Gun Control/Gun Violence in the US

[Ilyena]

There seems to be an influx of these threads lately so in an attempt to keep it all in one area, this will be the official thread to discuss your thoughts on this matter. Please remember to be respectful of everyone's opinions whether you agree with them or not. And since this is a serious thread, no spam. Thanks.

 

[Tucker]

I don't really see how more gun control will help solve these shootings

Most if not all these major shootings are done by people who illegally obtained the gun, or it wasn't even their gun. There are already thorough training sessions and mental tests when one tries to get a gun. And what will more of these regulations do? If most of these shootings happen through people who got their gun illegally, then the regulations won't apply to them. So I don't see how many more regulations will help.

I think the issue lies with mental health. Not enough people get mental help. And yes, I do think it's a problem of society. And no I don't mean "IT'S VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES' FAULT". But what is different from now and 50 years ago? Besides many political changes, there has been a huge improvement in technology and media. Media sensationalizes these shootings, and the shooters become famous. Is that the only reason? No...but who mainly commits these shootings? Teens and young adults. Growing up with the internet can expose oneself to bullying, harassment, and LOADS of information. Didn't James Holmes plan his attack for months and mainly had it done on his computer? These shootings are done by mentally ill people who feel alone, but are surrounded by media and technology.

So back to guns...I don't think regulations will make much of a difference. And about banning all guns...the U.S. is saturated with guns as it is, so what will banning them do? We have so many already. It would be so easy for someone to get one if they really wanted to. While we need to take steps to stop these shootings, I don't see regulations helping a whole lot.

 

[CassinoChips]

I don't really see how more gun control will help solve these shootings

Most if not all these major shootings are done by people who illegally obtained the gun, or it wasn't even their gun. There are already thorough training sessions and mental tests when one tries to get a gun. And what will more of these regulations do? If most of these shootings happen through people who got their gun illegally, then the regulations won't apply to them. So I don't see how many more regulations will help.

The Virginia Tech shooter, despite being diagnosed with mental disorders, purchased his guns legally, then killed 32 people and himself.

The Newtown shooter was able to get 6 guns from his mother's arsenal.

Common sense tells me that 1) Legal guns are being used for crimes, not just illegal guns; and 2) Nobody needs 6 guns.

I think the issue lies with mental health. Not enough people get mental help. And yes, I do think it's a problem of society. And no I don't mean "IT'S VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES' FAULT". But what is different from now and 50 years ago? Besides many political changes, there has been a huge improvement in technology and media. Media sensationalizes these shootings, and the shooters become famous. Is that the only reason? No...but who mainly commits these shootings? Teens and young adults. Growing up with the internet can expose oneself to bullying, harassment, and LOADS of information. Didn't James Holmes plan his attack for months and mainly had it done on his computer? These shootings are done by mentally ill people who feel alone, but are surrounded by media and technology.

The mass shootings, yes, oftentimes are done by those who have mental health issues. However. The vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who are perfectly sane, "rank and file" criminals, and/or situation such as arguments between two otherwise rational people being solved by gunplay. Less guns would minimize both scenarios.

So back to guns...I don't think regulations will make much of a difference. And about banning all guns...the U.S. is saturated with guns as it is, so what will banning them do? We have so many already. It would be so easy for someone to get one if they really wanted to. While we need to take steps to stop these shootings, I don't see regulations helping a whole lot.

Very few people are actually advocating the outright banning of all guns. It would be impossible to do, untenable, and unconstitutional.

However. We are a society of laws. We regulate things all the time, especially if they have the potential to kill thousands of people each and every year. Guns should be no different.

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

I think with a lot of people when it comes to gun control, is that they want these shootings to stop completely, and nothing less will be good enough. So if stricter gun laws only lessen the damage, then they don't see the point.

And there's the argument that a lot of these guns that are used are stolen. If guns weren't so readily available to the whole public, then it would be much more difficult for these guns to be stolen. That, again, would help reduce these shootings as people would have to go to the lengths of acquiring contacts and gaining enough trust in them to go through the dangers of importing weaponry.

But yeah, as I said, I'm kinda getting the impression that only reducing gun crime isn't good enough.

 

[CassinoChips]

But yeah, as I said, I'm kinda getting the impression that only reducing gun crime isn't good enough.

But it's a good place to start.

Also, you know that whole "Hitler took away guns and look what happened!" argument? Total BS. As it is with most NRAphiles.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

"The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years."

“Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?”

 

[Linnaete]

I would predict that the standard pro-gun response to the above would be something on the lines of "but if the Jews were able to fight back, at least they wouldn't be so helplessly thrown into a chamber of Zyklon B gas or lined up to be systematically shot dead. Sure they wouldn't win, but they would be embodying that very principle of freedom by attempting to fight for it from the throes of tyranny" or whatever. A dramatic and romantic what-if scenario still takes nothing from the fact that I cannot think of a single historical event when Joe Schmo managed to come anywhere close to bringing down an evil regime in a daring uprising with the aid of guns.

So with that established, why does anyone need AR-15s and various other automatics and semi-automatics with high-capacity magazines capable of unloading into a poor sod hundreds of rounds in a couple of minutes without reloading in private hands? Even if you're hunting, what game animal warrants such a weapon to take it down?

I still have no idea why what happened under the Nazi state or the Soviet Union has much of a bearing on present day America and why it should to this extent. No sane person can casually look at the Obama administration, or any other president's administration and think it can be comparable to Hitler or Stalin in any fucking way. But alas, the Drudge Report happily did that anyway, showing the rest of the world how batshit insane they and their ilk are, while furious frothings at the mouth blinds whatever functioning senses they have left that keep them on the plane of reality. Because obviously, finding pragmatic ways of further regulation (the rest of the world is sitting back now, in consensus that this is a sensible first step to take) is as evil as willful intention of genocide and the Gulags.

 

[Squid]

So Obama has revealed his Gun Violence solution:

http://www.news.com.au/world/presid...violence-package/story-fndir2ev-1226555512121

What does everyone think?

 

[The Master]

Background checks? Sounds good to me, Mr. President. Though I DO believe there should also be psych evaluations to go along with this... But one thing at a time I guess...

Here's the list in case you don't want to click the link or something...

* Ordering tougher penalties for people who lie on background checks and requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

* Ending limits that make it more difficult for the government to research gun violence, such as gathering data on guns that fall into criminal hands.

* Requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

* Giving schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers.

* Giving communities grants to institute programs to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

it's all just talk to make it look like he can do something.

the real meat of the solution isn't there and he says so himself. there needs to be a change in law and a change to the ridiculous gun culture that encourages the adoration of objects with the sole purpose of destruction.

pathetic kiddies and their stupid toys.

 

[FarisScherwiz]

Take away a product and people with find another way of illegally getting it. That is all I add to this depressing forum. o-o

 

[CassinoChips]

Take away a product and people with find another way of illegally getting it. That is all I add to this depressing forum. o-o

There are several steps in between where we are now and outright banning of all guns ever. Most of those advocating gun control, including me, are not advocating removing all firearms.

Also, if your logic held true, there would be an epidemic of machine guns throughout society, as they were banned outright after once being available to the public at large. Tell me, when's the last time you heard of a criminal using a machine gun?

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

It would be a lot more difficult acquiring a firearm illegally anyway, and so the rate of gun crime would be reduced.

Here's something funny that I've come across.

http://news.uk.msn.com/blog/trending-blogpost.aspx?post=4d6cbc84-51da-48bd-8223-6f306bd0e25b&_nwpt=1

What the hell is a security guard doing with a firearm when he hasn't even got a license for it?

 

[Shinra Executive]

Take away a product and people with find another way of illegally getting it. That is all I add to this depressing forum. o-o

It's a bandwagon. That is why when all things are dissected and taken into a account, you just have a bunch of self-righteous nonsense. Europe can't seem to shut the fuck up about anything from guns to traditional marriage to religion. It needs to mind it's own business.


When Muslims shoot up a mall, it's terrorism. But when a lunatic shoots up a school, it's the guns fault. The fact of the matter is that this whole matter is due to reactive society. Something has to take the blame.

 

[Rexi]

I don't really see how more gun control will help solve these shootings

Most if not all these major shootings are done by people who illegally obtained the gun, or it wasn't even their gun. There are already thorough training sessions and mental tests when one tries to get a gun. And what will more of these regulations do? If most of these shootings happen through people who got their gun illegally, then the regulations won't apply to them. So I don't see how many more regulations will help.

I think the issue lies with mental health. Not enough people get mental help. And yes, I do think it's a problem of society. And no I don't mean "IT'S VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES' FAULT". But what is different from now and 50 years ago? Besides many political changes, there has been a huge improvement in technology and media. Media sensationalizes these shootings, and the shooters become famous. Is that the only reason? No...but who mainly commits these shootings? Teens and young adults. Growing up with the internet can expose oneself to bullying, harassment, and LOADS of information. Didn't James Holmes plan his attack for months and mainly had it done on his computer? These shootings are done by mentally ill people who feel alone, but are surrounded by media and technology.

So back to guns...I don't think regulations will make much of a difference. And about banning all guns...the U.S. is saturated with guns as it is, so what will banning them do? We have so many already. It would be so easy for someone to get one if they really wanted to. While we need to take steps to stop these shootings, I don't see regulations helping a whole lot.

That's completely false, actually.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=1

Of the 62 mass shootings in the USA between 1982 and 2012, 49 of them were committed with weapons obtained through legal means. Additionally, I wouldn't lay the blame entirely on technology, either. The perpetrator of the Sandy Hook shooting was obsessed with the military. Guns, tanks, everything to do with the military. His mother also taught him to handle guns from a young age. In that particular shooting, I definitely place blame at least partially on her. Additionally, gun laws in Connecticut are backward, in my opinion. You need a permit for handguns, but not for shotguns and rifles? OK then...

One thing I definitely think is a problem, is the mass media. Whenever something like this happens, it's glorified on the news for days/weeks on end. Every aspect is looked into, documentaries are made on how and why the killer/s did what they did, it's horrible. I agree that more needs to be done regarding mental health, though. Better security for legal weaponry, too. A locked cabinet for gun storage could go a long way to preventing something like this.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

A locked cabinet for gun storage could go a long way to preventing something like this.

not if the nutjob owns the locked cabinet.

 

[Rexi]

Well, no. I was referring more along the lines of people like Lanza, who used weapons owned by his mother. If they were locked away, he may have been unable to get them, preventing the entire tragedy.

 

[FarisScherwiz]

There are several steps in between where we are now and outright banning of all guns ever. Most of those advocating gun control, including me, are not advocating removing all firearms.

Also, if your logic held true, there would be an epidemic of machine guns throughout society, as they were banned outright after once being available to the public at large. Tell me, when's the last time you heard of a criminal using a machine gun?

Not only machine guns, is what I have to say.

 

[Howl]

From the point of view of an ordinary American, living in America...since this is what the media wants us to focus our attention on...

I believe that it is our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that any president who attempts to pass any form of legislation which strips Americans of any constitutional right, is himself a traitor to the country and should be impeached. It is my personal opinion that our current president should have been impeached on multiple occasions. He is the welfare president.

Anyone can kill another human being with or without a gun. It can be done with a fork, a spoon, bare hands, or even torment-induced suicide. These things happen on a daily basis throughout the entire world and the media only highlights events which will create separation amongst people. The Zimmerman trial is a prime example. When Barack Obama came out on national TV and said "It could have been me", the first thing I thought was that he misread the telepromter. He meant to say "It should have been me". A leader who intends to create unity amongst his people does not separate one group of people from another.

I'm sure the majority of us know at least one person within their monkeysphere who has been murdered. Was it broadcasted on the news?

I also don't take lightly the idea of being monitored by my government. I think the banks do a fine job already of letting me know when I can withdraw my own money, and in what specific amounts. If my dad decides to hand me a gun that has been in my family since the civil war, then by no means should I be required to tell anyone about it. It's a personal transaction.
That's a bad example, because in most states, this is acceptable and is not required to be acknowledged by an arms dealer...(antiques, I mean). Same principle.

 

[CassinoChips]

From the point of view of an ordinary American, living in America...since this is what the media wants us to focus our attention on...

Hey, me too!

I believe that it is our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that any president who attempts to pass any form of legislation which strips Americans of any constitutional right, is himself a traitor to the country and should be impeached.

Presidents don't pass legislation, as they are part of the executive branch. Passing legislation would be the job of the legislative branch, which consists of the Senate and House of Representatives. Might want to brush up on your checks and balances.

It is my personal opinion that our current president should have been impeached on multiple occasions. He is the welfare president.

I should probably stop, as rationality has clearly, along with Elvis, left the building. But. There is a world of difference between a President doing things that you don't like and a President doing things that are illegal.

Anyone can kill another human being with or without a gun.

A gun makes it a looooooooooot easier. Which is why the majority of homicides are perpetrated through the use of firearms. And it's not even close.

It can be done with a fork, a spoon, bare hands, or even torment-induced suicide.

When tens of thousands of people every year are being killed by silverware, I will advocate for the regulation of silverware .... I guess you would call them rights?

These things happen on a daily basis throughout the entire world and the media only highlights events which will create separation amongst people.

11000 of the 16000 homicides in the first 5 months of the year were perpetrated by the use of firearms. That's not the media. That's the facts.

The Zimmerman trial is a prime example. When Barack Obama came out on national TV and said "It could have been me", the first thing I thought was that he misread the telepromter. He meant to say "It should have been me". A leader who intends to create unity amongst his people does not separate one group of people from another.

We get it. You don't like Obama.

I'm sure the majority of us know at least one person within their monkeysphere who has been murdered. Was it broadcasted on the news?

Yes.

I also don't take lightly the idea of being monitored by my government. I think the banks do a fine job already of letting me know when I can withdraw my own money, and in what specific amounts.

When paper bills start firing bullets, that argument will make sense. Until then.....

If my dad decides to hand me a gun that has been in my family since the civil war, then by no means should I be required to tell anyone about it. It's a personal transaction.
That's a bad example, because in most states, this is acceptable and is not required to be acknowledged by an arms dealer...(antiques, I mean). Same principle.

Yep. And that's not really what gun control advocates are trying to regulate anyway. So there's that.

 

[Harlequin]

Anyone can kill another human being with or without a gun. It can be done with a fork, a spoon, bare hands, or even torment-induced suicide.

Guns facilitate killing which is why they're the weapon of choice for armed forces the world over.

Psychologically speaking it's also much harder to bring yourself to hack and slash or bludgeon someone to death than to pull a trigger. I doubt even half of those who carried out these mass shootings would have been psychotic enough to use any weapon they could get their hands on.

You can't brand everyone who kills with a gun a mentally unstable anomaly of society. There are a whole host of factors that could turn your everyday citizen into a murderer such as jealousy, anger, depression or crimes of passion to name a few where the culprit is otherwise as sane as anyone else. If a kid gets relentlessly bullied and ostracized on a daily basis and decides to take drastic action through violent retribution he or she isn't insane it's actually a very common mindset (albeit grossly unacceptable behaviour) and in those situations the gun becomes the facilitator for carnage.

With regards to any other weapon they might use, it takes an especially demented type of person to carry out a mass killing with a knife or blunt weapon. Firing a gun at another human being might difficult to bring yourself to do, but using knives and clubs is something else entirely. The feeling and sound of bone crunching under a swing, the feeling of a blade slicing through flesh, the spraying of blood, continuing despite being covered in it, the sight and smell of so much blood, the tools becoming worn and breaking as they brutalise human flesh and the physical struggle of the victims. It's a much more visceral experience and the two pale in comparison. Apologies if I've offended anyone's sensibilities but some people really need this imagery to begin to understand the difference between pulling a trigger at someone several meters away and going medieval on someone.

These high school shooters certainly have the former in them but how many are mentally capable of the latter?

As much as some people quote the second amendment or conjure up bizarre hypotheticals there's no way so many can genuinely believe these mass killings would still be taking place without firearms. It reeks of paranoid people lying to themselves to preserve their sense of empowerment and morbid fascination with guns.