should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

Bimps · 2018-02-18 18:41:29

ever since the florida school shooting on wednesday, gun control has been a widely discussed topic. should the 2nd amendment be repealed, or is another solution needed?

Xfrogman43 · 2018-02-18 19:00:59

kill all people and let guns roam free, people used them wrong and they got abused ;(:(

Zumza · 2018-02-18 19:16:17

As a non-american I don't really understand the deep influences that a change like this can have.
I consider that USA should align itself to modern gun laws of the other well-developed countries.
The hard part won't be in changing the law but rather in changing mentalities.

LukeM, mutantdevle

Anak · 2018-02-18 19:56:20

Being from the UK I can't fathom why it hasn't happened yet considering that when we began enforcing stricter gun control after just one school shooting we saw immediate improvements, and I don't recall another mass shooting in this country happening since. Australia is another good example of this, and Japan's system as well.

It's real disheartening to see that after every mass shooting in the US it comes to the same conclusion. Gun control really should have been enforced after Sandy Hook, if anything, especially since it seems nothing else has worked. I know a bunch of students in Florida are planning sitouts and protests, hopefully something will come about from them

LukeM

Luka504 · 2018-02-18 21:55:40

Gun control is a weird subject to talk about, mostly since you have no real idea what might happen if Gun control is enforced.
It could be the same as drug prohibition, where you are actually causing more damage than before these stricter rules were enforced. If you remove people's guns that they acquired legally and planned to use only for self defense and never had any intention of harming anyone, then you are only making it easier for people with malicious intentions to attack them without fear of retaliation. And this is why there will be a big outcry in the US about legal gun ownership. And for those that really wish to bear arms, they will just start getting guns via illegal methods, and then we will have to arrest innocent people and waste even more taxpayer money trying to regulate them.
Now I'm definetly not against gun control, I am very much up for it if we reach a net positive with it. However, people really, really need to look at the bigger picture instead of connecting two dots without thinking.

Kira · 2018-02-18 22:21:21

my girlfriend lives in florida

don't remove guns please

Zumza · 2018-02-18 22:59:46

Luka504 wrote:

planned to use only for self defense and never had any intention of harming anyone

Arming yourself in the name of self-defence will always just raise concerns and make conflicts inevitable. During Cold War, if a country would had made a rocket, the opponent would had made 3 and so on, in the name of self-defence. It's a loop. You won't need a weapon if your enemy doesn't have a weapon.

Luka504 wrote:

And for those that really wish to bear arms, they will just start getting guns via illegal methods, and then we will have to arrest innocent people and waste even more taxpayer money trying to regulate them.

If every manufacturer/ seller would have a strict evidence of who sold to whom and who holds which type of gun, it will be unlikely for procuring illegal guns. If a gun is stolen, the owner should have the obligation to announce officials, and they should also be accused of negligence. Most of the tax should be supported for those who sell the guns. Already sold weapons will be indeed hard to manage.

In America theres a strong cult of guns, that can't be fixed over night. Who would push the button of distorting a whole industry?

All in all, it would be better if gun possession in urban environments to be heavily favoured against.

Zoey2070 · 2018-02-19 01:09:07

Jonathan Blunk, age 26
Alexander J. Boik, age 18
Jesse Childress, age 29
Gordon Cowden
Jessica Ghawi
John Larimer, age 2
Matt McQuinn, age 27
Micayla Medek, age 23
Veronica Moser-Sullivan, age 6
Alex Sullivan, age 27
Alexander C. Teves, age 24
Rebecca Wingo
Zina Haughton, 42
Cary L. Robuck
Maelyn M. Lind
Nancy Lanza, 52
Rachel D'Avino, 29
Dawn Hochsprung, 47
Anne Marie Murphy, 52
Lauren Rousseau, 30
Mary Sherlach, 56
Victoria Leigh Soto, 27
Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Dylan Hockley, 6
Madeleine Hsu, 6
Catherine Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
Ana Márquez-Greene, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Avielle Richman, 6
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison Wyatt, 6
Charleston Hartfield, 34, Las Vegas
Brett Schwanbeck, 61, Bullhead City, Ariz.
Austin Meyer, 24, Reno
Pati Mestas, 67, Menifee, California
Nicol Kimura, 38, Placentia, California
Christopher Hazencomb, 44, Camarillo, California
Andrea Castilla, 28, Huntington Beach, California
Carly Kreibaum, 33, Sutherland, Iowa
Steve Berger, 44, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Brian Fraser, 39, Walnut, California
Derrick "Bo" Taylor, 56, Oxnard, California
Denise Cohen, 58, Carpinteria, California
Christiana Duarte, 22, Torrance, California
Candice Bowers, 40, Garden Grove, California
Lisa Patterson, 46, Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Rocio Guillen Rocha, 40, Eastvale, California
Jordyn Rivera, 21, San Bernardino, California
Austin Davis, 29, Riverside, California
Laura Shipp, 50, Thousand Oaks, California
Keri Galvan, 51, Thousand Oaks, California
Tara Roe Smith, 34, Okotoks, Alberta, Canada
Calla Medig, 28, Jasper, Alberta, Canada
Carrie Parsons, 31, Seattle, Washington
Cameron Robinson, 28, St. George, Utah
Michelle Vo, 32, Los Angeles, California
Brennan Stewart, 30, Las Vegas
Erick Silva, 21, Las Vegas
Dorene Anderson, 49, Anchorage, Alaska
Heather Alvarado, 35, Enoch, Utah
Hannah Ahlers, 34, Beaumont, California
Stacee Etcheber, 50, Novato, California
Christopher Roybal, 28, Denver, Colorado
Victor Link, 55, San Clemente, California
Melissa Ramirez, 26, Bakersfield, California
Kelsey Meadows, 28, Taft, California
Dana Gardner, 52, Grand Terrace, California
Bill Wolfe, Jr., 42, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania
Carrie Barnette, 34, Garden Grove, California
Thomas Day Jr., 54, Corona, California
Jennifer Parks, 36, Lancaster, California
Kurt Von Tillow, 55, Cameron Park, California
Jack Beaton, 54, Bakersfield, California
Denise Burditus, 50, Martinsburg, West Virginia
Sandy Casey, 35, Redondo Beach, California
Angie Gomez, 20, Riverside, California
Jennifer Irvine, 42, San Diego
Jessica Klymchuk, 34, Valleyview, Alberta, Canada
Rhonda LeRocque, 42, Tewksbury, Massachusetts
Jordan McIldoon, 23, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada
Sonny Melton, 29, Paris, Tennessee
Adrian Murfitt, 35, Anchorage, Alaska
Rachel Parker, 33, Manhattan Beach, California
John Phippen, 57, Valencia, California
Quintin Robbins, 20, Henderson
Lisa Romero-Muniz, 48, Gallup, New Mexico
Bailey Schweitzer, 20, Bakersfield, California
Susan Smith, 53, Simi Valley, California
Neysa Tonks, 46, Las Vegas
Lucero Alcaraz, 19
Treven Taylor Anspach, 20
Rebecka Ann Carnes, 18
Quinn Glen Cooper, 18
Kim Saltmarsh Dietz, 59
Lucas Eibel, 18
Jason Dale Johnson, 33
Lawrence Levine, 67
Sarena Dawn Moore, 44
Alyssa Alhadeff, 14
Scott Beigel, 35
Martin Duque, 14
Nicholas Dworet, 17
Aaron Feis, 37
Jaime Guttenberg, 14
Chris Hixon, 49
Luke Hoyer, 15
Cara Loughran, 14
Gina Montalto, 14
Joaquin Oliver, 17
Alaina Petty, 14
Meadow Pollack, 18
Helena Ramsay, 17
Alex Schachter, 14
Carmen Schentrup, 16
Peter Wang, 15
Daniel Parmertor, 16
Russell King, Jr., 17
Demetrius Hewlin
Stanley Almodovar III, age 23
Amanda Alvear, 25
Oscar A. Aracena-Montero, 26
Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala, 33
Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21
Martin Benitez Torres, 33
Antonio D. Brown, 30
Darryl R. Burt II, 29
Jonathan A. Camuy Vega, 24
Angel L. Candelario-Padro, 28
Simon A. Carrillo Fernandez, 31
Juan Chevez-Martinez, 25
Luis D. Conde, 39
Cory J. Connell, 21
Tevin E. Crosby, 25
Franky J. Dejesus Velazquez, 50
Deonka D. Drayton, 32
Mercedez M. Flores, 26
Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz, 22
Juan R. Guerrero, 22
Paul T. Henry, 41
Frank Hernandez, 27
Miguel A. Honorato, 30
Javier Jorge-Reyes, 40
Jason B. Josaphat, 19
Eddie J. Justice, 30
Anthony L. Laureano Disla, 25
Christopher A. Leinonen, 32
Brenda L. Marquez McCool, 49
Jean C. Mendez Perez, 35
Akyra Monet Murray, 18
Kimberly Morris, 37
Jean C. Nieves Rodriguez, 27
Luis O. Ocasio-Capo, 20
Geraldo A. Ortiz-Jimenez, 25
Eric Ivan Ortiz-Rivera, 36
Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32
Enrique L. Rios Jr., 25
Juan P. Rivera Velazquez, 37
Yilmary Rodriguez Solivan, 24
Christopher J. Sanfeliz, 24
Xavier Emmanuel Serrano Rosado, 35
Gilberto Ramon Silva Menendez, 25
Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34
Shane E. Tomlinson, 33
Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25
Luis S. Vielma, 22
Luis Daniel Wilson-Leon, 37
Jerald A. Wright, 31
Cindy Ann Yuille
Steven Forsyth
Robert Adams 40
Isaac Amanios 60
Bennetta Betbadal 46
Harry Bowman 46
Sierra Clayborn 27
Juan Espinoza 50
Aurora Godoy 26
Shannon Johnson 45
Larry Daniel Kaufman 42
Damian Meins 58
Tin Nguyen 31
Nicholas Thalasinos 52
Yvette Velasco 27
Michael Wetzel 37
Brian Bachmann (41)
Chris Northcliff (43)
Reuven Rahamim, 61
Keith Basinski, 50
Rami Cooks, 62,
Ronald Edberg, 58
Jacob Beneke, 34
Eric Rivers, 42
Tshering Rinzing Bhutia, 38
Doris Chibuko, 40
Sonam Chodon, 33
Grace Eunhae Kim, 23
Katleen Ping, 24
Judith Seymour, 53
Lydia Sim, 21
Joseph Albanese, 52
Andrew Keriakedes, 49
Kimberly Lynn Layfield, 36
Donald Largen, 57
Gloria Leonidas, 52

this is a list of only some of the people who've been killed in mass shootings in the US since 2012. i was going to do every single one but ran out of attention span before i finished with everyone from 2012. so here's people from pulse, las vegas, florida, sandy hook, and ones i can't even remember the name of. you scrolled past them without thinking, taking them in, reading. they're all people. every single one of them. there's ones older than you and younger than you, and a high chance of them sharing a birthday with you. and they're all dead now.

so yeah there's more than 200 reasons why gun control NEEDS to improve.
all of these people had lives and thoughts and feelings, and now they don't. guns kill without discrimination.

dunno how many MORE people have to die for the US to realize that, but I mean... once you gun down a bunch of elementary schoolers... or have the record for deadliest mass shooting surpassed within a year... kinda a sign something needs to be done

Zumza, Slabdrill, LukeM, mutantdevle, BuzzerBee, N1KF, cpcrabs

TaskManager · 2018-02-19 01:42:08

Zoey2070 wrote:

Russell King, Jr., 17

huh??
lrussell?
honestly i would say something on this but considering how **** the whole situation with gun laws is i dont even know if theres a possible solution for this
people had guns for ages in that country and trying to revoke all of these guns would be a ****
not to mention that many people are butthurt over trump and this might push them to start an armed uprising

Tomahawk · 2018-02-19 02:06:44

TaskManager, Xfrogman43, Slabdrill, LukeM, mutantdevle, Offensive Ray

Anak · 2018-02-19 02:07:36

Luka504 wrote:

If you remove people's guns that they acquired legally and planned to use only for self defense and never had any intention of harming anyone, then you are only making it easier for people with malicious intentions to attack them without fear of retaliation.

A lot of the time when people talk about knife crime in the UK they say that those who own knives for "self defense" get killed by their own. Can't provide any statistics off the top of my head, but I think it's a similar concept. Owning guns out of self defense with no intention of harming anyone etc. just means you have a dangerous weapon in your hands. There are tons of stories of kids playing with their parents guns and then shooting and injuring/killing themselves. I know for sure I wouldn't feel any safer knowing people have guns in self defense than if they didn't.

Luka504 wrote:

And this is why there will be a big outcry in the US about legal gun ownership. And for those that really wish to bear arms, they will just start getting guns via illegal methods, and then we will have to arrest innocent people and waste even more taxpayer money trying to regulate them.

How often do you think this is going to happen? Because I don't hear about it often if at all in any countries that do have gun control.
Plus, those who really wish to bear arms would assumably have to go through a process, be tested and educated on their usage, and get licensed for them, so long as they're not identified as at risk of harming themselves or anyone else.

Not sure if you or anyone else if familiar with Australia's policies, but they have occasional periods where people can hand in their guns to be destroyed, free of penalty (there might be a cash incentive but I don't remember correctly). This one resulted in 50k firearms being collected, and I think they already had 2 before this. I haven't heard about a mass shooting in Australia since then.

Zoey2070 wrote:

this is a list of only some of the people who've been killed in mass shootings in the US since 2012. i was going to do every single one but ran out of attention span before i finished with everyone from 2012. so here's people from pulse, las vegas, florida, sandy hook, and ones i can't even remember the name of. you scrolled past them without thinking, taking them in, reading. they're all people. every single one of them. there's ones older than you and younger than you, and a high chance of them sharing a birthday with you. and they're all dead now.

It's still so unfathomable to me that after all that time, there are so many names and lives added to that list, and still nothing has happened. I've thought about the Pulse shooting a lot since it happened and it never escapes me. I know things are relatively ok in this country but going out and into spaces where you're supposed to feel safe and in a community and not being able to shake off the fear that something terrible will happen shouldn't be something projected onto you.

mrjawapa · 2018-02-19 03:15:08

Zoey2070 wrote:

easons why gun control NEEDS to improve.

any suggestions on how?

Tomahawk wrote:

https://s10.postimg.org/ny67iiu95/3_AD7 … _C4_DC.jpg

aka how to ban guns without actually banning guns

According to this website, japan has ~127,000,000 people, united states has ~326,000,000 (~2.5x the population). More people = more deaths.
If I did my math right, and balanced things out correctly, japan would have 11 gun deaths, and the united states 28. Not that those numbers are any better, just not as miss leading.

Anak wrote:

How often do you think this is going to happen? Because I don't hear about it often if at all in any countries that do have gun control.

people obtain guns illegally all the time.

When ever gun control is a hot topic, gun sales go up.

Bimps · 2018-02-19 03:25:27

mrjawapa wrote:

According to this website, japan has ~127,000,000 people, united states has ~326,000,000 (~2.5x the population). More people = more deaths.
If I did my math right, and balanced things out correctly, japan would have 11 gun deaths, and the united states 28. Not that those numbers are any better, just not as miss leading.

i honestly dont know how you went from 12000 to 28

Ratburntro44 · 2018-02-19 04:15:00

Zumza wrote:

Arming yourself in the name of self-defence will always just raise concerns and make conflicts inevitable. During Cold War, if a country would had made a rocket, the opponent would had made 3 and so on, in the name of self-defence. It's a loop. You won't need a weapon if your enemy doesn't have a weapon.

not really comparable since states exist in anarchy and the marginal effect is very distributed for individuals

Luka504 · 2018-02-19 07:40:49

Anak wrote:

A lot of the time when people talk about knife crime in the UK they say that those who own knives for "self defense" get killed by their own. Can't provide any statistics off the top of my head, but I think it's a similar concept. Owning guns out of self defense with no intention of harming anyone etc. just means you have a dangerous weapon in your hands.

Except it's not really similar at all? You can't just use statistics from one and say the same applies to the other.
Self defense knives are a lot, lot easier to obtain that self defense guns, and as such owning knives isn't really against the law, while with guns you have to go through a few processes and you have to pay (I'm assuming) thousands of dollars to get a gun and ammo. People who own both a knife and a gun will take much better care of their gun since it is a lot more valuable, it's just common sense.

Anak wrote:

There are tons of stories of kids playing with their parents guns and then shooting and injuring/killing themselves. I know for sure I wouldn't feel any safer knowing people have guns in self defense than if they didn't.

Yes let's tack on bad parenting into gun control.
If you just leave your gun somewhere where your children can easily get it and play with it, you are just an astonishingly bad parent.

Anak wrote:

How often do you think this is going to happen? Because I don't hear about it often if at all in any countries that do have gun control.
Plus, those who really wish to bear arms would assumably have to go through a process, be tested and educated on their usage, and get licensed for them, so long as they're not identified as at risk of harming themselves or anyone else.

Great but if just suddenly added these rules, EVERY single US citizen who wishes to bear arms will have to get a stupid license and deal with these garbage regulations and have to deal with everybody else who also wish to bear legal arms
Now, you could do all that garbage of constant regulations and processes, OR you can take the easier road and just get it via illegal methods without the hassle?
The more requirements you tack onto legal gun ownership, especially in a gun-loving place such as the USA, then the more likely people will be just get them illegally.
And after these laws are enforced and people start getting them illegally, we then have to enforce those same gun control laws. And if this turns out to be a war on drugs 2.0, then I'm expecting another wave of mass incarceration, corruption, political destabilitisation and human rights abuse. And the taxpayers get to pay for all of it.

Anak wrote:

Not sure if you or anyone else if familiar with Australia's policies, but they have occasional periods where people can hand in their guns to be destroyed, free of penalty (there might be a cash incentive but I don't remember correctly). This one resulted in 50k firearms being collected, and I think they already had 2 before this. I haven't heard about a mass shooting in Australia since then.

Can you just stop using other countries and saying the same principles apply to the US?
You seem to have left out some information, namely that Australia only has roughly one or two mass attacks during a year, with the only exception being 2014 which had like 4 or 5.
So having no mass murders during most of 2017 is just because Australian people are less likely to commit mass murder, not because they confiscated 50K guns.
And one more thing, the article says that there are still 260 000 guns still unaccounted for. So out of roughly 300K guns they only have 50K.
That's a success rate of 16,66%. It's a good number, but not really what you make it out to be.

LukeM · 2018-02-19 09:20:59

I'd say comparing gun control between countries is better than comparing it to drugs however...

The main problem with the war on drugs is that drugs are addictive, so people taking them need help stopping, and when what they are doing is illegal you're pushing them away from the help they need. If guns were illegal yes there may be less regulations on the quality of those weapons, but it could get nowhere near as bad as drugs can, as badly made drugs are very likely to seriously harm you, there is only a relatively fine range of qualities of guns that will explode when you shoot them or whatever, and even that (I'm guessing) isn't that likely to cause serious harm if it's just a small gun.

Anak · 2018-02-19 17:40:01

Luka504 wrote:

Anak wrote:
A lot of the time when people talk about knife crime in the UK they say that those who own knives for "self defense" get killed by their own. Can't provide any statistics off the top of my head, but I think it's a similar concept. Owning guns out of self defense with no intention of harming anyone etc. just means you have a dangerous weapon in your hands.
Except it's not really similar at all? You can't just use statistics from one and say the same applies to the other.
Self defense knives are a lot, lot easier to obtain that self defense guns, and as such owning knives isn't really against the law, while with guns you have to go through a few processes and you have to pay (I'm assuming) thousands of dollars to get a gun and ammo. People who own both a knife and a gun will take much better care of their gun since it is a lot more valuable, it's just common sense.

Except I can bc it applies? Lol. If you have a dangerous weapon on your person then it's more likely someone will get hurt with it, be it yourself or someone else.

Luka504 wrote:

Anak wrote:
There are tons of stories of kids playing with their parents guns and then shooting and injuring/killing themselves. I know for sure I wouldn't feel any safer knowing people have guns in self defense than if they didn't.
Yes let's tack on bad parenting into gun control.
If you just leave your gun somewhere where your children can easily get it and play with it, you are just an astonishingly bad parent.

That's fair, however if you didn't have a gun in the first place that probably wouldn't happen. Plus, if the US adopted the Japanese method of having the firearm in one safe and the ammo in another, then I'm certain that would happen far less often as well.

Luka504 wrote:

Anak wrote:
How often do you think this is going to happen? Because I don't hear about it often if at all in any countries that do have gun control.
Plus, those who really wish to bear arms would assumably have to go through a process, be tested and educated on their usage, and get licensed for them, so long as they're not identified as at risk of harming themselves or anyone else.
Great but if just suddenly added these rules, EVERY single US citizen who wishes to bear arms will have to get a stupid license and deal with these garbage regulations and have to deal with everybody else who also wish to bear legal arms
Now, you could do all that garbage of constant regulations and processes, OR you can take the easier road and just get it via illegal methods without the hassle?
The more requirements you tack onto legal gun ownership, especially in a gun-loving place such as the USA, then the more likely people will be just get them illegally.

Of course there are going to be people who will obtain guns illegally. People do anything illegally if they really want to, because that's just how people are lol. The point is that:
A. Gun control laws such as licensing and regulations will make it extremely harder for people to obtain a gun. Those who don't want to go through all of that hassle to get one legally or illegally won't bother, which I imagine is a large amount of people.
B. Prosecutions of those who illegally possess firearms after these laws are passed will act as a deterrent to others who might go down the same route.
C. Why shouldn't the US make it harder for people? It's undeniable looking at all the data from other countries (which I will touch on next) that stricter policies on gun control lead to less gun related deaths. It won't completely eliminate gun related deaths, especially not right away, but that shouldn't be a reason against stricter policies. Just because we won't see an ultimate result immediately (or at all) doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It's way better to have stricter policies leading to less deaths than no policies with all of the mass murders we've had so far.

Luka504 wrote:

And after these laws are enforced and people start getting them illegally, we then have to enforce those same gun control laws. And if this turns out to be a war on drugs 2.0, then I'm expecting another wave of mass incarceration, corruption, political destabilitisation and human rights abuse. And the taxpayers get to pay for all of it.

Personally I think this is a bit of a different story, especially with the mass incarceration part, since the war on drugs largely targets black people (and other people of colour but mainly black people) in the US anyways. I think that if "the war on guns" as it were leads to mass incarceration and the rest like that, it would still be more of a racial issue than a firearms issue.

Luka504 wrote:

Anak wrote:
Not sure if you or anyone else if familiar with Australia's policies, but they have occasional periods where people can hand in their guns to be destroyed, free of penalty (there might be a cash incentive but I don't remember correctly). This one resulted in 50k firearms being collected, and I think they already had 2 before this. I haven't heard about a mass shooting in Australia since then.
Can you just stop using other countries and saying the same principles apply to the US?

I'm not going to stop referring to other countries, because they are relevant. These are important statistics that should be factored into the discussion. There are tons of examples of what happens when stricter policies on gun control are enforced, so we use that data to give good ideas of what may happens if those policies are enforced where they currently aren't. Of course it may not be perfect and the US could very well be an outlier, but there is a common trend that were there are stricter policies on gun control, there are less mass shootings and gun related deaths. If you want me to back that up I'm happy to look for some credible sources.

Luka504 wrote:

You seem to have left out some information, namely that Australia only has roughly one or two mass attacks during a year, with the only exception being 2014 which had like 4 or 5.

I left out that information because I wasn't aware it existed. It wasn't purposeful. If you point me to a source on that I'll read it.

Luka504 wrote:

So having no mass murders during most of 2017 is just because Australian people are less likely to commit mass murder, not because they confiscated 50K guns.

It'd be great if you could back this up to because it doesn't quite make sense to me as a baseless claim.

Luka504 wrote:

And one more thing, the article says that there are still 260 000 guns still unaccounted for. So out of roughly 300K guns they only have 50K.
That's a success rate of 16,66%. It's a good number, but not really what you make it out to be.

I didn't particularly make it out to be greater than what it was. You're right that it is a good number, and assumably they will continue with the amnesties and rake up more guns collected and destroyed. Of course they're not going to get every single one in one go, but from what I've seen, they have good results.

mrjawapa · 2018-02-19 17:47:04

Anak wrote:

firearm in one safe and the ammo in another

That applies in a couple instances, here.

Usually it's only in vehicles, unless you have ccw.

XxAtillaxX · 2018-02-19 18:52:09

I'm in favor of rigorous background checks. I'm informed of the statistics originating from the Nordic countries, which serves as conclusive evidence in favor of strict gun control, although I strongly value freedom and in respect to gun regulation it'd have to be entirely reasonable, with increasingly less restrictions upon those who are responsible gun owners for a certain period of time.

I'm not against firearms in the slightest, either. I enjoy recreational shooting and I subscribe to several firearm/weaponry related channels. I highly recommend Skallagrim.
In fact, the majority of the American people are in favor of gun regulation, which isn't at all what the NRA would like you to believe. It's been shown in several polls already.

64% of Americans support gun reform.
83% of Democrats.
58% of Independents.
49% of GOPers, (45% oppose)
55% of gun owners.
79% on banning bump stocks.
88% on background checks.
76% on banning assault weapons.
72% on banning high capacity magazines.
76% on waiting periods.

Luka504, mrjawapa, LukeM

Anak · 2018-02-19 19:36:16

mrjawapa wrote:

Anak wrote:
firearm in one safe and the ammo in another
That applies in a couple instances, here.
Usually it's only in vehicles, unless you have ccw.

Yes, I think I read something like you can't step out of your vehicle if you have a weapon in it until you reach your destination or something like that.

Tomahawk · 2018-02-19 19:51:51

I reckon gun ownership should be banned entirely, or else restricted to the point where it's not worth the effort unless you make money from it.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

64% of Americans support gun reform.

Fantastic; fully one in three people don't want it. So encouraging.

Abelysk · 2018-02-19 20:16:07

Luka504 wrote:

Now, you could do all that garbage of constant regulations and processes, OR you can take the easier road and just get it via illegal methods without the hassle?

You really think Nikolas Cruz would have been able to buy a gun illegally without gaining federal attention?

Here's the argument about illegal guns--if you're caught, you're caught. You go to jail. Nikolas Cruz would have been long put in jail if he tried showing off illegal guns on Instagram and social media...

If gun regulations from Japan were applied to the US, Nikolas would NOT have been able to obtain a gun at all. This is due to his mental state. Plus, he'd have to get checked every year.

Some people can get away with buying illegal firearms, but it'll be a lot more risky. Don't think everyone will buy illegal firearms when regulations are applied, that's a silly train of thought. That isn't what's happening in Yakuza-riddled Japan, is it now?

Luka504 · 2018-02-19 20:51:33

Anak wrote:

Except I can bc it applies? Lol. If you have a dangerous weapon on your person then it's more likely someone will get hurt with it, be it yourself or someone else.

Thanks for ignoring everything else I just said.
My point was that knives and guns are very different and as such people treat them differently, and you should too. It is true that just having a weapon inside of your home technically increases the chance of you getting hurt, but that logic is really wishy washy, since with it you can make statements such as:
''This very old cupcake that was made last year is 100 calories, so that means this freshly baked cupcake must ALSO be 100 calories. It's the same food so they must be the same.''
Not really a statement about guns and knives, but you get the idea. You need to stop comparing two different things and then say that they are the same. They're not.

Anak wrote:

Of course there are going to be people who will obtain guns illegally. People do anything illegally if they really want to, because that's just how people are lol. The point is that:
A. Gun control laws such as licensing and regulations will make it extremely harder for people to obtain a gun. Those who don't want to go through all of that hassle to get one legally or illegally won't bother, which I imagine is a large amount of people.

Correction, it will make it harder for honest people to obtain a gun via legal methods. The more complicated you make legal gun ownership, the more people will turn to illegal gun ownership. I definetly will not deny that the new laws will drive some people away from gun ownership entirely, but I am very skeptical it's gonna reach mass adoption as you think it will. US citizens just really love their second constitutional right. Convincing a majority of them to just switch to these new laws without a public outcry is essentially impossible. AKA the US is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Anak wrote:

B. Prosecutions of those who illegally possess firearms after these laws are passed will act as a deterrent to others who might go down the same route.

You mean just how it stopped all the mass murderers? Or all the drug addicts? Or really most serious crimes?
I know I said that you shouldn't compare two unrelated things and say they are the same, but you can't just scare people into not owning guns. Also while we are on the topic, how do you believe people should be punished for illegal gun ownership if they are caught?

Anak wrote:

C. Why shouldn't the US make it harder for people? It's undeniable looking at all the data from other countries (which I will touch on next) that stricter policies on gun control lead to less gun related deaths. It won't completely eliminate gun related deaths, especially not right away, but that shouldn't be a reason against stricter policies. Just because we won't see an ultimate result immediately (or at all) doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It's way better to have stricter policies leading to less deaths than no policies with all of the mass murders we've had so far.

I agree with you there, and I am not against gun control, despite the fact how hard I may be attacking it, however there are a lot of things that need consideration before such laws are passed, since if we do it wrong it could just start a downward spiral and make the situation worse than it was before, kind of like the War on Drugs. So far most people just say to have stricter gun laws without looking at the bigger picture and the damage it might cause.

Anak wrote:

I'm not going to stop referring to other countries, because they are relevant. These are important statistics that should be factored into the discussion. There are tons of examples of what happens when stricter policies on gun control are enforced, so we use that data to give good ideas of what may happens if those policies are enforced where they currently aren't. Of course it may not be perfect and the US could very well be an outlier, but there is a common trend that were there are stricter policies on gun control, there are less mass shootings and gun related deaths. If you want me to back that up I'm happy to look for some credible sources.

Ok whatever you win. Let's just see how the discussion goes from here.

Anak wrote:

I left out that information because I wasn't aware it existed. It wasn't purposeful. If you point me to a source on that I'll read it.

A list of Australia's biggest massacres.
A list of the US biggest massacres.
Enjoy.

Abelysk wrote:

You really think Nikolas Cruz would have been able to buy a gun illegally without gaining federal attention?
Here's the argument about illegal guns--if you're caught, you're caught. You go to jail. Nikolas Cruz would have been long put in jail if he tried showing off illegal guns on Instagram and social media...
If gun regulations from Japan were applied to the US, Nikolas would NOT have been able to obtain a gun at all. This is due to his mental state. Plus, he'd have to get checked every year.
Some people can get away with buying illegal firearms, but it'll be a lot more risky. Don't think everyone will buy illegal firearms when regulations are applied, that's a silly train of thought. That isn't what's happening in Yakuza-riddled Japan, is it now?

Who even is Nikolas Cruz? Why is he important in our discussion? Since from what you're saying, all he did was show a picture of a gun.
He would have been put in jail if they were illegal? So what? I'm sorry but we don't live in the reality where guns are illegal and where he got sent to jail. And even if we did maybe he wouldn't post those pictures on instagram if he knew they were illegal?
I never said or thought that everyone will buy illegal guns.
Japan =/= US. Thanks.

Abelysk · 2018-02-19 21:09:52

Luka504 wrote:

Who even is Nikolas Cruz? Why is he important in our discussion? Since from what you're saying, all he did was show a picture of a gun.

Uhh, mass shooting few days ago? Google is your friend

Pingohits, LukeM

Anak · 2018-02-19 21:24:35

Luka504 wrote:

Correction, it will make it harder for honest people to obtain a gun via legal methods. The more complicated you make legal gun ownership, the more people will turn to illegal gun ownership.

Honest people who aren't at risk of intentionally harming themselves/others and are competent in handling firearm would be able to obtain them via legal methods. Maybe they'd get the quick route out, but I don't most people would if they can just do it legally. Your mental and physical wellbeing are both assessed for ownership, you take classes on how to safely handle a firearm and a situation where one may be required, you pass theory and practical tests, you get a license. That doesn't seem so complicated to me.

Luka504 wrote:

I definetly will not deny that the new laws will drive some people away from gun ownership entirely, but I am very skeptical it's gonna reach mass adoption as you think it will. US citizens just really love their second constitutional right. Convincing a majority of them to just switch to these new laws without a public outcry is essentially impossible. AKA the US is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Like I said, it doesn't have to be immediate. I'm sure many would be quite stubborn at first, however over time you would see results. I'm sure there were the same people so objected to gun control in this country that there are in the US, yet we passed it and haven't had many issues since.

Luka504 wrote:

Anak wrote:
B. Prosecutions of those who illegally possess firearms after these laws are passed will act as a deterrent to others who might go down the same route.
You mean just how it stopped all the mass murderers? Or all the drug addicts? Or really most serious crimes?
I know I said that you shouldn't compare two unrelated things and say they are the same, but you can't just scare people into not owning guns. Also while we are on the topic, how do you believe people should be punished for illegal gun ownership if they are caught?

I never said it would stop all crime. I said that it would deter people who consider committing such crimes. Obviously some people won't listen and continue doing what they do, that's just how people are. The aim is deter as many people as possible from committing a crime and, when it does happen, to prosecute those who do.
I'm not into scaring people either. I think they should know the risks to owning a firearm/weapon and decide for themselves whether they should have one or not, which is why there would be a legally licensed method of obtaining one. What's been deterred here is illegally owning a firearm.

As for how they would be punished, I'm not really sure nor am I the best person to say for that.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2018-02-18 18:41:29

should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#2 2018-02-18 19:00:59

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#3 2018-02-18 19:16:17

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#4 2018-02-18 19:56:20

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#5 2018-02-18 21:55:40, last edited by Luka504 (2018-02-18 21:57:46)

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#6 2018-02-18 22:21:21

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#7 2018-02-18 22:59:46, last edited by Zumza (2018-02-18 23:02:10)

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#8 2018-02-19 01:09:07, last edited by Zoey2070 (2018-02-19 01:12:18)

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#9 2018-02-19 01:42:08

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#10 2018-02-19 02:06:44

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#11 2018-02-19 02:07:36

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#12 2018-02-19 03:15:08, last edited by mrjawapa (2018-02-19 03:17:50)

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#13 2018-02-19 03:25:27

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#14 2018-02-19 04:15:00

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#15 2018-02-19 07:40:49

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#16 2018-02-19 09:20:59

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#17 2018-02-19 17:40:01

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#18 2018-02-19 17:47:04

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#19 2018-02-19 18:52:09

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#20 2018-02-19 19:36:16

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#21 2018-02-19 19:51:51

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#22 2018-02-19 20:16:07

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#23 2018-02-19 20:51:33

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#24 2018-02-19 21:09:52

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

#25 2018-02-19 21:24:35

Re: should gun control in the u.s. be advocated for?

Board footer