Gun Control in the US

[Calax]

He has a point. Forbidding something so widespread and in certain cases even useful, as a what, a plan to prevent a random, rare, event?

 

You could use a hammer to kill that ant that's walking over your kitchen counter but if you can't come up with a better idea you might as well not bother.

 

Not that guns are going to be restricted in the US ever anyway.

I think the point that most people (well, reasonable people) are trying to say is that Guns are ok in america, but Assault weapons and automatic weapons are not.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0BVxO_61HE

 

A question on assault weapons from that election thing that we've moved on from (thank god). Illustrates my person views pretty well (well, Obama does. Romney's "Get married for gun control" isn't really my position).

Edited December 19, 2012 by Calax

[BruceVC]

And, making guns illegal to own for sane law abiding citizens will not stop a crazy person from doing this. This guy broke how many current laws commiting thes eheinous crimes/ And, you think illegally gaining guns would stop him from this? No, it won't.

 

Guns don't break laws. People break laws.

 

People pretend that these are common occurances but they aren't. It won't stop a single mass murder. And, isn't that the supposed goal? Wasted effort that can be sued elsewhere to limit such things in the future.

 

Sorry but you logic is incorrect and ignores certain facts .First of all most of America wants some kind of more restrictive gun control. Obama is now pushing for a ban on automatic weapons. No one is suggesting a ban on all guns. Reducing the ownership of automatic weapons will most certainly reduce the causalities in these types of attacks. We know this as we can see what happened in China with the attack on the school recently. No children were killed as the attacker only had access to a knife. The facts are simple, you cannot prevent an insane person from trying to commit mass carnage but you can reduce the likelihood of him getting access to weapons that will dramatically increase his number of victims These are the incontrovertible points.

Edited December 19, 2012 by BruceVC

[Drowsy Emperor]

He has a point. Forbidding something so widespread and in certain cases even useful, as a what, a plan to prevent a random, rare, event?

 

You could use a hammer to kill that ant that's walking over your kitchen counter but if you can't come up with a better idea you might as well not bother.

 

Not that guns are going to be restricted in the US ever anyway.

I think the point that most people (well, reasonable people) are trying to say is that Guns are ok in america, but Assault weapons and automatic weapons are not.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=f0BVxO_61HE

 

A question on assault weapons from that election thing that we've moved on from (thank god). Illustrates my person views pretty well (well, Obama does. Romney's "Get married for gun control" isn't really my position).

 

That's a superficial and unimportant difference. A trained shooter with a Glock can kill a room full of people just as fast as someone with an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an army weapon designed to kill people at a 100-300 meters. Those are the demands of modern combat. As most shootings happen at close ranges all the advantages of an assault rifle, its additional range and precision, are lost. When firing on unarmed and unprepared targets all guns are equally deadly.

 

In short, it makes no difference whether the shooter comes with two glocks or one AK if he's shooting up people at 0-15 meters.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

He has a point. Forbidding something so widespread and in certain cases even useful, as a what, a plan to prevent a random, rare, event?

 

You could use a hammer to kill that ant that's walking over your kitchen counter but if you can't come up with a better idea you might as well not bother.

 

Not that guns are going to be restricted in the US ever anyway.

I think the point that most people (well, reasonable people) are trying to say is that Guns are ok in america, but Assault weapons and automatic weapons are not.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=f0BVxO_61HE

 

A question on assault weapons from that election thing that we've moved on from (thank god). Illustrates my person views pretty well (well, Obama does. Romney's "Get married for gun control" isn't really my position).

 

That's a superficial and unimportant difference. A trained shooter with a Glock can kill a room full of people just as fast as someone with an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an army weapon designed to kill people at a 100-300 meters. Those are the demands of modern combat. As most shootings happen at close ranges all the advantages of an assault rifle, its additional range and precision, are lost. When firing on unarmed and unprepared targets all guns are equally deadly.

 

In short, it makes no difference whether the shooter comes with two glocks or one AK if he's shooting up people at 0-15 meters.

 

Yes but the majority of people who commit these acts are not trained shooters, they are not military personnel . They are normal people who have suffered from a mental breakdown so once again the the choice of weapon is relevant to the overall causality list

[alanschu]

And, making guns illegal to own for sane law abiding citizens will not stop a crazy person from doing this. This guy broke how many current laws commiting thes eheinous crimes/ And, you think illegally gaining guns would stop him from this? No, it won't.

 

Not sure I can agree with this. Unless you have connections with some sort of criminal element, I don't know if he'd be able to acquire the weapons as easily.

[Drowsy Emperor]

He has a point. Forbidding something so widespread and in certain cases even useful, as a what, a plan to prevent a random, rare, event?

 

You could use a hammer to kill that ant that's walking over your kitchen counter but if you can't come up with a better idea you might as well not bother.

 

Not that guns are going to be restricted in the US ever anyway.

I think the point that most people (well, reasonable people) are trying to say is that Guns are ok in america, but Assault weapons and automatic weapons are not.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=f0BVxO_61HE

 

A question on assault weapons from that election thing that we've moved on from (thank god). Illustrates my person views pretty well (well, Obama does. Romney's "Get married for gun control" isn't really my position).

 

That's a superficial and unimportant difference. A trained shooter with a Glock can kill a room full of people just as fast as someone with an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an army weapon designed to kill people at a 100-300 meters. Those are the demands of modern combat. As most shootings happen at close ranges all the advantages of an assault rifle, its additional range and precision, are lost. When firing on unarmed and unprepared targets all guns are equally deadly.

 

In short, it makes no difference whether the shooter comes with two glocks or one AK if he's shooting up people at 0-15 meters.

 

Yes but the majority of people who commit these acts are not trained shooters, they are not military personnel . They are normal people who have suffered from a mental breakdown so once again the the choice of weapon is relevant to the overall causality list

 

The point is not to have 19 dead instead of 23 but prevent these things from happening in the first place.

 

You people seem to forget that if they can't get a gun next time they might mix up a simple bomb or something. Where there is a will there's a way, and if these people were lacking in willpower they wouldn't do the things they do in the first place.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Guest The Architect]

Just legalise weed and be done with it. Chill them psychos right out.

[BruceVC]

And, making guns illegal to own for sane law abiding citizens will not stop a crazy person from doing this. This guy broke how many current laws commiting thes eheinous crimes/ And, you think illegally gaining guns would stop him from this? No, it won't.

 

Not sure I can agree with this. Unless you have connections with some sort of criminal element, I don't know if he'd be able to acquire the weapons as easily.

This is 100 % true

 

The 2 handguns and the automatic weapon that was used in the Sandy Hook school shootings were Adam Lanzas mothers, do you think she would have had been able to get these weapons through illegal means? Highly unlikely

[Valsuelm]

And, making guns illegal to own for sane law abiding citizens will not stop a crazy person from doing this. This guy broke how many current laws commiting thes eheinous crimes/ And, you think illegally gaining guns would stop him from this? No, it won't.

 

Not sure I can agree with this. Unless you have connections with some sort of criminal element, I don't know if he'd be able to acquire the weapons as easily.

This is 100 % true

 

The 2 handguns and the automatic weapon that was used in the Sandy Hook school shootings were Adam Lanzas mothers, do you think she would have had been able to get these weapons through illegal means? Highly unlikely

 

First, you underestimate the black market, both in size, what you can find on it, and the relative ease of finding it. Where there is a will there is a way.

 

Second, you assume that if it were to come to pass one day that these guns you dislike were to be illegal everyone would give up their guns. I guarantee you there's be a lot of people who weren't previously breaking the law, breaking the law willfully if a ban were to come about. Someone such as Mrs. Lanza, who believes that all hell is likely to break loose in the not so distance future very well might have been such a person to obtain what she felt she needed regardless of any laws.

 

The idea that a ban on guns would have prevented what happened last week or will prevent a future catastrophe is an idea firmly rooted in lala land.

[Valsuelm]

He has a point. Forbidding something so widespread and in certain cases even useful, as a what, a plan to prevent a random, rare, event?

 

You could use a hammer to kill that ant that's walking over your kitchen counter but if you can't come up with a better idea you might as well not bother.

 

I personally know someone who was murdered by someone with a hammer in a house that had numerous guns in it. She never had the opportunity to defend herself as the perpetrator took her unaware as it was someone she knew. He chose to use a hammer though, not a gun, despite there being many at his disposal. I also know someone who committed suicide in house with numerous guns at his disposal, yet he chose a knife. There's two deaths for you that had guns not been available absolutely no difference would have been made.

 

I also personally know someone who'd be catmeat if her boyfriend didn't have a gun to shoot the cougar that attacked her. She was quite wounded, but lived because someone had a gun. I also personally know someone who sent an intruder in her home fleeing when she shot a warning shot out of her rifle into her bedroom floor. Whoever it was had been trying to force his way into her room. Who knows what would have happened to her had she not had that rifle. She opted not to shoot the guy though, so unfortunately he got away likely to cause harm to someone else another day.

 

So there's just a couple examples based on personal experience (across the nation there are innumerable more examples) the refute the concept that if guns aren't available tragedy X wouldn't have happened, as well as illustrate that guns do indeed save lives.

[Raithe]

For a slight comparison of things, an article I found of interest : BBC News - Connecticut shootings: The lessons from Dunblane

 

A look back on the effects of the Dunblane shootings in Scotland 16 years on and how that changed things in the UK.

[HoonDing]

At least in the US people aren't totally helpless and allowed to defend themselves when their premises are invaded by criminal scum.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Drudanae

[Malcador]

Sorry but you logic is incorrect and ignores certain facts .First of all most of America wants some kind of more restrictive gun control. Obama is now pushing for a ban on automatic weapons. No one is suggesting a ban on all guns. Reducing the ownership of automatic weapons will most certainly reduce the causalities in these types of attacks. We know this as we can see what happened in China with the attack on the school recently. No children were killed as the attacker only had access to a knife. The facts are simple, you cannot prevent an insane person from trying to commit mass carnage but you can reduce the likelihood of him getting access to weapons that will dramatically increase his number of victims These are the incontrovertible points.

 

Heh, a fully automatic weapon in these things is probably less effective than semi-auto. Gun runs through ammo quick, I assume the likelihood of a jam is higher and it's less accurate. So if the guy is using a semi-auto rifle or pistol, he'll probably kill more than he would blasting away Rambo style. So, I think you all really want a ban on all guns.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Malcador

[Raithe]

I have to admit, it's kind of hard to have a fully reasoned discussion on the subject when the majority of people who don't want easy access to guns generally don't know that much about gun safety/handling/the actual legal restrictions.. and the folks who do tend to know those details are the gun enthusiasts who well, tend to want access.

 

We need a few people who are enthusiastic about guns but don't know the specifics, and people who want more gun control but actually know the details..

[alanschu]

First, you underestimate the black market, both in size, what you can find on it, and the relative ease of finding it. Where there is a will there is a way.

 

Second, you assume that if it were to come to pass one day that these guns you dislike were to be illegal everyone would give up their guns. I guarantee you there's be a lot of people who weren't previously breaking the law, breaking the law willfully if a ban were to come about. Someone such as Mrs. Lanza, who believes that all hell is likely to break loose in the not so distance future very well might have been such a person to obtain what she felt she needed regardless of any laws.

 

The idea that a ban on guns would have prevented what happened last week or will prevent a future catastrophe is an idea firmly rooted in lala land.

 

Ah yes, I'm sure there'd be the regular supplier that we could all just call up. Y'know, to protect us from the tyranny. Lets make lots of assumptions, use safe and non-committal words like "likely" and "probably,' and assume all our assumptions are all true, and have a parting shot that everyone else is in "lala land."

 

 

Serious statement: If I wanted to get some marijuana (something I don't even think should be illegal) right now, I actually have no clue how I'd go about doing so. It probably wouldn't be that hard if I really wanted to, but there's barriers to doing so especially on an impulsive basis. I'd have to some investigation. I know precisely where Cabela's is (it's a big store 5 minutes away from me) and I could go buy a gun and ammunition right now.

 

 

But you also have some anecdotes! I personally know someone that would've been a murderer but didn't have access to a gun. He cooled down. He's not a murderer. I win right?

 

 

Anyone that suggests that a ban on guns may have stopped the shootings is 100% correct. It may have. We don't know, because that's not the reality. I agree with Zor that with the US, it's likely far too late to really put forth any sort of effective ban since there's so many firearms already out there. The real tragedy is that it's a large nation that really feels that they need them because the world is out to get them otherwise.

 

We need a few people who are enthusiastic about guns but don't know the specifics

 

Hah! This is probably me. And several of my friends. Given that we appreciate when games use realistic firearms, and when watching a movie we try to ID them. Still, I went to a firing range once and shot a Glock and immediately jammed the pistol because I didn't know how to shoot it properly. Unfortunate, since the media had convinced me that my gaming prowess and time spent in murder simulators should have made me a pro

[Nonek]

This is a touch simplified, but seemingly relevant:

 

[Calax]

Anyone that suggests that a ban on guns may have stopped the shootings is 100% correct. It may have. We don't know, because that's not the reality. I agree with Zor that with the US, it's likely far too late to really put forth any sort of effective ban since there's so many firearms already out there. The real tragedy is that it's a large nation that really feels that they need them because the world is out to get them otherwise.

IT IS!

I see dirty canadians looking at me with hungry eyes, wanting my non-socialized health care, terriible infrastructure, and my low paying jobs! THe only ones worse are the french and that's because they want to sleep with me for my Job!

[Malcador]

Hey, nothing wrong with healthy paranoia. And it's not as if Canadians are friends to the US

[pmp10]

This is a touch simplified, but seemingly relevant:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwAo8lcAC4

A bit of a warning tho - from what I've seen previously of the man the author is badly biased.

[Tsuga C]

I think the point that most people (well, reasonable people) are trying to say is that Guns are ok in america, but Assault weapons and automatic weapons are not.

 

Educate yourself, please.

 

 

Also from the NSSF website:

 

Modern Sporting Rifle Facts

 

Download a

Pocket Fact Card

 

The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood. Why? Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.

 

The National Shooting Sports Foundation asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles. Remember, that if AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

• AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.
  
• The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."
  
• AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.
  
• If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.
  
• AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
  
• Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.
  
• Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.
  
• These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.
  
• Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.
  
• These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.
  
• AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
  
• The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different "uppers" (the barrel and chamber) to the "lower" (the grip, stock).
  

• And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!
  

Edited December 19, 2012 by Tsuga C

[Diagoras]

Human psycology. It's a lot harder to stab somebody to death in a psycological capacity than it is to just point and click.

 

Okay. Do we see any evidence of this in crime statistics?

 

Simple, a homocide requires a dead body. A crime could just be as little as an assault. So in britain some hooligan stabbing my hand counts as part of the crime rate, while in America that hooligan would "bust a cap in [my] ass". Basically it's a manipulation of the statistics to discuss the crime rate instead of the homocide rates.

 

The NAS study notes that homicide rates are invariant by firearm ownership.

 

Judging by the abortion debate, yes. There's no rational reason with sufficient grounds to deny that (and birth control) to people, and yet the same people who rail against gun control are demanding that it be denied.

 

And how did the Supreme Court rule on that issue?

[Diagoras]

The National Academy of Science meta-analysis I will refer to through this post is Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.

 

There's certainly evidence that spontaneous 'crimes of passion' (domestic violence primarily) and suicides are reduced by not having guns immediately available, as people will often think better of it if given time to reflect- as well as the psychological aspect and separation of using a gun. Those are usually crimes where someone just 'snaps' though, not stuff that requires planning.

 

The NAS meta-analysis noted no evidence that firearm ownership is correlated with either violent crime or suicide, let alone causated.

 

I believe most simple human logic means nothing against statistics paid by various lobbies.

 

You think the National Academy of Science has been paid for by a political lobby? That's an extremely serious accusation, as it's one of the nation's most prestigious scientific organizations. Could you provide evidence for this assertion?

 

What's not to get about "it takes more effort to stab 20 people to death with a pocket knife than using a gun"? It's so simple and yet somebody will always point out that it can't be proven because statistic X says...? *facepalm*

 

Are you rejecting the fundamental basis of the scientific method? Or is your concern more methodological?

[Diagoras]

There's vast amounts of evidence for the link, eg this from Harvard. It's linked mainly to the tendency of men to attempt suicide less than women but use far more immediate and effective methods.

 

I'd recommend that you review the National Academy of Science's meta-analysis, linked below. They address this issue specifically. Among other things, once you take into account international studies, firearm ownership and suicide are uncorrelated.

 

If anyone is interested in the statistics of this issue, read the National Academy of Science's Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. It represents the current statistical consensus on this issue, and you really can't be informed on an issue like gun control if you don't read and understand the statistical evidence.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Diagoras

[Volourn]

"Not sure I can agree with this. Unless you have connections with some sort of criminal element, I don't know if he'd be able to acquire the weapons as easily."

 

From the reports, this attack was well planned out inadvance. From those who knew him that in spite of his mental issues he was actually quite smart - even taking college courses and doing well in them at 16 - so I'm sure as dedcaited to his cause as he apaprantly was he'd have found a way to find a weapon. Be it guns, explosives, or whatever. In fact, in this case, an argument could be amde that this would have been a worse bloodbath if his family dint give him relatively easya ccess to guns since he had the smarts to make a bomb and it was clear he loathed the entire school. He likely would have simply decided to blow the whole building up.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Volourn

[Gorgon]

I'm not familiar with the national academy of sciences, but US think tanks are notoriously biased and funded by special interests. They put out all manner of scientific reports, most of which adhere to academic standards but were only created because the results were expected.