United States & Gun Control discussion.

[JBS]

I think I'm going to make myself rather unpopular around here with this post, but so be it.

Since 1996, the US has witnessed 58 mass shootings/school shootings. In that same amount of time, just 12 have occurred in Europe. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html). And as we all know the EU is pretty anti-gun. Now, you could come to several conclusions from just that statistic alone, but one conclusion gun supporters might come to is that even with the EU's anti-gun policies and attitude in general, mass shootings do in fact still occur. And just as many have pointed out, criminals, if strongly committed, will manage to get their hands on a gun one way or the other. But with the US having nearly 5x as many mass shootings, not including all the other gun-related crime, something is seriously going wrong and we need to seriously reconsider the status quo and make policy changes.

Now, I do at some point plan on taking full advantage of the 2nd amendment and owning a gun. With that said however, if the government were to enforce an AWB or something more strict and limiting, I think I will be OKAY as would most people. I get the feeling many of us want guns more so than we need them, especially as it pertains to assault rifles. Most people do not grow up around guns to feel safe near them and they will carry that sentiment with them into their adulthood. While many here are comfortable with the idea of guns and know how to properly handle them etc., the vast majority of Americans I would say do not. So to people who are comfortable with guns they might say the solution is to own a gun and educate yourself to become proficient enough to at least defend yourself and your home. However, most Americans want nothing to do with guns. When it comes to the issue of the 2nd amendment and the reason I feel it generally receives strong support is because people see it as a symbol of their freedom more than something that truly affects their every day-to-day life. If it came down to allowing people to own guns vs. banning them, I think more people would be okay with banning guns than defending the 2nd amendment because they are not personally invested. Having the right to defend yourself and your home is a solid argument. I also think people should be free to hunt. But, I don't think you need an AR-15 to achieve either one.

Unfortunately for the few who do take advantage of the 2nd amendment, most people do not and with that most people do not see a use for the 2nd amendment either. I don't think the 2nd amendment will ever go away, but owning a gun in the future will become much much harder and I really don't see a problem with that.

When you get done banning guns/tactical rifles, make sure you look into banning cocaine. There's supposedly been a real problem with that the past 30 years, and it'd be nice if we could get it outlawed so the problem would go away.

 

[Deleted member 2517]

Not about intelligence, about culture. The culture of the cities and urban centers is dramatically different than that of the rural and suburban areas.

I wouldn't pick on cities too much. I grew up in the suburbs of Tampa and hung out with a lot of rednecks from Polk county. They're just as ignorant and uninformed as any kid in an urban enviornment.

 

[JBS]

I wouldn't pick on cities too much. I grew up in the suburbs of Tampa and hung out with a lot of rednecks from Polk county. They're just as ignorant and uninformed as any kid in an urban enviornment.

There's dummies everywhere. Nevertheless, the cultural climate in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, or LA is going to be radically different than that of the rural or even suburban areas. I've lived in New York and Miami (the former for 3 years and the latter for 16 years), so I know urban culture. Hell, you don't even have to compare New York to the outlying small towns. I live in a fairly affluent /comfortable community around Lake Norman nowadays, and these are suburban communities with decent grassy plots of land, sidewalks and well-kept playgrounds. The culture here is nothing like a large urban population center, and the values are radically different as well.

If you want to know who is going to support gun control, it's going to be the 51% who voted in Obama, and all you need to do to see a glaring example of that is Google the Florida voter/election map-2012 to see where those people are concentrated. Inner city, ghettos, urban areas, and (relatively) tiny isolated pockets of very affluent Left-thinking people.

 

[Ex3]

There's dummies everywhere. Nevertheless, the cultural climate in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, or LA is going to be radically different than that of the rural or even suburban areas. I've lived in New York and Miami (the former for 3 years and the latter for 16 years), so I know urban culture. Hell, you don't even have to compare New York to the outlying small towns. I live in a fairly affluent /comfortable community around Lake Norman nowadays, and these are suburban communities with decent grassy plots of land, sidewalks and well-kept playgrounds. The culture here is nothing like a large urban population center, and the values are radically different as well.

So we have no values? Then explain why all this mass murders have happened in the 'burbs?

 

[JBS]

So we have no values? Then explain why all this mass murders have happened in the 'burbs?

You might not be a victim of a "mass shooting" in New York, but you're something like 16 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in New York when compared to a typical small town.

Are you seriously arguing that New York is a safer place to live than suburban America?

EDITED TO ADD: And no, I didn't say New York has no values. I said the set of values in New York (or any urban city) are going to be radically different than small town America or the 'burbs.

 

[Rapid]

Meaning that something would have to go wrong for someone to be punished, same goes for more restriction on being able to buy a gun, thus continuing the cycle of laws being made that do not fix the actual problem.

That's not a problem, since none of our laws are able to fix any problems all by themselves. Does that mean we shouldn't have any laws, since to some people they're just a suggestion? No, because they are there to help and they do help. Hefty punishments should be enough of a persuasion to at least make a difference to people's poor weapon storage practices.

Teachers being armed should be up to the teacher

I've seen enough idiotic or plain irresponsible ones to know that I wouldn't want just any old teacher to be able to carry a gun around kids just because they passed some training. Who should be allowed to carry a gun, or not, should be up to the head teacher/principal, and should be made public knowledge so anyone with a problem with that can take their kids out of the school. Ideally, you want to stop the problem before it even gets to the classroom anyway (i.e., just secure your entries/exits), since the teacher would just become the first person to be shot and then would be useless again.

the only way that anyone can protect themselves from them, is to have the means to do so.

Restrictions (the right kind) don't mean you can't have the means to do so. They are just there to persuade certain people to use their rights more responsibly, or to keep those rights away from people who aren't capable of those responsibilities.

So making any laws, that restrict gun ownership, really will only affect those who respect the law

Anything I suggested would only affect those who it needs to affect. If you are a criminal or mentally disturbed individual, your avenues for acquiring weapons would be drastically cut... especially if on top of that, stealing one would be much harder (which, again, will only happen if people are forced to take more responsibilities with the safekeeping of their weapons). Anyone who respects the law and is responsible enough to own a weapon (i.e., in full possession of their mental faculties and of good legal standing) would still be able to bear arms. Again, it wouldn't eliminate all of these crimes... but it could damn well limit them. That's the whole point of laws, and the limits of their efficiency, so unless you're just going to throw them all away and replace them with a suggestion book for everyone, then there really isn't an issue.

 

[Ex3]

Are you seriously arguing that New York is a safer place to live than suburban America?

EDITED TO ADD: And no, I didn't say New York has no values. I said the set of values in New York (or any urban city) are going to be radically different than small town America or the 'burbs.

Speaking for myself, I feel safer here. I think it's a safety in numbers kind of thing. I can't tell you how many times I've listened to my mother tell me about the latest horrific crime that happened in Virginia Beach - girls seem to be getting abducted right and left down there. That doesn't happen here because there are always people around.

 

[Rapid]

I respect your view, but I disagree with you. Without writing a lengthy post I will just say that it is possible to envision a realistic scenario in which a future government bolstered largely by drones, armored vehicles and small security teams could suppress a revolution.

Okay, so how is Average Joe with his AR-15 and lack of training any more likely to beat this behemoth of a force (it sounds like it would be even more unlikely)? It's not like you have common access to powerful explosives, like in much of the third world, which is pretty much one of the few things that gives insurgents any kind of chance of even making a dent against a superior enemy.

There is simply too much of a power divide between the military and civilians, much greater than it was in the days of the FF anyway (when something like this was more plausible). I don't think it matters anyway, because, like I said, the only reason needed for gun ownership is self-preservation.

 

[SpitfireV]

I'd love that inexperienced teacher on the verge of a mental breakdown thanks to shit arse teenagers* to have a pistol.

*Seen it, a number of times.

 

[TH15]

I've never understood how the 2nd Amendment could ever be misconstrued with implying that Americans can only have muskets or use them for hunting purposes. IF we did a good job at teaching history, and in particular sharing with students quotes from the Founding Fathers themselves and how THEY envisioned the 2nd Amendment, there would never be an argument as to not only what the 2nd Amendment means, but why it's second on a list of ten. The argument that stems from the Left regarding the 2nd Amendment is simply a cop out to support their own ideology- it is not based on anything other than that.

I don't think America has a gun problem. I think America has a culture issue. I don't know when it started, or what happened, but I believe that firearms are disrespected by far too many people. If America had a gun problem, mass shootings in such high concentrations would have occurred since our nation's inception.

No politician or law can teach anyone to respect a firearm, or force one to use them and take care of them properly. That has to come from family, or extra firearm training, or a combination of the two.

I don't have any real solution to the problem, but hearing all of the fucking cop outs and excuses lately is unnerving.

 

[Arrow 4]

So because we teach evolution and not some creationist nonsense, we are going to experience mass shootings? What uter crap. It amazes me how those on the Christian right are so quick to capitalize on these tragedies as a means of furthering their message and picking on the groups they don't like. I'm the product of a divorced family- so are about half the kids in this country at this point. With that number, wouldn't you think these mass shootings would be much more frequent? No- they're not. And that's because our parents with their "alternative lifestyles" did a fine job of raising us. And of course they have to bring the abortion debate into this... I won't even touch on that as that is a whole other thread.

These types of killings have gone on for decades- just like the aforementioned school bombing that killed 45. We have a media that exposes us to these things more and more. Look around the world, and see all the "good" religion has done. If some people find solace in religion, good for them. But it is not the key to dealing with these sorts of things. Better mental health treatment and school safety is.

I don't think I was trying to capitalize on this tragedy, just voicing my opinion like everyone else on this board. Many people rightly argue that it is not gun laws that need fixing. I believe that fighting the evil/wickedness in our society would go a very long way to curbing violence of all kinds. I am not in anyway suggesting that these types of incidents can be completely stopped. You are welcome to your opinion, but as far as I am concerned we are suffering in large part because we have turned our backs on God.

 

[mrob]

When you get done banning guns/tactical rifles, make sure you look into banning cocaine. There's supposedly been a real problem with that the past 30 years, and it'd be nice if we could get it outlawed so the problem would go away.

Well cocaine is illegal so not sure what you mean by banning it too. Unless you mean to use cocaine as an example against banning weapons because it doesn't work? Either way not really sure how you can compare the two. If there was anything to take away from my previous post, it should be the link I provided. The point I tried to make was that mass shootings would never go away, but the number of times they occur could be diminished.

I just want to clarify: I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I also do not accept that we as a country continue to let these mass shootings occur. Whatever means are necessary I will accept if that's what it takes to prevent something like Newtown from happening again. How that could possibly be bad you tell me. Something must change. A cultural change will not happen overnight. That will take a generation at least. However, I feel policymakers in this case need to be the catalyst for that change.

 

[Deleted member 2517]

I don't think I was trying to capitalize on this tragedy, just voicing my opinion like everyone else on this board. Many people rightly argue that it is not gun laws that need fixing. I believe that fighting the evil/wickedness in our society would go a very long way to curbing violence of all kinds. I am not in anyway suggesting that these types of incidents can be completely stopped. You are welcome to your opinion, but as far as I am concerned we are suffering in large part because we have turned our backs on God.

I guess I would agree with you... If there weren't countless voices over the centuries echoing your same sentiments. And we're all still here, the world hasn't ended, America has adapted and persevered...

 

[Ex3]

I've never understood how the 2nd Amendment could ever be misconstrued with implying that Americans can only have muskets or use them for hunting purposes. IF we did a good job at teaching history, and in particular sharing with students quotes from the Founding Fathers themselves and how THEY envisioned the 2nd Amendment, there would never be an argument as to not only what the 2nd Amendment means, but why it's second on a list of ten. The argument that stems from the Left regarding the 2nd Amendment is simply a cop out to support their own ideology- it is not based on anything other than that.

I don't think America has a gun problem. I think America has a culture issue. I don't know when it started, or what happened, but I believe that firearms are disrespected by far too many people. If America had a gun problem, mass shootings in such high concentrations would have occurred since our nation's inception.

No politician or law can teach anyone to respect a firearm, or force one to use them and take care of them properly. That has to come from family, or extra firearm training, or a combination of the two.

I don't have any real solution to the problem, but hearing all of the fucking cop outs and excuses lately is unnerving.

When I mentioned muskets, I was being facetious. Again, my point was that the world has changed A LOT in 200+ years in terms of technology. It was impossible to massacre a large number of people in 1791 with a musket. If every gun owner in America were like the fine folks on this board, we wouldn't have a problem. But we all know most people are irresponsible idiots that shouldn't be allowed to drive, much less have access to a a gun. This kid's mother owned two guns, but somehow her mental ill son gained access to them. How could she be so careless? If he hadn't had access to them, those beautiful little kids would probably be getting tucked into bed right now.

 

[Lefty375]

I don't think I was trying to capitalize on this tragedy, just voicing my opinion like everyone else on this board. Many people rightly argue that it is not gun laws that need fixing. I believe that fighting the evil/wickedness in our society would go a very long way to curbing violence of all kinds. I am not in anyway suggesting that these types of incidents can be completely stopped. You are welcome to your opinion, but as far as I am concerned we are suffering in large part because we have turned our backs on God.

Which one? There are a lot. Hard to make all of them happy.

 

[0699]

Also harder to kill someone with a pen. ;) xx

This is why I shy away from arguements about religion, guns, and politics. People are never able to discuss these subjects objectively, they're always emotional. On both sides of the issues.

 

[walra107]

Being a resident of New York State, to own a handgun in this state you have to practically jump through hoops of fire on one leg and still wait 9 months for you licence to process. The process to get a pistol permit here is almost a deterrent to actually purchasing and owning a handgun, even though I am an enthusiast of handguns and rifles. However the strict processing of getting a pistol permit here certainly doesn't lower the violent crime rates in some of our bigger cities, and even in some of our rural and suburban towns. So to argue about increasing gun laws IMO is almost a waste of time, like most have posted on here already, it's not going to stop random disgusting acts of violence such as the events in CT. If it is not guns, its knives and clubs and fists. Violence is violence regardless of means...

On a different side, if we increased penalties for weapons violations...stricter sentencing might lead to a deterrent in the sales of weapons, Just a thought, probably wouldn't change anything until we institute a Thunderdome-like death sentencing procedure.

 

[Worldweaver]

Being a resident of New York State, to own a handgun in this state you have to practically jump through hoops of fire on one leg and still wait 9 months for you licence to process. The process to get a pistol permit here is almost a deterrent to actually purchasing and owning a handgun, even though I am an enthusiast of handguns and rifles. However the strict processing of getting a pistol permit here certainly doesn't lower the violent crime rates in some of our bigger cities, and even in some of our rural and suburban towns. So to argue about increasing gun laws IMO is almost a waste of time, like most have posted on here already, it's not going to stop random disgusting acts of violence such as the events in CT. If it is not guns, its knives and clubs and fists. Violence is violence regardless of means...

On a different side, if we increased penalties for weapons violations...stricter sentencing might lead to a deterrent in the sales of weapons, Just a thought, probably wouldn't change anything until we institute a Thunderdome-like death sentencing procedure.

I'm not for a ban of any sort, but the argument about "if not guns, its knives and clubs and fists" doesn't do it for me. You can't tell me that someone is going to inflict as much damage with a knife, or fist, or club as they will with an assault rifle, it's a ridiculous argument. People will commit crime and there will always be violence, but an assault rifle makes it much easier for the perpetrator to inflict maximum damage.

 

[policemedic]

Not sure what your point is....you think New Yorkers are dumb? Because they aren't.

Not for nothing, but I think that fact that a mass shooting like they one yesterday or in Columbine has never happened in NYC says the more strict control of guns in the city is working. Notice I didn't say outlawing of guns, just stricter control.

Speaking purely as a professional, there is no one specific reason New York City has not had an incident like Newtown, CT. It simply hasn't happened...yet. It also never happened in Newtown, CT...until it did. The same is true of the Nickel Mines, PA school shooting. It never happened there, either...until it did.

The laws in NYC haven't stopped anything. Case in point- the guy shot in the head in midtown Manhattan a few days ago. The shooting happened in broad daylight within view of a school and not far from Carnegie Hall.

And just so I don't need to make a second post, I'd like to point out that since he killed his mother, it's entirely possible she had properly secured her weapons and he obtained them after killing her.

Even before he got to the school--where no one can possess a weapon by federal law--he had committed a capital crime and several felonies. Clearly, he was unfazed by the law or any possible penalties he might have to suffer. Having another law in place would not have mattered.

 

[pardus]

Well cocaine is illegal so not sure what you mean by banning it too. Unless you mean to use cocaine as an example against banning weapons because it doesn't work? Either way not really sure how you can compare the two. If there was anything to take away from my previous post, it should be the link I provided. The point I tried to make was that mass shootings would never go away, but the number of times they occur could be diminished.

I just want to clarify: I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I also do not accept that we as a country continue to let these mass shootings occur. Whatever means are necessary I will accept if that's what it takes to prevent something like Newtown from happening again. How that could possibly be bad you tell me. Something must change. A cultural change will not happen overnight. That will take a generation at least. However, I feel policymakers in this case need to be the catalyst for that change.

So you believe in one of our rights? Good. But you are OK with it being trampled on to make things possibly a little better? Bad.

”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” ​