Not sure why there's there would be doubt here, currently we rely on (federally, states may differ) instant background checks which only prevent a gun buy if the buyer is officially diagnosed or has been committed to an institution (source). A new system like the one I outlined above could identify warning signs (for instance, being questioned multiple times by the FBI, attempted suicides, having connections to radical Islamic groups), allow for closer looks, and ultimately prevent seriously unfit candidates from owning a point-and-click instrument of death.


There's already cause for fear when guns can be sold with little discretion, giving valid reason to consider increasing gun control measures in some way; in this case I have to pass the burden of proof to those opposing all gun control measures (e.g. requiring similar cases in different - yet analogous enough - regions/time periods).

Extending the scope of the No-Fly list is certainly concerning (which has terrible appeals/due process), but that's getting into specifics/almost warrants another topic itself.

---

Adding carefully considered gun control measures does not ignore Islam (which yes, when their doctrines are taken to be literal and inerrant is certainly toxic), but gives us another tool for dealing with it, among other issues such as mental instability.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 5 2016, 6:50 pm by jjf28.

I can't speak for everyone, but for me specifically it's just a rule of thumb: giving power to a government entity will never be voluntarily relinquished. Why? Because those with the power will inevitably take as a priority their own self-interest. Often this self-interest becomes higher priority than the people they are supposed to serve. Power brings with it the ability to fulfill self-interest. It's just human nature. Is this sort of view practical or reasonable? I'm not sure, but it's definitely a valid point with real reasoning behind it, whether or not the reasoning lines up with reality.

In the case of human nature and power I think history has shown this rule of thumb to be accurate, but, the lessons of history are up for interpretation. I would trust more in the self-interest of the individuals in a government than the altruistic fulfillment of government duties. This is the whole reason why it's often effective to setup opposing parties to keep each other in check; the self-interests of opposing parties can, at times, be trusted to balance one another out. This is why the topic of gun control is tricky; where's the balance? If unstable individuals now have a lot of trouble getting guns with some new regulations, what else is there to balance out the potential for mis-use and corruption? These questions are difficult to answer, which is why this whole topic probably needs its own special attention separate from the Orlando shooting.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 5 2016, 7:23 pm by CecilSunkure.

I have to say, I find the idea that owning a gun is a
rather appalling.

Well, it's not a human right according to UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so there's that.

As a matter of ability to revolt against an abusive state, guns matter, but do you see ever see the NRA working against the government except to keep guns around for basically every purpose besides armed political action? You're more likely be seeing them working with the government lol. Do you see them taking action on literally anything that matters? I never see any news of it.

What's so inherently appalling about owning a gun, a sword, a knife?

It's the intent that's appalling.

Some have them for self-defence, others for recreation, others for competition. Nothing appalling with those three.

It's not inherently appalling. What's appalling is that the US on the whole doesn't have the maturity to deal with the level of ubiquity of its guns. The distribution is so high and so under regulated that 16 year old can shoot schools or religious congregations. 2 year olds can shoot their parents to death by accident. 10 year olds can decide they don't like being grounded or having their XBoxes taken away and shoot up their family.

In fact the distribution is so high that I daresay having them for "self defence" is moot since the people you are defending yourself against will also have guns. Any confrontation has no other possibility besides one party dying. It also permits ordinary citizens to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Even if only the defender has a gun, it's literally chance for them not to shoot if they get spooked by anything. In cases of getting mugged or robbed, since the offender is primarily after goods, a person who does not own a gun can allow police to handle it while only losing some material goods sold still having a chance to reacquire stolen goods.

Recreation and competition: they are part of the distribution problem because of legal loopholes that allow people to acquire acquire guns with no checks. Same with private transactions, except that private ones exacerbate the existing gun issues.

US is basically the perfect example of why massive gun distribution is a terrible idea.

What makes the situation even more stupid is that the constitutional right was written when guns could shoot only once before needing to reload. The technology was so poor that if Omar had to use it, or that racist little shit stain was using such a weapon, they could have been incapacitated on the spot after the first shot by the crowd defending itself.

And then unbelievably, any legislation to restrict access to guns is argued against by claiming that "it would only hamper legitimate users" when it's departed time and time again that the ratio of illegitimate users to legitimate ones can only justify restrictive gun control. It's not even like legitimate users have any substantial reason ever to have a gun within a week relative to the risk that the unrestrictive policies are associated with.

It's surreal, really, and I hope the new Canadian government brings back some sort of gun registration database because I don't want to be anywhere nearer to the US policy-wise.

I don't even dislike guns. I'd be quite happy to learn more about their use, care, design, and mechanisms. It's just that both the policies and culture surrounding guns in the US is fucking insane to me.

There's nothing inherently appalling about owning a weapon.

What is appalling is saying it's a human right to own a gun. And that if you disallow someone to own a gun (for any reason), you are violating their human rights by doing so.

Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. Just like driving a car is a privilege - you have to get a license, and obey the road rules, and if you don't, your license is taken away and you can get in big trouble for breaking the laws and driving without a license.

Well, your analogy just shows what the issue is here.
What gun's rights people would be saying is it's a right to be able to go for your licence test, pass, get your licence, buy your car, and drive it.

But the anti-gun activists are saying no you can't own a car (or you can only own certain types of cars that drive at a maximum of 40kmph), you can't get your licence, you can't drive your car.

Like, I think it would be cool to pop off some automatics at the range. But automatics are illegal in my country. There's nowhere I can go to fire them unless I enlist in the military. So my "right" has been taken away.

Sure, but I've lived in the US all my life and the ability to own and use a gun is considered a basic human right. It's right up there along with free speech. These things are in the constitution, which can't really be removed by legal means and instead only supplemented/added upon. So yes the idea of removing a basic statement from the constitution is appalling.

Gun violence has actually gone down, according to the FBI, in the last 20 or so years quite significantly. Simultaneously the number of guns in the US has been rising (source). This does not prove a causation, but it does prove that a rise in number of guns does not cause a rise in gun violence.

It's really simple: if it's likely that a criminal will be shot committing a crime, they will be less likely to commit the crime. Even criminals can be trusted to abide by their own self-interests.

At this point often times the concern of the mentally unstable having access to guns comes up; "Well what about the mentally unstable who will violently commit mass shootings without concern for retaliation?" Again, I refer you to the charts from the FBI. Statistically these kinds of people are not relevant to the current discussion. There just aren't enough of them to warrant concern relevant to general gun control. However, like I've said before, they probably deserve their own special attention and their own separate discussion.

Guns can sound scary if one is ignorant to how guns work in a society. Sure. But if we start looking up stats and making basic arguments based on human psychology, shooters don't like to be shot back at. For example 92% of all mass shootings since 2009 have occurred in gun free zones. It's simple: the best place to kill a lot of people is where they all gather and have no defense.

Just like in my previous post about China -- the best place to commit a knife attack is in schools where the children cannot defend themselves with knives.

Violence control only really affects non-violent citizens. It does not stop criminals or the mentally unstable from acting out in violence. It stands to argue that a very effective and empirically verifiable method for lowering violence is to arm the just citizens with self-defense. Chicago is a good example. I've heard that Chicago is regularly rated as one of the top 3 cities in the US for murder rates. Then Chicago started issuing concealed carry permits and immediately experienced its lowest murder rate since 1958.

So really there's two options that we see in this discussion:

• Arm citizens for self defense
  
• Bolster government power over the citizens to defend the citizens

To me it seems clear that the first option is very effective. I also know, anecdotally, from personal experience that the police take a long time to show up to a violent act. Where I used to live in Oregon the police response time was 30 minutes to 1 hour. In a city it could take anywhere from 2-15 minutes, or maybe longer.

If a mass shooter is shooting people, the best way to stop this act is for someone in the immediate vicinity to fight back and neutralize the offender. Actually this applies to any violent scenario, not just with guns. Beatings, fist fights, knife attacks, or anything else violent will be most effectively shut down if someone in the physical proximity at the time of the crime is able to stop it. And criminals know this. Criminals will be less likely to commit crimes of violence if they anticipate immediate retaliation.

So if the first option can be shown, empirically and logically to be effective, why do the second one? Because it makes you *feel* safer? This is a serious question -- why would granting power to people you don't know, who have a blatant history of corruption (I'm talking about US government entities), without any proper methods for relinquishing that power, be a better option?

Actually a lot of confrontations involve nobody dying. It's pretty easy to shoot someone in the leg, or to simply show a gun and not fire at all. Here's a recent one in Oregon, guns involved, no deaths and no firing (source). Here's another from Oregon involving a shooting, but no death (source).

Well actually I've never heard of anyone having access to anything other than guns that could only shoot once before "reloading". It's called semi-automatic. Unless you mean long manual reload times, sort of like a bolt action rifle or muskets that take a ball and powder reloading.

You know, at that same time there were lots of other "arms" besides just muskets. There were mines, morters, cannons, and the list of crazy shit goes on. Yet the original authors still chose the umbrella term "arms". They didn't write "muskets".

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying a little more now. I understand the idea of guns can be extremely scary. I understand mass shootings can be terrible. However many of your points you brought up are very emotionally charged -- which is fine! But these emotions are products of your personal experience, and it may not be fair to impose them onto other people, and they may not apply to other peoples' lives. They are very personal and hold a lot of important meanings for the beholder. These emotions may not even be your own, they can come from your parents, family, friends, or even from propaganda. Emotional responses like these can be very valuable in terms of self-reflection, motivation, or many other areas. But when it comes to telling other people what to do or what rights they should have, I think it may be more responsible to try and look more at statistics and reasoning.

Nobody gets to act as a literal jury, judge or executioner due only to owning a weapon. If a crime is commit there will be a trial and a punishment (unless nobody notices). Nowhere is it written that whoever owns guns is above the law. It can seem, or feel like a gun owner suddenly has god powers to temporarily act as judge or executioner, but that doesn't mean they are. It just means they have the ability to commit a crime. As shown above there isn't a law in the world that will prevent all violence. Often times regulations and laws most significantly affect law-abiding citizens, and criminals will be criminals nonetheless.

If guns are so terrifying I imagine that cars would be much more terrifying. A gun can be owned and pose no threat to anyone; guns cannot be fired unless the trigger is pulled. However, no matter what the situation is, anytime someone enters a car they put others around them at risk. In 2011 there were around 11k homicides involving guns (from above FBI source). That same year there were 32k motor vehicle deaths (source). If we factor in vehicle related injuries and gun related injuries (not just deaths) I bet you the disparage would be even more dramatic.

Cars are just way more dangerous than guns. So, shouldn't there be even stronger emotional responses to all the cars being driven? Why isn't this talked about nearly as much?

Post has been edited 11 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2016, 4:55 pm by CecilSunkure.

We consider it one in America. It has to do with being allowed to option to personally defend yourself and others. We basically have the human right to be self-reliant.

I really like having non-wall-of-text conversations. Anyone else wanna participate?

Perhaps when you say "Basic Human Right", you mean "American Constitutional Right". Here's the list of our 30 basic human rights, as outlined by the UDHR, stolen from here:


You could say this is just semantics, but these semantics are why some people in the thread found it appalling.

This last sentence is in conflict with itself. Correlation does not mean causation, as you say, and lack of correlation does not mean lack of causation.

This is why we have laws. If a criminal will be executed or imprisoned indefinitely for committing a crime, they will be less likely to commit the crime.

We still have murder and rape despite these laws, and we still have murder and rape despite these guns. These are unsatisfactory, or at the very least, incomplete solutions. Fear alone won't prevent all crime, and those that don't fear the legal risks of a crime aren't going to fear a gun owner (if anything, they'll just be more mentally prepared to resort to violence, because it will be kill or be killed at that point).

I'm looking at the charts, and I don't see how half a million incidents every year is not enough to warrant discussion on how we can better prevent guns from falling into the hands of those that want to bring harm to the innocent. I don't see how 8% of all violent crimes is so insignificant that we can't bring to the table some sane regulations that may potentially save lives in the future.

You're right that people overreact when an event such as this comes up, but I feel that obstinate rejection of any suggestion to improve things is an equal overreaction to protect the right to bear arms.

That statistic is ignoring armed security. In fact, it was a report to counter-point the alternate claim that 86% of mass shootings allowed guns on the premises. So it's really up to how you want to frame that data. My guess? Mass shooters pick large public events or areas, which are also generally events/areas where citizens are forbidden from bringing weaponry. Or are you honestly suggesting that allowing firearms into the Super Bowl is going to make it a safer event?

Since 1958? Are you kidding me? You just linked an article that showed gun violence was at its worst during that time, so of course it's lower now, but that doesn't mean it's because Chicago started issuing concealed carry permits. Like you said earlier: correlation is not causation. In the same vein I could link gun ownership to higher risk of suicide, increased risk of homicide, and increased risk of violent death in the home.

Unless properly trained, a citizen returning fire in a crowd is going to do more harm than good. It's also going to add to confusion. Hypothetically, if you hear multiple gunshots and see someone shooting into a crowd, do you draw your gun and kill them? What if they're firing back at the original shooter? What if you get shot for trying to shoot them? I don't see any scenario outside of fantasy where this would work, especially when you consider even self-defense within your own home has way too many cases of accidentally shooting a family member thought to be an intruder.

Training, certifications, permits. If that's what you're advocating, I can support that. But that training, those certifications, and those permits would all serve as the oversight on gun ownership that we are sorely lacking today.

I don't know everyone on the street or in the mall. Government employees are at the very least interviewed, most have background checks performed on them, and many are elected as representatives by the People: you know, you and me. I'm all for decentralizing, but your hard sell on the Big Bad Government just discredits your position as having an ulterior agenda from my perspective.

Why kill the other person if they don't also have a gun? Sand Wraith's point is that if the shopowner presented a gun to the armed robber, suddenly it's not just a robbery but a fight for survival. There's no sense harming the victim when they don't have a gun, but when they do and you don't want to die, maybe pulling the trigger isn't such a bad idea.

I'm pretty sure he is referencing oldschool muskets. The law was written when guns were very primitive, and you could argue that the level of sophistication makes them almost entirely new inventions. However I find it to be a weak argument, because the purpose of the Second Amendment is to form a well-regulated militia to prevent a centralized government from growing too powerful. It's barbaric and ineffective with further innovations in warfare, but that was the original intent. Honestly, interpreting the Second Amendment as "private, individual ownership of arms" is quite loose, but that is the modern interpretation.

Funny you should mention it, but we have far more regulation on the ownership of cars. And there is a huge movement to deal with the issue that is the human driver. But this is off-topic, because you're conflating accidental injury with intent to harm others. If you want to be genuine in the comparison, try to find a source for vehicular homicide / vehicular manslaughter and compare the numbers. The best I can find at the moment is 300, which is 37 times less than firearm homicide.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2016, 6:19 pm by Roy.

I feel like the intent of my post was m misdirected a lot.

By "no other possibility than one party dying" I mean that guns ensure a mutually assured destruction scenario and immediately escalate a situation to the extent that someone is going to get shot before or as the end to a conflict.

Since immediate retaliation is such a big factor, getting punched back or pepper sprayed would immediately resolve an issue just like shooting a gun. The difference is that the former options can't immediately kill a person as easily as a gun. In other words, since killing potential is not necessary, neither are guns in this situation.

This is also what I alluded to be "judge jury and executioner". Gun owners are not above the law. That is obvious by the fact that my entire suggestion is legislature and policy based. What I meant was that the entire process of decision making from "is this target a threat" to "if so, should I retaliate" to "is this a reasonable amount of force" and so on is compressed into practically blinks of an eye and all of it is demanded from one individual who is in a specific environment at the time. It's been demonstrated clearly enough that a significant number of people cannot perform this decision making so quickly and remain correct because any situation in which guns need to be pulled is going to be stressful and likely to have very little information ex. unlit house. In other words, it's deflection to try to point out that gun owners are still under the law. It's clearly not the issue

So no it's not "emotional and therefore invalid". It's about the science of behaviors when you put so much effective killing potential in an individual's hands and then they find themselves in a situation with cortisol and adrenaline flooding their body. It's about the emotional state of the gun user in that moment and how often this situation occurs and goes poorly.

When you mention "shooting in the leg," I'm bewildered. Police themselves have clearly demonstrated that they don't have this ability or training. An average gun user cannot possibly have this ability over someone whose job involves wielding power precisely. A gun user in a stressful and risky situation will never choose to shoot someone in the leg. The torso is the largest target and will be the target because someone under stress does not want to take risks.

Guns aren't terrifying. I'm quite sure i made it clear that the issue is not guns themselves but their traits combined with the context they exist in. On Canada they are legalized and I'm not worried over it because the culture doesn't have a blinding hard-on for them, the culture isn't obsessed over violence and power, the guns per capita isn't stupid high, and they are much more regulated than in the US.

The issue is not "guns", this is deflection. The issue is not how they compare to other methods in terms of rates of injury or death, this is deflection. It's specifically that they are barely regulated and over distributed. It's obvious that farm owners with guns aren't the issue.

It's unaddressed that so many people who clearly should not have guns have access to them due to the lax laws in place now.

Gun owners didn't rise up against the government over the NSA's illegal sitting. Nor the absurd detention rates of jails. Nor the shitty wealth distribution that is in a feedback loop with political groups lobbying the government. Nor the racial discrimination incorporated into law in the US's recent past. Gun owners will not rise up against any injustice or government except if the injustice or government action involves gun control ("control" not "take away the rights to"). (The previous sentence was hyperbole and meant to point out the next contradiction to be presented.) The intent of the people of the 19th century is moot and obviously flawed if you consider the possibility that the gun owners ARE the problem. And the intent was not for sport or personal safety, but that's how they are used and how they are relevant and why interpreting the original intent is irrelevant. It's even more irrelevant when considering that it's not the right that's being taken away under the proposal but it is being reasonably limited in a way that does not in any significant way impact its modern uses or potential to be used in the original intent.

I don't even personally care about this all that much. I watched a comedy routine by Jim Jeffreys and was reminded of how obviously corrupt the US is about guns, never mind if it's a discourse borne from stupidity.

Interestingly, however, stricter and better regulated gun control COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE ORLANDO SHOOTING. Because the shooter had mental health issues (although he never saw a professional), was previously suspected of ties to ISIS (effectively disproven), and had beaten his first wife (but maybe police were not involved). A very strict regulation or a highly holistic one would have prevented the shooting. Also, observe that I have not suggested an example of legislation that would have even realistically prevented the Orlando shooting, only that "better than what you have now”, vaguely.

To be relevant: the Orlando shooting would best have been prevented by a culture of not being homophobic (Omar was obv interested in guys), of not racism (Omar was radicalized under the context of having observed explicit racism himself towards goals and other Muslims and Black people), of being ready and willing and not shamed for trying to get or helping another get mental health support. Even in the context of today's gun laws he might not have done what he did. But like, AFAIK a huge chunk of the US wants nothing to do with any of that so meh. (and I'm sure I'm just preaching to the choir about these things anyway ^-^)

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2016, 8:06 pm by Sand Wraith.

You have the right to enlist in the military, assuming you meet the entrance criteria.

I guess you don't get the privilege for private ownership of an automatic weapon, even if you enlist in the military though.

But you also don't get the privilege to own a nuclear weapon or smallpox, or to go and rape everyone you please.

Civil society has limits, the idea being that placing restrictions on some activities, while curtailing those specific freedoms, increases freedoms for everyone in general. I like knowing I can walk the streets at night in my city and I'm at a very low risk of being shot by a mugger - that's a nice freedom to have, which many people in South Africa don't have for example.

Here is where some careful wording is needed. No correlation means there was no causation such that a correlation was shown. So if we're talking about the end results (the statistics) then yes, a rise in gun count did not cause a simultaneous rise in gun violence.

Of course there are factors external to these statistics. Perhaps a rise in gun count does create an upward influence upon gun violence, and some external factor zeroed out this effect creating a net drop. This may be the case. Nonetheless, as far as the stats go for current affairs, the rise in gun count did not cause a simultaneous rise in gun violence.


Oh I think we all agree it deserves attention. The point I'm attempting to make is the distinction between gun control that can potentially affect a non-handicapped citizen and gun control specifically for the handicapped. It can viewed as very important to make strong distinctions here. That's all. One way to make this point is to have two separate discussions: gun control involving the general and assumed healthy populace, and the fringe/outlier groups involving the mentally unstable.


And my point(s) are:

• There are quite a few gun violence incidents without death
  
• I would much prefer the option (i.e. right) to choose a gun as a defensive weapon. We can't choose what the criminals do, but at least we can defend ourselves in ways choose.

Well the original point was about the dangerousness of guns compared to the dangerousness of cars. As a metric for dangerousness I chose deaths, or fatalities. So perhaps a more fair comparison would be to include accidental gun-related deaths, which I'm having trouble finding a good figure out, such as from the FBI.

Either way I still think the original point was a good one: guns can be used passively while cars cannot. This is why there's so much car related violence and deaths. So sure, there's a little bit of conflation, but that's partially the point; guns and cars are different -- one can be used passively posing no harm to anyone. I bring this up since I feel it's a little bit irresponsible to bring so much attention to gun violence while neglecting other much more statistically violent topics. This is similar to how the topic of gun control for the general populace can shift towards the mentally unstable. Guns to cars is not all that far of a leap in comparison.


Pepper spray is definitely a good option in a lot of altercations. However I've seen quite a bit of the Cops TV show and have seen many people not react hardly at all to pepper spray. I imagine the emotional state, as well as any drugs present, can make a person either not care so much or not feel pepper spray as drastically as normal. Here's an example (graphic video). You can imagine if a man like this had a gun there would be no stopping him other than shooting him. Hopefully not a lethal shot, but if he's actively killing people a lethal shot is better than more victims.


Okay, I understand your opinion and now I'm interested in why it is a truth. How can I be as sure as you that some type of regulation could have stopped this shooting, or any other like it? In the FBI document I showed earlier it stated around 40% of weapons used in murders were obtained through illegal means. It would be great if there were some laws and regulations that would work, but what are they? And how would they prevent similar violent attacks like the knife attack in China I mentioned?

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Jul 7 2016, 11:34 pm by CecilSunkure.

My point is that you presented "proof" without having proved anything. Don't call it a proof if it's merely speculation from uncontrolled statistics.

So you sidestepped his point without acknowledging it. His argument is that if a robber points a gun at an unarmed victim, the robber is less likely to shoot than if the victim were armed. Do you concede or deny this opinion?

A fair comparison would be a per-capita comparison that takes into consideration the saturation of ownership, and even then, it's an unfair comparison because a car gets far more usage than a gun. But then this breaks down into a ludicrous comparison of hours of use vs number of incidents, which I can't imagine being favorable for your case at all.

It's an extremely far leap: they are not only used differently, but they are used for different purposes. A car is not a weapon by design, though it can be used like one (which is, statistically, very exceptional and rare). A gun is not a tool by design, though I imagine you could use it in place of one in rare instances.

Your example was also poorly chosen, since cars do receive much of the same attention (though not in huge outbursts, since vehicular homicide is much more rare): we have several laws and regulations on the minimum safety requirements of vehicles; we require a test of competency in order to operate one; we have mandated safety measures (such as seatbelt laws) to protect passengers; and there's tons of money being poured into research and development to make driving a safer experience for everyone. We even have severe punishment for the endangerment of other drivers and pedestrians while operating a vehicle, such as driving under the influence. All of this, plus all the regulations on emissions, registration, and insurance, make vehicles one of the most heavily-regulated assets in America. If your point was that guns don't deserve the attention because we need to pay more attention to cars, then both the reasoning and the premise are wrong: I'd be happy if guns got as much attention as cars.

Your point on criminals choosing locations with stricter gun control is a good one, and I'd have much rather you pursued that stance rather than the car analogy. There's something to be said about the psychology around the probability of success, and anything that could be considered a risk, such as a place with high concealed carry permits granted, would serve to deter a criminal looking to cause as much damage as possible.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Jul 8 2016, 1:34 am by Roy.

So I have been reading this topic for a while and have decided to step in regarding the current topic you have migrated to. All I have to say is: Look at how many many mass shootings occurred where somebody had a concealed carry permit. You probably do not know because you do not care to look. There have been several times where someone entered a public place with an automatic weapon and were shot by someone with a concealed carry permit before anybody was shot, more than there have actually been mass shootings.

Gun control does not stop mass shootings, if someone is willing to go that far, buying a gun illegally is relatively easy. There are sites where you can do just that and right now you can order guns part by part online. Then you just need to spend about 10 minutes drilling it and it goes from a harmless gun part to something you need to register, all without having had to buy it from a gun store. You say gun control prevents shootings, I say laxer control does and do many others. There is nothing that justifies taking away someone's rights. That is a very slippery slope, because what is next? Oh since Nazis are hateful fucks, they do not have the right to the first amendment? That is exactly what happened here in Sacramento, where people decided to attack these guys who actually went through all the proper channels to hold their rally. They weren't hurting anyone, doing anything wrong, or illegal. They might be morally wrong in the public opinion, but that doesn't mean I can go burn a church down because I think religion is a scam.

Adjusting an amendment isn't that simple, because you are proposing that not only the 2nd be adjusted, but the 5th as well. And that is just what comes off the top of my head.

My biggest point is this: What is the definition of a criminal? Someone that does what they are not supposed to. So you want to issue out gun control to restrict the availability of weapons to law abiding citizens? Good job, you solved literally nothing. Gun control has been the platform of countless politicians for years because of the uninformed people out there that think weapons can actual be regulated. These politicians use it as a free ride into office. There are three things that "should be banned" but will never happen, because of something we learned from the 18th amendment: Firearms, Tobacco, and Alcohol. Countries literally exist because of these, ours actually found it's prosperity from our military/weapons.

There are countless attempts at legislation (using attempt here because it is downright sad), where politicians throw bans and restrictions because the popular opinion is that we do not need guns. Now they have been trying their damnedest to ban everything they can about assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Alright fine, I hear ya, those can easily be related to mass murders. From here on I am not going to explain much, but feel free to use Google. Now they introduce shit like bullet buttons, banning barrel shrouds, limiting the capacity of magazines, what calibers can be used, what types of pistols because obviously cylinder-based firearms are not as dangerous. That last part is something that always cracks me up, because there are several reasons why cylinders (revolvers) are preferred over slides (pistols). For one, you can shoot them out of your damn pocket if you have trouble getting it out. If you think you are going to shoot your leg off doing that, you have not handled many firearms in your life. Right now I use that as an example because of the latest "hands up don't shoot" incident where they think he couldn't fire the revolver that was still in his pocket. You could be rolling around on the ground with somebody and if you can get your hand in your pocket, it is overwhelmingly possible to shoot them in the gut multiple times.

Getting a bit off track here, so I will just finish with a statement: Sure, more gun control could have prevented the shooting. Allowing security to have a gun could have too, but other legislation aimed at gun control prevented that. And if gun control gets too strict, that will begin to fund organized crime because they will start to see offering guns as a profitable business. Or it will prevent someone that is in fear of their life from a stalker, maybe they wanted a gun for their house because they live in a bad area or there has been a string of break-ins. Stricter gun control means longer waiting periods and the process more annoying for a regular person interested in self defense, deterring them from getting one. This and other legislation aimed at gun stores, increases the price of weapons drastically. All of that goes back to illegal guns being cheaper and more affordable to criminals, where they are more expensive for a law abiding citizen.

All of this could be stopped by a good can of pepper spray, but people think that is "lame." I have a can in my center console and anyone that says that is some feminine shit, get sprayed by a good brand of pepper spray which you can look up yourself. You specifically want to see it's effective range and where it sits on the Scoville scale. My friends and I prefer Fox, which altogether is just short of 30 years of Security, Military, and/or Law Enforcement experience. It doesn't matter who gets sprayed by it, they are not going to be very effective killers when they cannot see, breath, think, and if they are screaming, hear.

This seems anecdotally relevant: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/81893898/brave-kebab-shop-owner-i-was-sure-he-would-not-shoot-me

Guy came into the kebab shop with a gun, trying to rob the owner. Owner just continues on his business, serving the other customers their meal, and then calmly walks into the kitchen and calls the police. Robber gives up and leaves. Nothing was escalated, and not a single bullet was fired.

I think most criminals actually don't want to shoot people, really. If you're trying to do a robbery, you really just want to get away with the cash. Being forced to shoot someone gets you in a whole heap more trouble.

Part of comprehensive gun control is to make such things illegal.

Do you think it would be legal to buy a car, part by part, and assemble it yourself and drive it on the road? It would need to be registered and properly inspected for safety etc, as Roy outlined. The only purpose to sell guns part by part is purely so you can assemble a gun yourself (or repair an existing one - but part of regulating such things means only registered people can become gun repairers, to control this very avenue of offense).

Also FYI, in New Zealand pepper spray is considered an offensive weapon and it is illegal for private ownership. You can have guns (rifles for hunting / farm work) but need a firearms license. Guns must be locked in an approved secured cabinet at all times, unloaded, with their ammo locked separately in the same or different cabinet. When you move house, you must inform the police of your movements, and they reserve the right to inspect your new location to ensure your guns are adequately secured. You can't own a pistol unless you're a member of a gun shooting club, and you can only carry the pistol with you when you are directly on your way to or from the registered firing range. You know how many accidental gun deaths we have?

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Jul 8 2016, 1:06 am by Lanthanide.

A rifle is a lot easier to hide than a vehicle. My point here being that I am all for people having to register weapons for use and sale. However, making them harder to purchase is not the right direction to go.


That is ridiculous, I have recommended pepper spray to everyone who wants something for self-defense and was wary about getting a gun/weapon. Guess I could see the point because it could be used as a weapon, but it sounds like you guys rely an awful lot on police for security, which is something we could not do here in Sacramento, California. Response times are horrible and you can forget about proactive policing where disputes are handled in a preventative manner.

All I have to say about accidental shootings is yeah, the chance of a firearm related injury in your house goes up when you get a gun. So does your chance of drowning when you have a bathtub or a pool.

We don't have a culture of violence, gun or otherwise, like America does.

Both of which provide regular amenity benefits. Guns are supposedly only for "self defense" in case of an intruder, which very rarely happens. And if the intruder themselves doesn't have a gun, then your need for a gun is considerably less, as well. Yes, people can come at you with knives and things, but a knife is a lot less deadly than a gun, and the average criminal will feel a lot bolder when armed with a gun than they would when armed with a knife.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 8 2016, 7:47 pm by Lanthanide.

If someone has a knife, I want a gun. Not another knife.