Guns should be legal in American, because guns are cool

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Gun control talk has been all the rage recently. Between Obama's new executive orders, bumper stickers promoting concealed carry in Illinois, and every half-baked special interest group using recent tragedies to promote their niche agenda on the evening news, it seems that guns are the current hot political topic.

Both the pro- and anti-gun sides wrap their arguments in a thousand different bows, but it all boils down to a pretty simple argument: should American citizens have the right to own guns? Neither side has done anything but argue at each other in circles, but after moving past talk about "the Second Amendment," "video games," and "the children," perhaps the country should consider that the average American should have the right to own guns, because, frankly, guns are cool.

It might sound childish to say, and some might argue that the statement "guns are cool" is everything that is wrong with gun culture in America, but nobody can really deny that this country finds firearms delightful. Guns are humanity's great equalizer. A testament to scientific advancement and engineering, guns allow a 100 pound college girl the same level of projected force they afford a 300 pound MMA fighter.

There's a reason that most video games have firearms in them, and it's not because of subversion from the NRA. Movies and video game companies produce their gun-centric media because that's what sells. Humans are enamored by the idea of shooting things, so they escape into fantasy worlds that allow them that cathartic pleasure. Some stores sell water pistols because kids think playing with guns is cool, and others sell Airsoft guns because adults think so too.

Guns are tools that shoot a metal projectile at high velocity. Like any tool, they can be dangerous in the hands of a novice or a criminal. A chainsaw is also a cool tool that could be used for nefarious means, but the vast majority of both tools are legally handled by responsible owners.

The country is in such a loud uproar over the issue of gun control because of the passion people feel for the subject. Americans who have never touched a gun in their lives want to hear what their favorite pundits have to say about it, and the news continues to broaden their coverage on the topic because of their viewers' high interest.

Americans find guns sexy, and citing a few horrible, horrible gun tragedies doesn't make firearms any more inherently evil that the car behind a drunk driving fatality. The news reports stories that are abnormal. Gun violence gets highlighted by the press because of the uncommon nature of such tragedies, as well as to satiate the public's desire to hear about guns. Stories about inner city violence involve illegal firearms that are used by criminals. Gun violence is already against the law, and there are already a myriad of restrictions in place screening out potential violent offenders. Making firearms illegal would mean that only the criminals would have guns.

America's Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, but they also wrote that black slaves were 3/5ths of a person, so the gun control argument should not be about the past, but rather, the future. In this future, should properly vetted individuals have the right to carry and collect potentially dangerous firearms? Should they be allowed to purchase knives, fireworks, or poisonous chemicals? What do American freedoms actually entail?

These are tough questions, and they have multiple answers, but those who hold personal freedom as a sacrosanct American virtue should consider what the country's infatuation with firearms reflects. American gun advocates would like fairly regulated, legal ways to pursue their interests. It shouldn't matter if they intend the gun for hunting, target shooting, or simply to add to a personal collection. Americans want the freedom to own firearms because guns are cool, and that should be enough.

Mr.Cynic88:

Americans find guns sexy, and citing a few horrible, horrible gun tragedies doesn't make firearms any more inherently evil that the car behind a drunk driving fatality. The news reports stories that are abnormal. Gun violence gets highlighted by the press because of the uncommon nature of such tragedies, as well as to satiate the public's desire to hear about guns. Stories about inner city violence involve illegal firearms that are used by criminals. Gun violence is already against the law, and there are already a myriad of restrictions in place screening out potential violent offenders. Making firearms illegal would mean that only the criminals would have guns.

32000 people were killed in the US by gunfire in 2011(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/), that is nearly 100 people per day-Hardly an anomaly. Ultimately US gun culture leads to a lot of people are getting killed for no real benefit(American crime statistics are generally considerably higher then most countries with strict gun control). If you feel that "guns are cool" is sufficient reason to accept these deaths then that is fine. However many would disagree for obvious reasons(I for one would be extreamly uncomfortable owning a gun, then again I am not an American).

Gashad:
snip

Your link outright states that the numbers include suicide and accidental discharge. On average the number of homicides are maybe 1/4 of that.

kiri2tsubasa:

Gashad:
snip

Your link outright states that the numbers include suicide and accidental discharge. On average the number of homicides are maybe 1/4 of that.

True, and guns tendency to facilitate suicide is yet another argument to limit their spread. And Ultimately the risk of accidental damage is a pretty darn good argument against guns.

kiri2tsubasa:
Your link outright states that the numbers include suicide and accidental discharge. On average the number of homicides are maybe 1/4 of that.

Experiences in Belgium have shown that the rate of suicides can be more than cut in half by gun legislation though. Belgium already had tighter laws than the US, but tightened them further in 2006. Between 2006 and 2012 the number of suicides tumbled, and for men of most ages was more than cut in half.

Female suicide rate (important because women don't use guns for suicide) remained steady, meaning that guns were the cause of these deaths.

Gashad:

kiri2tsubasa:

Gashad:
snip

Your link outright states that the numbers include suicide and accidental discharge. On average the number of homicides are maybe 1/4 of that.

True, and guns tendency to facilitate suicide is yet another argument to limit their spread. And Ultimately the risk of accidental damage is a pretty darn good argument against guns.

Not really. What is shows is the lack of enforcement with the already established laws with gun handling. By law you are to have a fireproof safe for gun storage. If for whatever reason something happens that renders the safe inoperable, or the guns are outside of the safe for whatever reason outside of cleaning and maintenance, then they are supposed to have trigger locks installed.

kiri2tsubasa:

Not really. What is shows is the lack of enforcement with the already established laws with gun handling. By law you are to have a fireproof safe for gun storage. If for whatever reason something happens that renders the safe inoperable, or the guns are outside of the safe for whatever reason outside of cleaning and maintenance, then they are supposed to have trigger locks installed.

If one does not have a gun one cannot accidentally kill someone with it. Ultimately strong enforcement of the rules would be virtually impossible considering the number of people in the US who have guns. It would require an insane amount of resources to see that all these people followed the prescribed rules.

Moreover US gun culture impairs any attempts of enforcements. This as guns are considered a symbol of freedom and independence, and any attempt to enforce rules governing it would meet extreme and possibly violent resistance. I think there was a thread some weeks ago in how the ATF was rendered powerless to enforce its rules by congressional legislation driven through by the gun lobby.

kiri2tsubasa:

Gashad:
snip

Your link outright states that the numbers include suicide and accidental discharge. On average the number of homicides are maybe 1/4 of that.

And if those statistics are "deaths resulting from firearms," I would like to know how many of those guns were legally acquired and registered. I live near Chicago, where there is plenty of gun violence, despite the fact that guns have been illegal there my entire life. Gun control doesn't affect criminals, because they'll just break the law. Gun control only affects dutiful citizens that believe in obeying the law.

Also, I'm quite aware of America's high levels of violence and such, but we should consider demographics. Most European countries, compared to the US, are pretty homogeneous. America grew as a land of immigrants, so we're not nearly as racially and culturally homogeneous. Humans tend to hate things that are not like them, and there is more conflict.

We really shouldn't factor gang violence into the gun control issue when comparing these statistics. Nothing about those guns are legal, and we shouldn't punish responsible people for the crimes of others. Just because a kid might get a fake ID and die drinking doesn't mean we should ban alcohol.

Gashad:
True, and guns tendency to facilitate suicide is yet another argument to limit their spread. And Ultimately the risk of accidental damage is a pretty darn good argument against guns.

Blablahb:
Experiences in Belgium have shown that the rate of suicides can be more than cut in half by gun legislation though. Belgium already had tighter laws than the US, but tightened them further in 2006. Between 2006 and 2012 the number of suicides tumbled, and for men of most ages was more than cut in half.

Female suicide rate (important because women don't use guns for suicide) remained steady, meaning that guns were the cause of these deaths.

This only shows me we need to have more people admitted to mental health facilities before it gets to that point, and better education in proper gun safety.

Gashad:

kiri2tsubasa:

Gashad:
snip

Your link outright states that the numbers include suicide and accidental discharge. On average the number of homicides are maybe 1/4 of that.

True, and guns tendency to facilitate suicide is yet another argument to limit their spread. And Ultimately the risk of accidental damage is a pretty darn good argument against guns.

Not to mention that by their very nature, they're designed to facilitate murder and mass murder with ease.

Why any government would allow the streets to be flooded with those weapons is beyond me.

It wouldn't stop killings, no one's naive enough to think that, but it would certainly lower them over time. To say " It won't make any difference " or " Criminals will always find firearms! " is just defeatist.
A lot of these "Criminals" are only correctly labeled as such after they commit the actual crime with a legally obtained firearm.

Look at the kid that shot up the school recently, he was socially inept from a nice neighbourhood... Do people really think a person like that would have the backbone to go to a gang or someone slinging rock on the street and say " Excuse me, do you know where I can buy a firearm? "...

Gashad:

Mr.Cynic88:

Americans find guns sexy, and citing a few horrible, horrible gun tragedies doesn't make firearms any more inherently evil that the car behind a drunk driving fatality. The news reports stories that are abnormal. Gun violence gets highlighted by the press because of the uncommon nature of such tragedies, as well as to satiate the public's desire to hear about guns. Stories about inner city violence involve illegal firearms that are used by criminals. Gun violence is already against the law, and there are already a myriad of restrictions in place screening out potential violent offenders. Making firearms illegal would mean that only the criminals would have guns.

32000 people were killed in the US by gunfire in 2011(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/), that is nearly 100 people per day-Hardly an anomaly. Ultimately US gun culture leads to a lot of people are getting killed for no real benefit(American crime statistics are generally considerably higher then most countries with strict gun control). If you feel that "guns are cool" is sufficient reason to accept these deaths then that is fine. However many would disagree for obvious reasons(I for one would be extreamly uncomfortable owning a gun, then again I am not an American).

How many of those were gang violence or done with already illegal guns? Because, you know, those people with illegal guns are still going to get those illegal gun if every gun is illegal.

Assassin Xaero:

Gashad:

Mr.Cynic88:

Americans find guns sexy, and citing a few horrible, horrible gun tragedies doesn't make firearms any more inherently evil that the car behind a drunk driving fatality. The news reports stories that are abnormal. Gun violence gets highlighted by the press because of the uncommon nature of such tragedies, as well as to satiate the public's desire to hear about guns. Stories about inner city violence involve illegal firearms that are used by criminals. Gun violence is already against the law, and there are already a myriad of restrictions in place screening out potential violent offenders. Making firearms illegal would mean that only the criminals would have guns.

32000 people were killed in the US by gunfire in 2011(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/), that is nearly 100 people per day-Hardly an anomaly. Ultimately US gun culture leads to a lot of people are getting killed for no real benefit(American crime statistics are generally considerably higher then most countries with strict gun control). If you feel that "guns are cool" is sufficient reason to accept these deaths then that is fine. However many would disagree for obvious reasons(I for one would be extreamly uncomfortable owning a gun, then again I am not an American).

How many of those were gang violence or done with already illegal guns? Because, you know, those people with illegal guns are still going to get those illegal gun if every gun is illegal.

And how many of the 600,000 guns stolen or lost a year in the U.S. because of BAD security and no regulations governing that, fall into criminal hands?

To say " They will get guns anyway so why bother "... Well that's asinine. Why have laws at all if they're just going to be broken... To dissuade most and cut down on the amount of crime.

Gun control isn't a complete fix, but it'll help.

Denholm Reynholm:

Assassin Xaero:

Gashad:

32000 people were killed in the US by gunfire in 2011(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/), that is nearly 100 people per day-Hardly an anomaly. Ultimately US gun culture leads to a lot of people are getting killed for no real benefit(American crime statistics are generally considerably higher then most countries with strict gun control). If you feel that "guns are cool" is sufficient reason to accept these deaths then that is fine. However many would disagree for obvious reasons(I for one would be extreamly uncomfortable owning a gun, then again I am not an American).

How many of those were gang violence or done with already illegal guns? Because, you know, those people with illegal guns are still going to get those illegal gun if every gun is illegal.

And how many of the 600,000 guns stolen or lost a year in the U.S. because of BAD security and no regulations governing that, fall into criminal hands?

To say " They will get guns anyway so why bother "... Well that's asinine. Why have laws at all if they're just going to be broken... To dissuade most and cut down on the amount of crime.

Gun control isn't a complete fix, but it'll help.

I'm not saying "they will get them anyway, so why bother", but some many people in this country (US) are so ignorant and don't think at all to the point where they think outlawing guns WILL fix all these problems. They think if you outlaw them, they will all just disappear and we'll skip off into the sunset holding hands. Obviously that isn't how it will happen (just look at any illegal drug).

I could agree with more strict gun regulations, but as long as they make sense. This "assault weapon ban" they are trying to pass is idiotic. I can understand the mag size limit (but that still pisses me off since I'd have to get rid of my AK mags [probably not even get money back for them], and buy new ones), but the rest are pretty much all cosmetic (folding stock, fore grip, pistol grip, etc.). You can argue that a bayonet hook is "more dangerous", but it is completely impractical. It's along the same lines as saying any car that travels over 60mph and/or has fog lights, a spoiler, or rims should be illegal (before anyone starts that "cars weren't designed to kill people" crap, that is called an example).

People just want any gun that looks scary to be illegal. You can basically just change how the gun looks and people would say it should now be illegal. If you want to watch it, you can skip to 5:55 to see where he makes that point:

Denholm Reynholm:

And how many of the 600,000 guns stolen or lost a year in the U.S. because of BAD security and no regulations governing that, fall into criminal hands?

I don't think a lot of people who support gun ownership rights[1] are opposed to increasing security and holding gun owners responsible for making sure their guns are not stolen or lost.

Denholm Reynholm:

Why any government would allow the streets to be flooded with those weapons is beyond me.

Really? You really don't understand why the US would allow citizens to own guns? I would think it would be pretty obvious to anybody that knows the bare basics about the US government.

Denholm Reynholm:

It wouldn't stop killings, no one's naive enough to think that, but it would certainly lower them over time. To say " It won't make any difference " or " Criminals will always find firearms! " is just defeatist.

You can call it whatever you want, but it doesn't counter the claim that because there are so many illegal firearms in the US, criminals would still have access to them.

Denholm Reynholm:

Look at the kid that shot up the school recently, he was socially inept from a nice neighbourhood... Do people really think a person like that would have the backbone to go to a gang or someone slinging rock on the street and say " Excuse me, do you know where I can buy a firearm? "...

That seems more like an argument for gun owners to be more responsible for where they keep their guns and to not let them be easily accessible to just anyone.

On a related subject, this video is interesting to watch....

[1] I could be wrong

Do you believe the government should be allowed to turn off your electricity from time to time, even if it means saving on electricity and utility costs? I for one don't understand why some people care so much about the 2nd amendment, we don't even need it! It's a pretty pointless amendment when you don't even need a gun. It's something tough guys like to have to show people they're tough, but they won't look so tough when the president passes a law that makes it illegal to own guns!

Mr.Cynic88:

kiri2tsubasa:

Gashad:
snip

Your link outright states that the numbers include suicide and accidental discharge. On average the number of homicides are maybe 1/4 of that.

And if those statistics are "deaths resulting from firearms," I would like to know how many of those guns were legally acquired and registered. I live near Chicago, where there is plenty of gun violence, despite the fact that guns have been illegal there my entire life. Gun control doesn't affect criminals, because they'll just break the law. Gun control only affects dutiful citizens that believe in obeying the law.

Also, I'm quite aware of America's high levels of violence and such, but we should consider demographics. Most European countries, compared to the US, are pretty homogeneous. America grew as a land of immigrants, so we're not nearly as racially and culturally homogeneous. Humans tend to hate things that are not like them, and there is more conflict.

We really shouldn't factor gang violence into the gun control issue when comparing these statistics. Nothing about those guns are legal, and we shouldn't punish responsible people for the crimes of others. Just because a kid might get a fake ID and die drinking doesn't mean we should ban alcohol.

As I said a few weeks ago and I am very anoyed at the whole 'criminals won't be affected' thing.

Me:

2- Criminals do not obey laws, this is true and a fact that is beloved by people who drop smug macros into discussions. However, if we stop and consider the actual ramifications of this, it becomes pretty goddamn irrelevant.
- If someone has an illegal firearm, that is a crime and they can be stopped there and then as opposed to simply letting them walk on.
- It will slow down or limit the permeation of these weapons, eventually shifting the trend to one of decreasing firearm ownership (not eliminate, no one is claiming that it will eliminate them)
- Someone who fits the profile of a spree killer (isolated, angry, feels like they have been wronged) suddenly aquiring a weapon becomes a bigger red flag and they are more likely to be stopped.
- From what I can see, it is rarely career criminals that conduct these crimes and so average joe blog on the street is unlikely to know where to get a hold of illegal assault weaponry.
- Someone who is in need of mental help, and is likely to commit violent suicide by attacking those near themselves, is less likely to have a weapon to hand when they snap.
- Criminals, are, for the most part, profit motivated human beings. Someone who is already hiding from the law is not going to assist someone who will draw attention to themselves
- Criminals are often quite reasonable and are unlikely to support the person who is likely to gun down more than a dozen children.
- Not all people who commit these crimes use their own weapons, so if their friends and family do not own them, it is harder for the criminal to obtain it.

[/quote]

Also, Europe is really not that culturally homogeneous with significant diversity in religion and ethnicity, and Australia most certainly has enough diversity to render that argument moot

the clockmaker:

2- Criminals do not obey laws, this is true and a fact that is beloved by people who drop smug macros into discussions. However, if we stop and consider the actual ramifications of this, it becomes pretty goddamn irrelevant.
- If someone has an illegal firearm, that is a crime and they can be stopped there and then as opposed to simply letting them walk on.
- It will slow down or limit the permeation of these weapons, eventually shifting the trend to one of decreasing firearm ownership (not eliminate, no one is claiming that it will eliminate them)
- Someone who fits the profile of a spree killer (isolated, angry, feels like they have been wronged) suddenly aquiring a weapon becomes a bigger red flag and they are more likely to be stopped.
- From what I can see, it is rarely career criminals that conduct these crimes and so average joe blog on the street is unlikely to know where to get a hold of illegal assault weaponry.
- Someone who is in need of mental help, and is likely to commit violent suicide by attacking those near themselves, is less likely to have a weapon to hand when they snap.
- Criminals, are, for the most part, profit motivated human beings. Someone who is already hiding from the law is not going to assist someone who will draw attention to themselves
- Criminals are often quite reasonable and are unlikely to support the person who is likely to gun down more than a dozen children.
- Not all people who commit these crimes use their own weapons, so if their friends and family do not own them, it is harder for the criminal to obtain it.

Logical points certainly, but there is were that opposing ideology comes into play. Everything your saying here comes from the standpoint of "less guns for everybody means less guns to commit violence," and you see less guns as a positive thing. The problem is, as I so childishly put it, is that guns are cool, and many Americans want to be able to access guns in a manner not wholly inconvenient.

Less cars would mean less traffic fatalities, but I want a car, and I want a car that can break 100 mph, despite the highest speed limit in the state being 65. I want these things because they're cool, and in a free country, that should be enough.

Alcoholism is a major problem. Should we ban all booze because there are a bunch of assholes that get wrecked and hit their wives?

There are going to be tragedies every day, and in the long run we're all dead, but I want to spend my brief time on this earth doing cool things. Remember, guns don't kill people....

Gashad:

Mr.Cynic88:

Americans find guns sexy, and citing a few horrible, horrible gun tragedies doesn't make firearms any more inherently evil that the car behind a drunk driving fatality. The news reports stories that are abnormal. Gun violence gets highlighted by the press because of the uncommon nature of such tragedies, as well as to satiate the public's desire to hear about guns. Stories about inner city violence involve illegal firearms that are used by criminals. Gun violence is already against the law, and there are already a myriad of restrictions in place screening out potential violent offenders. Making firearms illegal would mean that only the criminals would have guns.

32000 people were killed in the US by gunfire in 2011(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/), that is nearly 100 people per day-Hardly an anomaly. Ultimately US gun culture leads to a lot of people are getting killed for no real benefit(American crime statistics are generally considerably higher then most countries with strict gun control). If you feel that "guns are cool" is sufficient reason to accept these deaths then that is fine. However many would disagree for obvious reasons(I for one would be extreamly uncomfortable owning a gun, then again I am not an American).

1st off, only ~8000 were murders, the rest were suicides, justifiable homocide, accidents (about 200), and police intervention.
the homocide rate in america is about 12,000, but as i said, 8K are murders
IS that still high...yes it is.

But you know what else? Guns LOWER CRIME.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

plus most people killed by guns are gang members.
and explain why Chicago has 500 murder a year, and has gun control and Kennesaw Georgia has MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP and it hasnt had a homicide in 25 years?

Population density?

May be a good argument if Kennesaw Georgia Didnt have a bigger population and was 3 times denser than East St. Louis which is in the top 3 most dangerous cities in the US which also has gun control.

Oddly enough in the list of top ten most dangerous cities in the US only 2 are in red states, and those cities are fairly Blue anyway. Also all the cities have a higher percentage of Minorities, especially african americans.
Combine this knowledge with the fact most victims have a previous record of violence, and so do the shooters, this can only mean one thing.....

Gang Culture.

Yep, Gangbanger culture is my theory on why crime in the US is high, especially in urban areas.

but aside from that, when the nation is 65% GUN OWNERS and we have 88 guns for every 100 citizens and only suffer 8K murders with fire arms and that rate is dropping as the gun ownership rate is skyrocketing....

i say...Gun are not a problem, guns have never been a problem, just like video games dont inspire people to commit crime.
its individuals and fucked up upbringing.

Check mate.

It was fun reading the first post. The rest of the discussion is also hilarious. Sometimes misinformation can go in so deep you can't even admit it's false anymore.

I'll just drop in and say that it's kind of funny when the words "amendment" and "sacrosanct" appear in the same sentence without a negation somewhere between the two.

It's an amendment, not one of the bloody ten commandments.

Denholm Reynholm:

Gashad:

kiri2tsubasa:

Your link outright states that the numbers include suicide and accidental discharge. On average the number of homicides are maybe 1/4 of that.

True, and guns tendency to facilitate suicide is yet another argument to limit their spread. And Ultimately the risk of accidental damage is a pretty darn good argument against guns.

Not to mention that by their very nature, they're designed to facilitate murder and mass murder with ease.

Why any government would allow the streets to be flooded with those weapons is beyond me.

It wouldn't stop killings, no one's naive enough to think that, but it would certainly lower them over time. To say " It won't make any difference " or " Criminals will always find firearms! " is just defeatist.
A lot of these "Criminals" are only correctly labeled as such after they commit the actual crime with a legally obtained firearm.

Look at the kid that shot up the school recently, he was socially inept from a nice neighbourhood... Do people really think a person like that would have the backbone to go to a gang or someone slinging rock on the street and say " Excuse me, do you know where I can buy a firearm? "...

US citizens, however, are not under the protection of their police. Law enforcement isn't legally obligated to interfere if we're being attacked, nor answer a 911 call for help, nor even enforce a restraining order.

We're on our own in this country, bud.

If you want MORE firearms restrictions (we have gun control, it's a matter of degrees), then you best be telling me what sort of protection will be put in to fill the void, especially to people in areas like mine wehre even if the police were obligated to help, the response time is measured in HOURS.

Welgo Rodimus:
Do you believe the government should be allowed to turn off your electricity from time to time, even if it means saving on electricity and utility costs?

I have generators setting in my garage all set and ready to go at a moments notice.

Come at me Uncle Sam.

I for one don't understand why some people care so much about the 2nd amendment, we don't even need it!

NDAA, The Patriot Act, Gitmo, etc. The Government has done loads of illegal things before. A lot of people are drawing the line in the sand with the Second Amendment.

It's a pretty pointless amendment when you don't even need a gun.

There are so many things wrong with that statement that I could write a Doctoral Thesis on it. But I'll compile a short list.

-Pests
-Criminals intent on doing you harm
-A rogue government
-Dangerous animals like Bears
-anything that has made it clear that it wants to harm you or your family.

I'd rather have my Mossberg and not need it, than need it and not have it.

It's something tough guys like to have to show people they're tough, but they won't look so tough when the president passes a law that makes it illegal to own guns!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no.

To repeal an amendment, or pass an amendment to over write an earlier one. It needs to pass both the house and senate, and be ratified by 2/3rds of the states. And no, he can't just sign an executive order on this either.

If it makes it to the house, there will be angry protests.
If it makes it to the senate, there will be threats of succession.
If it makes it to the 2/3rds of the sates, there will be rebellion.

Several states have already passed laws saying that any federal agents entering it's borders to enforce any kind of new gun control will be arrested on site and prosecuted.

Good luck outlawing guns and keeping the country in one piece.

Mr.Cynic88:

Logical points certainly, but there is were that opposing ideology comes into play. Everything your saying here comes from the standpoint of "less guns for everybody means less guns to commit violence," and you see less guns as a positive thing. The problem is, as I so childishly put it, is that guns are cool, and many Americans want to be able to access guns in a manner not wholly inconvenient.

Less cars would mean less traffic fatalities, but I want a car, and I want a car that can break 100 mph, despite the highest speed limit in the state being 65. I want these things because they're cool, and in a free country, that should be enough.

Alcoholism is a major problem. Should we ban all booze because there are a bunch of assholes that get wrecked and hit their wives?

There are going to be tragedies every day, and in the long run we're all dead, but I want to spend my brief time on this earth doing cool things. Remember, guns don't kill people....

Firstly, cars

me:
Lets look at the difference in manpower usage to incident however. According to the US government, your average American spends about 100 hours per annum commuting too and from work. Now if we (just for the sake of 'good enough for forum work') take it as read that people will then spend roughly the same amount of time running up to the shops after work, that gives us 200 hours per annum and then if we assume that they drive somewhere over the weekend, to the shops but not to work, lets call it about 233 hours per annum (the weekend being roughly a third of the week we add roughly a third)
so if we then multiply that by the US population we ger roughly 72600916661 driving hours in the US per annum.

Now, going by a 32,367 road toll per anum that gives us one fatal incident per every 2243053.6 driving hours.

Now outside of a range (which nobody, to the best of my knowledge is trying to shut down ranges) and hunting (ditto) a firearm is lying inactive unless it is being used for the purpose of defence and offence. Now do you really think that they can match that usage hours to fatal incident ratio?

On top of that, it is called a road toll for a reason, it has been deemed, due to the nature of an interconnected economy that cars are necessary to keep it running, what is being discussed now is does the US need to accept a 'firearm toll', are they performing enough good to justify the death toll?

In addition it must be remembered that cars are under higher restrictions in the US than firearms are. your car must be registered and you must be licensed to drive it. Both of these need to be renewed regularly. Vehicles can be deemed un-roadworthy, you are not to operate them drunk or under the influence of drugs, you must be insured for third party damage and there are road rules that must be followed in operating a vehicle.

Secondly, Alcohol is only an exacerbation of intent towards, not ability in, the conduct of violence. A weedy isolated kid cannot use alcohol to kill those he hates and a person cannot walk into a school and kill twenty children with a bottle of Jack. Furthermore, although hard statistics are difficult to come by, the usage to incident ratio of alcohol would also be far above that of a firearm outside of safe conditions. On top of that, incidences of harm done by alcohol tend to be overwhelmingly of the damage to self variety over a period of decades, liver cancer etc etc and if all that guns did was give you cancer over a period of decades, I doubt that we would be having this discussion.

Thirdly, Please stop trying to misrepresent the pro-legislation position as 'ban anything dangerous' it is a daft fucking straw man and it is really tiresome. The position is not 'ban guns because they are dangerous' it is 'legislate the use of firearms because in their current state, they do far too much harm to be acceptable in society.' If you wnat to debate our position, debate our position, don't make shit up.

fourthly, Yes, people kill people, they kill them using guns, many of those people, if they did not have a gun, would not be able to kill their victims. The tool is an instrument of the intent behind it, and without the instrument the will is thwarted.

Fifthly, a free country is not only defined by the positive freedoms of what you can do, but also the negative freedoms of what we are free from having done too us. These freedoms do not exist in a vacuum and interact with and weigh against other freedoms. For example, freedom of movement is outweighed by the freedom to not have strangers wander into your house. Freedom of speech is outweighed by the freedom to not be libelled or slandered. Your desire to artificially feel cool does not outweigh the safety of others.

Sixthly, what makes a gun cool? is a firing pin cool? is the gas return system cool? If I were to hand you the bolt of a F89, would it send shivers down your spine? I contend that what makes a gun cool is the connotations that it has, we think that an M4 with a suppressor, eotech sight, surefire torch and a bunch of superfluous rails is cool because it is wielded by who are cool. Sascats, Swat and SOG, SEALs, SFOD-D, Marines. We think tan sprayed F88 with a grenade launcher and EOS is beast because it looks beast in the hands of a digger overseas. What you are doing by buying guns 'because they are cool' is trying to become cool by association, trying to buy and image that others have earned. That is not cool.

GunsmithKitten:

US citizens, however, are not under the protection of their police. Law enforcement isn't legally obligated to interfere if we're being attacked, nor answer a 911 call for help, nor even enforce a restraining order.

We're on our own in this country, bud.

If you want MORE firearms restrictions (we have gun control, it's a matter of degrees), then you best be telling me what sort of protection will be put in to fill the void, especially to people in areas like mine wehre even if the police were obligated to help, the response time is measured in HOURS.

When the police system does not do its job, the most logical thing to do is to fix the police system. They need to be made accountable (you know, protect and serve) and they need to be engaged in the community. What annoys me is that 'the police don't care about the community' has ceased being a reason and started being an excuse. Ma'am, I must ask you, why do I always see you bemoaning the status of the police, but never calling for it to be fixed, you simply state the problem without indicating any desire for a solution. The answer is simple, it would deny you of one of your excuses to posses a firearm designed with the purpose of ending human life (there really needs to be a simpler way of putting that).

Smagmuck_:

-A rogue government

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no.

To repeal an amendment, or pass an amendment to over write an earlier one. It needs to pass both the house and senate, and be ratified by 2/3rds of the states. And no, he can't just sign an executive order on this either.

If it makes it to the house, there will be angry protests.
If it makes it to the senate, there will be threats of succession.
If it makes it to the 2/3rds of the sates, there will be rebellion.

Several states have already passed laws saying that any federal agents entering it's borders to enforce any kind of new gun control will be arrested on site and prosecuted.

Good luck outlawing guns and keeping the country in one piece.

Because the best way to ensure democracy is threaten violence against anyone with the nerves to vote against you.

I love the idea that armed citizens will stand up to "a rogue government". It's hilarious how disconnected from reality that is.

Spoiler: The government has tanks, fighter jets, and missiles. Your guns mean nothing. You may as well wave your bollocks at the tanks for all the good they'll do. If it comes to actually using your guns against the army, you've already lost.

the clockmaker:
Because the best way to ensure democracy is threaten violence against anyone with the nerves to vote against your rights as citizens.

There, fixed that for you. :)

Really though, to pass an amendment in the US requires it to be passed by both the House and Senate and be ratified by 2/3rds of the States. Getting an Amendment even started about banning firearms completely will cause such an uproar it will either die in congressional committee or split the country in two. A lot of people find it preferable to just drop it, than risk causing Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Aris Khandr:
I love the idea that armed citizens will stand up to "a rogue government". It's hilarious how disconnected from reality that is.

Spoiler: The government has tanks, fighter jets, and missiles. Your guns mean nothing. You may as well wave your bollocks at the tanks for all the good they'll do. If it comes to actually using your guns against the army, you've already lost.

Because these guys totally got their shit stomped by the US Military.

Oh wait...

It's also not hard to sabotage tanks, and aircraft. Not to mention the US Military is a hotbed of private gun owners.

the clockmaker:

When the police system does not do its job, the most logical thing to do is to fix the police system. They need to be made accountable (you know, protect and serve) and they need to be engaged in the community. What annoys me is that 'the police don't care about the community' has ceased being a reason and started being an excuse. Ma'am, I must ask you, why do I always see you bemoaning the status of the police, but never calling for it to be fixed, you simply state the problem without indicating any desire for a solution. The answer is simple, it would deny you of one of your excuses to posses a firearm designed with the purpose of ending human life (there really needs to be a simpler way of putting that).

And that would be a state of affairs I wouldn't mind having, believe it or not.

Also, I HAVE called for it to be fixed, fer pete's sake.

Still, if it seems like I haven't been doing so enough for your satisfaction, it's because there's also the issue that, even if by some miracle that court decision was overruled, the matter of response time would still be there.

Gashad:

kiri2tsubasa:

Gashad:
snip

Your link outright states that the numbers include suicide and accidental discharge. On average the number of homicides are maybe 1/4 of that.

True, and guns tendency to facilitate suicide is yet another argument to limit their spread. And Ultimately the risk of accidental damage is a pretty darn good argument against guns.

...and why focus on the gun suicides that technically we aren't doing anything about?

Suicides are suicides. Addressing the method instead of the cause is backwards reasoning.

Its like telling a murderer "Hey, use the hammer! Don't use your hands! Use the hammer we can move this number to a different category!"

All we are doing in that instance is moving the numbers to a different section of the statistical page. data manipulation. We aren't lowering the actual number or preventing the suicides. We are just moving it. Preventing the suicide and suicidal thoughts themselves should be the main priority.

What sort of fucked up reasoning is this?:

"I don't care if people kill themselves, just make sure its from a knife and not a gun."

We should try to steer people away from suicidal thoughts ENTIRELY, not try to steer them away from a particular method of suicide. Suicidal thoughts is very dangerous in both the short term and long term if not dealt with. All we are doing is delaying an inevitable suicide, at best.

This is cut from another thread, a post made by me.

Real suicide is not deterred when its "hard to do."

1. It isn't hard to kill yourself.

2. Its belittling the very real suicide mentality. The "suck it up fag, you don't have the balls to do it" is a relic from the 1950s and it should stay there along with the "medicinal cigarettes."

If the suicidal thoughts are left there, it WILL end in suicide unless intervention occurs. This is why mental health services need to be expanded, not because "we are babies that need our milk."

The "suicide" argument is by far the worst argument for gun control. For one, a lot of things can kill you with ease. Secondly, it has nasty messages that are implied when you examine the argument close enough.

the clockmaker:

GunsmithKitten:

US citizens, however, are not under the protection of their police. Law enforcement isn't legally obligated to interfere if we're being attacked, nor answer a 911 call for help, nor even enforce a restraining order.

We're on our own in this country, bud.

If you want MORE firearms restrictions (we have gun control, it's a matter of degrees), then you best be telling me what sort of protection will be put in to fill the void, especially to people in areas like mine wehre even if the police were obligated to help, the response time is measured in HOURS.

When the police system does not do its job, the most logical thing to do is to fix the police system. They need to be made accountable (you know, protect and serve) and they need to be engaged in the community. What annoys me is that 'the police don't care about the community' has ceased being a reason and started being an excuse. Ma'am, I must ask you, why do I always see you bemoaning the status of the police, but never calling for it to be fixed, you simply state the problem without indicating any desire for a solution. The answer is simple, it would deny you of one of your excuses to posses a firearm designed with the purpose of ending human life (there really needs to be a simpler way of putting that).

America isn't always concentrated. A lot of the times its rural or spread out outside the upper east coast states.

To say "just get more cops, stupid" is an awful argument that disregards basic middle school geography. America is huge, and it isn't all that developed.

Cops won't respond to calls in the middle of Death Valley, and for obvious reasons.

the clockmaker:

Smagmuck_:

-A rogue government

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no.

To repeal an amendment, or pass an amendment to over write an earlier one. It needs to pass both the house and senate, and be ratified by 2/3rds of the states. And no, he can't just sign an executive order on this either.

If it makes it to the house, there will be angry protests.
If it makes it to the senate, there will be threats of succession.
If it makes it to the 2/3rds of the sates, there will be rebellion.

Several states have already passed laws saying that any federal agents entering it's borders to enforce any kind of new gun control will be arrested on site and prosecuted.

Good luck outlawing guns and keeping the country in one piece.

Because the best way to ensure democracy is threaten violence against anyone with the nerves to vote against you.

In order to ban guns legally, you need to take away the 5th amendment as well.

The foundation of all our legal rights, and our entire legal system. Gone.

When you are no longer entitled to financial compensation or a trial, "democracy" and "America" are already dead.

Smagmuck_:

There, fixed that for you. :)

Really though, to pass an amendment in the US requires it to be passed by both the House and Senate and be ratified by 2/3rds of the States. Getting an Amendment even started about banning firearms completely will cause such an uproar it will either die in congressional committee or split the country in two. A lot of people find it preferable to just drop it, than risk causing Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Exactly, how the fuck can you call the anti-firearm legislation democratic when it relies solely on the threat of violence and not the motherfucking democratic process as its point of strength.

And I do not agree that firearm ownership is a right, so don't 'fix' my posts.

Because these guys totally got their shit stomped by the US Military.

Oh wait...

It's also not hard to sabotage tanks, and aircraft. Not to mention the US Military is a hotbed of private gun owners.

I am very fucking tired of armchair insurgents. I mean,
lets ignore the differences between fighting an insurgency on the other side of the planet to fighting one a few miles from the terrain that you know,
lets ignore the fact that these insurgents will be unquestionably a threat to the US and so a lot of the protests that have arisen against the war in Afghan,
Lets ignore the differences between a country where the national pass time is reading the Qu'ran and fighting off rival tribes and one where the national pass time is honey boo-boo,
lets ignore the fact that these insurgents grew up in privation and desperation against the soviets the Talibs and then the Isaf
lets ignore the fact that there are no nations who want to see a far right coup in the US so there will be no fucking cavalry riding over the hill or nations providing covert support with an objective of anything other than 'lets have more Americans die'
lets ignore the fact that a fair portion of the nation will see your insurgents as nothing more than domestic terrorists
lets ignore the fact that as the US is reliant on an interconnected economy we would see starvation on a fucking insane scale
Lets ignore the fact that having a gun does not make you competent in using it and that hunting deer is not the same as hunting people
Lets ignore the many many key fucking reasons why the insurgency in Afghan and Iraq is nothing like what one in the US would be and look at the result.

Afghan is fucked as a country, the Taliban achieved none of their actual goals (Establishment of a hardline regime openly hostile to the US, a solid base to secure northern Pakistan under their authority, re-establishment of Taliban authority in all regions, prevention of liberalisation and a comprehensive defeat of the US on the scale of the one that the Soviets suffered). In the tribal regions, tribal law dominates above both Kabul and the Taliban and thousands are dead. On top of that, the vast majority of the 'old taliban' are dead, the vast majority of the 'new' taliban are dead, having suffered insane casualty rates to achieve single ISAF casualties at a time. They were stomped fucking flat and are now simply attempting to prevent the central government from obtaining full authority over the nation.

But hey, lets ignore the reality of that too and say that against all odds you manage to get your insurgency, because of your highly vague love of an abstract 'freedom' as opposed to the regular everyday kind that allows us to walk down the street safely, you have managed to turn the US into a nation where thousands starve to death annually, you are likely to be killed by militias from either side or the government, tens or hundreds of thousands are dead due to combat, blackouts, lack of medical care, etc etc and you can suffer a 10-15 to one casualty rate in order to kill one soldier. And, funnily enough, I doubt that a highly democratic government will emerge from this sort of situation.
Well fucking done.

GunsmithKitten:

And that would be a state of affairs I wouldn't mind having, believe it or not.

Also, I HAVE called for it to be fixed, fer pete's sake.

Still, if it seems like I haven't been doing so enough for your satisfaction, it's because there's also the issue that, even if by some miracle that court decision was overruled, the matter of response time would still be there.

I you have done so, I apologise, but I can only work with what I see and I have only seen you using it as an assumed permanent reality and an excuse for your possession of FDWTPOEAHL.

See I have never had an issue with police response times which indicates to me that there is a solution to that specific problem.

Ultratwinkie:

America isn't always concentrated. A lot of the times its rural or spread out outside the upper east coast states.

To say "just get more cops, stupid" is an awful argument that disregards basic middle school geography. America is huge, and it isn't all that developed.

Cops won't respond to calls in the middle of Death Valley, and for obvious reasons.

Yes, cops go where there is people, so my question to you is, what the fuck matter does it make that they aren't in death valley and even if a murder were to occur there, the contention being put forth is that the small minority of simply unhelpable situations will be more than balanced out by the good being done by a reduced ownership in certain types of firearms.

We are not saying 'bad shit will never happen,' because that is fucking ludicrous, we are saying 'less bad shit will happen on balance'

And please actually read my post before commenting because I did not, at any point, indicate that more cops were the answer, I indicated that a move towards greater responsibility and community engagement were the answers.
Personally, I would rather fail geography than reading.

Ultratwinkie:

the clockmaker:

Because the best way to ensure democracy is threaten violence against anyone with the nerves to vote against you.

In order to ban guns legally, you need to take away the 5th amendment as well.

The foundation of all our legal rights, and our entire legal system. Gone.

When you are no longer entitled to financial compensation or a trial, "democracy" and "America" are already dead.

Because we have to delete laws wholesale and there is no such thing as 'an amendment', any sort of legislation must involve removing the right to a fair trial, all firearm seizures would be conducted in a door kick fashion (I listed an alternate method previously, but this post is already running on), any law would be solely about seizure and none of these are in any way hyperbolic bullshit thoughts in any way.

But no, please explain to me how banning the use of FDWTPOEAHL necessitates the removal of free trials and the death of democracy.

the clockmaker:

Smagmuck_:

There, fixed that for you. :)

Really though, to pass an amendment in the US requires it to be passed by both the House and Senate and be ratified by 2/3rds of the States. Getting an Amendment even started about banning firearms completely will cause such an uproar it will either die in congressional committee or split the country in two. A lot of people find it preferable to just drop it, than risk causing Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Exactly, how the fuck can you call the anti-firearm legislation democratic when it relies solely on the threat of violence and not the motherfucking democratic process as its point of strength.

And I do not agree that firearm ownership is a right, so don't 'fix' my posts.

Because these guys totally got their shit stomped by the US Military.

Oh wait...

It's also not hard to sabotage tanks, and aircraft. Not to mention the US Military is a hotbed of private gun owners.

I am very fucking tired of armchair insurgents. I mean,
lets ignore the differences between fighting an insurgency on the other side of the planet to fighting one a few miles from the terrain that you know,
lets ignore the fact that these insurgents will be unquestionably a threat to the US and so a lot of the protests that have arisen against the war in Afghan,
Lets ignore the differences between a country where the national pass time is reading the Qu'ran and fighting off rival tribes and one where the national pass time is honey boo-boo,
lets ignore the fact that these insurgents grew up in privation and desperation against the soviets the Talibs and then the Isaf
lets ignore the fact that there are no nations who want to see a far right coup in the US so there will be no fucking cavalry riding over the hill or nations providing covert support with an objective of anything other than 'lets have more Americans die'
lets ignore the fact that a fair portion of the nation will see your insurgents as nothing more than domestic terrorists
lets ignore the fact that as the US is reliant on an interconnected economy we would see starvation on a fucking insane scale
Lets ignore the fact that having a gun does not make you competent in using it and that hunting deer is not the same as hunting people
Lets ignore the many many key fucking reasons why the insurgency in Afghan and Iraq is nothing like what one in the US would be and look at the result.

Afghan is fucked as a country, the Taliban achieved none of their actual goals (Establishment of a hardline regime openly hostile to the US, a solid base to secure northern Pakistan under their authority, re-establishment of Taliban authority in all regions, prevention of liberalisation and a comprehensive defeat of the US on the scale of the one that the Soviets suffered). In the tribal regions, tribal law dominates above both Kabul and the Taliban and thousands are dead. On top of that, the vast majority of the 'old taliban' are dead, the vast majority of the 'new' taliban are dead, having suffered insane casualty rates to achieve single ISAF casualties at a time. They were stomped fucking flat and are now simply attempting to prevent the central government from obtaining full authority over the nation.

But hey, lets ignore the reality of that too and say that against all odds you manage to get your insurgency, because of your highly vague love of an abstract 'freedom' as opposed to the regular everyday kind that allows us to walk down the street safely, you have managed to turn the US into a nation where thousands starve to death annually, you are likely to be killed by militias from either side or the government, tens or hundreds of thousands are dead due to combat, blackouts, lack of medical care, etc etc and you can suffer a 10-15 to one casualty rate in order to kill one soldier. And, funnily enough, I doubt that a highly democratic government will emerge from this sort of situation.
Well fucking done.

GunsmithKitten:

And that would be a state of affairs I wouldn't mind having, believe it or not.

Also, I HAVE called for it to be fixed, fer pete's sake.

Still, if it seems like I haven't been doing so enough for your satisfaction, it's because there's also the issue that, even if by some miracle that court decision was overruled, the matter of response time would still be there.

I you have done so, I apologise, but I can only work with what I see and I have only seen you using it as an assumed permanent reality and an excuse for your possession of FDWTPOEAHL.

See I have never had an issue with police response times which indicates to me that there is a solution to that specific problem.

Ultratwinkie:

America isn't always concentrated. A lot of the times its rural or spread out outside the upper east coast states.

To say "just get more cops, stupid" is an awful argument that disregards basic middle school geography. America is huge, and it isn't all that developed.

Cops won't respond to calls in the middle of Death Valley, and for obvious reasons.

Yes, cops go where there is people, so my question to you is, what the fuck matter does it make that they aren't in death valley and even if a murder were to occur there, the contention being put forth is that the small minority of simply unhelpable situations will be more than balanced out by the good being done by a reduced ownership in certain types of firearms.

We are not saying 'bad shit will never happen,' because that is fucking ludicrous, we are saying 'less bad shit will happen on balance'

And please actually read my post before commenting because I did not, at any point, indicate that more cops were the answer, I indicated that a move towards greater responsibility and community engagement were the answers.
Personally, I would rather fail geography than reading.

Ultratwinkie:

the clockmaker:

Because the best way to ensure democracy is threaten violence against anyone with the nerves to vote against you.

In order to ban guns legally, you need to take away the 5th amendment as well.

The foundation of all our legal rights, and our entire legal system. Gone.

When you are no longer entitled to financial compensation or a trial, "democracy" and "America" are already dead.

Because we have to delete laws wholesale and there is no such thing as 'an amendment', any sort of legislation must involve removing the right to a fair trial, all firearm seizures would be conducted in a door kick fashion (I listed an alternate method previously, but this post is already running on), any law would be solely about seizure and none of these are in any way hyperbolic bullshit thoughts in any way.

But no, please explain to me how banning the use of FDWTPOEAHL necessitates the removal of free trials and the death of democracy.

You are talking about taking away a part of the bill of rights. A right to compensation for when property is confiscated. On top of taking out the 2nd amendment, another section of the bill of rights.

So not only are you taking out the 2nd, but you are also messing around in the 5th. A fundamental and very important amendment.

Taking out an entire amendment, and you approaching another. Like that won't send a bad message to America.

Even temporarily, no one in their right mind would even want to touch the 5th amendment. Touching the legal foundation "for the greater good" in America is liable to kill the democratic party outright along with gun control.

There is a reason no one wants to touch the bill of rights, and the ones that do are fringe groups.

Secondly, cops are already at city centers and trying to "befriend" the city. They just can't handle the work load in its full capacity.

"responsibility" and "engagement" are just buzzwords that mean nothing. Just because you never had an issue with cop response times doesn't mean everyone else is the same. American cops have shit to do, and often they need to go where they are needed most. If they have to abandon a call, so be it.

That's why they aren't legally obligated to answer your call. Because something else more important may come up, and if it does, you are screwed.

the clockmaker:

See I have never had an issue with police response times which indicates to me that there is a solution to that specific problem.

Where do you live, precisely? Is it urban or rural?

Jegsimmons:

May be a good argument if Kennesaw Georgia Didnt have a bigger population and was 3 times denser than East St. Louis which is in the top 3 most dangerous cities in the US which also has gun control.

Oddly enough in the list of top ten most dangerous cities in the US only 2 are in red states, and those cities are fairly Blue anyway. Also all the cities have a higher percentage of Minorities, especially african americans.
Combine this knowledge with the fact most victims have a previous record of violence, and so do the shooters, this can only mean one thing.....

Gang Culture.

Yep, Gangbanger culture is my theory on why crime in the US is high, especially in urban areas.

but aside from that, when the nation is 65% GUN OWNERS and we have 88 guns for every 100 citizens and only suffer 8K murders with fire arms and that rate is dropping as the gun ownership rate is skyrocketing....

i say...Gun are not a problem, guns have never been a problem, just like video games dont inspire people to commit crime.
its individuals and fucked up upbringing.

Check mate.

Yet if you compare the number of gun homicides in every US state(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state) with that of most European countries(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) you see that the state with the lowest gun homicide rate has more than twice that of many western European countries(admittedly the US statistics are from 2004 but couldn't find any better ones). The one common denominator these states have compared to European country is their gun culture, and said culture seems to cause a massive amount of deaths.

Ultimately all American gun control is so weak that it is debatable that any of it can prevent gun violence. However in countries with strong gun control and no gun culture you see a much lower gun homicide rate.

GunsmithKitten:

the clockmaker:

See I have never had an issue with police response times which indicates to me that there is a solution to that specific problem.

Where do you live, precisely? Is it urban or rural?

I don't make a habit of giving out my precise address over the internet, but in general I have lived in the following places,
-Inner city Melbourne
-Inner city Sydney
-Sydney suburbs
-Small town Victoria
-Isolated Rural Victoria
-Darwin
-Semi-rural NT
-California
-North Queensland

My experience has been fairly consistent.

Ultratwinkie:

You are talking about taking away a part of the bill of rights.

Again, stop putting the US constitution on a pedestal, it is a piece of two century old legislation. Simply saying, it is in the bill of rights, does not defend it to someone who lives under a different set of laws. I am not claiming that many of the rights that it enumerates are not valid, only that I dispute the validity of some, primarily and most relevant the 'right to bear arms

A right to compensation for when property is confiscated.

I do note that it says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use' for public use So far as I can see, there is no intent for these weapons to be put to the public use after their confiscation (and I am also not entirely sure that confiscation is necessary or that it should be the sole focus of this legislation.) as such, I see not contradiction between the seizure of illegal firearms for the purpose of destruction and the amendment that you have indicated.

On top of taking out the 2nd amendment, another section of the bill of rights.

again, I dispute that firearm ownership is actually a right and I don't give two fifths of a fuck if some yank politician said it was centuries ago.

Taking out an entire amendment, and you approaching another. Like that won't send a bad message to America.

So we have gone from 'it will be the death of democracy' to 'it will look bad' hmmmm.

Even temporarily, no one in their right mind would even want to touch the 5th amendment. Touching the legal foundation "for the greater good" in America is liable to kill the democratic party outright along with gun control.

see above, from what I can see, there is no requirement to touch the fifth amendment, and again, when a law itself becomes more powerful than the legislature, then it has a tendency to become overly static.

Secondly, cops are already at city centers and trying to "befriend" the city. They just can't handle the work load in its full capacity.

again, if your police are overwhelmed, you need to reform your policing system. Holy shit man, when the sewers overflow do you just say 'oh well the sanitation department is overwhelmed' and give up?

"responsibility"

It has been stated several times that the police in the US don't seem to see themselves as responsible for the safety of those under their protection. They need ot be made responsible for that therefore, responsibility

and "engagement"

The police are seen by many, including a fair whack of this site, as an outside influence. In this situation, they are seen as A-unreliable and B-likely to abuse power, therefore, they need to be brought in not as what could be called an external force and rather a force organic to the community. Therefore, engagement

are just buzzwords that mean nothing.

Just because you do not understand them does not make them meaningless. blue parrot green soda mike seventeen is meaningless, The police needing to be responsible for and engaged with the community is a fair statement.

Just because you never had an issue with cop response times doesn't mean everyone else is the same.

Sigh, its that reading comprehension coming back again, here is what I said
See I have never had an issue with police response times which indicates to me that there is a solution to that specific problem. Now, in case you don't seem to understand it, here it is in point form
-Response times are a problem
-I have not experienced that problem
-This indicates to me that there exists a solution to the problem.
Honestly, you seem pretty desperate to think me an idiot, desperate enough to simply ignore what I say

American cops have shit to do,

implying that other nation's cops do not, implying, once again, that America is super special

and often they need to go where they are needed most. If they have to abandon a call, so be it.

Now I may not be a cop, but situations that threaten life or limb seem to be at the top of my priority list.

That's why they aren't legally obligated to answer your call. Because something else more important may come up, and if it does, you are screwed.

See that is a broken system, something that needs to be fixed.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked