Gun Control, RE: Charleston Massacre

[Esau of Isaac]

but we don't care about what the military thinks. we care about whether throwing dead bodies as a form of armed resistance is effective.

Uh, no we don't. You mentioned comparative body count as a relevant statistic. It is not.

right so why are we comparing fictional paranoid totalitarian occupation to real overseas occupation again

Because that's what was being discussed? For one who criticizes others you have a tough time keeping up.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Esau of Isaac

[Raven]

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.

I know. After that Batman cinema massacre they banned automatics or something, didn't they? That's what I'm aware of, at least.

I'm glad the statistics are dropping, but this shit's still happening too often, and it's still too easy for Average Joe down the road to pick up a gun then go on his own little massacre through town. This is what pisses me off. It's total bullshit.

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.

I don't recall saying banning weapons for (the majority) of civilians will prevent deaths by gun. But I'd sooner jump off a cliff than believe that putting a ban on them won't reduce the number of deaths by gun.

People die to guns in the UK too, but the difference is huge. In the thousands per year. This site provides statistics on crime by the year and allows you to compare Countries and also ranks them from worst to best. "Murder with firearms" is huge. Another point of interest is the interactive map on this page , just in case someone wants to say something along the lines of "But the USA has more people."

[Magical CC]

criminal elements will still obtain firearms, even if they're banned.

It's because it's easy for criminals to access to guns in America. It's not the case for the other countries where guns are hard to get even for criminals. America has many large criminal organizations, it's hard to control illegal firearm trading when the market is strong and makes great profits. Not to mention, America has many well known firearm manufacturers making it easier to access to firearms, you dont even have to import them from another countries. Even if you ban firearm, the illegal firearm market is still strong. Basically, gun is not the main problem, it's the America culture itself.

But of course, I dont see no criminals in the case where a 9 years old killed her gun instructor. That's what is wrong with America, not the gun itself. Pff, why should a 9 years old kid need to learn how to use firearm? To fence off rapist? To protect herself from bullies? To hunt deers? Why? In a society where even a kid shoots gun daily, of course the criminals will be much familiar to guns.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Magical CC

[Eail]

Pff, why should a 9 years old kid need to learn how to use firearm? To fence off rapist? To protect herself from bullies? To hunt deers? Why? In a society where even a kid shoots gun daily, of course the criminals will be much familiar to guns.

So he doesn't accidentally shoot himself or someone else if he ever gets his hands on a gun. That case where the nine year old accidentally killed her instructor was a freak accident, not the norm. Teaching gun safety to children so they don't think that a gun is a toy but a tool that requires responsibility is something that should be necessary. Please tell me a downside to trying to teach a child to treat a firearm with the respect it deserves, rather than waving it around with their finger on the trigger and the safety off like a savage?

[Blaze The Great]

I don't recall saying banning weapons for (the majority) of civilians will prevent deaths by gun. But I'd sooner jump off a cliff than believe that putting a ban on them won't reduce the number of deaths by gun.

People die to guns in the UK too, but the difference is huge. In the thousands per year. This site provides statistics on crime by the year and allows you to compare Countries and also ranks them from worst to best. "Murder with firearms" is huge. Another point of interest is the interactive map on this page , just in case someone wants to say something along the lines of "But the USA has more people."

The problem is that the US has problems set MUCH deeper than gun violence. Guns, drugs, and other illegal activity are ingrained so deeply in our culture that even if guns were illegalized, they would still be promoted and people would still go after them. Despite our drug bans, drugs are still rampant, both in culture and in the real world. So gun bans wouldn't be as effective in the US as they would in the UK or Australia.

[Snowy_One]

The problem is that the US has problems set MUCH deeper than gun violence. Guns, drugs, and other illegal activity are ingrained so deeply in our culture that even if guns were illegalized, they would still be promoted and people would still go after them. Despite our drug bans, drugs are still rampant, both in culture and in the real world. So gun bans wouldn't be as effective in the US as they would in the UK or Australia.

What's ironic is that the US probably has some of the higher anti-drug laws in the world.

[blah the Prussian]

The problem is that the US has problems set MUCH deeper than gun violence. Guns, drugs, and other illegal activity are ingrained so deeply in our culture that even if guns were illegalized, they would still be promoted and people would still go after them. Despite our drug bans, drugs are still rampant, both in culture and in the real world. So gun bans wouldn't be as effective in the US as they would in the UK or Australia.

Then we change that culture. A good first step would be harsher gun control.

[Snowy_One]

Then we change that culture. A good first step would be harsher gun control.

That's... not culture. That's enforcement. A good first step would be to find ways to stop glamorizing drug use and make it as clear as possible that they are illegal. A good start to that would be focusing on Hollywood and its celebrities who often actively do drugs a lot less.

[Blaze The Great]

Then we change that culture. A good first step would be harsher gun control.

Gun control has nothing to do with our culture, it has to do with our laws. Like Snowy said, there need to be more reminders that drugs are illegal. A good start is aggressive ad campaigning, especially if said ads are targeted towards a younger demographic. They are doing a good job of that with cigarettes, reminding people of the dangers of those. However, that means they also need to do it with illegal drugs and guns, to remind people of the dangers of both. That being said, guns are still not the problem; they just need to be glorified less, especially with crime movies and games.

[blah the Prussian]

Gun control has nothing to do with our culture, it has to do with our laws. Like Snowy said, there need to be more reminders that drugs are illegal. A good start is aggressive ad campaigning, especially if said ads are targeted towards a younger demographic. They are doing a good job of that with cigarettes, reminding people of the dangers of those. However, that means they also need to do it with illegal drugs and guns, to remind people of the dangers of both. That being said, guns are still not the problem; they just need to be glorified less, especially with crime movies and games.

You were kind of right until that last part. Violence in the media may not strictly speaking help matters, but it does not lead to massacres like these. I also assume you mean to implement these measures after guns are illegal.

[Blaze The Great]

You were kind of right until that last part. Violence in the media may not strictly speaking help matters, but it does not lead to massacres like these. I also assume you mean to implement these measures after guns are illegal.

Yeah, that last point was kinda misplaced in this discussion. As for YOUR last sentence, no, I do not think they should be implemented after guns are illegalized. I think we should have advertisements like this now, so that people understand and are exposed to gun safety more often, so that they will be more cautious while still keeping their guns.

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, that last point was kinda misplaced in this discussion. As for YOUR last sentence, no, I do not think they should be implemented after guns are illegalized. I think we should have advertisements like this now, so that people understand and are exposed to gun safety more often, so that they will be more cautious while still keeping their guns.

Yeah, I would be in favor of that combined with banning weapons standard issue for the military. In any case, bowing out here for now. Peace.

[Raven]

The problem is that the US has problems set MUCH deeper than gun violence. Guns, drugs, and other illegal activity are ingrained so deeply in our culture that even if guns were illegalized, they would still be promoted and people would still go after them. Despite our drug bans, drugs are still rampant, both in culture and in the real world. So gun bans wouldn't be as effective in the US as they would in the UK or Australia.

It's people with this train of thought that get nothing done. You can't expect to try to repair all the problems in one go. You must start somewhere.

I think it's the things that enable others to kill so effortlessly that should be top of any country's priority of problems to be dealt with.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Raven

[Esau of Isaac]

I know. After that Batman cinema massacre they banned automatics or something, didn't they? That's what I'm aware of, at least.

I'm glad the statistics are dropping, but this shit's still happening too often, and it's still too easy for Average Joe down the road to pick up a gun then go on his own little massacre through town. This is what pisses me off. It's total bullshit.

Automatic weapons are effectively illegal, and have been essentially since not long after their invention. Politicians that speak poignantly would have you believe that crime is perpetuated by big scary black polymer guns, when in fact the vast majority of gun crime is conducted with small, concealable handguns.

It's happening too often, but it doesn't have to do specifically with availability to guns. Gun-free zones, let alone nations, still find themselves with a comparative level of crime, if less gun crime.

[Soapbar]

It's happening too often, but it doesn't have to do specifically with availability to guns. Gun-free zones, let alone nations, still find themselves with a comparative level of crime, if less gun crime.

But the level of crime doesn't matter compared to the level of lives lost in those crimes. Singular Homicides would be A) Harder to pull off for the Average Joe with mental issues or a hate-boner for a neighbor with restricted access to guns and B) obviously, take less lives than a massacre on the scale of Charleston or any other shooting. It is quite obvious to anyone that Gun Crimes have the potential to take quite a few more human lives compared to crimes committed with knives or bludgeons. Less Gun Crime is better because the capacity that guns give the user is quite high compared to other common homicide tools. Even if it doesn't reduce crime overall, it will reduce the amount of people killed in those crimes.

"If we don't have guns we can't protect ourselves from people with guns!" But in a country where guns are hard to find, you would be less likely to be attacked by someone with a gun in the first place, and much less in your home. Imagine, in a state/country where guns are harder to find, and you do not have a gun already, you would have to have some sort of connection to the criminal underworld or some sort of black market in order to get your hands on one, and it would likely be expensive as hell due to laws of supply and demand. Furthermore, while a gun is mostly inescapable, it is still loud and would alert quite a few people, compared to knife which the victim has a much better chance of escaping, screaming for help, and calling the police.

Furthermore, why do you need to buy a $1500 gun when you can buy a home security alarm that is much more likely to scare off a robber (loud noises and the threat of police response generally does that) for much cheaper and is a lot more reliable. I'd even put a well-trained dog over a gun if your paranoid because the barking would generally alert any sleeping master and make the chance of resistance (Something criminals don't exactly want) higher, not to mention the dog itself attacking the criminal.

And if your really scared about the United States turning into some totalitarian government overnight (I'm not going to deny they're corrupt but come on) then you could always, i dunno, leave the country. The US is just south of Canada you know. And besides, if your country really has it out for you your dinky little handgun isn't going to do jack shit against trained soldiers.

[Tryhard]

And besides, if your country really has it out for you your dinky little handgun isn't going to do jack shit against trained soldiers.

Stop saying exactly what I said. ;_;

Though I am curious Esau, dropping the whole argument for a second, is there a specific reason why you do defend the right to own a weapon as significant to you?

[Soapbar]

Also, did you just put "fat" under the list of things that are undesirable? WTF.

I wanna respond to this despite it being mostly unrelated but "fat" isn't all too desirable at all considering that it comes with a lot of health issues and also the issue of finding clothing that fits your fat ass.

[Esau of Isaac]

But the level of crime doesn't matter compared to the level of lives lost in those crimes. Singular Homicides would be A) Harder to pull off for the Average Joe with mental issues or a hate-boner for a neighbor with restricted access to guns and B) obviously, take less lives than a massacre on the scale of Charleston or any other shooting. It is quite obvious to anyone that Gun Crimes have the potential to take quite a few more human lives compared to crimes committed with knives or bludgeons. Less Gun Crime is better because the capacity that guns give the user is quite high compared to other common homicide tools. Even if it doesn't reduce crime overall, it will reduce the amount of people killed in those crimes.

"If we don't have guns we can't protect ourselves from people with guns!" But in a country where guns are hard to find, you would be less likely to be attacked by someone with a gun in the first place, and much less in your home. Imagine, in a state/country where guns are harder to find, and you do not have a gun already, you would have to have some sort of connection to the criminal underworld or some sort of black market in order to get your hands on one, and it would likely be expensive as hell due to laws of supply and demand. Furthermore, while a gun is mostly inescapable, it is still loud and would alert quite a few people, compared to knife which the victim has a much better chance of escaping, screaming for help, and calling the police.

Furthermore, why do you need to buy a $1500 gun when you can buy a home security alarm that is much more likely to scare off a robber (loud noises and the threat of police response generally does that) for much cheaper and is a lot more reliable. I'd even put a well-trained dog over a gun if your paranoid because the barking would generally alert any sleeping master and make the chance of resistance (Something criminals don't exactly want) higher, not to mention the dog itself attacking the criminal.

And if your really scared about the United States turning into some totalitarian government overnight (I'm not going to deny they're corrupt but come on) then you could always, i dunno, leave the country. The US is just south of Canada you know. And besides, if your country really has it out for you your dinky little handgun isn't going to do jack shit against trained soldiers.

1.) If lives lost in tragedies is the motivating factor of such a decision then we'd all be living in cubicles. I don't want murderers getting guns either, but I'm not going to sign away my rights because of madmen doing what madmen will always do. It's hard to use lives saved as a statistic when people are still being murdered by murderers, albeit with different tools.

2.) Imagine a United States where guns are hard to find. I can also imagine a land where no one gets sick and it rains Mountain Dew. The idea that America has a foreseeable future where guns are not easy to obtain is absurd.

3.) Why can't I have a gun in case the alarm fails? Why do I have to rely on police instead of relying on myself? If guns were illegal would you be badgering me carrying a knife around? Also lol at $1500, you can buy a reliable firearm for a third of the price for simple home defense.

4.) No sane person thinks they are days, weeks, or what have you from insurgency or something. That viewpoint is only held by the most delusional and paranoid. With respect to earlier sentiments regarding peaceful protest, there is always a time when words fail, whether it's between two governments or two people. I'm not a lunatic, but in the same sense that I would potentially fight and die for my country in the name of liberty, I would also potentially fight against it in the name of liberty.

Stop saying exactly what I said. ;_;

Though I am curious Esau, dropping the whole argument for a second, is there a specific reason why you do defend the right to own a weapon as significant to you?

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.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Esau of Isaac

[blah the Prussian]

So out of curiosity, you would shoot someone for trying to steal your shit?

[Phoenix Wright]

if you had the means, would you not defend your own life if you felt it was threatened? there's pretty much 4 scenarios when your house gets broken into:

1. you don't notice or you're not home, so your things get stolen

2. you notice and don't have the means to defend yourself, thus you are in some pretty real danger

3. you notice and have a gun, thus deterring the burglar

4. you and the burglar are both armed, and now it's a fight between you both. you shoot him first, making you safe

i'd imagine the order of what is most ideal is 3, 4, 1, 2. if i own a gun, and i'm likely to be robbed, 4 is a possibility i'd rather live with than 2.

an invasion of your home is more than just an attempt at "stealing your shit."

Edited June 25, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

So out of curiosity, you would shoot someone for trying to steal your shit?

I would be prepared to shoot at someone that broke into my home, yes. But, I know what you're thinking, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR HOME INVADERS?!

I'm sure if I called the police and they incredibly managed to arrive in time, they would dispense hugs and kisses on the poor guy breaking into my house. After all we wouldn't want him getting hurt!

[Raven]

Automatic weapons are effectively illegal, and have been essentially since not long after their invention. Politicians that speak poignantly would have you believe that crime is perpetuated by big scary black polymer guns, when in fact the vast majority of gun crime is conducted with small, concealable handguns.

It's happening too often, but it doesn't have to do specifically with availability to guns. Gun-free zones, let alone nations, still find themselves with a comparative level of crime, if less gun crime.

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."

[blah the Prussian]

I would be prepared to shoot at someone that broke into my home, yes. But, I know what you're thinking, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR HOME INVADERS?!

I'm sure if I called the police and they incredibly managed to arrive in time, they would dispense hugs and kisses on the poor guy breaking into my house. After all we wouldn't want him getting hurt!

Fair enough; you wouldn't know if they were burglars or murderers. That was a stupid question in hindsight.

[Esau of Isaac]

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."

Of course it's about crime in general. If the tool isn't the cause of the crime then you haven't much solved the problem by banning it, have you? People aren't dying necessaroly because of loose restrictions on firearms. There are notorious "gun-free zones" such as DC which have a high rate of crime compared to many of those nasty places where you can own guns more easily. Which of those areas do you think criminals are going to be more comfortable operating in? Ones where they know people can't fight back, ir ones where they're liable to get plugged by someone carrying?

Either way, governments can try to fix the problem in many ways, but in a country such as the US restricting access to firearms simply won't be as effective as it was in many European countries. They're different beasts.

[Fly or Die]

Of course it's about crime in general. If the tool isn't the cause of the crime then you haven't much solved the problem by banning it, have you? People aren't dying necessaroly because of loose restrictions on firearms. There are notorious "gun-free zones" such as DC which have a high rate of crime compared to many of those nasty places where you can own guns more easily. Which of those areas do you think criminals are going to be more comfortable operating in? Ones where they know people can't fight back, ir ones where they're liable to get plugged by someone carrying?

Either way, governments can try to fix the problem in many ways, but in a country such as the US restricting access to firearms simply won't be as effective as it was in many European countries. They're different beasts.

Well, to be fair, it's hard to judge the DC gun laws since the surrounding states have looser laws (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm pretty sure it all comes down to implementation; it's hard (for me) to imagine that gun laws do anything accept make guns harder to obtain for the average, law-abiding citizen. Of course, if we could prevent criminals/crazy people/etc. from getting guns, that'd be the obvious choice, wouldn't it? But it's hard to use laws to limit the activities of people who clearly don't respect them.

Not that the US would ever ban guns as long as 2nd Amendment stands. A nation-wide gun control law like the one currently in DC is possible, though.