Gun laws

[Stopper]

If you drink enough, you won't care if you're getting battered. You need to drink more.

[nmhunate]

I think that Guiscard does make a good point... there seems to be a lot of people shooting each other in the US. Though I think that he is wrong by saying that weak guncontrol laws are cause of these shootings...

I think that he is correct by saying that more tough GC laws would reduce the amount of guns on the street and that over time would reduce the gun culture that we have in the US. But I don't think that a gun culture lends itss self to violent crime. I don't think that his argument that fewer guns = fewer violent crimes is a valid point.

I see the mass shootings and the won-ton violence you see on the nightly news as a symptom of some underlying problems that exist in US society. The recent murders at VT did not exist in a vacuum from the world around it. I think things like this will sill happen even in the absence of firearms, and will continue to do so until we address what ever is the cause of the violence.

Maybe a point has to be made that the the guy would not have been able to kill 32 people and him self if he didn't have a pistol. I would imagine that if he only had a knife the death toll would be less. Four or five people dead is less than 32 of course, but like I said until we can stop school murders we will still have these problems with or with out the presence of guns.

[Anarkistsdream]

We also have to look at sheer statistics and percentages...

How many people live in most other countries? I know we have a shitload here! By showing us the actual ratios of these violent crimes, guns or no guns, we would have a better viewpoint with which to view this.

[Guiscard]

I think that Guiscard does make a good point... there seems to be a lot of people shooting each other in the US. Though I think that he is wrong by saying that weak guncontrol laws are cause of these shootings...

I didn't say lack of strict legislation is the cause but that stricter legislation would help,and I agree very much with the rest of your points.

[Titanic]

School shootings like this one are tragic, but they are also a statistically insignificant blip. It is the height of utter stupidity to base policy off of single incidents like this, no matter how high-profile they are.

An insignificant blip? Single instances? 19 shootings on sites of learning in the past decade. That pretty much a shooting at a high school, university or wherever EVERY 6 MONTHS! That is not a single instance, or an insignificant blip!

68% of homicides in the USA are from firearms! In Australia it is just 17%, and most other countries have an even lower percentage. The most popular type of weapon used for a homicide is a handgun, followed by the category “other guns” before knifes or blunt objects even appear in the table. For victims of homicides aged from 10-62, more then 50% of the deaths are from gun crime.

The United States, meant to be “the beacon of the world”, “the leader of the free world and free people, where anyone can live any life in peace” or some other bullsh*t like that. The US has a higher firearm homicide rate then Lithuania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Ivory Coast, the whole of the EU and every single member of the EU, and pretty much most the of world, and all of the developed world. 25% of commercial robberies are committed with guns as well.

For those people who say guns are for self defence, that’s utter crap. You think that pretty much every family in Europe has no self defence? A robber or criminal comes in the house, use a baseball bat, or put a knife in your bedside drawer.

Also, if criminal go off guns and use knifes, it is not the same thing, it is better. Knifes have a lower rate of actually killing someone per stabbing, then guns do of deaths per shooting.

I don't think that his argument that fewer guns = fewer violent crimes is a valid point.

Of course fewer guns means less violence. If two people are going for a punch up, it can easily be avoided or stopped by friends with a cool head or by local citizens or by the police. If two people or two gangs are having a shoot out, then local citizens cannot do anything, the friends will not be able to stop it, and the police will have to call in the armed police before even attempting to break up fight, and that is only after numerous reinforcements for their own safety.

Also, if some psycho gets hold of a gun, he can do so much more damage with that then with a knife or baseball bat. If someone has a gun, you cannot use self defence unless you also have a gun. If someone has a knife, there is a good chance you could either run, or try to tackle them and get the knife off them. Also, with a gun you can get multiple deaths very quickly, as show in Virginia. If someone entered a university or school with a knife, depending on the age of the students, the students or teachers could easily overpower the culprit(s), although there might be a few deaths, but at least it is much less then 33.


If guns are illegal, it will be much harder for people to get hold of guns. You wont be able just to get it down the alleyway or of the dodgy trader. Atm, in Virginia and some other state you can get guns without a background check! That’s fcking ridiculous. They don’t check whether they are a rapist, a paedophile, a murderer, a psycho or anything. Anybody of the minimum age could get hold of a gun, and real bullets and kill people.

With making it illegal you cannot just walk into a shop and get a gun. You have to find dodgy dealers to get a gun. Also, the black market will find it harder to sell guns as they will have the police and FBI after them.

Like in the UK, I could get hold of most types of drugs within about 15 mins. I was actually once offered some LSD on the way home from school. But to get a gun, it would probably take me at least a month, if not longer, and I actually know people who work in the black market. For someone with no contacts to get hold of a gun in the UK, it would take a long time, be expensive and be very hard. Atm, in the USA any dumbass jerk head can get one.

The USA has a gun culture in its music, film and social life because of the availability of guns and because of how the pople are bought up. There is no gun culture here because no one can get a gun, and no one has experienced a gun, and there is no need to build excitement around guns because hardly anyone has them at all. In the USA, there are around 200 million guns in possession, and that’s just the ones the government know off. For a population of 300 million, that is fcking ridiculous, and anyone who supports something like that is a looney and really should open there eyes up to the consequences and what it is doing to American society and culture and the amount of innocent people who are paying with their lives because of the patriotic idiots who think they still live in the past 230 years ago!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/t ... onstab.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... ted_States

[Guiscard]

Good post Titanic. Everything I've been trying to say. That pretty much shut down this thread in one well argued post.

This

For a population of 300 million, that is fcking ridiculous, and anyone who supports something like that is a looney and really should open there eyes up to the consequences and what it is doing to American society and culture and the amount of innocent people who are paying with their lives because of the patriotic idiots who think they still live in the past 230 years ago!

is especially poignant.

[Anarkistsdream]

I don't think any of you that do not live in the US will or WANT to ever understand... You all like to argue...

I am VERY liberal... But I am VERY much defensive over my rights to bear arms... I do not think that is a right that should EVER be taken away from me.

And when that happens, the revolution that the founding fathers based our Right to Bear Arms on will come to pass.

For every statistic that can be shown, there is the possiblity of finding other stats to refute it... Other organizations who campaign for the other side...

This debate is very interesting, and I am VERY glad that it has been fairly insult free, but I also guarantee that NONE of you would ever sway my opinion... And, until you all live in the US for a considerable amount of time, I could never sway you...

[Guiscard]

I don't think any of you that do not live in the US will or WANT to ever understand... You all like to argue...

I am VERY liberal... But I am VERY much defensive over my rights to bear arms... I do not think that is a right that should EVER be taken away from me.

And when that happens, the revolution that the founding fathers based our Right to Bear Arms on will come to pass.

For every statistic that can be shown, there is the possiblity of finding other stats to refute it... Other organizations who campaign for the other side...

This debate is very interesting, and I am VERY glad that it has been fairly insult free, but I also guarantee that NONE of you would ever sway my opinion... And, until you all live in the US for a considerable amount of time, I could never sway you...

Then find those statistics/ We;ve found ours!

[Anarkistsdream]

I don't think any of you that do not live in the US will or WANT to ever understand... You all like to argue...

I am VERY liberal... But I am VERY much defensive over my rights to bear arms... I do not think that is a right that should EVER be taken away from me.

And when that happens, the revolution that the founding fathers based our Right to Bear Arms on will come to pass.

For every statistic that can be shown, there is the possiblity of finding other stats to refute it... Other organizations who campaign for the other side...

This debate is very interesting, and I am VERY glad that it has been fairly insult free, but I also guarantee that NONE of you would ever sway my opinion... And, until you all live in the US for a considerable amount of time, I could never sway you...

Then find those statistics/ We;ve found ours!

You apparently missed every other sentence I wrote besides that one... Proving that you all just want to argue.

I never said that I didn't agree with all of you, or that you didn't make good points. I merely said that I will ALWAYS have the right to bear arms in my country...

I am a responsible gun owner... Sorry that other people can't be.

Deal with it or come to America and try to make a difference.

[Titanic]

I am VERY much defensive over my rights to bear arms... I do not think that is a right that should EVER be taken away from me.

And when that happens, the revolution that the founding fathers based our Right to Bear Arms on will come to pass

Is that not being purely and completely patriotic, and just listening to what they said? Honestly I would not listen to how someone said to live 250 years ago. Its a completely different society. USA's constitution is stuck in the past, and has not evolved with time or the progress of man kind. Obviously, listeniing to it and undestanding the moral values behind it is perfectly fine, but adapt it to the modern world, not to the world that those people lived in when it was written.

Thanks Guiscard, now I got that post out the way I can carry on with my c/w. Damn A Levels...

[Anarkistsdream]

I am VERY much defensive over my rights to bear arms... I do not think that is a right that should EVER be taken away from me.

And when that happens, the revolution that the founding fathers based our Right to Bear Arms on will come to pass

Is that not being purely and completely patriotic, and just listening to what they said? Honestly I would not listen to how someone said to live 250 years ago. Its a completely different society. USA's constitution is stuck in the past, and has not evolved with time or the progress of man kind. Obviously, listeniing to it and undestanding the moral values behind it is perfectly fine, but adapt it to the modern world, not to the world that those people lived in when it was written.

Thanks Guiscard, now I got that post out the way I can carry on with my c/w. Damn A Levels...

No, it's not... But you wouldn't understand...

I am the farthest from patriotic as you can get.

[Titanic]

I am VERY much defensive over my rights to bear arms... I do not think that is a right that should EVER be taken away from me.

And when that happens, the revolution that the founding fathers based our Right to Bear Arms on will come to pass

Is that not being purely and completely patriotic, and just listening to what they said? Honestly I would not listen to how someone said to live 250 years ago. Its a completely different society. USA's constitution is stuck in the past, and has not evolved with time or the progress of man kind. Obviously, listeniing to it and undestanding the moral values behind it is perfectly fine, but adapt it to the modern world, not to the world that those people lived in when it was written.

Thanks Guiscard, now I got that post out the way I can carry on with my c/w. Damn A Levels...

No, it's not... But you wouldn't understand...

I am the farthest from patriotic as you can get.

Try me, I am all ears.

[DAZMCFC]

anarkist is right in what he is saying about the country he live in. we live in britain guis and titanic so there is no need for a gun in every household nearly. like he says we do not live there so just back off and let them fend for themselves in their own way and we in our way. no one is going to win this arguement so let it rest and let them 32 people rest in peace.

[Guiscard]

You apparently missed every other sentence I wrote besides that one... Proving that you all just want to argue.

I never said that I didn't agree with all of you, or that you didn't make good points. I merely said that I will ALWAYS have the right to bear arms in my country...

I am a responsible gun owner... Sorry that other people can't be.

Deal with it or come to America and try to make a difference.

YOU seem to have misunderstood what I've been writing! At any point have I stated that guns should be entirely illegal? If you lived in the UK, you could own a gun just as you can in the US. I am arguing for stricter legislation, not prohibition. If you're a responsible gun owner then you WILL always have the right to bear arms, and you will be granted licenses and pass checks in place. Why would you argue against stricter legislation if it wouldn't affect you?

I'm not saying that you can't have a gun, but I AM saying that the current lax legislation in the US leads to a much higher gun homicide rate, which we have proved with official government statistics for homicides. The number of firearms homicides per person in the US is far greater than that in the UK. It isn't a slanted view, nor a biased one. its fact. How can you slant the firearm homicide statistics to be pro-gun?

And if you seriously think some revolution is gonna come and everyone is gonna be able to rise up with their firearms and overthrow then you are seriously deluded. If that was any kind of serious possibility do you really think your government would allow you to own them? Firearms legislation is a relic of the past, an outdated one and a lethal one.

[Guiscard]

anarkist is right in what he is saying about the country he live in. we live in britain guis and titanic so there is no need for a gun in every household nearly. like he says we do not live there so just back off and let them fend for themselves in their own way and we in our way. no one is going to win this arguement so let it rest and let them 32 people rest in peace.

The reason this is in a different thread is because we don't want to offend anyone, but the fact that it is a different country doesn't mean we should just ignore it! Its still a tragedy whether you're in the country or not. There shouldn't be a need for a gun in every household there either, for whatever reason.

[Titanic]

anarkist is right in what he is saying about the country he live in. we live in britain guis and titanic so there is no need for a gun in every household nearly. like he says we do not live there so just back off and let them fend for themselves in their own way and we in our way. no one is going to win this arguement so let it rest and let them 32 people rest in peace.

The reason this is in a different thread is because we don't want to offend anyone, but the fact that it is a different country doesn't mean we should just ignore it! Its still a tragedy whether you're in the country or not. There shouldn't be a need for a gun in every household there either, for whatever reason.

Exactly. The Darfur crisis is in Sudan, should we carry on letting them fend for themselves? The economic crisis in Zimbwabe is n Zimbwabe, let them sort it out for themselves. The African debt is in Africa, let them fend it of for themselves.

No offence Daz, but thats a very American view on things. Only help other countries out if theres a benefit to you. If there isn, let them fend it off and sort it out themselves.

All we are doing is offering our educated opinions on what is happening in the USA, why it is happening, possible solutions, and all of this backed up with evidence.

[Stopper]

Hmmm. When gun homicide rates reached American levels in Northern Ireland in the early Seventies (for some reason, can't remember), the British government sent in tens of thousands of troops.

A solution for the American problem suggests itself...

[nmhunate]

Ok, I understand you point Titanic that if there were fewer guns there would be less people dying of being shot by guns... but like I said in my previous post, guns are not the cause of the violence they are just the outlet for it.

The problem with stricter gunlaws in the US is that they wouldn't work. You said previously that there are 200 million firearms in the US, what could the government do to get rid of that huge stockpile of weapons? Nothing short of the army knocking on every door in America asking for the weapons. We have a common law principal enshrined into our constitution that outlaws unreasonable search and seizure, so not only would the capture of the weapons currently in the country be unconstitutional but also set a horrible precedent for marshal law and strong handed powers of the government.

Over the long term stricter gun laws would decrease the amount of firearms in the hands of US citizens, but that is not what we need right now. There are already tough laws on the books that need to be enforced and some legislation is needed to get the loopholes closed. I feel the best way to stop the violence is to address the causes of the shootings.

Something similar happened in the US government handling in our War on Drugs. Meth use is on the rise here in the US and it is a major problem... one of the main ingredients of meth comes from Sudafed (a cold medicine) so instead of helping the people deal with their addiction, and address the root causes of drug abuse, the government just made it super hard to buy Sudafed, and a year later meth use is still on the rise.

By making it harder to purchase Sudafed the government did nothing to end the meth problems in the US, since meth is still just as easy to obtain; all the government did was make people with colds suffer more because they cannot now get the medicines as easily that will help them. I would imagine that very tough gun laws would be similar to this effect.

Gun violence would not end since there are so many guns in the US right now, and it would still be easy to get a gun and ammunition in a back alley. And those who recreationally shoot pistols and rifles, like my self, will suffer since it would be harder to practice their hobby. Tougher gun laws do not address the problems that cause the violence, all it will do is throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Titanic]

Obviously getting rid of gun violence and the amount of guns has to be a long term solution for USA. There is no short term solution because of how deeply integrated into your society it is, and the sheer volume of firearms there are.

Firstly, what do they do with 200 million firearms? Destroy them. Simple. Melt the metals, destroy the guns, crush them, whatever. Put them beyond use or repair, and use the raw materials they get from them if they want, or burn the crushed and destroyed remains.

Drugs is totally different to firearms for a couple fo reasons. One, drugs are addictive. Just taking it away and putting them in cold turkey is not a solution in itself, and it can bring worse consequences. Two, some drugs are there for good causes. Theres a woman near where I live whos been given a fine for using cannabis as apain relief. Obviously I do not justify drugs, but it is harder to reduce the supply of drugs when health pharmaceuticals are buying them from suppliers for the health of the needy. Thirdly, breaking the drugs trade is harder them the arms trade imo. The drugs trade has suppliers in other countries, illegal imports, people taking them around the country, they are harder to track and detect, and people can use it up so in a police raid or search the drugs could be gone, whilst you cannot really hide a firearm. Also, the meth rate may have gone up, but think, without that initiative, the rate might be higher then it is currently.

By making it harder to purchase Sudafed the government did nothing to end the meth problems in the US, since meth is still just as easy to obtain; all the government did was make people with colds suffer more because they cannot now get the medicines as easily that will help them. I would imagine that very tough gun laws would be similar to this effect.

So who exactly needs firearms to help them stop suffering?

The way in which I will bring in laws to tackle gun violence, and bring it into more control and checks. Firstly, raise awareness of the upcoming laws and regulations so everyone knows about it. Secondly, a 3-6 month amnesty where people can deposit their guns at local police stations, no questions asked to help the innocent people not get caught in the law coming into place. Next, after gathering huge amounts of intellingence in the previous months and years, the FBI, local police forces, and other agenices raid and arrest major gun suppliers and gang leaders who are in possestion of guns. When the laws come into place, they are very strict (ie. something like 3-5 years for possession without license, 10-15 for use of firearm even without malicious intent, etc..). Obviously these come inother a period of time. Applications for licenses should begin at least a yaer of two before this process to help people understand the system and too see if they really need a firearm, and also so the governemnt and state services can get a good picture of the current situation within the country and their areas and what they need to do best help implement the new laws. In brief, this is how I would probably approach it, althoguh the overall process would take at least 5 years, probably more like 10 years at least, and more then that before the real results from it are first felt.

Obviously I dont know exactly how laws are created and implemented in the USA, but a law from Washington passed through the senate and congress can become a national law which all states must implement, right?

With the licenses, people can use guns and gun clubs, for hunting and activites like that, just like here in the UK, but the average citizen or nuclear family in a urban or suburban house will not need a firearm, and getting it from the underground market will be made harder due to intense law enforcement activites in the first few years of implementation(when it will be hardest obviously.) The only real problem with this is that mainly people in the south will refuse to hand thieir firearms over, so at te beggining possession of a firearm should result in confication of the firearm and a hefty fine rather then a jail sentance. After around 2 years of te law being passed, jail sentances should be implemented for possession.

[salr15]

How about the video games that are being created today? how come no one blames those games (Grand Theft Auto being a great example) where killing civilians with shotguns and gernades is glamourized? I don't think by changing the gun law the problem will miraculously disappear. I think the American culture has become so obsessed with money that you will to whatever it takes to become rich, even if that means creating violent games or violent movies which 9, 10, and 11 year olds can sit and play for hours. In most family (if not single parents) both parents are out working long hours to make as much money as they possibly can and they really lose control of what their children are doing. They might get a 16 yr old babysitter to watch over their children.

Some of the games today are so detailed and graphic that you can sit with a 9 year old and he can give you a detailed explanation of every gun used in the army and how to make it shoot more accurately. I will use Counter Strike as an example, an online game I used to be addicted to But some of the best players I encountered were 10 year old kids who would sit and literally play for hours on end. They would basically go to school and come home and play for 8 hours. Where are the parents while these kids are playing?? How did they get these games when they are meant for adults??? How does a 9 year old get his hands on Grand Theft Auto???

When you have a culture of kids growing up on these types of games and watching movies like Saw and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you will get a few bad eggs that will act out. I don't think this is the ONLY part of the problem but it is definitely a part that is being overlooked. The ratings on these movies and games are bullshit because no one is enforcing them. All the video game companies want to do is sell as many games as they can and earn all that $$$$. Same goes for the stores. And more importantly alot of parents just don't have enough control over what their kids are doing everyday.

You can restrict the gun laws but at the end of the day you can go out and get a gun off the black market.

[nmhunate]

Federal law trumps State law, but the federal government cannot make the local governments enforce federal law. This means that if the State of New Mexico allows possession of firearms and the US government does not, it is illegal to have a firearm in the state of New Mexico. But the Governor of New Mexico can direct the State police force to not enforce the Federal Law, so in this situation only the FBI and other federal police forces would enforce the no gun law in New Mexico. Remember how they had to deploy the Federal Marshall's to force Alabama to integrate their schools in the movie Forrest Gump? It is similar to the medical marijuana laws in California, It is still a federal crime to have pot, but the State police wont arrest you if you have a prescription.

Back on topic... Your plan to eliminate firearms could work, my only fear is that the tactics you describe are very heavy handed. I can tell you honestly that if something like that were in place many people would not turn over their guns. But maybe something like that is needed to stop the gun violence in the US.

I hate to sound like a parrot, but your plan won't stop the violence that we have. The guy at VT would have just stabbed a lot of people instead of shoot them. Now of course the body count would be lower... I would rather see federal resources used in a manner that will solve the root problems and not make criminals out of most of the population.

[btownmeggy]

I don't think any of you that do not live in the US will or WANT to ever understand... (...) And, until you all live in the US for a considerable amount of time, I could never sway you...

What is this even supposed to mean? That no one in the U.S. could ever possibly be for gun control? That having a gun is an essential part of American-ness?

[nmhunate]

In reply to your post salr15, its probably because video games have a small to limited effect on the gun violence.

I am 24 and my parents generation grew up with just as a violent media as i did today. John Wayne movies, old WWII movies and things like that all glamorized violence just as much as grand theft auto. My father grew up reading the death count from the Viet-Nam war in the newspaper. If that does not glamorize violence and minimize death I don't know what does.

Of course, today the media is more interactive. and watching John Wayne kill a butt load of Indians is way different then me doing it on a PS2... But I don't think that the change in the type of media in the market place is the direct cause of the increase in school violence. I would sooner attribute it to the collapse of the Nuclear Family or the decaying middle class that the US is experiencing then to Grand Theft Auto.

[Anarkistsdream]

I don't think any of you that do not live in the US will or WANT to ever understand... (...) And, until you all live in the US for a considerable amount of time, I could never sway you...

What is this even supposed to mean? That no one in the U.S. could ever possibly be for gun control? That having a gun is an essential part of American-ness?

I am ENTIRELY sick of all of you people reading what you WANT to in posts, and only pulling little bits and pieces as opposed to looking at the entirety of my post... It is disrespectful to me. because you are PURPOSEFULLY reading things out of context...

What I was saying is that NONE of us know what it is like to grow up someplace different... I have NO idea what it would have been like to be raised in Philadelphia, or New York, or Austin, or Boston, or L.A., or ANYPLACE other than here... Let alone understanding and empathizing with people from a different fucking country!!!

No one can understand, so they just attack...

I have given creedence to what everyone has said to me in their replies, and NO ONE has given me that same bit of respect...

So I am done with this discussion.

[2dimes]

How about the video games that are being created today? how come no one blames those games (Grand Theft Auto being a great example) where killing civilians with shotguns and gernades is glamourized?

You are kidding right?

There's been people blaming those since the first generation ones where you couldn't really tell what was a person and what was a box.