Gun control in US

Heres an odd thing.... And nobody take offense at this, Im not trying to be a dick.... But everytime we have a gun control in the U.S. thread, with a few exceptions, the arguments usually boil down to a bunch of Americans who say "Nope..." and a bunch of NON Americans who push for it (although lately they seem to be saying "America should have it, but it wouldnt work"). Why is it these threads bring out the Canadian and European members MORE THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER??? The only other threads that come close involve tits and ass...

 

Why do you care what laws we have in America? Really, its an honest question... And don't just give me your first answer... Think about it a while and get back to me...

 

 

If we had a thread "Should (Insert name of country I dont live in) ban (insert hot button noun)" and there was a "I DONT GIVE A SHIT" Button, I would hit that every time.... I probably wouldn't waste my time reading the first post in the thread because I CARE SO LITTLE...

 

Why is it the rest of the world always gives a shit about our internal policies?

 

Hahaha, that's interesting and true, you guys really do come out whenever we talk about guns OR Obama...

 

But in their defense RD it's perhaps because they see so little gun violence in their own countries that they're passionate about describing how things COULD be for the US. It's out of love I think, not a desire to bring us closer to the "misery" of their "socialism" (another fake fear in the US currently).

 

Prohibition in all forms just seems impossible to me with our current economic situation, even when money is unlimited, which why I like the "we should but can't" attitude. This is the same attitude that conservatives typically have for climate change as well btw, which I agree with (meaning climate change is absolutely real, but there's little we could do about it without affecting our economy so fcuk it...)

 

I'm not too fond of throwing in statistics here and there (like I've already did) because they can be misleading and lackluster. But according my links above the gun violence in the US is anything but low...

 

But like you very well said in your previous post, there is no quick fix for reducing the amount of guns in US homes. And with the mentality of criminals there it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

 

I wonder though, does it happen a lot that people successfully use a gun for self protection?

 

Yes, stats are impossible to glean true insight from because both sides twist them for their own purposes. I will say that to answer your own question at the end that the FBI has often done studies in years past that show an EQUAL chance that your own dumbass (or one of your family) is going to get shot by your own damn gun when one is introduced into a home-invasion scenario...

 

Strange but true, most Americans fcuk up the engagement and manage to harm themselves rather than the intruder, or the intruder takes the gun away and shoots them instead!

 

Or they use the wrong type of weapon for defense, say like an AR-15 with ball ammo that penetrates walls easily (and puts family at risk in other rooms).

 

Of course all of these misadventures are due to a lack of proper training, if you break into a cop's house or a solider's, you're definitely getting shot haha, but that's part of what a lot of us might support moving forward: More testing/actual training in order to get a license for a firearm.

 

Since a total ban in unfeasible I'd love to see more gunowners who only go to the range once or twice a year and primarily own the weapon for "home protection" be compelled to get training to keep them up to date each year, just as pilots or drivers do.

Heres an odd thing.... And nobody take offense at this, Im not trying to be a dick.... But everytime we have a gun control in the U.S. thread, with a few exceptions, the arguments usually boil down to a bunch of Americans who say "Nope..." and a bunch of NON Americans who push for it (although lately they seem to be saying "America should have it, but it wouldnt work"). Why is it these threads bring out the Canadian and European members MORE THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER??? The only other threads that come close involve tits and ass...

 

Why do you care what laws we have in America? Really, its an honest question... And don't just give me your first answer... Think about it a while and get back to me...

 

 

If we had a thread "Should (Insert name of country I dont live in) ban (insert hot button noun)" and there was a "I DONT GIVE A SHIT" Button, I would hit that every time.... I probably wouldn't waste my time reading the first post in the thread because I CARE SO LITTLE...

 

Why is it the rest of the world always gives a shit about our internal policies?

 

Good question I wondered sometimes as well but not just on this forum...on other forums and in person too...curious to see the responses (if any). I know when it comes to in person conversations they are just sick of all the rules in other countries and wish we had them too even though they don't admit it...Jealousy maybe?

 

In the US chances are he is armed yes. That is not the case in gun controlled countries. A criminal does not equal a murderer.

 

Look at this and tell me gun control doesn't work:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...s-with-firearms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ated_death_rate

 

 

Take a look at the wiki link above...

Yes you are right to some extent, however Norway (iirc you are norwegian) is a bit more isolated than the rest of the european countries. Norway is likely the safest country in Europe, but look to southern Europe and you will notice things are a bit different. It's not the same everywhere. Norway is more isolated from the eastern and south eastern european organized crime gangs, albanians for example are notorious for smuggling weapons, hence it's easier to procure illegal weapons than it probably is in Norway.

It sounds to me like you're suggesting the elimination of doctor-patient confidentiality. I can't imagine that this would actually improve anything. People are already reluctant enough to seek treatment for mental health problems because of the stigma attached to them. Putting the name of every patient on a publicly accessible list will have no effect other than preventing people from seeking treatment. Considering that a large number of people with mental disorders already avoid treatment, the only way for an idea like this to be even remotely effective would be to require a psychological analysis of everyone who wants to buy a gun. I suspect you are not in favor of that the sort of invasive gun control.

 

Where is doctor/patient confidentiality cast in stone? Especially in the mental health arena? (legal answer- its not, in fact they already have a duty to report certain SUBJECTIVE findings and potential victims). This list wouldnt be publicly accessible... It would simply add a checked box to the NICS background check... You would be "In the System" presumably before you ever went to buy a gun.... And then when you go to buy the gun the FFL is told "No" and he says to you "sorry... I cant sell you that gun... I have no idea why, Have a nice day."

 

 

Now... This SHOULD trigger ALL SORTS OF THINGS, namely an automatic notification to the Local Police and ATF.... "So and so who has a Mental Health hold just tried to buy a gun." (or "So and so who LIVES with so and so who has a mental health hold just tried to buy a gun") THEY should then go have a chat with you.... Maybe you had a bout of depression when you got a C on your statistics final 15 years ago... Maybe youre howling at the fcuking moon.... They can quickly figure that out in a brief, (UNANNOUNCED) interaction... ITS what police are supposed to do... If its a NOTHING, they try to follow up with the mental health professional who checked the box... Whats their side of the story? If its a moot point, the checkbox is removed and we all go shooting together... Total delay, a few days...

 

In the case of James Holmes, they would have found an apartment in the process of being booby trapped, that smelled like a texaco station, and a kid who was acting like a goddamned fruitcake.... In this case they would have told MOM that her mentally troubled son was trying to buy a gun she didnt know about.... Maybe she can then take steps to secure her own guns.... That little piece of info may have been ALL SHE NEEDED TO KNOW to take the next step in her sons care, and her own safety. These were kids who were BOTH getting psychiatric care for YEARS before they snapped... you really think mom and dad would have said "better not take Jimmy to the SHRINK, he might not be able to buy a gun..."?

 

Is it PERFECT? No... But its a reasonable compromise that minimally burdens people who SHOULD BE minimally burdened, and leaves the rest of us alone....

I'm not too fond of throwing in statistics here and there (like I've already did) because they can be misleading and lackluster. But according my links above the gun violence in the US is anything but low...

 

But like you very well said in your previous post, there is no quick fix for reducing the amount of guns in US homes. And with the mentality of criminals there it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

 

I wonder though, does it happen a lot that people successfully use a gun for self protection?

 

Please use murder per capita USA falls to 37

Please use murder per capita USA falls to 37

 

Too many other variables outside of simply guns being available/unavailable to draw any conclusion from that particular stat.

 

For the most part it simply shows that most Americans don't resort to violence to resolve disputes as the rest of the world may assume.

 

Plus a lot of those murders are husband/wife domestics, so the real number is even lower truthfully (i.e. more favorable for NO gun control), but again we can't draw much from that for either side unfortunately.

I'm not too fond of throwing in statistics here and there (like I've already did) because they can be misleading and lackluster. But according my links above the gun violence in the US is anything but low...

 

But like you very well said in your previous post, there is no quick fix for reducing the amount of guns in US homes. And with the mentality of criminals there it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

 

I wonder though, does it happen a lot that people successfully use a gun for self protection?

 

Gun violence in the US is mainly tied to illegal firearms being used by gangs, with another large chunk being suicides.

 

As for the law abiding citizens, yes guns are used to save far more lives than they take (roughly 2.5m times per year). You just never hear about it because the media (mostly) only like to broadcast guns being used in crimes.

 

To get to the core of the issue, violence in the US is a cultural issue, not a gun one.

 

Here in the UK, our gun crime rate (back in the late 1800's/early 1900's) was lower than the US's gun crime rate even when we had no gun laws at all.

Heres an odd thing.... And nobody take offense at this, Im not trying to be a dick.... But everytime we have a gun control in the U.S. thread, with a few exceptions, the arguments usually boil down to a bunch of Americans who say "Nope..." and a bunch of NON Americans who push for it (although lately they seem to be saying "America should have it, but it wouldnt work"). Why is it these threads bring out the Canadian and European members MORE THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER??? The only other threads that come close involve tits and ass...

 

Why do you care what laws we have in America? Really, its an honest question... And don't just give me your first answer... Think about it a while and get back to me...

 

 

If we had a thread "Should (Insert name of country I dont live in) ban (insert hot button noun)" and there was a "I DONT GIVE A SHIT" Button, I would hit that every time.... I probably wouldn't waste my time reading the first post in the thread because I CARE SO LITTLE...

 

Why is it the rest of the world always gives a shit about our internal policies?

Personally I don't care about internal policies as I don't live in the US, and I don't think I ever will end up there. The reason I'm interested in the gun debate is because there has been talk of legalizing handguns in my country and I'm curious to learn about laws, views and customs in other countries and what they think is good or bad about having guns widely available to the general population. Other places that do have lax views on guns aren't English speaking, so I can't really communicate or relate to them. Secondly I enjoy debates on L/P because of the high level of discussion.

Also even if I'm not american, I was genuinely upset about the elementary school shooting and it really did ruin my day thinking about that tragedy. Since when has empathy been bound to nationality? I have family living in the USA, and from that perspective I care what happens to them and what goes on there.

 

And no it's not a socialist conspiracy And personally I dislike Obama a great deal, not everyone outside the US likes him, if that makes you feel better.

Gun violence in the US is mainly tied to illegal firearms being used by gangs, with another large chunk being suicides.

 

As for the law abiding citizens, yes guns are used to save far more lives than they take (roughly 2.5m times per year). You just never hear about it because the media (mostly) only like to broadcast guns being used in crimes.

 

To get to the core of the issue, violence in the US is a cultural issue, not a gun one.

 

Here in the UK, our gun crime rate (back in the late 1800's/early 1900's) was lower than the US's gun crime rate even when we had no gun laws at all.

 

That "2.5M" stat has been debunked as false previously...

 

Unfortunately stats cannot be used for this debate really, as every one I've ever seen was created/originated by one of the two sides when you investigate sources. Very difficult to find non-biased methodology combined with accurate controls to draw an opinion from any of the numbers.

Norway is likely the safest country in Europe

Yet we had the worst mass murderer in modern times on a rampage here last year. Gun control won't stop psychos, unfortunately.

 

Chris Rock has a good point though

Yet we had the worst mass murderer in modern times on a rampage here last year. Gun control won't stop psychos, unfortunately.

 

Like RD said previously, if someone is motivated and doesn't care if their own life is taken in the process, they can kill a lot of people with a can-opener...let alone a knife or gun.

That "2.5M" stat has been debunked as false previously...

 

Unfortunately stats cannot be used for this debate really, as every one I've ever seen was created/originated by one of the two sides when you investigate sources. Very difficult to find non-biased methodology combined with accurate controls to draw an opinion from any of the numbers.

 

 

True,

 

I heard somewhere that the gun deaths figures also include the deaths of criminals at the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

No idea if it is true, but if it is, maybe they should separate the official stats from where guns are used legally vs illegally.

 

 

True,

 

I heard somewhere that the gun deaths figures also include the deaths of criminals at the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

No idea if it is true, but if it is, maybe they should separate the stats from where guns are use legally vs illegally.

 

They should, definitely agree. It's a shame that the FBI and some of the other intrinsically non-biased sources of great data don't delve into it more due to a fear of political blowback and misallocation of tax-payer resources.

 

A lot of the debate about the stats on both sides of the issue comes from biased interpretations of the data itself...meaning even when the information is correct and sourced well we still "see" what we want to see and make arguments that the data supports that viewpoint.

 

Tough nut to crack.

Like RD said previously, if someone is motivated and doesn't care if their own life is taken in the process, they can kill a lot of people with a can-opener...let alone a knife or gun.

 

It was reported I believe that there is close to 300 million weapons in the US. The genie is out of the bottle. Gun control at this point whether you are for or against it simply isn't practical. You'll end up with an unenforceable prohibition type situation. If somebody wants a weapon badly enough they'll get it.

 

One thing I will say it does seem that these spree type killings are much more predominant in the US and have no sense why. I realize it does happen elsewhere, but seemingly at a much lower frequency.

Is it PERFECT? No... But its a reasonable compromise that minimally burdens people who SHOULD BE minimally burdened, and leaves the rest of us alone....

 

Sorry, I don't see it as reasonable at all. It adds further burden to people who are already burdened by mental illness, but only those people who were responsible enough to seek treatment. It allows those who have received no treatment at all to bypass the system altogether, and will certainly reduce the number of people seeking treatment because under that system, attempting to deal with your problems has negative consequences and ignoring them or letting them get worse lets you skip those consequences. And, as you certainly know, if that system were in place John Holmes would have just bought a gun illegally and nothing would have changed. That is, after all, the standard argument against gun control argument, and it's as true in this case as it is in any other.

 

And, of course, who pays for this? With about 10 million guns sold each year (more than 25,000 per day) and more than a quarter of Americans suffering from some sort of mental illness each year, that's going to take quite a bit of manpower.

 

As a reasonable compromise, it would make sense for someone reported by their psychiatrist as at risk for violent behavior to be placed on the list. Wasting time and money to bother someone who got a C on a final 15 years ago, or who had a parent die when they were a teenager, or any number of other things is a complete waste of time and money.

 

Every time a tragedy like this occurs, the anti-gun people blame the guns themselves, and the pro-gun people frequently blame mental illness. The truth is that some people are just fcuking evil. The vast majority of gun owners never harm anyone, and the vast majority of people with mental disorders never harm anyone. Evil people do damage. Sometimes they use guns, sometimes they're also mentally ill. Frequently, I suspect, we label them as crazy in order to try to make sense of what they did.

Heres an odd thing....

 

I think it's because these threads highlight the huge and fascinating difference in cultures between the UK (in my case) and the USA where guns are concerned.

Cultures which are otherwise very similar.

 

I am literally looking at the screen in utter amazement at some of these posts - especially Robs comment - summed it up perfectly for me.

Gun control isn't what reduces gun violence in other countries, it has to do with the culture. A lot of the gun violence in the U.S. occurs in the inner-cities with handguns, and is due to things ranging from poverty, drugs, gang violence, poor education system, a breakdown of the family unit, and so forth. If you look at Japan, they have strong gun laws, but look at how the Japanese behaved in the wake of their earthquake. I'd say their low violence level is more cultural than law-based. Mexico and Brazil both have pretty strict gun laws, but the criminals there have zero problem getting guns.

For the first one, I'm not going to address it because it seems obvious to me that the constitution's second amendment is woefully outdated when it comes to this entire issue, and there is no legitimate justification for the "right to bear arms" this far along into our Union.

 

Would have to completely diagree with you here Mako. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most fundamental natural rights there is, if not the most fundamental right. It's your right to protect yourself (without government or if government breaks down, all the other rights are rather baseless if one can't protect themself). Just because we live in modern societies doesn't mean that this right is obsolete, modern societies just lessen its need, but we will always have criminals and instances where civil order can break down. The concept of the right to keep and bear arms was not a novel concept the Founding Fathers came up with. That people have a right to keep and bear arms was commonplace at the time, the question was just did it need to be codified into the Constitution.

 

I would also have to disagree with the notion that the right is obsolete regarding a tyrannical government. We saw what happened in Europe during the 20th century with dictatorships rising up. And of course China and Russia. While right NOW in America's history, the idea of the government becoming a dictatorship may seem incredibly remote and improbable, we have no idea what the future may hold fifty or one hundred years down the line.

 

Certain rights are timeless. And every age thinks its the modern age, then you go a few decades ahead, and a lot of the "modern" concepts are shown to be completely wrong, and a lot of the concepts that people thought at the time were outdated are back in vogue.

 

Bring the Founding Fathers back today and they would absolutely be shocked at us for having kept that provision alive this long in an era where the thought of an armed militia rising up against a nuclear-armed government or similarly-armed foreign invader is as implausable as it is impractical. Laughable even.

 

Again would have to disagree. Take a look at Syria. That government has been pulling out all the stops on its people and they are still fighting. The Founders would also note that despite all the modern technology, criminals exist today just as they did back then, maybe even moreso today than back then, and thus the government must continue to protect a person's right to protect themself.

 

Total gun control is a pure fantasy wet dream for liberals, and an impossibly unrealistic 'ginned-up-by-the-NRA' fear for conservatives that has no chance of actually happening.

 

Would have to disagree here too. All that is needed is for the government to do something like start taxing or regulating ammunition heavily and kill the ammunition industry. Guns are useless if there's no ammunition for them.

 

For me personally, if I were a God and could snap my fingers and make every single firearm currently in the US disappear from private ownership, (including my own) at the same time, with no crazy prohibition-like transision period of extreme violence and law-breaking...I absolutely would.

 

I'd give up that fun hobby personally because I'm not oblivious to the clear impact they have on our society. The amount of gun-related deaths each year (both deserved and undeserved) is really staggering, and yes of course SOME of these numbers would still happen "with a knife", I know.

 

But the overall murder/death figure would fall dramatically, I have little doubt about that, regardless of what NRA-based biased stats are trotted out in the defense of ownership.

 

What happens in the event of a riot? Or a natural disaster, where civil order completely breaks down and you have the problem of roving bands of thugs going around robbing and killing people? Lack of guns isn't going to stop that. And it happens. We saw the 1992 Rodney King riots. We've seen law and order break down in Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes. We saw the looting that started up with Hurricane Sandy. At some point, somewhere will get hit with a major earthquake likely. People need to be able to protect themselves in such instances. And in instances of criminals who attack them on the street or enter their homes.

The Constitutional argument is done. If you desire gun control, find a different route because the legal challenges have failed and gun rights are generally being expanded, not restricted. The 2A, along with nearly all of our state constitutions by the way, provide for the individual right to have guns for personal protection including outside the home.

Guns are pretty much banned over here, and our homicide rate is nearly a quarter (per capita) that of the United States'. Albert brought up Italian road rage a few posts up, their murder rate is even lower. Nima brought up Canada and Japan on a previous page, look up the latter and you might experience a compulsion to move there immediately.

 

Ultimate gun control does work (to a degree - thugs and lunatics find other weapons to kill with if they're determined and gangsters can import guns into even the strictest legislated countries), but gun culture is so deeply entrenched in the States that it's a probably insurmountable social issue. Fairly unique situation as far as I know, and it's difficult for an outsider to empathise with.

 

I think these statistics comparing America to other countries cannot fully account for cultural differences.

 

Better comparisons are state to state.

I completely agree, if someone is weighing the odds of success and profit breaking into my home, I want it in the back of their mind that their last breath might be taken on my kitchen floor.

 

This leads into a totally different discussion, one I would only discuss in a private forum, but what sort of steps do we all have in place for home security?

 

Alarm triggered interior and exterior lights? Deadbolt locked and solid core bedroom doors? DVR surveillance inside and outside the house?

 

This is the most concerning thing for me, home security and protection, I am not necessarily interested in carrying outside my home mainly because I feel safe and the chance of something happening based on my lifestyle are very very slim but I want to be able to protect my home.

 

I see Italy and other European countries with strict gun laws are allowed (under strict control) to have guns for home protection which makes complete sense but here you aren't allowed to have them which is frustrating.

 

 

 

Wheels you make some good points, but I'm less concerned with being a victim of a tyrannical dictator over here, or some sort of once-every-25-years race riot in an area I don't travel to anyway, than I am from say a home-invasion or a car-jacking (neither scenario btw having been proven statistically to benefit from having a gun for "personal protection").

 

It's about today's United States, and moving forward in limiting the access of these weapons to people who should not have access as RD is eloquenting demonstrating.

 

Gun control as a whole? Yep, it works and works well in the first-world countries that weren't founded with a "right to bear arms". Very well. Asia and Europe provide undebateable proof that effect, again, in first-world nations. But to suddenly implement it in a country that already has hundreds of millions of them circulating within, and actually has them constitutionally protected (albiet in a misguided way for today's modern world), impossible. It would actually make it worse.

 

Can't get rid of them so the discussion is best directed towards how best to get them out of the hands of those who can't handle that responsibility.

Wheels you make some good points, but I'm less concerned with being a victim of a tyrannical dictator over here, or some sort of once-every-25-years race riot in an area I don't travel to anyway, than I am from say a home-invasion or a car-jacking (neither scenario btw having been proven statistically to benefit from having a gun for "personal protection" btw).

 

Yes, on the issue of tyannical dictators and breakdowns in civil order, those are more rarities, but long-term, over decades, I think the right very much applies here.

 

It's about today's United States, and moving forward in limiting the access of these weapons to people who should not have access as RD is eloquenting demonstrating.

 

Sure, but I do not see how this requires updating the Second Amendment at all. If you are a criminal or mentally ill, you lose your right to armed self-defense.

 

Gun control as a whole? Yep, it works and works well in the first-world countries that weren't founded with a "right to bear arms". Very well. Asia and Europe provide undebateable proof that effect, again, in first-world nations.

 

Nations that are rather culturally homogenous (like Japan and Taiwan) or with smaller populations will tend to have a lower level of crime. Take Japan or Taiwan and give them the cultural diversity of the U.S., our inner city violence, etc...and you'll likely see a far different scenario. European nations suffer the occassional mass shootings as well. And America's gun violence would be a lot reduced if the inner city violence was reduced in places like Chicago and Washington, D.C. and other such cities.

 

But to suddenly implement it in a country that already has hundreds of millions of them circulating within, and actually has them constitutionally protected (albiet in a misguided way for today's modern world), impossible. It would actually make it worse.

 

How are they protected in a misguided way for the modern world? Government can regulate arms ownership in all manner of ways and some states and many cities already do big-time.

You adjudicate someone as mentally ill, which is what we already do. It's CURRENTLY illegal to buy or possess a firearm if you've been deemed by society, through the assumed objectivity of a court, as a nutcase.

 

So what is missing is a reporting mechanism for concerned friends or family members to tip off authorities and have it mean something. It should be fair, it should be balanced, it should have checks and balances, but it should exist. If you call the police and say "my classmate has easy access to firearms and is kind of creepy" they'll say "sorry, we can't do anything because they've committed no crime" and that, for many reasons, is the RIGHT response. We can't lock up innocent people. That's as bad or worse as the current system. But maybe there is some mechanism to match enforcement and prevention with a report of concern.

 

Milligan740 you bring up excellent points, there should be something done by the government at national level, perhaps an advertising campaign where people are encouraged to report and seek help for people they suspect to suffer from some kind of mental illnesses its for the good of everyone.

 

I completely agree that taking the guns away isn't the solution, stricter screening of people which are given a permit to own, better education and management of people who do own them is.

 

I've done a brief online search looking for mental illness awareness campaigns, there are few very interesting initiatives being taken to addresses and try to make people comfortable talking about their issues.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-11/ment...-funding/865674

 

 

I think it's because these threads highlight the huge and fascinating difference in cultures between the UK (in my case) and the USA where guns are concerned.

Cultures which are otherwise very similar.

 

I am literally looking at the screen in utter amazement at some of these posts - especially Robs comment - summed it up perfectly for me.

Just saying what most US gun owning citizens feel..and thats a whole lot.