Gun Violence and Gun Control

[† Anras Rune]

Now I know there is probably a thread for this already but I couldn't be assed trawling for it, plus this is for a fresh discussion. But anyway, here goes.

Obviously everyone knows about the shootings earlier in Conneticut and the Aurora shootings are still fresh in many peoples minds. So today while watching the news Obama was purportedly trying to pass a new bill too limit the sale of assault weapons, high capacity ammo clips and obligatory back ground checks on all gun purchases. Now as someone who is an outsider and who doesn't live the US I feel that this is too little too late, but then again I've never lived in a country that has lax gun laws, where almost anyone can own a gun. Also, considering I've never liked guns (I'm a blade person myself, ) I've always found the American fascination with guns to be somewhat off putting and almost barbaric. This is not me intending to insult Americans or gun lovers in general, but how I feel about guns in general; they are tool designed solely to kill.

So I come to the purpose of this thread. What is everyone's opinions on this matter? Do you believe guns should be regulated or even outright banned from civilian purchase? Do you think that, in the case of the Second Amendment of the US, that the right to arms is somewhat archaic or not needed in present society? Of course, I also ask the same for all gun laws, everywhere. Also, what do people think is another way to prevent gun violence and those that perpetrate it?

Also, considering that not all of the population of this forum are Americans, what is everyone else's opinions on their country's gun laws or how they are handled/treated? Heck, what are peoples opinions on guns in general?

[† Emotional Outlet]

I wish I had reblogged it so I could reference it better, so forgive my poor imitation. It went something like this:

"Now is not the time to discuss gun control"

You're right, now is not the time to discuss gun control. [insert list of previous high profile school shootings] Any one of those was the time to discuss gun control. When children are killed, it's far too late to talk about gun control.

A friend on my Facebook feed said, jokingly and in bad taste depending on your sensibilities, that things would have been different if the kids were carrying guns.

I'm something of a liberal, hippie, and pacifist (not to the point of being a conscientious objector), so I was often in the minority amongst my more conservative military peers. A few of my friends and coworkers who are new parents have gone out and purchased firearms for the protection of their newborn children, and while I commend their dedication and interest in the safety of their children, I don't really know if a gun is really the solution. It's frustrating when people start pulling out statistics about how many people are killed by doctors and comparing those numbers to how many people are killed by guns--it's apples and oranges.

I'm no fan of firearms and don't particularly appreciate the way some romanticise the concept of owning and operating one. I'll be watching, like, Repo Games and see that some of the people who are about to have their cars repo'd come out brandishing a weapon at the host's face. It's incredibly disappointing and embarrassing to see people act that way. One man did that, threatening to shoot the host--eventually he was talked down and he handed his gun to his child, who looked no older than thirteen, and told him to put it up. I wouldn't trust a thirteen year old with a lighter to light up candles in a reasonably safe manner, much less handle a firearm.

As far as the Constitution goes, I suppose it depends whether you're more a spirit of the law or letter of the law kind of person. We still have people arguing over what the "true meaning" of the First Amendment is. I do think that firearms should be better regulated--make people take classes, take tests, undergo some sort of screening and training.

People seem to be resistant to being educated on things they think they understand--no one wants to be treated like a kid. When I was taking driver's ed, a lot of people found it amusing, saying they never took it and they didn't need it. And yet when people are randomly tested on traffic laws, there's a surprising (or not) number of people who get those questions wrong, whether they don't know it at all or have made up their own "rule". (Like people who think it's legit legal to speed--"Oh, I always drive 15 over the speed limit.") I can only imagine what it's like for firearms.

[Charcoal]

In my opinion you should be able to own a gun. I think it's too late to change this law in the USA since so many people already have guns

trying to take them away would only cause more problems. Guns are mostly used for murder but they are needed to protect the people that

are close to you.

[† Shazi]

i have discussed this a lot over the last few weeks and in my honest opinion, guns being readily available to the public is probably THE stupidest idea in the world. the so called "Right to bear arms" has been redundant for a long time and should have been reformed as such.

A lot of the shooting come from guns being readily available. Australia a very strict Gun laws, and there have been NO shootings here since before the gun law reform. Guns for "protection" against people who are going to shoot you is probably the dumbest thing i have ever heard. In Australia, you need to prove that you are responsible enough to use a gun before you are allowed to have a license to get a gun, THEN you need to prove that you have a good reason to have a gun. "protection from people" is not a good enough reason, but things like eliminating pests on farms like rabbits and foxes is completely understandable. and even then you're not going to be handed an assault rifle to kill rabbit and foxes.

Heavy duty weapons are too readily available to people who don't actually need them, especially if your reason for owning a gun is to protect yourself from a burgler. a good baseball bat or vase and some good sneaking skills will be enough to stop a burgler, even IF they have a gun. once they're down, take the gun off them and then restrain them, there is no need to kill the person simply because they are in your home.

[Koby]

Gun Control is something thought up by idiots.

First things first, common sense.

Criminals don't follow laws.

Therefore any sort of Gun Control doesn't do anything but take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Secondly, if you were to be killed how would you prefer it?

Shot once in the head and killed instantly, or beat to death with a bat over a period of 30 minutes?

Someone who wants to kill someone will only find another tool to do so.

Guns are nothing more than tools. It's the people who use them that are the issue.

That said, there is no reason someone needs a fully automatic or military grade weapon as a citizen.

[† Mute point]

Other than the very first line, I completely agree with you Koby.

Comparing Australia post gun ban to America is an apples to oranges comparison also, because there is no easy land access to Australia from countries that are overrun with violent cartels and arms dealers. In short, American criminals would still have access to guns even if you ban them and managed to round up every single one.

The Right to bear arms was never intended for protection against a single person. The purpose is in protecting the entire country from government, both foreign and domestic. In World War 2, the Japanese would have invaded mainland America if it were not for the simple fact that behind every door, there could have been a gun. (If I recall correctly, the military adviser said behind every blade of grass there is a gun, or something like that, but that's not the point) As long as this right is intact, We don't have to worry about a mass invasion from any government. Even the US military wouldn't willingly fuck with the citizens here (Though in that case, it's as much because they're citizens of the same country the military is supposed to be protecting as it is because of all the guns)

In addition, I would point out that there are many other tools that were designed solely for killing. Swords being the easiest example. So lets say you do ban all guns and managed to round them all up. Then the next mass murderer uses a sword to kill just as many people. Do you ban all swords? Okay, next one uses a knife. Ban all knives? Good luck cooking dinner, next person uses an axe. Ban axes? No more campfires for you, next person uses a club. And so on down the line. You can't stop the killing by taking away the tool, you need to find the reason it is happening and do something about that.

[Alice]

Gun Control is something thought up by idiots.

First things first, common sense.

Criminals don't follow laws.

Therefore any sort of Gun Control doesn't do anything but take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Secondly, if you were to be killed how would you prefer it?

Shot once in the head and killed instantly, or beat to death with a bat over a period of 30 minutes?

Someone who wants to kill someone will only find another tool to do so.

Guns are nothing more than tools. It's the people who use them that are the issue.

That said, there is no reason someone needs a fully automatic or military grade weapon as a citizen.

O hate to say it, but I agree with Koby. I personally hate guns in every sense of the words and have never touched one. Even if strict gun laws were enforced...that won't stop people whom are out to kill from getting guns. There are so many ways for anyone to get a gun here in the US thru illegal means. I mean...think of drugs. Drugs like cocaine, meth, and other dangerous drugs are highly illegal...yet many still can get there hands on them and do them. Those out to do bad will always find a way to do those bad things. The only thing that strict gun laws will really prevent is those who are responsible and only want it there as a safety precaution. Yet on the other hand, there have been many cases where a child has seen the place where the adults had thought to have hidden the gun well, have taken it, and then accidentally shoots their self or someone else. Thou, I think people should be able to train for use of a simple hand gun if needed. These high powered gun are not necessary. A simple hand gun would provide the ample protection wanted. I'm a pacifist, really do hate guns/violence more than anything, and could go on forever on the pros and cons to the subject of gun laws. Honestly, if someone were to go after my child or anyone else I loved dearly...I would not hesitate...I would stop the attacker with whatever means and violence needed to stop said person.

[† L4ugh]

I think both sides of this debate are stupid, especially with this latest disaster. Gun haters think that removing all guns will stop crazy people from causing pointless deaths. Al-Qaeda killed 3000+ Americans with a couple of razor blades. How may died in the Oklahoma City bombing? How many did the Unabomber kill or injure? Crazy mother fuckers gonna do what crazy mother fuckers do. Taking their guns away will only give them more of a reason to do it.

Gun lovers think teachers can be trusted to protect our kids with the guns they'd carry. American teachers have been know to abuse, rape, kidnap, and kill their students. Hell, just recently one was feeding his students semen on a spoon. You want these motherfuckers carrying weapons around YOUR kids, REALLY!

The NRA pisses me off because they think gun rights means zero gun responsibility. They SHOULD be against anyone having a gun who is to stupid or lazy to learn how to operate and/or care for a firearm. The problem is that the NRA really isn't about the joy of gun ownership. It's about the joy of profiting from selling guns to stupid unworthy Americans. People who are just as likely to shoot themselves in face, as the person down the street.

I'm also pissed off by so called professional journalist like Piers Morgan, who think the news is suppose to be about their dumb ass opinion rather than something more important like facts. They actually believe that getting rid of AR-15s and extended clips will make a difference. As if the crazies will just decide that mass murder is to hard now and give up. Al-Qaeda hasn't given up, what makes them think crazy people would. How much have Americans had to give up to be "SAFE" from terrorism. Are we going to have to give up all that in our everyday lives too. What happens when the crazies decide to start tossing molotov cocktails around. Will we have to give up glass and flammable liquids.

We are surrounded by things that can kill people in mass every single day, and we will never be able to get rid of all of it. The trick is making sure the people that would want to, are never in a position where they can. So instead of removing all the dangerous objects in the world, maybe we should think about doing something with the people instead.

[† Mute point]

Minor correction... The NRA supports safe gun ownership. Which includes taking classes on gun safety, care, and marksmanship. (A sane person who can hit exactly what they're aiming at is a much safer gun owner than a sane person who merely thinks they can hit what they're aiming at.

Screening out the mentally ill is tricky unless you want to include mandatory psych evaluations along with the background check... An expensive proposal, and still not perfect. And no matter how difficult it is to buy a gun, someone who wants to use one to kill people will find a way to get it. Yes, if it's harder to get, some might change their mind before they get their hands on it, and I don't think anyone should be able to walk into a store and buy their weekly groceries and a six pack of sniper rifles. Making people wait a week to pick up their new gun would give the otherwise sane, but temporarily angry people a chance to cool off, and the undocumented insane people a chance to screw up in a way that would deny them access to the gun.

None of these things will prevent someone from stealing a gun from someone else, nor from building a secret smuggling compartment into the firewall of their car and smuggling one in from mexico or wherever people smuggle guns from these days.. But of course, that can't possibly happen, because if it were happening the government would already have made it illegal... Oh wait, that's right.. It already is illegal.. Gee, that's sure to stop people from doing it! What do you mean it doesn't!? Murder is illegal too!? When did that happen!? I think my point is made... Criminals break laws. That's their thing, and some of them are good at it. What we really need are better cops.

[-Zero-]

Gun Control is completely pointless when there are other weapons at the person's disposal. Weapon Control? Maybe, but how do you define a weapon? Anything can be used to kill.

 

I don't know if this is relevant to the issue:

http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

 

I really want to b*tch slap these parents. I mean, WHO THE HELL GIVES A KID A SHOTGUN?!?

This may sound kind of sour and I apologize if it might sound offensive but I find everything that's been going on lately so ironic: one day there's a moron out there killing innocent children, while the next day the kids themselves are doing the shootings, and at such a young age, even though it was accidental. The blame falls on the parents, I mean what were they thinking? Or were they not thinking at all? The KID just killed HIS COUSIN using a LETHAL WEAPON given to HIM by HIS PARENTS!!  I can't begin to imagine just how scarred the poor child must be right now.

 

Sigh, well, the article doesn't say whether the 12 year old had any previous experience with a gun, so I can't say it was his parent's fault entirely, and in any case, I'm pretty sure that there are other parents out there who give guns to their kids, but this is the first time I've seen a death resulting from it, though I'm somewhat glad that they won't press charges.....

Edited January 15, 2013 by Seraph

[Koby]

Gun Control is completely pointless when there are other weapons at the person's disposal. Weapon Control? Maybe, but how do you define a weapon? Anything can be used to kill.

 

I don't know if this is relevant to the issue:

http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

 

I really want to b*tch slap these parents. I mean, WHO THE HELL GIVES A KID A SHOTGUN?!?

This may sound kind of sour and I apologize if it might sound offensive but I find everything that's been going on lately so ironic: one day there's a moron out there killing innocent children, while the next day the kids themselves are doing the shootings, and at such a young age, even though it was accidental. The blame falls on the parents, I mean what were they thinking? Or were they not thinking at all? The KID just killed HIS COUSIN using a LETHAL WEAPON given to HIM by HIS PARENTS!!  I can't begin to imagine just how scarred the poor child must be right now.

 

Sigh, well, the article doesn't say whether the 12 year old had any previous experience with a gun, so I can't say it was his parent's fault entirely, and in any case, I'm pretty sure that there are other parents out there who give guns to their kids, but this is the first time I've seen a death resulting from it, though I'm somewhat glad that they won't press charges.....

I've been handling guns since I was old enough to hold one. I shot my first 22 at 3 years old and my shotgun at the age of 5. I was taught how to safely handle a gun though. I was always told they were not a toy, they could be dangerous, treat all guns as if they're loaded, and never point them at anybody. I always made sure to have the gun pointed at the ground or in the air away from anything when walking with a gun in hand.

 

So yeah, I blame the parents for not teaching their 12-year-old proper gun control. I don't think 12 is too young at all to have a gun, I just know they shouldn't be able to have access to it by themselves. It should be in a gun safe that only the parents can open when they see fit to let their child use it.

 

In Texas, I believe you can get a hunters license for your kid as early as like 6 years old... Though they must always have a licensed adult with them at all times till they have taken their Hunters Education course, which they cannot take until they're 12 years old, but must take it by the time they're 17 if they wish to get a license the next year.

[† Emotional Outlet]

When I was going through basic and we had our M16s, there was always the problem of people not maintaining trigger discipline. They taught us to maintain it even with the training weapons we handled just to build the habit, and by the time we were carrying and firing the actual weapons, there were still people who couldn't maintain it.

 

Even now when we mess around with our NERF guns, which are considerably less deadly than an M16 or M9, we still maintain that discipline and keep our fingers off the trigger until we're ready to shoot.

 

I guess it's almost natural to just slip your finger into the trigger well and that's why you get so many stories about accidental shootings and all that, but it's such a basic thing that people should be taught in addition to stuff like, as Koby pointed out, never pointing a weapon at something or someone unless you intend to shoot it/them, treat all firearms as though they are loaded, &c. People like to act like they know everything and they think they can control themselves regardless of the situation--that kind of hubris ends up with stories about how they accidentally shot themselves in the foot because they were startled by their dog.

 

An absolute ban I'm not much a fan of (we all know how well Prohibition worked out), but ensuring people get the training they need for the proper licenses and undergo background checks I do support. No one is born knowing everything about anything, so having classes to ensure they build the proper habits is important.

 

I don't know how I feel about letting a child handle an actual firearm, even for the purposes of education and training. No matter how well trained your child might be, their friends may not be as well trained and those little secret show and tell moments ("Wanna see something cool?") can turn out pretty badly if you're not careful. Kids are sneaky. (I was a sneaky kid.)

 

A lot of my friends who have firearms (mostly new fathers), seem to be primarily concerned with home invasions and the like (which I guess would be reasonable if they were living in Baltimore or DC, but they do not--my former supervisor, a DC native, who does live in Baltimore just yells at the drug dealers). While I have a reasonable amount of concern for such an occurrence, in the rather unlikely event that any firearms are to be kept in my home, the ammunition and guns would be stored in separate safes. Depression runs through my side of the family and, from what I understand about Java's, there is significant concern in that department as well.

[† L4ugh]

Minor correction... The NRA supports safe gun ownership. Which includes taking classes on gun safety, care, and marksmanship. (A sane person who can hit exactly what they're aiming at is a much safer gun owner than a sane person who merely thinks they can hit what they're aiming at.

 

I think we’re talking about two completely different versions of the NRA. You’re referring to the one you read about in the brochures they pass out, and I’m referring to the lobbying heavy weight that seems to strike fear into the hearts of politicians. Most people in the NRA are exactly like you mentioned. They’re probably ok with the idea of greater restrictions on guns if it keeps children safer. The lobbying side however, won’t stand for anything that lengthens or hinders the ability of pretty much anyone to get a gun. With a battle plan like that, I don’t see how they can be considered as “for” gun safety. 

 

There should also be a law that requires any gun owner with kids to keep the guns unloaded and locked up. Failure to comply should bring either jail time or have the children removed do to an unsafe living environment. Which action is taken against them should come down to how the authorities are informed of the discretion and whether or not anyone was injured.

 

I also think unstable people need cheaper and easier access to the treatments they need. Doctors that do more than just dope patients up on meds could also go a long way. This is what all these people who keep mentioning Britain or Japan never bring up. While they do have tighter gun laws, they also do a hell of a lot better job at treating their sick. In this country the sick are pretty much ignored unless they have money, and I’m still not entirely convinced that ObamaCare will change this.

 

I personally don’t see why guns can’t be licensed in a similar way to motor vehicles. Require people to take a gun safety class before they can even apply to purchase a gun. Different classes of guns could require a different license and a greater amount of training. Have the hunting class be the lowest/easiest license, and require little more than a weekend or two of training. Handguns could be another class which would require even more training. It could also require some kind of proof that a doctor has deemed you stable enough for gun ownership. I think a system like this would do a lot more to stop gun violence than taking away one class of guns. I also think the whole idea of just trying to limit the death toll of the next mass shooting is utterly stupid. Would you as a parent really feel any better knowing that your child only died with four other students instead of fifteen? 

[valko]

Australia has had their big gun hand in years back which helped get tonnes of guns off the street and i personally think helped with australian violence over all,there is still guns on the street and i dont think you could ever get rid of guns completely,people will always have their own opinions but thats besides the point,the government decides on what laws get put in to place,regardless of what the people think the government will do as they please.

 

But as far as America is concerned I see 2 possible outcomes.

 

1.the American people rally together and the majority of the population along with the government change the laws and get the guns off the streets and things get better.

 

2.the government chooses to change the laws regardless of how people feel and then America has its second civil war,and people die by the thousands over the simple right to bare arms.

 

Personally i hope its number 1 but i have my doubts.....Im australian and as such i look at the constant shootings that happen in america and even though im sad for the people that die and for the ones that lose loved ones,i also have to wonder at the stupidity of the american people and wonder exactly how many people (children,women,men) its going to have to lose before the laws get changed and we arnt seeing constant reports of class rooms of kids being gunned down its just bewildering.

[Kawaii Uguu]

I don't think an outright ban of all guns is the solution because all that would do is create a black market, causing even more violence. It happened with alcohol prohibition, and it's happening now with the war on drugs. However, there are some common sense restriction like background checks that should be implemented.

[coffeeNiK]

Sigh, i hate this topic. 

 

Guns should be regulated. Period. 

 

For any individual to say that guns should be banned because they kill people should honestly stop talking. It is a "item". That's all it is. At the very core of the argument, we can use anything to kill another person. The item will forever remain the constant. The variable is the "will" of man. 

 

What type of person that individual is? The circumstance of the situation can drive anyone to kill someone irregardless if it is a gun or some other item. 

I feel like society does not embrace that. They embrace what guns are showed as. The media of it. The glorification of a weapon. The idea that one man with two guns can take down a building. They don't stop to think about the man and his mentality. 

 

I live in a country where the gun amnesty laws are ridiculous. Women cannot even buy pepper spray down here and I'm not joking. However, I live in a country where the crime wave is ridiculous. So much so that certain Embassy sites have put up warnings about the country. That's not a good sign, yet...everyone who comes in contact with a criminal down here....has nothing but their fists and their wallets to combat a man with a pistol/shotgun/rifle.  High powered s**t. 

[† Mute point]

Enforcing the laws we already have will be far more effective than passing new ones.

 

We already require background checks for the majority of sales, so rather than passing a new law about them, just amend the old one to make it ALL sales instead of most.

 

My favorite point to make when this debate comes up in regard to mass shootings is this...

 

"Laws would stop things like this from happening? Gee, it sure would be nice if they'd hurry up and make murder illegal!"

 

People don't seem to like that... but I think it's a very good point...

[DrumRoll]

A gun is not a force of evil, it is a inanimate object. 

 

However, humanity is a fickle thing indeed and until it can be trusted (see:never) then we must regulate the access to weapons of extreme violence. 

 

We have gun control here in England and although shootings have occurred, they rarely have the results of those in the USA as it usually involves shotguns whereas the usa has access to assault rifles, hand guns etc etc.

 

My argument is that-at its current stage and size-humanity and ultimately cannot be trusted. 

[† L4ugh]

A gun is not a force of evil, it is a inanimate object. 

 

However, humanity is a fickle thing indeed and until it can be trusted (see:never) then we must regulate the access to weapons of extreme violence. 

 

We have gun control here in England and although shootings have occurred, they rarely have the results of those in the USA as it usually involves shotguns whereas the usa has access to assault rifles, hand guns etc etc.

 

My argument is that-at its current stage and size-humanity and ultimately cannot be trusted. 

 

I'm not disagreeing with anything your saying, but I do have a question since you are from England. Here in the States the healthcare system totally sucks. The poor and mentally ill have little to no access to the treatments they need. When they are lucky enough to see a doctor. They will usually just throw some pills at them and leave it at that. 

 

How does England handle the poor and mentally ill?

 

I always hear the argument about how taking away guns is what solved the problem, but I've personally always thought the problem was bigger than just that. Doesn't England have a healthcare system that treats everyone regardless of how poor they are.

 

Do the doctors there do more than just pill the problem?

[DrumRoll]

yes we have 'free' healthcare but I personally think that we will not be able to sustain it. We simply have too many people and too few jobs. Millions of eastern Europeans take up jobs and healthcare but send all the money they own out of the country to their families, depriving english people of jobs and harming the economy. The welfare system on the whole is quite terrible, the average working citizen is taxed for working, taxed for driving, taxed for filling up with fuel, taxed for living in their homes and eventually taxed for dying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_Tax_(United_Kingdom)

 

whereas if you do NOTHING or HAVE CHILDREN OR PASS A FARCICAL TEST TO GET YOURSELF ON THE DISABILITY BANDWAGON then you are set. And I don't speak out of biased conjecture, I have seen and heard first hand just how easily people screw the system, a system designed for those who are truly needy.

 

I all honesty the UK is fast becoming a stagnant shit hole of a place to live.

 

If I had my way the migrant workers would be given their last payslip, thanked for their help, then told to get the hell out. The welfare system needs a complete reassessment- weeding the fraudulent from the misfortunate. And lastly I'd implement a 'one child' policy as we are simply over populated (like the rest of the world.) and change the way people are taxed accordingly-you should not have to pay for state education or child tax credit if you yourself have no children. 

 

But of course this would never happen. The good ship Britannia will simply keep chugging along, all the while in the lower decks, occupied by those who work for a living, the water is rising and rising.....

 

*sigh* that's better. I know it went off topic but....it is something that needed to be said. 

 

And the short story: the NHS is a crock of shit for the most part these days anyway.