depending on the definition of rape used (forcible rape vs. sexual assault etc.) I'm dubious of claims that state that guns reduce non-homicide crime based on such data.

Edited June 21, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[Shin]

I agree entirely, it's pretty difficult to find a definite comparison. It's entirely possible that it might, but it's not like we can do a complete like-for-like analysis.

[Phoenix Wright]

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.

what do you feel are the reasons for our high crime rates/incarceration rates?

the us is always in the spotlight, so it's natural that we receive the most flak, are the butt of most jokes, etc. who gives a shit if people didn't know titanic was an actual historical event? and congrats, the internet found 30 uneducated people. impressive, as i'm sure such a high amount doesn't exist in other countries.

europe invented christianity (roman occupation of jerusalem). and the arabs invented islam. at least scientology is known to be stupid.

it's not as bad as you purport it to be at all. tbh the post just comes off as whining.

But the hardest part about this debate so far is how everyone but me is focusing on one detail at a time. I look at the whole picture, how everything intertwines. It's not "BAN OR MAKE GUNS HARDER TO GET, THAT WILL END VIOLENCE!" and it's not "BOMB THE WHITE HOUSE, THAT WILL END THE OPPRESSION!" and it's not "BOMBS AND DRONES KILL JUST LIKE GUNS SO THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY THE SAME". There's hundreds of factors, and in the end it still comes down to the fact that America is one of the most violence-prone countries in the civilized world, if not the whole world itself. It's our culture. Until it's not our culture anymore, we need guns to defend ourselves from others with guns. And if you try to eliminate the guns, the attackers gain the advantage. You wanna make a difference, try making sure you're not a violent attacker and that your kids won't grow up to be as such. Of course the point is relatively moot, most such people are well out of the scope of this forum, so in the end this entire debate is just shouting at the air.

Kinda sad, really.

i don't think so. seeing the "hundreds of factors" and thinking of how they "intertwine" is not only difficult (if not impossible), but you lose insight when you try to focus on only the big picture. predicting what might happen out of 100 factors is much harder than predicting what might happen from 1 factor. you focus on 1 factor at a time and bring them all together later.

[Parrhesia]

In Australia, that racist little shit wouldn't have had a gun, and his victims would still be alive today. It's that simple.

[Raven]

In the U.K., too.

I can't add much to this discussion; people may remember my own stance when such a topic existed a few years ago.

But either way, I'm anti-gun (for the most part - barring one or two exceptions), and any and all news related to gun crime in the USA is just another day really, isn't it.

People are killed by gun crime so often in America, it's hilarious how they haven't done anything to try to improve the situation. The politicians are simply afraid of the repercussions, fuck the statistics.

'Merica, freederm, eeglez, etc., right? It's getting boring.

[blah the Prussian]

In the U.K., too.

I can't add much to this discussion; people may remember my own stance when such a topic existed a few years ago.

But either way, I'm anti-gun (for the most part - barring one or two exceptions), and any and all news related to gun crime in the USA is just another day really, isn't it.

People are killed by gun crime so often in America, it's hilarious how they haven't done anything to try to improve the situation. The politicians are simply afraid of the repercussions, fuck the statistics.

'Merica, freederm, eeglez, etc., right? It's getting boring.

I pretty much agree with this. In the Czech Republic, shit like this never happens. Why did you guys have to lose the war for independence? I really wish that hadn't happened.

We should ban heart disease. That will surely reduce the number of people dying to it, if not eliminate it completely!

Could you please respond meaningfully, as opposed to using hyperbolic arguments that don't actually accomplish anything besides a halfhearted chuckle?

[Esau of Isaac]

In the U.K., too.

I can't add much to this discussion; people may remember my own stance when such a topic existed a few years ago.

But either way, I'm anti-gun (for the most part - barring one or two exceptions), and any and all news related to gun crime in the USA is just another day really, isn't it.

People are killed by gun crime so often in America, it's hilarious how they haven't done anything to try to improve the situation. The politicians are simply afraid of the repercussions, fuck the statistics.

'Merica, freederm, eeglez, etc., right? It's getting boring.

People have done things to try to improve the situation. Crime, including gun crime, has been on a steady decline overall for years. That massacres still occur is troubling, but unrelated to the availability of firearms.

Kindly keep your hyperbole to yourself. Glass nations shouldn't throw stones. Or something like that.

[Tryhard]

Thanks to whoever split the topic. I don't really have much to say on it anyway.

The American people generally choose to keep their right to firearms - I cannot say I agree with it, but it is in their constitution that they adhere to greatly, either through the hobby or a want for protection (a gun really does not make you any safer, though). My disagreement is purely emotional, however, as the statistics currently available are inconclusive as to whether the same results that have happened for the UK and Australia would work in America. All I really have to say is that I feel safer in the UK where guns are banned then I would if I was in America carrying a weapon at all times. Though I do have to ask - why do people defend gun freedom as a principle so vehemently? Is it because an interest in a hobby of shooting, or because you believe you should have the right to have one to protect yourselves?

When the UK banned handguns after the Dunblane Massacre, I'm not sure there was as much uproar (if any at all) compared to what would happen in America. Did it stop every gun crime? No, there was another mass shooting in 2010, but that is the only one that I can recall. America has had several in a few years. In Australia, I think the record is even cleaner.

Still, an outright ban is simply not possible. I would urge those that are trying to pass legislation to look into restricting unnecessary weapon accessories or stricter background checks.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Tryhard

[Klokinator]

Could you please respond meaningfully, as opposed to using hyperbolic arguments that don't actually accomplish anything besides a halfhearted chuckle?

You should pass a law banning hyperbole! That will drastically cut it down, if not eliminate it and chuckling completely!

[Chiki]

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 wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself if other people didn't have guns. If guns are banned, people should make a habit out of carrying stuff like pepper sprays instead. Then no one would need to die.

Btw, this post shows an abnormal amount of paranoia and a lack of evidence for your claims. Proof of shitty parenting? Proof that you always need a gun to protect yourself?

[Blaze The Great]

In response to Parrhesia and Raven, if you think that restrictions guns will prevent deaths, check out statistics in totalitarian governments. In Mao's China, over 76 million people died. 60 million died in Soviet Russia, and over 20 million more in Nazi Germany. These statistics are backed up by RJ Rummel, who has published extensive searches and also a book on democide. You can easily find his stuff simply by searching democide.

The point is, reducing guns does not reduce death. Of course, I'm not saying that if there are no guns the country is totalitarian, or vice versa. However, there seems to be a correlation between the two, and the statistics speak for themselves when those cross paths.

Also, in response to Chiki, that is a solid point, and I wish the world would work like that. Unfortunately, if guns were banned, criminals would still go after them. Just because rape is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Same case with theft, and many other crimes. If guns were illegal, then gun crime would still happen. The main difference would be that the law-abiding citizens who would otherwise have guns would be stuck defending themselves with an inferior weapon/tool. And in that case, the criminal will win almost every time.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Blaze The Great