-12
Guns aren't going anywhere. There is no reason to let emotions run wild and ban firearms. Israel has had no school shooting since it adopted a policy that arms teachers on school grounds almost 40 years ago. Thailand has had school shootings drop drastically since they employed the same policy eight years ago. Kennesaw, Georgia hasn't had a single homicide in 25 years since requiring every household to own a firearm. We need MORE guns in the hands of responsible citizens.
I can't help but say I disagree. There is simply no way to deal with an attacker with a gun except by having a gun. And making things illegal does not work. WE need to be armed as well as the attackers. They will get firearms whether they are legal or not, but law-abiding citizens will only get them if they are legal.
Well, then how do you propose we make it so nobody gets a gun? What, burn all of the resources that makes things explode? Send them to space?
You can make a frickin' bomb out of everyday house items. Who says you can't make a gun out of everyday house items as well? There are some smart criminals out there, believe it or not. They're not all high school drop-out street rats.
Worrying is subjective. You may have felt safer, but the fact of the matter is that England's violent crime rate is four times higher than the United States'. You were technically in more danger.
Then I apologize for being presumptuous.
I do find that the UK has more than a little higher of a crime rate than we do. It's very aggravating that I can't really find solid numbers for the UK, but I find this video to be pretty helpful in explaining my point.
Well, the root of the problem is a massive number of changes that this country isn't ready to deal with. The Government is the root of the problem, and many people seem to think the Government is in charge. They're not, but they will be as long as we let them be. Until we can make that massive change, we need to do something to deal with the problem. Stricter gun laws hasn't worked so far.
Of course, but they're pretty convincing pieces of evidence. What are the odds that murders would suddenly stop immediately and never pick up again in a city where guns are mandatory and be unrelated? What are the odds that school shootings would completely disappear following a country arming its teachers and it be unrelated? In Australia, violent crime rose by 47% following a massive gun buy-back and extremely tight laws in the 80s. Some would say that's unrelated, but that's a pretty big increase. I'm not saying it's a definite connection, but there's a good chance.
People are always law abiding until they go against the law... Criminals use to be law abiding look where it got them.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Yes I agree, that one just might take the cake.
Also, if firearms were outlawed, who actually thinks that the people who are most likely to use them on other people are the ones that will give them up? It's the people that ARE responsible citizens that would do so and they would end up with little protection when someone crazy realizes, "Hey, none of these people have guns. If I shoot them, they can't shoot back."
Exactly. People seem not to grasp this! Shootings happen in gun-free zones.
Japan has less than .6 guns per 100 people, It is also one of the safest countries in the world and has no recorded school shootings in its history. Canada has around 30 guns per 100 people and has had 11 school shootings in its history since 1908 or something like that. The US has 88.8 guns per 100 people, they have more shooting in one year than Canada in its whole history. There has been hundreds of school shooting since the first recorded one in 1853 and 30 since 2010. The United states also has one of the highest homicide rates in the world.
Japan is an anomaly. Canada is not the United States. In the United States, every single mass shooting except one has occurred in a gun-free zone since the 1950s. School shootings have sky-rocketed since the gun-free school zone act. If by "one of the highest homicide rates in the world" you mean "not even in the top 100", then you are correct.
So any example of a country that opposed your view is waved away as "not being the United States", and yet every example of a country that supports it is held proudly above as a great example?
There's a difference between citing Japan and citing any country I listed. Nobody seems able to list a date for a big change in Japan's laws and a change in their crime stats. It's always "Japan has strict gun laws and happens to be peaceful". Can you even argue that the argument "X has Y and happens to be Z" is anywhere as important as the argument "A used to have B, then did C and has had D result"?
I was speaking more to your comment on Canada not being the US. Canada implemented stricter gun laws and saw a significant decline in murders involving firearms. Please explain to me how exactly that can't be compared.
I can't argue with that. It can't really be compared because it is a different country with a different culture. I dislike comparing countries with other countries, only with themselves. Depending on your perspective, that may make Canada's laws a success. But, you have not given me much information to work with. How much stricter were their laws? How was the rest of the crime impacted? One thing people tend to omit from the discussion is that other types of crime tend to flourish after stricter gun laws. Also, was there a pre-existing trend in Canada? Many like to reference Australia, saying their murders went down since a massive buyback. However, the Australian Institute of Criminology acknowledges that any decrease in murders is simply the continuation of a trend that began almost twenty years before the buyback. The AIC also acknowledges that while it's remotely arguable that murders are declining, assaults and rapes are definitely going up, and still climbing. Over here in the United States, gun ownership is on the rise, and crime is going down. We can't compare country to country, we need to study individual trends.
We can't compare country to country? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I believe you referenced both Israel and Thailand in your original post.
I compared them to themselves. Israel had school shootings. They implemented a policy which armed teachers, and haven't had a school shooting since. Thailand has done something similar, and had a similar result. I'm not comparing their rate of school shootings to any other country, I'm comparing their rate of school shootings to themselves before and after their respective policy change.
And then used those comparisons to make your point that there should be more guns. Just as I can use my comparison of Canada having gun related murders, implementing stricter gun laws, and having much less gun related murders to make my point of enacting stricter gun laws.
That is a valid tactic. What is not a valid tactic is "Look at Japan's murder rate compared to the United States' murder rate!" And similar statements. I also think we have to look at more factors than just gun legislation. We have to look at economics, mental health, and drugs. There are far too many factors that need to be examined before we can jump to the conclusion of "stricter gun laws!". I'm not arguing for a change in law, I'm arguing against a change in law spurred on by raw emotion. Many researchers have shown that the previous Assault Weapons Ban was ineffective at combating crime. With that in mind, can another one really be called anything except a meager feel-good action to try and make people feel better, rather than a legitimate attempt at quelling violence?
This is like Global Warming. ANOMALIES. ANOMALIES EVERYWHERE.
Wat
Global warming is a provable event. Carbon dioxide and methane emissions are up, thus more heat is kept within the atmosphere. CFCs react with free oxygen atoms in the ozone layer and deplete it, thus letting in more UV rays. These are quantifiable events that can't realistically be denied.
Have you ever read State of Fear?
No, but a quick search reveals that many scientists criticize the book for being error-filled a distorted.
They said that about Jurassic Park. This is not the same as reading the book. It is an experience and reading other works might give you a perspective.
Also, you know what else can stop a bad guy with a gun? A death ray in every city.
I love that book. Urban heating effect: global warming nearly debunked.
I meant one of the highest homicide rates in developed countries my bad
No one is saying take away the guns, but they certainly need stricter laws and this gun culture needs to be dealt with.
A lot of people are saying they want to take away our guns completely. The gun culture is fine. Owning a firearm is a big responsibility, and I can tell you from experience that most of the people involved in this "gun culture" are some of the smartest, nicest, and most responsible people you will ever find.
I think there are some people like that, then there are people who are crazy stereotypical "hillbilly" types who ruin it for the rest of gun owners. America doesn't need more guns, it needs less guns and more in responsible people's hands. I read somewhere that something like 60% of homocides in America are gun related.
Why does it matter if 60% are gun related..? Think about what you're saying. OBVIOUSLY a lot of the homocides are caused by guns. It's the fastest way to kill someone, or several people for that reason..
So putting harsher background checks on guns will decrease these deaths, or at least have a chance to decrease these deaths.
All without banning any sort of firearm!
The hillbilly types are secluded and in the south. I doubt that last sentence, though. There are only roughly 10,000 homicides in the US pertaining to guns per year. That's actually very low. Motor vehicle accidents kill four times as many people. Medical malpractice kills anywhere from four to nine times as many people. 16 times as many people are hospitalized per year due to dog bites than firearm-related injuries. The media paints a terrible picture, when firearms aren't all that statistically deadly. It's been estimated that firearm wielding citizens prevent or stop up to 2.6 million crimes per year in the US. I think that makes up for everything.
All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,259
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.3
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
I'm quite aware. What is your point? What you just posted does not contradict anything I posted.
You said you doubted his point. I'm saying that guns do account for about 70% of homicides.
I'm sorry, you are correct. Here is a counter point, though. How many homicides do you think are related to "assault weapons"? Out of those 11,000 firearm homicides, roughly 300 are from rifles. "Assault weapons" are a sub-set of the rifle group. More people are murdered using hammers or bare fists than rifles.
There have been 61 mass murders in the United states in the last 30 years. About 50 of those were carried out with legally obtained weapons.
I don't think you can take the policies of other nations and apply them to the US. Every nation is different.
Out of all of those, every single one of them barring one was carried out in a gun-free zones. Would-be mass shooters often pass up places because they aren't gun-free zones.
You honestly believe that someone with the intent to murder is in the right mind to think about whether or not someone else will have a gun to stop them? Whenever shots are fired the cops are called and suddenly the shooter is in an area full of guns.
Their intent is to murder as many people as they can before killing themselves, they won't want any resistance. Are you telling me it's coincidence that ALL but one of these shootings occurred in a gun-free zones, or that school shootings have gone up since the gun-free school zone act? Mass shooters are crazy, not stupid. No matter what the problem is or where it is, police will take MINUTES to get there, versus an armed citizen who can respond immediately.
Considering the fact that most densely populated public areas are gun free zones (malls, schools, hospitals, etc) I will say yes, it is a coincidence. Especially considering many places like that have an armed guard and/or security cameras so the shooter can be more easily caught.
Okay, then consider another argument for why gun-free zones are a bad idea: The average number of deaths in a shooting when it is stopped by an armed citizen is roughly 4. The number jumps up to about 15 when a shooting is stopped by police. Whether or not shooters seek out gun-free zones, they are certainly not as safe as a place where concealed weapons are allowed.
Consider this: maybe the problem isn't gun free zones. Maybe it's the fact that criminals can so easily obtain guns.
My own father went to jail for domestic violence and cannot buy a gun at a store, but he can legally buy a gun from any gun show or individual without a background check. If 50 out of 61 mass shootings are done with legally obtained weapons that has to say something about how easy it is to get a gun.
I say don't restrict what guns can be bought, just restrict who can buy them by requiring all firearms to be registered and the owner of the weapon held accountable for its misuse if it's stolen and not reported missing.
The problem is, aside from the registry (which I think is a bad idea), nobody is doing anything close to that. Everyone is concerned with restricting what type of weapons we can buy, which has shown to be ineffective. I think the registry is a bad idea because it is often the precursor to firearms actually being confiscated. Many say that isn't a problem, but Dianne Feinstein herself has stated that she would confiscate every single one of our "assault weapons" if she could.
Key words: If she could.
Having to register your weapons won't limit what weapons you can and cannot own. All I'm saying is know who owns which gun so that when it's used to kill you have can at least hold that person responsible for negligence if they were not the one who shot the gun. That would at least make people more responsible with their guns so they don't end up stolen and used to kill someone.
Ok, but are motor vehicle accidents, dog bites, and medical malpractice done on purpose with full intent on killing someone? Most of the time, no. Dogs bite when they feel threatened or aren't trained properly. Most motor accidents are... well...accidents. Taking a gun and shooting someone is usually done with full intentions to end their lives. 10,000 homicides. That's a big number to me.
I saw a chart yesterday that said there are more homicides in which a baseball bat is used than a gun
People who are against gun control seem to think that those of us who are in favour of it want to ban firearms for everybody and make guns completely illegal. That's just silly. It's gun control, not gun abolition. You (by which I mean America) need to have tighter restrictions on guns. That's all. Responsible citizens should be able to get guns, but they should have to be thoroughly checked before they can have the right to purchase one.
Just because you aren't in favor of banning them doesn't mean nobody is. There are too many people who think we should totally ban firearms. How much tighter can the restrictions be? You have to be 18 for a long gun, 21 for a pistol. Any felony at all or a misdemeanor involving violence automatically disqualifies you for life. Being diagnosed with a semi-severe mental illness disqualifies you for life. After you make the purchase, there is a 14 day period during which the state police perform a background check before you actually get to own it, and the state police have the final say on whether you even get it or not. You can't store them in the same household as someone who is unfit to own one.
The laws are already very strict. And what's worse is we're putting a bunch of arbitrary and stupid bans on certain things. One of the dumbest in my opinion is people trying to ban weapons that look like assault rifles. The function of the gun doesn't matter, we're banning things for aesthetics.
In Australia, prospective gun owners have to demonstrate a 'Genuine Need' to own a firearm. Self defence is not accepted. If they want to own a more powerful weapon, they must explain why one of the less powerful ones would not be suitable. Extremely lethal guns like assault rifles and machine guns are banned for everybody, although collectors may own them if they have been made permanently inoperable. That's how much stricter your laws could (and, in my opinion, should) get.
Australia introduced these restrictions on gun ownership after a horrific massacre in 1996, on which 35 people were killed. In the 18 years before that, there were 13 mass shootings. Since then, there has been one. Admittedly, there are two extra years counted before the new laws than after, but I doubt that there will be twelve mass shootings in the next two years.
I direct you to this article. Sure, it's from an Australian newspaper, but it presents the facts about our gun laws.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/o...861484114.html
Also, I'd like to note that maybe the legislation does work for Australia. Australia is the exception, not the rule. You guys are an island that can't really have anything smuggled across your borders. You also aren't major manufacturers of firearms. There are less than five firearm manufacturers in all of Australia. There are 114 firearm manufacturers in the United States alone, nevermind in Canada and anywhere in South/Central America. Giving them up would not be a viable solution because they are too available. We need to be at least as armed as the criminals are, and they have no restrictions. Not to mention the countries south of the border are practically run by organized crime; they'd collectively ejaculate in their shorts if criminals in the US were suddenly looking to buy yet another illegal commodity.
Basically, Australia's gun laws would spell absolute disaster to North America.
Just because we don't boast about it doesn't mean we aren't free. In fact, many would argue that we have more freedoms than you do.
I think the main issue is that there really is more of a gun culture in the US than there is here. Australia really doesn't have all that much violent crime. Guns are seen as tools, not an inalienable right. What does the average citizen need a gun for? The only people I know who own guns are farmers. They use them to shoot rabbits and foxes, and occasionally to kill sick sheep. No one I know who lives in the city owns a gun. And guess what? No one I know has ever been a victim of violent crime. With or without a gun.
I'm not sure why you don't view a reduction in mass shootings and firearm-related deaths as an argument for gun control. Less people dead because of tighter gun laws seems pretty good to me. I can't honestly think of a reason why violent crime would have increased, and that is a huge hole in my argument, but every society has madmen who will kill with or without the assistance of a gun, and gun laws won't change that.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. We've grown up in societies which view guns differently.
The difference is that you seem to think people need a reason to be allowed to have something. I think there needs to be a reason for people not to have something. I know six people, including me, that own firearms. Nobody I know has been the victim of a violent crime, either.
I don't view that as an argument because it's literally the only argument, and is somewhat deceptive. Less people get shot, but more people get attacked. It's not even disputable that armed people are less likely to be attacked if the attacker knows they are armed. There's a reason there hasn't been a single murder in Kennesaw in 25 years, that there hasn't been a school shooting in Israel in 40 years, and that mass-shooting happen in gun-free zones. I'd feel a lot safer attacking someone in Australia because of how difficult it is to get a firearm. Areas with strict gun laws like to tout the low amount of shootings they have, but they tend to have higher overall violent crime rates than places where guns are everywhere. Total firearm-related deaths in the US amounts to 25,000. Crimes prevented by citizens wielding firearms per year is almost 100 times that number.
The reason that the average citizen does not need a machine gun or an assault weapon is that they are absurdly lethal. You tout self defence as a reason for owning a firearm, yet surely in the hands of a skilled shooter a less powerful gun would be as effective? Provide me with one valid reason for the average person to own a machine gun, or an anti-tank gun, or a flamethrower, and maybe I'll reconsider my argument. If you want to shoot a machine gun, join the military.
That figure of 2.5 million (or thereabouts) seems to get thrown around a lot. It was extrapolated from an extremely small sample group (around 5000) of survey participants to fit the entire population of the US. That is not an accurate study. The survey was also done in the 1980s, when crime rates were higher.
You'd feel safer attacking someone in Australia? I feel safer walking around in Australia. 42% of American households own guns. The figure in Australia is about 6%. I know where I'd prefer to be.
I know how into 'freedom' you are in the US, and my argument isn't to ban guns. I just think that the possession of extremely powerful weapons should be tightly regulated.
I'll bring in something that hasn't been discussed thus far. Drug laws and countries south of the border. Because drugs are illegal here, those countries make a killing off of selling drugs to us. When I say a killing, I mean Pablo Escobar was one of the richest people in the world at the height of his power. They use that money to buy all the black-market military weaponry they can get their hands on. They also have contacts up here making just as much money, and buying just as many illegal weapons. The gangs in this country are more well-armed than the people. That's one reason restrictions are a bad idea. Those restrictions may affect the odd criminal who may be dissuaded from getting a gun, but does nothing to stop the more serious gangs from getting their already illegal weapons.
What's with "join the military"? Joining the military doesn't make me automatically better able to handle the responsibility of a firearm. It doesn't make me a better person; gang members join the military all the time (and in turn teach their gangs everything they learned, thus giving citizens more dangerous adversaries). Instead of being able to safely use an automatic weapon for fun in my backyard, I should have to go overseas and murder people with it? Crime rates were higher in the 80s? It should be noted that at the same time crime was going down, gun ownership rates were going up.
Okay, that's personal bias. Let me rephrase that: Statistically, I'd be a lot safer attacking someone in Australia; and, according to this, would be a lot safer walking around in the US. (granted, it's 11 years old) http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8340/
Wow, I've actually done some research, and Australia seems to be an absolute hotbed of crime compared to the US. That's not sarcasm. The only areas in which you 'beat' us (for want of a better term) are gun related crimes and deaths. I guess I was pretty wrong on that front!
And yes, the military thing was pretty stupid. But the fact remains that guns were invented to kill things. You're opposed to using a gun for its actual purpose: killing things quickly and with a minimum of effort.
As for freedom and liberty, I'd rather have the right to healthcare and cheap tertiary education than the right to bear arms.
The two of us are always going to view this issue differently, and that's fine. American gun laws do not affect me in the slightest, just as Australian legislation does not affect you. I'm fine with the laws where I live, and you're fine with yours. You're clearly a responsible and educated gun owner, and if more gun owners were like you we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. At the risk of sounding like I'm 85 years old, "some bad apples ruin the whole bunch". Or something.
I can deal with this being the settlement of the discussion.
I'm nothing of a patriot or anything like that, the "freedom" argument was purely based on the second amendment. Any other country in the world, and that argument is no longer valid. I disagree with a lot of things America does, and the healthcare and school things sound good.
I appreciate the kind words! As much as I like arguing, I don't want to sit here and argue with as many people as possible. I'm just arguing particularly hard because the shooting was in CT, and that's where I live. This kind of thing tends to make changes where the event occurred, and I'd like the laws not to change. It's potentially a pretty important time to be discussing this sort of thing.
I appreciate the argument! I dd t know you lived in Connecticut, and I can see that it must seriously piss you off that now due to this shooting, more people are seeing guns as something horrible which no one should have access to. You actually have made me think twice about some of my reasons, and I love when that happens in a debate. If each side can come out having learned new things and with a more open mind, then they've had a successful argument.
That's not a valid reason in my eyes. Assault weapons aren't even a valid class of weapon, and machine guns are purely used as suppressing tools. A semi-automatic weapon is by far the most dangerous weapon as it forces you to aim each shot. How about the reason that if you ban these weapons for civilians, only criminals will have them? Criminals DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT OUR LAWS. Ban machine guns and high-powered rifles, and only criminals will have machine guns and rifles. No, it's not the same. The skill of a shooter is almost irrelevant if their target has a better gun. Let's use me as an example. I am a beginner at shooting, and my aim with a handgun is pretty terrible. It would be a challenge for me to shoot someone with a handgun if they were at the end of a hallway. Now, with my rifle, I'm a very good shot. I can hit a target reliably several hundred feet away. With my shotgun, I can't hit targets quite as far away, but I can get shots out quicker than with my rifle. The gun is more important than you think.
With all due respect, I think that changing our laws to that would be absolute bullshit. If it works for you, that's cool. Australia isn't really touted as the land of the free. On that principal alone, those laws would be completely unacceptable over here, because freedom is a big thing here (as much of it is being taken away). However, I advocate equality and freedom. On that level, I find it ludicrous to restrict access to any type of firearm.
This all seems to be a lot of flash-words in order to appeal to emotion. I don't care about mass murders or firearm deaths. I only care about total murders and overall violent crime. Since that change in law in Australia, the number of violent crimes has increased by 47%, and violence per capita has remained relatively steady. It says that second fact in the article you linked. As a counter point, though, mass school shootings in the US have sky-rocketed after declaring schools gun-free zones in 1990.
I'm a 14 year old living in Australia who doesn't really have much personal interest in America's gun issues, though I do know that I would much rather have my freedom to own a gun taken away from me if that meant that innocent kids were less likely to be gunned down as they went about their daily business (Newtown massacre). It's one thing to have all this 'freedom and equality' to own guns, but this obsessive need to have the opportunity to own firearms goes too far, in my opinion, when adults care more about the right of gun ownership than the safety of their own kids.
"adults care more about the right of gun ownership than the safety of their own kids"
That argument depends entirely on the premise of banning guns making us safer. This is not true, though. Kids are only safe because somewhere down the line, there is a person with a gun ready to attack anyone who attacks us. Since you live in Australia, you should like this:
This comment is absolutely correct..and none of the people that support that ban have any interest in learning otherwise. It is unacceptable for me to look at a guy on the street wearing a rag on his head and label him a killer, but you can put a black synthetic stock on a ruger 10/22 and these people will look at it and scream killing machine... It is the way it is dressed....
I very much agree, it takes a special kind of stupid for someone to think that criminals will follow laws. a gun free zone is nothing more than a tragedy waiting to happen.
So to fix the problem of crazy people running around with guns you want to give guns to everybody? Sounds logical.
You can take your sarcasm and go argue with the citizens of Kennesaw. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Just because it works in one place doesn't make it work everywhere. Forcing everyone to have something is just as bad as taking something away from everyone.
Who said we were going to be forced to have guns? When did that become a thing?
And it doesn't exactly mean that it's going to work for everyone, but it does mean there's a higher chance of it happening. When 90 people eat crab made with a specific recipe and like it, while 10 prefer another, which recipe do you think a restaurant is going to go with? There'll be a higher chance that customers prefer the former recipe.
The same equation applies here. And I'd like to point out that outlawing drugs hasn't made drugs go away from criminals. Outlawing guns just makes them inaccessible to good citizens, but criminals "know a guy".
If we didn't have guns, we wouldn't need guns to protect ourselves from guns.
But we already have guns, so we do need guns to protect ourselves from guns.
Hence the first sentence of the post.
I agree that banning guns wouldn't work, but why must people fall over themselves to convince everyone that people owning guns is a good thing? It's just a mistake that's gone on for far too long to correct, and now everyone has to live with it. Some of the measures you've suggested might help in some ways, but they might be harmful in others, and while arming teachers etc might prevent some deaths, it isn't exactly fail-safe - a lot of kids would still have died if the teachers had been armed, because the killer would have had time to kill several children before teachers had time to ready their guns and he would probably have shot the teacher immediately upon entering the classroom in any case.
People owning guns is a good thing. Guns are security. People like to feel safe because of the police, but the only reason the police can do anything is because they have guns. And the fallacy with your argument is that you're assuming the man would have still carried out the attack had he known the faculty members were armed. But no, he was the most powerful individual in that building, the police were completely useless, and the most helpful thing anyone could do was hide and hope he didn't go after them.
Clearly it's not, because people are dying on a scale they shouldn't be. Good point about the police, but no one's really debating the police and military possessing guns, that's a completely different matter (in my country, police don't carry firearms anyway, which I think is a good thing). Mass killings just cannot be perpetrated without the use of firearms. Obviously there are things like knives and other weapons, but that's different because with a knife you can only kill one person at a time, you can't mentally disconnect because you have to get up close and physically hurt them, and the victim has some chance of defense by fighting or running.
The killer definitely knew he was going down - he killed his parents and attacked a school, so there was absolutely no chance of escaping and he knew that, he just planned to go out with a bang. So yes, I think it's fair to say that he would still have attacked, especially since, as I said in my first comment, he would have been able to kill several people even if the teachers had been armed.
I would take the security of knowing I won't be shot at over the security of other people having guns and MAYBE being able to help me.
And it's not because of guns! Firearm-related homicides are VERY low. In the United States, roughly 10,000 people per year are murdered with a firearm. 44,000 are killed in automobile accidents. between 44,000-94,000 are killed by medical malpractice. 350,000 people are in the emergency room because of dog bites per year. 100,000 people die per year due to alcohol-related incidents. 440,000 people die per year due to tobacco-related incidents. Firearm violence is relatively minor compared to all of the other problems we are dealing with, it's just an emotionally charged topic built up by the media. And what about the mass-stabbings in China? People over there manage to stab close to thirty people before being stopped. You're not getting it, though. You can't guarantee you won't be shot, so get that notion out of your head. Schools are gun-free zones. Obviously he ignored this. I read something somewhere stating that he broke over 40 laws in order to carry out that shooting, so more restrictions aren't going to help. Also, look at facts. After Israel armed their teachers, no more school shootings ever. After we made schools gun-free zones, school shootings sky-rocketed.
1. Showing me how "minor" the problem of shootings is in comparison to other problems isn't helping your point at all, it's irrelevant. Of course it's an emotionally charged topic, for good reason, because we can't stop people driving, drinking, owning dogs etc. but ideally we would be able to stop people owning guns because they serve no purpose EXCEPT to kill people (I know it's now impossible to ban them)
2. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer your comparisons to other countries because of the way you responded to the Australia point above, in which you essentially said that because it's a different country, the comparison isn't valid or useful. Comparisons between Israel, Thailand and the U.S., or Britain and China, are similarly unhelpful because they are vastly different countries, with far greater differences than Australia and the US; I could illustrate this but it would be a waste of time.
I can ALMOST guarantee I won't be shot. Obviously there's always a minuscule chance, but gun crimes really low in the UK, particularly when compared to the US.
I'm not arguing that gun control laws should be altered, I already made that clear. What I'm saying is I hate the knee-jerk reaction from defensive Americans that a gun culture is a GOOD thing. Between a culture where guns are easy to access and a culture where they are almost impossible to get, the latter is preferable. This isn't a criticism of modern American policy, I just think that that mentality blinds people to the reality of the situation, which is slightly dangerous.
1. It's completely relevant. You are talking about guns like they are a big problem. They are a pretty minor problem. We also don't need cars that go over a certain speed, and we certainly don't need alcohol for anything.
I wasn't comparing different countries. I pointed out how each country's individual situation changed with the changing of the law. In Israel, there were school shootings. They armed their teachers, and they haven't had any in 40 years. In the US, we had school shootings. We made schools gun-free zones, and school-shootings sky-rocketed on an insane scale. Gun crime may be low in the UK, but the UK is still the violent crime capital of Europe. The UK's violent crime rate is almost four times higher than the US'. I'm significantly more likely to get shot in the event of being a victim of a violent crime, but you're far more likely to be a victim of a violent crime at all. And should it even come to that, I have personal protection in the form of a rifle and a shotgun. So not only am I less likely to be attacked, I'm more prepared in the event that I am attacked. I still can't see where you are coming from at all.
1. It IS a big problem - just because it is not as big a problem as other problems does not mean it shouldn't be taken seriously. My point was that cars and alcohol have significant uses/recreational purposes that have nothing to do with violence, unlike guns.
2. Yes, and it did help illustrate your point somewhat, but what I was saying is that someone above did exactly what you did: they pointed out that Australia's school shootings had dropped since certain measures were taken and you shot them down by pointing out inconsistencies. So to be consistent, you can't use brief, unexplored examples of other countries either, because they are no more valid than the Australia point.
3. May I please have your source? I have heard that the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than the US, but I've also read the opposite (funnily enough, studies from the US say that their crime rate is lower, and vice versa). I suspect that maybe the inconsistencies come from the fact that the UK classifies many more crimes as "violent crimes" than the US does, so the numbers would understandably be different even if there were somehow the exact same rates of crime being committed.
I do take your point, Britain isn't exactly a utopia of peace and safety, but in any case, murder rates are acknowledged to be higher in the US than in the UK by all the sources I've found, including the American ones, and murder is really the topic of discussion here.
Guns can certainly have recreational uses. They're a pretty big hobby and a lot of fun. They also have use in hunting and self-defense.
My biggest problem with using Australia as an example is them being an island. They don't have extremely bad neighbours like we do in Europe and in America. If they do something, it will remain isolated. We have gangs practically running the countries to the south that would jump at the chance to sell guns to criminals in our country.
I will admit I haven't found a source I consider highly reliable, but that's a difficult thing these days. What you said about different classifications could also skew data. I hear a lot coming from both sides from people who are willing to lie to prove their point. As strongly as I feel, I don't want to give out false information. I want to see my point realistically proven, but will admit if it's false.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news...of-Europe.html
http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8340/
The argument works on any level. Bans don't work. The previous Assault Weapons Ban didn't work, and this one won't work (hopefully it doesn't even pass). The fact that anyone is trying to ban anything is cause for protest. Feinstein's proposed ban is absolutely draconian compared to the previous one. It's about control, it's not about safety. Once they have our "assault weapons", why shouldn't they go after our rifles down the line? They're obviously very manipulative, going after "assault weapons" because they look scary and have "military style features" and can "tear young bodies to shreds". (those are actually Feinstein's words) It's very reasonable to assume that after this, they're going to start trying to ban high-powered rifles because they have powerful scopes and can blow a massive hole in a man from miles away. It's not about making people safer, it's about manipulative bullshit. If Feinstein had her way, we'd actually be turning in our "assault weapons", not just having them banned. She considers the previous AWB successful because it drove up the price of the rifles, not because it saved any lives; because researchers concluded that it didn't.
I can't find an opinion on this, no matter how hard I try. I think people are the real problem and there's no real way to stop everyone with a gun from going crazy and it's very hard to make sure people who are already crazy don't get a gun. I don't know, man, I just don't know. We're in a fucked up world.
I'm sorry but I don't want to be forced to have a gun in my home. I don't want a gun. I have no use for a gun.
Very few people want to completely ban firearms, so that's not an issue.
There are other solutions to the gun violence problem, and I don't feel that even more guns is it.
Then don't own one. Why should your opinion make it harder for the rest of us to own one? And of course you have no use for one. Not too many people have a use for one until they're actively being attacked or raped. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. That's not a pro-gun argument, that's common sense. Most people won't have a use for a fire extinguisher, so I suppose people shouldn't keep those in their homes, either.
The issue is banning any firearms at all. It's stupid and ineffective.
The biggest solution I see is to end the drug war. Who can say for sure that more guns isn't the answer. For America, gun ownership is at a record high, and crime is at an all time low. Places with less restrictive laws tend to have less crime. All we know is that having less guns isn't working.
I was responding to your statement about Kennesaw, Georgia requiring every household to have a gun. That's not what I want. That's just as invasive to myself as you feel about having your guns taken away.
You say yourself more guns is not the best solution, so why go straight there?
In what way is it as invasive? If you want, you can toss it in the closet and forget about it. If they try to take my guns away, they will be met with bullets. People will die if they attempt to unlawfully take my firearms away.
I said it may not be the best solution. I didn't say it isn't. There's a difference.
Do you like being forced to do things you don't want to do? That's how I feel. I don't want a gun so why should I be forced to buy one?
You don't want your guns taken away. I don't want to be forced to own a gun. We both feel invaded, you feel me?
I did read an article by the FBI claiming that 80% of all crime in the United States comes from gang activity. If this is true, no amount of laws will substantially reduce crime.
One thing nobody mentions about Sandy Hook is that the mother was already breaking a law. I hear the son actually tried to purchase a gun but was denied. This would indicate that he was legally unfit to own one. Storing a firearm where it is accessible by someone unfit to own one is unlawful storage, and is a felony.
Interesting to hear about Syria. I may have to look into it. And according to FBI crime stats, crime in the United States is in fact lower than it has ever been. The media can be a lot of trouble and can influence the general public to think whatever is in line with the agenda of that station.
Like was mentioned earlier, we've had gun control laws for years (too many, IMO), and people still get hurt and killed from firearms. More gun control laws will not do a single thing. The only possible solution would be to ban guns, but doing so infringes on our 2nd Amendment rights and isn't a very effective solution anyway, because criminals will always find a way obtain guns illegally. Brave Americans have been giving their lives for our rights since this country started, and I feel every time we give up more rights for the sake of so-called security we are cheapening their sacrifices. Bad things happen, yes. But bad things will always happen regardless of what we do. No amount of government regulation will ever change that, and making firearms a scapegoat for every gun-related tragedy that comes along will not address the real issue of stopping the people who do bad things. A solution to the people problem will only take place when as a whole we wake up, pay attention to others, and actually get involved in other people's lives in a positive way instead of treating life like all is well and letting the government be responsible for everything we don't want to deal with.
I don't necessarily think teachers should be armed, but I do think that every school should have one or two campus police, like mine does.
Oh yeah, that´s just great. We should give the teachers guns, too, to protect the children in case some lunatic with a gun comes in. And while we´re at it, give all the children guns, too, so that they can protect themselves from bullies. You know what, let´s just give every single person the US a gun!
You shouldn´t just give guns to responsible citizens, you should stop giving guns to irresponsible people. Guns should be in the hands of the police, to be used only in case of emergency. Don´t you see? It´s all about money with the gun lobbyists. They´re rich, yet undereducated, irresponsible and selfish. Do not let their pointless yelling convince you.
If we gave children guns at least we could educate them about their dangers.
Speaking of taking away guns from irresponsible people, how about we take away Obama's right to send drones overseas to carelessly drop bombs and kill innocent men, women, and children? I think gun-control advocates would have a much better argument if they suggested that we regulate our own government's use of guns as well.
Nobody is working towards not giving guns to irresponsible people! Nobody! Everybody is concerned with banning certain types of weapons based on what they look like. They're not trying to do anything to actually help the problem. That's a terrible idea, the police take a long time to respond. The police are better at cleaning up a crime scene than actually helping prevent the crime, versus law-abiding citizens with firearms who prevent almost two million crimes per year. I'm not taking any information from "gun lobbyists", I'm taking my information from facts and statistics.
Thank you, OP. People think that we need stricter gun laws. The laws are already strict. Compare New York City to Texas. Which has more gun laws and which has more terrible shootings?
You all seem to forget, those responsible for these massacres were normal citizens who attained a firearm through legal circumstances. As long as you are human you are not exempt from the list of potential people to shoot up a school, all it takes is a series of bad days and lack of hope. If you do proper research you'll see that for every country that gave weapons away there are at least one or 2 that banned them and guess what? No gun related violence.
I believe the example of Israel doesn't really work since they have been on the brink of war since it was established in the late 40s.
No, they're all very disturbed individuals who probably would not have been legally allowed to own a firearm had they received a psychological evaluation. It doesn't matter if gun violence goes down, it's already a very minor problem. What does matter is that all other forms of crime go up. That's a big issue, an extremely big issue. If you're okay with reducing gun violence in exchange for a big increase in overall crime, you really have no business running a country.
Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to provide teachers with firearms. What kind of message does that send out to young children? That they're constantly in danger at school? Plus, fostering an environment where guns are so prevalent will only further desensitize people to them. It's not normal to have guns in school systems. It never has been, and it never should be viewed as being so. Instead of providing last-minute defense mechanisms, the root of the violence problem needs to be targeted.
Well, can you agree that we should at least not prohibit guns on school grounds? If a teacher or student has a license to carry, why shouldn't they be allowed to in school? I think it would be great for people to be desensitized to guns. They're not demons, and it really bugs me how people treat them like a taboo object that needs to be banished. It's really dangerous for people to not know how to operate a firearm. Motorvehicles are far more dangerous and kill far more people each year, all while saving less lives. Yet everyone is expected to learn how to use one and own one. Why doesn't the same aversion exist towards cars?
What needs to be done foremost is tougher background checks and more availability to get treatment for mental health problems. The main problem is that the majority of the country dont care who they sell guns too. And combine that with being sold absolutely devastating weapons that are way over the line for what the average citizen requires for self defense, sport, etc...it creates a dangerous environment that can easily be avoided.
I never liked saying that more guns would be the solution, but I don't see less guns helping. I mean sure, if there were a way to go back in time and prevent guns from ever being created, then let's do that. But we can't. Guns exist and they're not just going to magically disappear. Even if the government were to ban them, people would figure out how to make them on their own (just like you can do with bombs).
A lot of people say, "but we just want it harder for mentally unstable and felons to get them." There's a problems with that: What would the government define as mentally unstable? Who's to say the government wouldn't try to say "due to the aspect that allergies pisses people off to the point they would kill another man, anybody with seasonal allergies will not be allowed to possess firearms"? If you don't think the government would do such a thing, you are far too trusting. As far as felons go, what about those who were falsely convicted of their crimes or didn't even commit a violent crime at all?
The point is that everybody cries to the government to fix all of our problems when the majority of the time the government just makes it worse.
Thank you! People like to say that it's ridiculous that we don't have absolute trust in our Government. They are people governing other people, there is nothing that makes them immune to corruption or just plain idiocy.
You have got to be kidding me. I was being sarcastic, giving kids guns is not going to just teach them about the dangers. They´ll probably shoot each other when they get into an argument.
And about your ´point´ on mentally unstable people: you´re not really serious about that one, right? Have you ever heard about science? Psychological research? No, you cannot predict for every person if they might use a weapon in a bad way. Which is exactly why there has to be more gun control! Give everyone a year to collect and turn in their weapons to the government. Then don´t give anyone who isn´t part of law inforcement a gun license.
I´ll try and explain it with a metaphor: if the wate rpipes break and flood your basement, do you raise the ceiling or find a way to get rid of the water?
And btw, I´m NOT saying that one should have complete trust in the government and I completely agree that Obama´s stunt with the drones was very wrong and unethical. But I think he´s your best chance, since all the Republican candidates are either hypocritical liers or just plain stupid.
"Give everyone a year to collect and turn in their weapons" Hahahahaha, are you serious? Do you realize how bad of an idea this is? What's going to happen if we don't turn our guns in, are they going to come confiscate them? No, because they're going to get fucking shot. We gun owners take our guns very seriously.
Right. But the police have guns, too. And bulletproof vests. And any normal person would give up his fucking gun rather than murder someone.
If politicians weren't shitting all over the second amendment, we'd be armed at least on par with the police. No police-issue ballistic vest is going to stand up to a round from my rifle. Who are you to dictate what normal people would and would-not do? Many people would rather die than watch their country go to shit. That's what would happen if the Government tried to confiscate our firearms; the country would go to shit.
Oh would you stop whining about the second amendment? I know it´s the only argument you have, but still. Stop it. I am in no place to say what is normal, but I am allowed to firmly express my opinion. So are you. And still, what the hell? You would try to kill people if they would within their right to confiscate your gun tried to do their job? I´d say, the reason your country might go to shit, is because of the ignorance of many of its people.
That's certainly not the only argument I have. It's the only one I need, but it's very far from the only one I have. They wouldn't be within their rights, it would be a direct violation of the constitution. We are obligated to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. People attempting to disarm us are no different than a domestic terrorist, and will be treated as such. You're the ignorant one here, believe it or not.
Hahaha, oh this is so typical. So some people wrote down a constitution ages ago and it´s very valuable. But wait, there´s more, its value is only considered when people need it to get what they want :D you know what, I´ll let you stay in your bubble. I´ll tell you what, I´m Dutch and a woman. I probably stay in the kitchen all day, wearing wooden shoes and smoking weed!
What is typical? Referencing the literal law of the land as the law of the land? The founders of this country put the Bill of Rights in place as a higher authority than any that exists. It's not a list of powers granted to the Government, it's a list of rights the Government can't take away from us. It always matters.
Wow, you really stick to your point. I respect that, though I will always disagree with you. What´s typical is that when you run out of arguments, you just start quoting the constitution. I have not yet heard any good argument against more gun control. All I´ve heard is that you are afraid of the invasion of your rights and that you desperately hang onto the rights, just because they are written down. Haha, did you know that in some US states masturbation is illegal? Or that in Louisiana, it is illegal to make a false promise?
Stop saying the government is stealing from you, because it is not true and stop being so narrow-minded. It´s not making you look very intelligent.
"... stop being so narrow-minded." One could demand the same from you. The problem with your argument (and to be fair, with most arguments on both sides of the gun issue) is that they keep jumping around from one aspect to the other until nobody is on the same page. I would go through each of your replies above and decipher each point with a counter-point but it will never end.
However, as Mike mentioned, if the government placed an order for all citizens who hold guns to turn them in, sure, maybe a few loyal (and blind) citizens would do so, but there would be many willing to fight against them. If it amounts to any common ground between us, I'll agree that there is a problem with unstable people obtaining guns, but putting together an order to take them all away is not going to solve our problem. I don't believe that anybody is searching for any possible alternatives. Instead it's just "take the guns away! Let the almighty government protect us!"
Israel only kills Palestinians by the hundreds every chance they get without ever thinking twice. It's not only about school shootings, it's primarily about a culture of violent thought which guns perpetuate and America shares with Israel.
Gun crime in the US (per capita) is about 20 times that of the UK, where gun laws are much stricter. Overall murder rates get closer with the US at 3 times higher than UK.
Thailand though appears to have one of the highest rates of gun crime in the world. One statistic suggested 20,000 guncrime murders per annum. That's an extraordinary amount and much higher than in the US - both by per capita and by number.
The UK also has a much higher violent crime rate than the United States. Assuming you are the victim of a crime, then yes, you are more likely to murdered or shot in the United States. However, you are far more likely to become a victim of a crime in the UK in the first place. We should stop comparing countries, though.
But, you're a lot less likely to wind up dead as a result of the violent crime. I thought comparing countries was the whole point of your post.
But I'm far more likely to be able to defend myself living in the United States. I found this picture on my Facebook feed.
http://ctrlv.in/157302
I'm not comparing countries to other countries, just countries to themselves.
http://www.minnpost.com/second-...aving-gun-home
That article put me more at risk of suicide than either of my firearms. Having a gun in the house makes you more likely to get shot? No way! Next you'll tell me that owning a bike makes you more likely to suffer a bike accident, or that owning a pool makes you more likely to drown!
While we're getting guns out of our homes, maybe we should get dogs out, too. http://moveleft.org/dog_ban/
The difference being that bicycles save the environment, pools help you exercise and dogs have health benefits for those who own them and are only as dangerous as they are trained.
A gun's only purpose is to kill, whether it's an intruder or your own family or yourself.
I meant motorcycles. We should ban motorcycles, because I read an article that showed that other motorists are more likely to try and run you off the road if you are on a motorcycle. That's a case of an object making OTHER people try to murder YOU. You don't need a pool to exercise, and 10 people drown in them per day. Guns have health benefits to those who own them, and they are only as dangerous as the person who owns them. Do you see how flawed your argument is?
People should be able to kill an intruder or themselves. Why can't people commit suicide?
I'm not going to respond to someone who yells at and belittles me. Do you see how violent this culture of gun worship has made you?
This might sound stupid or maybe someone already said, but we could also try to put a psychological test on the people trying to get guns. If you think about the movie theatre shooting in Colorado that guy bought everything legally. Had they done a psychological test they may have seen what he was planning.
That is a double-edged sword, though. Somewhere down the line, the psychological evaluation has to come down to someone's decision on whether or not you can own a weapon. This is proven to be a bad idea. There are two types of states when it comes to getting a license to carry a weapon: Shall-issue and may-issue. Shall-issue states are required to give you a license if you apply and meet all the requirements. Shall-issue states have the option to decline your permit if they choose. In some shall-issue states, it is essentially impossible to legally carry a gun because the person who issues the permits refuses to give them to anyone. The psychologist giving the exam may be anti-gun, and deem everyone unfit to own a weapon. There are a lot of things to consider, and a lot of things that can go wrong.
A lot of people think we shouldn't have to feel like we can't trust the people handling these things, but we can't. There was a report not to long ago of a woman in a lab falsifying over 11,000 drug tests, sending thousands of people to jail despite their innocence. Who is to say people won't do that now?
The NRA would never allow that and they write our gun laws.
There aren't many cases of this. The reason is that 99% of these mass-shootings happen in gun-free zones. Citizens don't often stop mass-shootings because mass-shootings occur where people aren't allowed to carry.
How is a citizen with a non-lethal weapon supposed to take on someone with a gun?
It happens over here in the UK. The other day, an armed man held up a bookies but a few customers disarmed him and restrained him until police showed up. The man actually died, however details around his death are very scarce at the moment. Basically, my point is that it is possible to take on armed criminals without a gun. Obviously this incident is a very rare occurence though, but it kinda proves that just cause you may be unarmed, does not necessarily mean your defenseless.
Do you have any evidence of that? I´d love to see where you got those statistics from.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/...s-of-mass.html
That, sir, is a perfect example of observer bias. You know, drawing conclusions over data based on your previous opinion and expectations rather than a scientific analysis? You see, if there had been more gun control, a lot of lunatics wouldn´t have been able to get a gun. Also, those gun free zones should apparently have been much more secured. Which is logical, regarding the fact that outside those zones lunatics ARE allowed to buy guns.
It's not a conclusion I had to observe anything to come to. It's simply a fact that 99% of mass-shootings occur in gun-free zones. This is undeniable truth. Considering there are places outside of these zones where people can buy guns, why do they exist?
I like how your argument is "laws aren't working, so we need more."
That´s not what I said. I said that YOU are drawing a conclusion BASED on those findings. Do you see the difference? You´re using those statistics to reinforce your own theory, without scientifically testing it or even thinking about other possibilities.
Also, I did not say you need more laws. I´m saying that you only seem to value the consitution because it reinforces your opinion (see what I did there?). And as you very well know, laws and consitutions can be amended.
I didn't make any theory. All I did was state the findings, nothing else. You did say we need more laws. More gun control is more laws.
It can be amended, but it's a massive process and nothing can be done until that happens.
So what, you´re just gonna stick to the original plan because it´s too much trouble to make a change? Yes, gun control is more laws, but not just more laws. They will have to specify what guns are illegal and to whom they are and aren´t allowed to be sold. You know, I´m really tired of this. Just go on and live your American dream or whatever, while the people with brains try to make your life even better.
Why did so many people disagree
Yes, arming a society definitely won't have any future backlash and consequences. That's all I'm going to say OP, since I don't want you arguing with me, like you have been doing with EVERYONE who commented. But keep this in mind, by legally forcing every household to be armed, you're allowing families like Honey-Boo-Boo to run amuck and be dangers to themselves and society. ''An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.''
You don't want me arguing with you because you don't know what you're talking about.
KENNESAW. . . GEORGIA!!
I actually laughed out loud at how irrelevant that quote is to the situation.
Storm, Mike is right. He never said we should force everybody to have a gun. He simply said that Kennesaw has been safer since they armed people with guns. It's true too! I live just half an hour from there.
I love you.
Gun control: Because banning cocaine prevented everybody from doing cocaine.
Putting restrictions on guns is different from banning something completely you do understand that right?
You're right. Making cigarettes illegal for people under 18 stops them from smoking.
I don't think you followed what I was saying.
Part of the problem is everyone isn't a responsible citizen.
I also hate it when people say to only ban certain types of guns. A gun kills, no matter what kind it is.
I'm no gun expert, but I'm sure some guns kill better than others, have more accuracy, are faster, have a wider ranger etc. The type of gun definitely would matter.
What a horrific post.
What a horrific comment. I'm sorry the truth doesn't pander to your feelings.
First of all. You're not the president, a member of congress, or any important member of the decision making progress in America, so do not say that guns aren't going anywhere. Secondly. NOT all teachers are responsible, their humans as well. Completely capable of murder.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, you didn't have to be in a position of power to have an opinion like OP has.