Quote from Leokill

Okay, that's new.
But if it reduces homicides, isn't that a good thing? There may still be an underlying problem with violence, but that doesn't mean that the rate of murders should left as it is.

Yes it's a good thing if it reduces homicides, but like I said, there's something like 250 million guns in this country already. Mostly in the hands of law-abiding, responsible citizens.

I agree that it'd be ideal if no one had them at all, but that's not reality, and proposing it as a solution only makes sense if you have a way of taking the property of lawful citizens that won't be an ineffective waste of money we don't have, while also refraining from using force the point of causing more bloodshed than we already have.


Even if we find a way to do it, it still doesn't do anything to violence in general, which is why I'm saying the gun control debate as it exists today is an exercise in futility.

Overall, don't get me wrong- I do see where you're coming from. However, i'm LIVING in America and dealing directly with the results of it one way or another. You may not agree with it, but our country was built on having such freedoms. To take them away at this point would result in much worse occuring- such as exilement has stated. You can't put in gun bans after the fact. It ONLY hurts the innocent and law abiding. You take away guns from them, and absolutely nothing else changes for those who are committing the crimes as far as 'punishment' would go.

As far the mother, she DID know that he had mental issues. It was documented and stated by her even days before the event that they have been dealing with his mental issues for awhile, seen multiple doctors and even checked him in to the looney bin on some occasions. He was on medication and even then still threatening to kill his mother.

Poor choices were made with a nasty combination of events. I HAD the article that had stated precisely his documented issues. It seems to now be clouded entirely by editorials and memorials.

Quote from Exilement

Yes it's a good thing if it reduces homicides, but like I said, there's something like 250 million guns in this country already. Mostly in the hands of law-abiding, responsible citizens.

I agree that it'd be ideal if no one had them at all, but that's not reality, and proposing it as a solution only makes sense if you have a way of taking the property of lawful citizens that won't be an ineffective waste of money we don't have, while also refraining from using force the point of causing more bloodshed than we already have.


Even if we find a way to do it, it still doesn't do anything to violence in general, which is why I'm saying the gun control debate as it exists today is an exercise in futility.

Well, yea. I'v already agreed that taking away guns suddenly would be a futile exercise.

Quote from Leokill

The reason why a sudden ban would cause problems is, that America is a heavily militaristic country. There are shitloads of guns out there and trying to regulate them would be very expensive, and utterly futile due to illegal gun trade. Trying to ban them would also increase the income of criminals trading illegal guns.

There is an exceptional amount of firearms in the US. In any other country, however, it would probably work out quite well.
If it would work in the US and would only result in less homicides, it's still a good thing, even if the rate of violent crime would increase by some amount.

EDIT:

Quote from stone

As far the mother, she DID know that he had mental issues. It was documented and stated by her even days before the event that they have been dealing with his mental issues for awhile, seen multiple doctors and even checked him in to the looney bin on some occasions. He was on medication and even then still threatening to kill his mother.

How was he able to get to her mother's gun, if she knew this?

Quote from Zed

It's a dire indictment of America that any citizen feels they need a gun to be safe at night. When I talked about denying people oxygen, I wasn't talking about someone who feels they need a gun, I'm talking about people who think citizens should have a right to them. Given your current situation, sure, you're better off with a gun, but you're best off if no one has one.

That's just the thing. In America we DO and always have had the right have and own a firearm. For someone to think that they have the right to own one is entirely because it is a fact.

Do I think that petty theft should equal death? No, however, given the situation are you seriously telling me that you are willing to wait and see what the lunatic is about to do with a deadly weapon, whatever it may be, to you before you take action?

I for one definitely would not. I do agree that petty theft shouldn't and rightfully doesn't equal the death penalty. However, people are stabbed and killed for less than even the amount of cash they have in their wallet. I wouldn't want to wait and see if my plead for mercy holds out and put my life in the hands of the criminal.

One thing we both have to consider here is that we are from very different parts of the world with very different ideals and the way that we were raised. I'm not saying I entirely disagree with some of what you are saying, but I also have my point in which I feel I can bring some light to the situation as an American citizen.

Quote from Leokill

If it would work in the US and would only result in less homicides, it's still a good thing

I'd agree if I believed it could work in the US. The right to bear arms will make any significant ban on firearms extraordinarily difficult.

The last assault weapon bans did absolutely nothing to our crime rates, so small changes don't seem worth debating about to this degree. Especially if the entire argument is out of the principle that "a law that reduces homicides is good". No shit, but how does that apply to reality?

Quote from Exilement

Are you really saying we should hold a nation of 300 million people responsible for the actions of a few people? That's something us scientifically-minded people call statistical insignificance. I'm honestly surprised you'd say something like this.

When you consider the all-but-infinite benefits of a gun ban against the all-but-nonexistent costs it doesn't seem disproportionate. It's not a case of holding the entire population responsible, it's a case of saying "we can't tell which of you may be responsible in the future so we're going to play it safe".

You're ignoring the fact that there are nearly as many guns as there are people in the US. The sort of solutions you're proposing would only work with a widespread collection of weaponry, literally the government declaring people's property illegal so they can confiscate it. Property people view as their means to defense from the government, if necessary.

That's what happened before our first Revolutionary War. It would cause far more violence and civil unrest than keeping things as they are.

Like I've said, I don't think it's possible to save the US from here. I'm more just pointing out how much of a mess your "right to bear arms" has gotten you into. It might have been a good idea at the start but the things should have been phased out long ago.

What about your 400% higher violent crime rate compared to the US? Gun ownership apparently doesn't provoke violence, so what you're proposing is little more than a slightly less violent form of violence, instead of anything you could call a solution.

Addressed in previous post.

So those people saying they have a "right" to a gun, they're saying they should have the freedom to own one if they feel they need it, and shouldn't be pressured into the sort of solutions you're proposing based off of inconsistent crime statistics. That doesn't seem like something we should deny people oxygen for.

I'd say the statistics are fairly consistent and conclusive: You can institute a culture of fear and reduce relatively minor crimes in exchange for a spike in murder, or you can ban guns. I don't want to live anywhere near people who would, given the choice, choose the first option. I will concede that Americans no longer have the choice.

Quote from Exilement

I'd agree if I believed it could work in the US. The right to bear arms will make any significant ban on firearms extraordinarily difficult.

The last assault weapon bans did absolutely nothing to our crime rates, so small changes don't seem worth debating about to this degree. Especially if the entire argument is out of the principle that "a law that reduces homicides is good". No shit, but how does that apply to reality?

The right to bear arms was an amendment in the first place. The situation has changed. Amend it again.

Like I've said already it may not be possible. There was an article in The Economist the other week where the author seemed to think you could do it with a massive buy-back programme, but you'd still be in for a painful few years. (I'd link to the article but I'm pretty sure it's behind a pay wall)

Quote from Exilement

I'd agree if I believed it could work in the US. The right to bear arms will make any significant ban on firearms extraordinarily difficult.

The last assault weapon bans did absolutely nothing to our crime rates, so small changes don't seem worth debating about to this degree. Especially if the entire argument is out of the principle that "a law that reduces homicides is good". No shit, but how does that apply to reality?

It might work by slowly taking away rights to arms, and making it harder and less agreeable to poses them. Either way, it's not going to happen overnight.

I made my point because you said that:

Quote from Exilement

It's putting a band-aid on a tumor and calling it a cure.

If it could be applied, then it would be more than just putting on a band-aid.

Pretty sure my post was missed due to the last post on the page.

Quote from stone

That's just the thing. In America we DO and always have had the right have and own a firearm. For someone to think that they have the right to own one is entirely because it is a fact.

Do I think that petty theft should equal death? No, however, given the situation are you seriously telling me that you are willing to wait and see what the lunatic is about to do with a deadly weapon, whatever it may be, to you before you take action?

I for one definitely would not. I do agree that petty theft shouldn't and rightfully doesn't equal the death penalty. However, people are stabbed and killed for less than even the amount of cash they have in their wallet. I wouldn't want to wait and see if my plead for mercy holds out and put my life in the hands of the criminal.

One thing we both have to consider here is that we are from very different parts of the world with very different ideals and the way that we were raised. I'm not saying I entirely disagree with some of what you are saying, but I also have my point in which I feel I can bring some light to the situation as an American citizen.

If you're in a robbery situation where the criminal has a deadly weapon then you have at best a 50/50 chance, but most likely less since he's already got the gun/knife in his hand. I think you have a better chance of survival if you don't go for your gun in that situation.

If you can be sure of getting to your gun without being killed first then you are not in a situation where using a gun is reasonable force.


As for the first bit, hopefully I worded myself to be talking about whether they should have the right rather than whether or not they do.

It's not that it's wrong to acknowledge the fact that you have the right to own firearms, but if you believe that you should have the right, and that it's necessary in society, that's not something I agree with. Owning a gun in america might be in your best interest as things are now, but that doesn't mean that striving towards making them illegal isn't a good idea.

Quote from Pivot

I cbf to read through all of the pages, so I'll just post this:

Yes, but not high capacity magazines. If you need 30 bullets to hit something you shouldn't be shooting.

But what if you have do defend yourself against an army of rabid badgers?

They're coming for you.

But yeah. You really can't make an argument to allow automatic guns with big magazines for self defense. Anyone who claims they need that, is either in a gang, or is a gun collector of some sort.

The entire reason our country was created was based upon being able to overthrow our government if given the chance that they decide to stray us into slavery. Seeing as that is pretty much where they are going now, they are trying to use events like this to push for gun control.

The very principal and reason why it was the number 2 most important thing on the 'to do list' for our fore fathers was to allow us to be able to protect ourselves and to see that the people are heard. Not always those at the very top.

Unfortunately, with everything that is going on, its very similar to situation for our first settlers. Over controlled, over taxed. Being a self employed business owner myself I see the direct effects of taxation. I'm currently near 42% taxation, and i'm not even considered middle class.. lower middle at best. Another fact is, even if our entire populous paid 100% of our income for our taxes this next fiscal year we still wont have enough to pay our interest on our debt.

I'm not poor with making my finance choices, but I know what happens when you can't repay a loan. You get repossessed. People would say we dug this whole, however, many of these decisions and choices occur way above our head and our system is made to seem like we have tons of ways to change what happens. All actuality, nowadays, we don't.

They take away our weapons, we'll just be meat to be tossed around without a second thought of whether or not we are a threat. If we want to break it down to what our 2nd amendment was really created for. If anything, its becoming more important now than ever.

Quote from Leokill

But what if you have do defend yourself against an army of rabid badgers?

They're coming for you.

But yeah. You really can't make an argument to allow automatic guns with big magazines for self defense. Anyone who claims they need that, is either in a gang, or is a gun collector of some sort.

I fully agree. Living in CA I feel its completely adequate that we cannot have more than 10 bullets in any loaded gun at anytime. Nor are we allowed any form of automatic weapon. As stated, I use mine for recreational use as well as, IN THE EVENT, defending myself and my direct family. 10 bullets is sufficient, even if I'm not the best shot.

Quote from Zed

When you consider the all-but-infinite benefits of a gun ban against the all-but-nonexistent costs it doesn't seem disproportionate. It's not a case of holding the entire population responsible, it's a case of saying "we can't tell which of you may be responsible in the future so we're going to play it safe".

No, that's literally holding the entire population responsible for a few people's actions, if we're talking about new legislature applied to reality as it exists today. It doesn't really matter how you word it.

The responsible, law abiding citizens you're taking guns away from will not see the "all-but-infinite benefits" you're talking about. They'll see a government trying to remove their right to defend themselves under the guise of security.

Quote from Zed]I'm more just pointing out how much of a mess your "right to bear arms" has gotten you into.[/quote]

I pointed out that violence isn't correlated with gun ownership, if anything it's inversely correlated, so I'm not sure why you're so quick to blame guns here.


[QUOTE=Zed

If you're in a robbery situation where the criminal has a deadly weapon then you have at best a 50/50 chance, but most likely less since he's already got the gun/knife in his hand. I think you have a better chance of survival if you don't go for your gun in that situation.

I really wish I had a citation for this, but:

For the FBI's report of 10,177 gunshot deaths in 2006, there were 2.5 million crimes de-escalated by armed citizens, who believed they had sufficient control of the situation that they did not have to fire their weapon.

If that would sway your views assuming it's actually true, I'll try to find more information about it.

Quote from Exilement

No, that's literally holding the entire population responsible for a few people's actions, if we're talking about new legislature applied to reality as it exists today. It doesn't really matter how you word it.

The responsible, law abiding citizens you're taking guns away from will not see the "all-but-infinite benefits" you're talking about. They'll see a government trying to remove their right to defend themselves under the guise of security.



I pointed out that violence isn't correlated with gun ownership, if anything it's inversely correlated, so I'm not sure why you're so quick to blame guns here.

Precisely exilement. I've stated and shown and I'll say it again. Some of the safest places in America are places with less strict gun laws and more people actually legally owning a firearm. So if gun control is suppose to solve our crime issue, you need another scapegoat.

Quote from Exilement

I really wish I had a citation for this, but:

For the FBI's report of 10,177 gunshot deaths in 2006, there were 2.5 million crimes de-escalated by armed citizens, who believed they had sufficient control of the situation that they did not have to fire their weapon.

If that would sway your views assuming it's actually true, I'll try to find more information about it.

Exactly. Many cases, the weapons that the criminal is yielding is of illegal sorts in the first place. Either illegal by regulation standards or attained illegally and armed citizens STOP MORE lives from being wasted by exercising their right to defend themselves. Considering the fact that the criminals already are using a 'non-traceable,' scratched serial code, and or illegally used and regulated firearm, using more laws to bring that down quite literally does not affect them. However, you do affect those who chose to abide the law and left them now hopeless to the defend themselves against the criminals.

once again, I REALLY urge you ALL to see these two videos:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4125338260006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4


Tell me how its OK that a daughter lost her mother and father because she kept her hand gun out of her purse to obey the law when she could have stopped him from killing people.

Tell me how the cops could have done an even better job to stop them? Are they going to be able to magically appear on the scene at all times to stop random acts of violence from unknown criminals?

Tell me how the criminals were in the right for putting peoples lives at risk and at gun point to rob that resort for their own greed. How the 72 year old man did nothing with him exercising his right to carry his firearm to defend himself and stopped the criminals before anyone who WAS obeying the law gets hurt?

Tell me how adding laws to restrict gun ownership will stop those very same criminals from already illegally attaining the firearms? Even if there was a strict NO GUNS ban in all states?

It's just not the world we live in.